Shaikh al-Albaani

Translations From His Works

Tag: wahdatul-wujood

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 16 | He was not a Scholar


Questioner: The first question, both questions, are regarding the book, ‘In the Shade of the Quraan.’  Its author [i.e., Qutb] mentioned at the beginning of Surah Taa Haa that the Quraan is a cosmic/universal phenomenon like the phenomena of the heavens and the earth, what is your opinion about this statement, bearing in mind that he uses the particle of comparison [i.e., the word ‘like’], O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: We, my brother, have said more than one time: that Sayyid Qutb, may Allaah have mercy on him, was not a scholar. He was just an author, a writer and he didn’t know how to express the legislated Islamic creed, especially the Salafi beliefs from it.

For this reason, it is not fitting that we drone on about his statements too much, because he was not a scholar with the meaning of the word that we want, [i.e.,] a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih. Many times his expressions are stylistic rhetoric and are not scholarly/knowledge-based ones, and are especially not Salafi expressions, not being from this type at all, and we do not hesitate to condemn expressions such as those nor such tahsbeeh.

The least that can be said about it [i.e., the expression you asked about] is that he did not mean that the Quraan is literally Allaah’s Speech as is the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and nor does he mean that Allaah’s Speech is metaphorical, as is the creed of the Mu’tazilah. [His statements are] rhetorical, poetic speech.

But I do not hold that we should stop too much at such statements, except to clarify that it is speech which is not permissible in the sharee’ah, and that [at the same time] it is not expressing the creed of the author regarding the Noble Quraan, i.e., is it the actual Speech of Allaah or not?

This is what I believe and this is the answer to the first question.

Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, the second question which is also about the same book, at the beginning of Surah Naml he said about the Quraan and its words/sentences that they are, ‘musical undulations?’ [tamowwujaat musiqiyyah]

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

Questioner: Same answer?

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

Questioner: Okay, this leads us, O Shaikh, to some questions, we see in many of the writings of some authors or those associated to knowledge …

Al-Albaani: Sorry, before you carry on, what did you understand when he said, ‘undulations [tamowwujaat]?’ Does he mean the Speech that emanated from the Lord of the Worlds? Or from Jibreel عليه السلام? Or from our noble Prophet عليه السلام? You will not understand that or that or this [i.e., neither one of the three from that statement of his].

For this reason I say that it is rhetorical, poetic speech, which does not tell us much about the author’s opinion or what he means.

This is the reality; when many authors do write, they pen down expressions of stylistic rhetoric which do not give [us] solid/realistic information [lit: ‘existential answers’ [about what exactly it is they mean]].

Okay, carry on.

Questioner: Even though you say that, O Shaikh, may Allaah bless you, we still find many writers or even [people] from students of knowledge who are influenced by the methodology of the scholars of hadith or who [have some knowledge], for example, in the science of hadith or have knowledge in some issues, [we find that even such people] have been influenced by his [i.e., Qutb’s] methodology.

Al-Albaani: And what is his methodology? Does he have a methodology?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: What is it?

Questioner: It’s [his] being influenced in his statements, in many statements, by the writings of Abul-A’laa al-Maududi, like in his book, ‘Social Justice [in Islaam],’ and his book, ‘At-Tasweer al-Fanni fil-Quraan …’

Al-Albaani: This is a literary style/way [of writing] it is not a scholarly/knowledge-based method/manner [of writing].

Questioner: There is a specific methodology regarding declaring people to be disbelievers [takfir], like slandering the Ummah and declaring [the Muslims in] it to be disbelievers, especially in the book, ‘Social Justice in Islaam.’ The author of the book, ‘Al-I’laam,’ mentioned this about him, az-Zarkashi …

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli.

Questioner: Az-Zarkashi or Az-Zirikli.

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli …

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: He [i.e., Az-Zirikli in his book Al-I’laam] mentioned this about him [i.e., Qutb], that he used to take up this methodology of slandering the entire Ummah, declaring all those around him to be ignorant. So many of the youth have now been influenced by this methodology and they have started calling to his books and his opinions and everything that he has written, so what is your opinion, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Our opinion is that the man was not a scholar, I said that to you already. What more do you want from me? If you wish for me to call him a kaafir then I am not from those who declare people to be kaafirs, and you are not either?

Questioner: … O Shaikh, I …

Al-Albaani: Listen, I testify along with you, but what do you want?

It is enough for the just, impartial Muslim that he gives every person his right, and as He, the Most High, said, “… and do not deprive the people of their due and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption.” [Hud 11:85]

The man is a writer, passionate for the Islaam that he understood, but he is not a scholar, and his book, ‘Social Justice,’ is from the first things he wrote, and when he did so he was nothing but an author and not a scholar.

But the reality is that in prison he progressed a lot and wrote some pieces which are as though they are written by the pen of a Salafi and not from him. I believe that prison nurtures some souls and awakens some conscience [in people]. So he wrote some words whose title is enough [to show what I just said], i.e., ‘Laa ilaaha Illallaah A Way of Life.’

But if he doesn’t distinguish between Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah and Tawhid ar-Rububiyyah then this does not mean that he doesn’t understand Tawhid ar-Rububiyyah and Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah and that he considers them to be one thing. It means that he is not a faqih, and that he is not a scholar and that he is not able to express the legislated meanings which have come in the Book and the Sunnah.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

Questioner: Don’t you see … ya’ni, this affect and these things that he wrote, ya’ni, that he should be answered/refuted, for example?

Al-Albaani: Yes he should be answered/refuted, this is obligatory, but answering a person who has made a mistake is not limited to a person or people: everyone who makes a mistake in understanding Islaam, understanding it with innovated and newly-invented meanings which have no basis in the Book, nor in the Sunnah nor from our Salaf as-Saalih and the four Imaams who are followed–then it is fitting that such a person is answered/refuted.

But this does not mean that we treat him as an enemy or that we forget that he has some good deeds, it is enough that he is a Muslim, and that he was an Islamic author [writing] according to his understanding of Islaam as I said initially, and that he was killed in the way of his call to Islaam and that the ones who killed him, they are the enemies of Islaam.

As for [the fact that] he had deviated in many or a few issues in Islaam, then it was my belief before this revolution against him was fomented–I was the one who was boycotted here by the Muslim Brotherhood [Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon] under the assumption that I had declared Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever, and I was the one who showed some people that he used to agree with the [belief of] Wahdatul-Wujood in some of what he wrote in the same tafsir [mentioned in the question], but at the same time, I do not deny that he was a Muslim and that he was zealous for Islaam and for the Muslim youth and that he wanted to establish Islaam and an Islamic state. But the reality is:

Sa’d led the camels to water while being completely wrapped up
[with only his hands sticking out].

This is not how, O Sa’d, the camels are taken to water.

Questioner: Are his books to be warned against?

Al-Albaani: Those who do not have correct Islamic education are warned against his books.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good and bless you.

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 814.

The Extremist Sufi Saying, ‘Allaah is a monk in a church …’ The Disbelief of Those Who believe in the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] |End

Then he عليه السلام implemented this method with a Companion of his: it reached him that Abdullaah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas–the Companion, the son of a Companion, may Allaah be pleased with them both–it reached him that his father married him off to a girl from Quraish.  He [i.e., Amr ibn al-Aas] visited her one day and asked her about her husband [i.e., his son].

So she said to him, ‘There is no problem with him except that he has not yet approached our bed. He stands to pray at night and fasts during the day,’ i.e., he got married but didn’t get married.

This was difficult upon Amr so he complained about his son to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So he عليه الصلاة والسلام said to him, ‘O Abdullaah! It has reached me that you spend the night in prayer and fast during the day and that you do not approach women [i.e., your wife].’ He said, ‘It is as such, O Messenger of Allaah!’

And this hadith is long and I will summarise it by saying that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم laid down a methodology for him which he could worship Allaah through and gather, as they say today, between the right of the body and the right of the nafs on the other hand, and the right of the soul, i.e., worship.

So he said, and he used to stand all night finishing the Quraan in it, and would always fast, he said regarding the recitation of the Quraan and this is at the end of the story which is long, he said, ‘Read the Quraan in three nights. For whoever reads it in less than three has not understood it.’

And concerning that which was connected to fasting he told him initially to fast three days every month, and a good deed is rewarded tenfold, so it would be as if you would have fasted the entire month, so Abdullaah would reply, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I am a youth and have strength. I can do more than that.’

And here you will notice the difference between that generation and our generation of today.

A youth in his prime, whose father married him off to a girl from Quraish, he turns away from her and [instead] stands to pray all night and fast during the day and … so on and so on.  And when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم tells him to take it easy upon himself he replies to him saying, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I am a youth and have strength. I can do more than that.’

Today you have the opposite of that.

A youth will grow up upon obedience to Allaah and all around him you will find people repelling him, both those near to him and those distant: firstly the father, secondly, the mother, they will say to him, ‘You’re still a youth. You can worship later.’

Look at the difference between that time and this.

The point is that eventually he صلى الله عليه وسلم told him to fast a day and miss the next for such was the Fast of Dawud عليه السلام who would not flee from the enemy when he met them.

[But] Abdullaah replied, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I want better than that.’  He replied, ‘There is nothing better than that.’

So where is this pretentious ascetic Sufism, contradicting the Quran and Sunnah [by going further than what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم instructed his Companions with].

Thus, that which in Sufism truly agrees with the Quraan and the Sunnah, then remove this name [i.e., ‘Sufism,’ from it] and remain on the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.

And whatever opposes the Book and the Sunnah, then we throw it aside.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 632.

The Extremist Sufi Saying, ‘Allaah is a monk in a church …’ The Disbelief of Those Who believe in the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | 1

Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Questioner: The Sufis have recently come to our city, what advice can you give us?

Al-Albani: There is an old difference between the Muslims about the Sufis. The reality is that this name, Sufism [tasawwuf], and those who affiliate themselves to it, the Sufis, have many different meanings.

We know from our interaction with many of them that when the proof is established against them they say, ‘Sufism is nothing except clinging to the manners of Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, like abstaining from the world and desiring the Hereafter,’ this is what they say when the proof is established against them.

Thus we say that if this is what Sufism is in your opinion, then the difference between us and you regarding the word remains. Remove this word, ‘tasawwuf,’ because it has become a word having a great many meanings. One of which we mentioned just now, [i.e.,] sticking to noble manners and abstaining from the world and turning to the Hereafter. There is no need for us to use this name whose meaning is dubious when referring to that affair which [the Muslims] are united upon, i.e., sticking to the manners of Allaah’s Prophet عليه السلام and abstaining from the world and devoting oneself to the Hereafter.

But the reality is that [the word] tasawwuf [Sufism] has meanings far removed from this correct meaning [mentioned above]. And sometimes this distance [from the Truth] takes the one who is upon it out of the fold of Islaam, and sometimes it will place him among one of the misguided groups.

As for the first group [i.e., the people who have left the fold of Islaam], then it refers to those who believe in what the people of knowledge refer to as the creed of unity, or The Unity of Being/Existence [Wahdatul-Wujood] to be more precise. The Unity of Being, which is pure denial [of Allaah, ilhaad], means Nature, as expressed by naturalists (believers in naturalism), i.e. there is nothing but matter.

One of them says, ‘Everything that you see with your very eye is Allaah.’ So it’s nature, everything that you see with your eye is Allaah!

A second says:

And the dog and the pig are nothing but our God.
And Allaah is nothing but a monk in a church.

A third [Ibn Arabi, the Sufi] says:

God [Rabb] is man and man is God
How I wish to know who the one ordered (to perform worship) is

If you say man (is the one ordered), then that is a denial (of the presence of a God, based on the concept that God is man and man is God!)
And if you say God, how can He be obligated?!

A fourth:

When the Magians worshipped the fire
They worshipped nothing but the One, the Irresistible Subduer
[i.e., Al-Qahhaar, Allaah]

All of these are statements written down in their books through which they seek blessings. A belief [aqidah] such as this takes one outside the fold of Islaam, for it is a creed greater in disbelief than that of the Jews and Christians.

This reminds me of the saying of one their extremists, ‘The Jews and Christians only disbelieved because the Jews restricted Allaah to being in Uzair, and the Christians confined Him to being in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit–but as for us, we have generalized Him to be in all things.’

For this reason from their words of remembrance [dhikr]–and their dhikr is not from that of the Muslims, that which the Prophet mentioned [when he said], ‘The best form of remembrance is, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah,’–their remembrance is, ‘He, He …’

And they [also] say other phrases which, regretfully, some of the general masses with us in Syria have latched on to. You’ll find one of them sitting, wanting to remember Allaah, and so he will say, ‘There is nothing other than Him.’ What does, ‘There is nothing other than Him,’ mean? [This is incorrect because] there is a Creator and then there is the creation.

So this is the creed of The Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood], wording which is mentioned by some people, but they have not paid attention to the misguidance found therein.

Like these phrases totally is the saying of many of the common folk and their scholars, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists, Allaah is everywhere …’ [this is] the creed of The Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood], but along with that it is the creed [aqidah] of the Ash’aris and Maturidis of the end of time.

[They say], ‘Allaah is in all places,’ this [i.e., where we are sitting right now] is a place, is Allaah here?  What is here?  Zaid, Bakr, Amr, matter, a wall, air and so on–is Allaah here?!

‘The Most Gracious rose over the [Mighty] Throne [in a manner that suits His Majesty],’ [Taa Haa 20:5]  This is the creed of the Salaf as-Saalih.

So this type of Sufism is the severest of the most severe forms of disbelief found on the face of the earth.

[Translator’s note: The following is another example of the extremists amongst them: ‘Sulaimaan bin Ali bin Abdullah al-Tilmisaani d. 690AH.  He is highly revered among Sufis.  The Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said about him, “He used to make all forbidden things lawful.  To such an extent that some of the reliable people reported that he said:

‘The daughter, the mother, all (foreign) women–all of them are one and the same–there is nothing forbidden in that for us.  It is only the ones who are veiled that say that that is haraam.  So we in reply say to them: ‘It is haraam for you (not us).”  (Majmoo’atur-Rasaa’il (1/184).

This Sufi Tilmisani once passed by a mangy, scabby dead dog on the street whilst he was talking to his companion about Wahdatul-Wujood (the Unity of Being/Existence).  So his companion said to him, “Is this also the Essence (Dhaat) of Allaah?” pointing to the dead dog.  So Al-Tilmisani replied:

“Yes.  Everything is His Essence.  There is nothing that is outside His Essence (Dhaat).”

High is Allaah above what the Sufis ascribe to Him!’

(Majmoo’atur-Rasaa’il (145) of Ibn Taymiyyah).]

The Extremist Sufis and the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | End

So this discussion [that we’re having] is concerning refining such wording–so clarify what you mean.

From the goals that the Legislator laid down is a refinement of the terminology used, so when referring to Allaah’s Knowledge, instead of us saying, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists … Allaah is present everywhere,’ we should say, Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge,’ because the first expression, i.e., ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ is connected to the aqidah of the extremist Sufis who say, ‘There is no He but He,’ so [according to them] there is no [distinction between] Creator or created, as one of them said:

When the Magians worshipped the fire
They worshipped nothing but the One, the Irresistible Subduer [i.e., Allaah]

Because [according to these people] Paradise, the Fire, the Creator, the creation, all of these things have no reality, and in summary [they say], ‘There is no He but He,’ they say, ‘Everything that you see with your very eye is Allaah!’

Thus it does not befit a Muslim to say a word which he will be compelled to explain afterwards. [So] make a clear statement–and there is nothing clearer than the Quraan, Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’

As for you saying a sentence and then saying after it [having being compelled to explain it], ‘By Allaah! I mean such and such …’ then [in answer to this] the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said … and this was part of his disciplining us and teaching us manners, manners which if we followed we would have succeeded, [he said], ‘Do not say something which you have to make an excuse for before the people.’ [Compiler’s note: Reported in Sahih al-Jaami’ no., 742 with the wording, ‘And do not say something which you have to seek an excuse from …’]

And in another shorter narration there occurs, ‘Beware of that which you must seek an excuse from.’

So don’t say, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists, Allaah is present in all that exists,’ because you will face many objections and much criticism which you will have no way of answering.

It will be said to you, ‘The place which a Muslim is forced to go to two or three times a day, a place which he wishes he wouldn’t have to enter, is your Lord there too?’ Likewise, with [places such as] sewers etc., a Muslim does not say this.

So take back this statement of yours.  Do not say it.

This is complicated, so what should we believe and what should we say? [What should we say] instead of, ‘Allaah is everywhere?’ Namely, when we speak about the One who is worshipped Himself, i.e., Allaah, [which is] the Name of Supreme Greatness [Ismul-Jalaalah], known amongst all Muslims, [what should we say?]

We know that the saying of some of them that ‘Allaah is everywhere,’ is a mistake and that what is meant is His Knowledge, so we say [to these people]: when referring to Divine Knowledge let your wording be correct, say, Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’

But when we speak about Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, about the Divine Dhaat what should we say?

It has been reported from one of the Salaf, Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, who is from the major Shaikhs of the Imaam of the Sunnah, Imaam Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy upon him … he said in a statement which gathered and included [a summary of the topic at hand], he said, ‘Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence [bi dhaatihi]. Separate and distinct from His Creation. And He is with them in His Knowledge.’

The previous discussion [that], Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge,’ is an explanation of this last sentence, ‘And He is with them in His Knowledge.’

But at the beginning of this statement [of Ibn al-Mubaarak] he spoke about the Diving Dhaat, he said that Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence [Dhaat], he based this statement upon many aayahs from the noble Quraan, [such as], ‘The Most Gracious rose over the [Mighty] Throne [in a manner that suits His Majesty],’[Taa Haa 20:5] ‘To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allaah unless and until they are followed by good deeds),’ [Faatir 35:10]

And in the famous hadith, ‘Have mercy on those on earth and the One above the Heavens will have mercy on you,’ it is as though this hadith is an excerpt from His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, ‘Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allaah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allaah), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning?’ [Mulk 67:16-17] Imaam Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, the Shaikh of Imaam Ahmad, is expressing [the meaning of] these ayaahs [quoted above] and others [in that statement of his].

The Haafidh of Damascus, adh-Dhahabi, collected such statements in a book particular to this topic, which is printed and is called ‘The Ascendancy of the Most High, the Oft-Forgiving’ [Al-Uluww lil-Aliyyil-Ghaffaar]. In this book, he collected those aayahs which talk about this characteristic of the Divine Dhaat, i.e., the characteristic of being totally and absolutely above all creation.

The aayahs, hadiths, sayings of the Companions, narrations from the Salaf, amongst whom are the four Imaams, [which adh-Dhahabi collected in that book] all talk about what Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak gathered in that one sentence, ‘Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence, separate and distinct from His Creation …’ so he nullified the belief of indwelling [hulool], Allaah being the One in no need of any of His Creation.

But this ascendancy which it is not possible for the human intellect to grasp or imagine does not mean that any secret is hidden from Him, Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak said, ‘And He is with them in His Knowledge.’

So this brief sentence has collected [the meaning contained in] tens of aayahs and hadiths and sayings from the Salaf, so that the creed of the Muslim can be correct and far removed from that of ‘the Unity of Existence’ [Wahdatul-Wujood] and far removed from [believing in] ‘indwelling’ [hulool] which some of the misguided sects affirm.

Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence, separate and distinct from His Creation and He is with them in His Knowledge.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 69.

The Extremist Sufis and the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | 2

Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Thus, when a heedless Muslim says that Allaah is present in all that exists he will intend one of two things by it, and they are totally contradictory: the true existent, i.e., Allaah, and the possible existent, i.e., the creation. If he intends this meaning, then he has fallen into a creed other than wahdatul-wujood, i.e., [he has fallen into] hulool [divine indwelling].

You know, for example, that some Islamic groups believe that Allaah enters/dwells within certain esteemed–according to them–personalities.

You will see these Alawites or Ismailis for example, maybe you have read a lot about the Ismailis whose leader is the Aga Khan, every year he would be weighed in gold in America.

So they believe that the one worshipped transmigrates into him, indwells in him; this is called hulool.  It is less than wahdatul-wujood which we just spoke about.

Wahdatul-Wujood is referring to something which cannot be separated one from the other, in hulool Allaah is separate and distinct from His creation as the scholars say but, according to them [i.e., the extremist Sufis] obviously, He has indwelled and transmigrated into a person.

So when this person who says that Allaah is present in all that exists means that there are two existents, then that means that one of them entered the other, instead of entering a person He entered the entire universe. This, of course, is disbelief and absolutely no Muslim doubts that it is.

And if by [the statement], ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ he intends the first meaning, i.e., there is no Creator or created, there is only one thing, then this disbelief is much more severe.

You see these Muslims who fast and pray along with us and we pray behind them etc., if you were to say to one of them, ‘‘[Your statement that] Allaah is present in all that exists,’ does it mean one of these two meanings?!  Does it mean the total unity of existence that the Sufis refer to, i.e., that there is no Creator or created, or does it refer to indwelling [hulool], i.e., that Allaah created the creation then entered it?’–I do not think that a Muslim can believe such a creed as either of these.

So, why do you use this statement?  Why don’t you emulate the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said, ‘None of you should say, ‘My soul has become evil [khabuthat],’ but he should say, ‘My soul has become remorseless [laqisat].’  The meaning of [the Arabic word], ‘khabuthat’ is the same as ‘laqisat,’ ‘laqisat’ means ‘khabuthat,’ but the Prophet wanted us to talk about ourselves with kind words even though the meaning is the same.

So what is wrong with us? When we talk about our Lord the Blessed and Most High it is not allowed for us to say a word which can give an impression of disbelief or misguidance.

In reality, when such topics are discussed and most of the people present take heed [of the point being made], as though some of them had hitherto been in heedlessness, some of them will say, ‘We don’t mean that Allaah the Blessed and Most High has entered all of His Creation Himself,’ and we didn’t say that they did intend that, for if they had–and this is another topic–it would be disbelief, but the point being discussed now is about refining the terminology [being used].

So, [we ask these people], ‘What do you mean by, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists?’ [They reply, saying,] ‘His Knowledge.’

How beautiful!

Without doubt, Allaah has encompassed all things in His Knowledge, He has encompassed all things, the Blessed and Most High–but the wording used is incorrect.

You want to talk about Allaah’s Knowledge, then say, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’ [Talaaq 65:12], a text from the Noble Quraan [itself], ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’ [Say], ‘Not a secret in the earth or the heavens is hidden from Him.’ [But] don’t say that Allaah, the One who is worshipped and possesses every characteristic of perfection and Who is free from every shortcoming–don’t say that, ‘Allaah is everywhere,’ [or] ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ instead say, ‘He surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’

The Extremist Sufis and the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | 1

Al-Albani: All of you must have heard of a group called the Sufis, and of a [type of] knowledge, or Sufi spiritual path [sulook] known as tasawwuf.

The people who ascribe themselves to this tasawwuf are of differing ranks, some of them have overstepped all limits and left Islaam in the name of Islamic Sufism, left Islaam just as a strand of hair is pulled out of dough [i.e., totally].  Why?

Because their interpretation of aayahs from the noble Quraan [is so incorrect that it] and philosophy and apostasy are one and the same. In the eyes of the scholars of the Muslims they are known as the people who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood [lit: the unity of existence], the ones who say the same thing as the atheists, but their wording differs from that of the atheists, they say, ‘There is nothing except one.’ So [according to them] the universe that we see is Allaah. For this reason they are called people who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood.

The Muslims say that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah [Laa ilaaha illallaah], in this sentence there is an affirmation and a negation. There is a negation of whoever might interpret falsely (the presence of another god), then the affirmation that Allaah is the one and only God, the Most High.

As for those Sufis, then they say, ‘There is no He but He.’ They then paraphrase it and make it a form of remembrance which they repeat for themselves, [saying], ‘He, He …’ This is a dangerous deviation as you can see, i.e., a denial of the true existence of Allaah, and following on from that, a denial of the legislation, no Islaam … no Judaism, no Christianity–because there is no [differentiation between the] slave and the Lord, a Lord who obligates others to worship Him and a slave who is obligated to worship. For this reason one of them said:

God [Rabb] is man and man is God
How I wish to know who the one ordered (to perform worship) is

If you say man (is the one ordered), then that is a denial (of the presence of a God, based on the concept that God is man and man is God!)
And if you say God, how can He be obligated?!

[According to them] there is no He but He. So in the end: He is He!

There are words that emanate from Muslims who bear witness [by saying] Laa ilaaha illallaah Muhammad Rasulullaah, these people are not atheists but they will sometimes utter words which lead them to that false aqidah. This is something very dangerous and hardly any but a few are safe from it.

Now in our normal gatherings [you will hear] one of them say whether on a particular occasion or not, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ [this statement of theirs] equals, ‘There is no He but He.’

You will hear [this statement] many times, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ and after close scrutiny of its meaning and purport and what it entails one can see that it equates to the saying of the Sufis–the extremists amongst them obviously–who openly declare that, ‘There is no He but He.’

There are Two Existents Not One

Because if we were to ponder over the declaration of truth which is when a believer truly says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped except Allaah,’ [then we will find] that it establishes two existences.

‘None has the right to be worshiped except Allaah,’ negates the false deities which are worshipped other than Allaah, and they are present [as is mentioned, for example,] in the Quraan in the statement of Noah to his people, “And they have said, ‘You shall not leave your gods, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwa’, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya’uq, nor Nasr.’” [Nooh 71:23] These were idols worshipped instead of Allaah, for that reason when Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent Noah عليه السلام to his people he ordered them to worship Allaah alone.

So, ‘None has the right to be worshiped …’ is a negation of the false deities which are present. ‘… except Allaah,’ is an affirmation of the existence of the Truth, i.e., Allaah the Blessed and Most High.

So there are two existences.  It is not possible for a Muslim who, firstly, understands his Islaam and who, secondly, believes that Allaah created him, not to affirm two [separate] existents.

The scholars of tawheed refer to the First Existent, i.e., that of the Creator the Most High, He exists in His Essence, i.e., is eternal, having no beginning. So His existence is termed as being the necessarily existent [Waajibul-Wujood].

As for the other existent then it is [called] the contingent or possible existent which is mankind and all creation. Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said to it, ‘Be!’ And it was. So it was preceded by nonexistence in contrast to the existence of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic–for He is the First having no beginning, as you all know.

%d bloggers like this: