SHAH WALIY ALLAH ATTEMPTS TO REVISE WAHDAT AL- WUJUD

BY

ABDUL HAQ ANSARI

HE theosophical system of re?ahdat al-zvujud', or ontological/ Texistential monism, which Ibn al-'Arabi (d. 638/1240) for- mulated, became very soon popular among the sufis. Some of them, however, did not agree with it, others disliked, and some even denounced it. Nevertheless, the doctrine continued to dominate sufi speculation for four hundred years till Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1034/1624) subjected its basic concepts as well as its moral and religious consequences to searching criticism, and came out with a parallel theosophy 2, popularly known as wahdat al-shuhud. Sirhindi said that mystical experience has three levels: One is the level of pure union which in modern terminology is called unitive experience; next is the experience of separation after union (farq bald al-j*amc) in which the mystic is one with God in one sense, and different from him in another; the final stage of the experience is that when the feeling of oneness or union completely disappears and God is perceived as transcending the world absolutely. Sirhindi said that some sufis like Al-Hallaj 3 (d. 309/922), remained at the first stage till the end of their life; others moved to the second stage, but stayed on there; only a few rose up to the third stage. He claims that Ibnul Arabi stayed on the second stage, and could not

1 There is a vast literature on wahdat al-wuj�d,but The Mystical Philosophyof Muhyi-d Din Ibnul Arabi of the late Dr. A. E. Affifi (Cambridge University Press, England, reprinted, Ahsraf Press, Lahore) is still the best introduction in English to the whole system. 2 There is not much literature on Shaykh Ahmad's theosophy. The earliest and partly outdated work is The Mujaddid's Conceptionof Tawh�d,by Dr. Burhan Ahmad Faruqi (Lahore 1940); Dr. Fazlur Rahman's SelectedLetters of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhind�(Iqbal Academy, Karachi, 1969) contains a good discussion of Sirhindi's concepts. 3 Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, Makt�b�Vol.t, 3, Letter 33, Nur Muhammad edi- tion, Lahore, p. 1283. 198

separate the Divine from the not-Divine; though he upheld a kind of transcendence (tanzih) for God, he could not affirm his absolute otherness 4. For himself Sirhindi claimed the experience of God's absolute transcendence zvara'iyyat), and on the basis of that experience developed his theosophy of ze?ahdat al-shuhud. He agreed with Ibnul Arabi in saying that zvujud, being/existence, is one; and it is God. But he differed from his view that the world is one with God, and is his manifestation or determination. For him the world, on the con- trary, is a determination of non-being with a reflection of the Divine wujiid on it, which is other than and different from the Divine Existence. Essentially non-being, the world is unreal and illusory; what imparts it a permanence and a shadow reality is the reflection of God's existence on it. But since the reflection is other than the Divine Existence, the world is in essence and existence other than God. On Ibnul Arabi's view the world is substantially one with God; its existence is the existence of God; it is God in his finite manifestation, or in his determinate forms. His theosophy is a cosmic monism and a kind of pantheism; Sirhindi's theosophy, on the other hand, is acosmic monism and absolute transcenden- talism 6. Sirhindi's ideas were highly original; his concept of non-being was even radical. But he did not elaborate his ideas with that thoroughness which characterises the work of Ibnul Arabi. Conse- quently, its impact on subsequent sufi speculation was not great. But his criticism of ze?ahdat al-wU]*Uddid have its impact; it shook the sufi world. One result was that some sufis while retaining Ibnul Arabi's concepts tried to introduce into the system an element of transcendentalism. An outstanding instance of this attempt is the one made by the great eighteenth century scholar and sufi, Shah Waliy Allah.

4 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter 290, p. 742. 5 For a detailed account of Sirhind�'smystical experience see his Letter 290 in Volume I, of the Makt�b�t. 6 In my assessment, as in the assessment of many others, the difference be- tween the systems of Ibnul Arabi and Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi is fundamental. I do not agree with those who think that it is peripheral. This paper will vindicate, I hope, my view. However, this is a subject by itself, and should be treated separately. I have discussed that in my forthcoming book: S�fPerspectives� on Ex- perience,Reality and Life.