Shayk Ahmad Sirhindi's Letter

[AbuNaim]

Imam-e-Rabbani Mujaddid Alif Sani Shaykh Ahmad al-Faruki Sirhindi (1564–1624 Rahimullah)

-MAKTUBAT-

SECOND VOLUME, 98th LETTER

(This letter was written by the Shayk to his son's Muhammad Said and Muhammad Mathum)


Question:

Islamic scholars state as follows, “Allahu ta’âlâ is not within the ‘âlam [all things that are created], nor is He outside the ‘âlam. He is not apart from the ‘âlam, nor is He united with the ‘âlam.” How to clarify these statements?

Answer:

Such things as being within the ‘âlam or outside the ‘âlam and being apart from the ‘âlam or united with the ‘âlam are considered between the two existing beings. However, as regards our question, indeed, there are not two existing beings that we can thus take into consideration these attributes. For Allahu ta’âla exists, but the ‘âlam; that is, all things other than Him, is in the grade of illusion and imagination. The permanent appearance of ‘âlam to be existing is with the power of Allahu ta’âlâ, and it does not cease to exist when illusion and imagination cease to exist. Eternal blessings and torments in the Hereafter will be inflicted on them. Still, the existence of ‘âlam is in the grade of illusion and imagination [that is, it does not exist outside, but seems as if existing to illusion and imagination]. Its existence is nothing other than being an illusion and imagination. The great power of Allahu ta’âlâ makes these illusory and imaginary appearances permanent [that is, He protects them from nonexistence as if they were outside]. He shows them as if they existed. A person who is deceived by their appearances, seeing their permanent existence, supposes that they exist, and thus says, “ Things that exist are two.” You can refer to the other letters for detailed explanatory knowledge concerning this issue.

For a thing that exists in the imagination, we cannot say that it is within or united with another thing which exists outside. But, for a thing that really exists, we can say that it is not within or outside nor apart from or united with another thing which exists in the imagination. For, when we mention the real existence, there is not the existence of another thing that is in the imagination whereby we compare the places of these two different things. Let me illustrate this point: Let us hitch something like a small stone or a bar of iron to a piece of string. Then, let us spin it around our hand [like turning a piece of chain]. The small object spinning around this imaginary circle is called (Nokta-i jawwâla). Since this nokta-i jawwâla turns around so fast, it appears as a circle in a distant view. However, what exits outside is this mentioned ‘nokta’. There is not a circle outside. The existence of the circle is an illusion. Its existence is not the same as the existence of the ‘nokta’. We cannot say this ‘nokta’ is within the circle or outside the circle. Likewise, it is not apart from the circle, nor is it united with the circle. There is not a circle around the nokta so that we can compare the places of these two things.

(Maktubat-i Rabbani Volume 2, Letter 98)

[kamran]

Assalam o alaikum,

This post is redundant for a variety of reasons such as:


Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi (May Allah have mercy on him) has never been considered a source of the Deen. He is famous for his resolve against the Kufr of Mughals but never as a reference in issues of Deen.
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi never joined a party or a sect that could make you jump up and scream "Yeah! He's with us".
Apparently you never read Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi's Maktoobat at all. If you read his Maktoobat completely, you'll see that the Sheikh clarifies, "I practised Wahdatul Wujood and scaled all its levels. Then I practised Wahdatush Shuhood and trascended all its levels. In the end, I left the two for the Truth is neither in the two but in what the Prophet SWS brought it for we are not bothered by Futoohaat al-Mukiyyah (Ibn Arabi's book) when we have Futoohaat al-Madiniyyah (cannot remember the exact word but he was pointing to the Shariah very clearly) and we do not need Fusoos when we have Nusoos."
Most critically, a large majority of people here know little about the subcontinent. Why expose them to areas that neither concern them nor benefit them? Just like some of the folks have given redundant and far-from-reality references to people such as Capt. Usmani, you have come up with this. I wonder why are you (and some others) are obsesssed with such endless arguments?


I am not in my hometown otherwise I would typed out the exact words for you.
Regards,

Kamran

[Abu Maryam PK]

Apparently you never read Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi's Maktoobat at all. If you read his Maktoobat completely, you'll see that the Sheikh clarifies, "I practised Wahdatul Wujood and scaled all its levels. Then I practised Wahdatush Shuhood and trascended all its levels. In the end, I left the two for the Truth is neither in the two but in what the Prophet SWS brought it for we are not bothered by Futoohaat al-Mukiyyah (Ibn Arabi's book) when we have Futoohaat al-Madiniyyah (cannot remember the exact word but he was pointing to the Shariah very clearly) and we do not need Fusoos when we have Nusoos."
i remember the same words more or less.

[AbuNaim]

Apparently you never read Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi's Maktoobat at all. If you read his Maktoobat completely, you'll see that the Sheikh clarifies, "I practised Wahdatul Wujood and scaled all its levels. Then I practised Wahdatush Shuhood and trascended all its levels. In the end, I left the two for the Truth is neither in the two but in what the Prophet SWS brought it for we are not bothered by Futoohaat al-Mukiyyah (Ibn Arabi's book) when we have Futoohaat al-Madiniyyah (cannot remember the exact word but he was pointing to the Shariah very clearly) and we do not need Fusoos when we have Nusoos."


I have read that (Maktubat Vol. 1 Letter. 31) and i know he retracted from Wahdatul Wujud, but what does that has to do with what i have posted?

[Abu Maryam PK]

I have read that (Maktubat Vol. 1 Letter. 31) and i know he retracted from Wahdatul Wujud, but what does that has to do with what i have posted?
erm...cherry picking?

[AbuNaim]

erm...cherry picking?

What?

[Skillganon]

He has already told you AbuNaim. It has everything go to do with it. Let me be frank with you, and before I start I apologise if it cause any due offense, I have noticed that you are very slow and eager to post many things when you do not understand youself properly or you do not take care reading it aslong as it fulfills what "you think" is refuting your opponents belief, as that may be you do not realise that it is also against ones belief, lest you proclaim this is your belief aswell which would be far worse.

[kamran]

I have read that (Maktubat Vol. 1 Letter. 31) and i know he retracted from Wahdatul Wujud, but what does that has to do with what i have posted?

Absolutely nothing... of course.

Sorry sir! :P

[kamals]

Wa salam,

In other words, we should leave the strange things - or the things that SEEM strange to us - that the scholars have written for it brings no benefit.

No accusation to anyone, and with respect for all brothers here, but it is possible to touch on topics that bring no benefit.

Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi was a giant in this Ummah, he made great mujahida to restore the path of Ahl ul-Sunnah wa jamaa while it was under attack from all sides.

Posting an easily misunderstood quote from a large body of his writings and letters accomplishes nothing.

Matters such as Wahdat al-Shahud, and the subjective experiences some dervishes undergo when making certain forms of dhikir and spiritual Shughal (exercises) are entirely too complex for we the laymen of the Ummah to touch. Whether a certain statement is or is not a bida in our aqida is something left to scholars, assuming that they take that statement in its full context at that.

Sirhindi lived, he has passed on, what have we contributed to this Ummah on his scale? An edifying story of the rigors he encountered on behalf of the Ummah would be wonderful to post brother.

And Allah knows best.

[AbuNaim]

He has already told you AbuNaim. It has everything go to do with it. Let me be frank with you, and before I start I apologise if it cause any due offense, I have noticed that you are very slow and eager to post many things when you do not understand youself properly or you do not take care reading it aslong as it fulfills what "you think" is refuting your opponents belief, as that may be you do not realise that it is also against ones belief, lest you proclaim this is your belief aswell which would be far worse.

You Wahhabis are narrow minded, the above view is the view of the Ahla Sunnah ulema.

[Skillganon]

You Wahhabis are narrow minded, the above view is the view of the Ahla Sunnah ulema.

Before you go on a rampage and calling people Wahhabi summarise for me what is conclusion is based upon.

[AbuNaim]

Before you go on a rampage and calling people Wahhabi summarise for me what is conclusion is based upon.

Who are you to question me? Even if i make summarisation of 100 pages you will not accept, so dont ask things which you not will accept.

[Skillganon]

Who are you to question me? Even if i make summarisation of 100 pages you will not accept, so dont ask things which you not will accept.

Salaam

I wan't to see your own thought on what he is actually saying. Wheter I accept it or not is not the point.

[AbuNaim]

Salaam

I wan't to see your own thought on what he is actually saying. Wheter I accept it or not is not the point.

What he says i say.

[Skillganon]

What he says i say.

Can you put it on your own words?

[AbuNaim]

Can you put it on your own words?

Dont need to do, Imam Rabbani's words are clear enough. If you dont understand then its your problem...

[kamran]

Dont need to do, Imam Rabbani's words are clear enough. If you dont understand then its your problem...

What he says i say.

Assalam o alaikum Abu Naim,

Do you agree with the following conclusions?


You agree with the translation's selection of words.
You have not read them. Nor do you understand what is included in them.
You believe these are Imam Rabbani's words which are clear enough even though Imam Rabbani did not speak English.

Regards,

Kamran

[Um Abdullah M.]

You Wahhabis are narrow minded, the above view is the view of the Ahla Sunnah ulema.

nope
it is the belief of the sufis.
and if I am not mistake, that is the belief that is called: wuhdat al wujud.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Imam-e-Rabbani Mujaddid Alif Sani Shaykh Ahmad al-Faruki Sirhindi (1564–1624 Rahimullah)


-MAKTUBAT-

SECOND VOLUME, 98th LETTER

(This letter was written by the Shayk to his son's Muhammad Said and Muhammad Mathum)


Question:

Islamic scholars state as follows, “Allahu ta’âlâ is not within the ‘âlam [all things that are created], nor is He outside the ‘âlam. He is not apart from the ‘âlam, nor is He united with the ‘âlam.” How to clarify these statements?

Answer:

Such things as being within the ‘âlam or outside the ‘âlam and being apart from the ‘âlam or united with the ‘âlam are considered between the two existing beings. However, as regards our question, indeed, there are not two existing beings that we can thus take into consideration these attributes. For Allahu ta’âla exists, but the ‘âlam; that is, all things other than Him, is in the grade of illusion and imagination. The permanent appearance of ‘âlam to be existing is with the power of Allahu ta’âlâ, and it does not cease to exist when illusion and imagination cease to exist. Eternal blessings and torments in the Hereafter will be inflicted on them. Still, the existence of ‘âlam is in the grade of illusion and imagination [that is, it does not exist outside, but seems as if existing to illusion and imagination]. Its existence is nothing other than being an illusion and imagination. The great power of Allahu ta’âlâ makes these illusory and imaginary appearances permanent [that is, He protects them from nonexistence as if they were outside]. He shows them as if they existed. A person who is deceived by their appearances, seeing their permanent existence, supposes that they exist, and thus says, “ Things that exist are two.” You can refer to the other letters for detailed explanatory knowledge concerning this issue.

For a thing that exists in the imagination, we cannot say that it is within or united with another thing which exists outside. But, for a thing that really exists, we can say that it is not within or outside nor apart from or united with another thing which exists in the imagination. For, when we mention the real existence, there is not the existence of another thing that is in the imagination whereby we compare the places of these two different things. Let me illustrate this point: Let us hitch something like a small stone or a bar of iron to a piece of string. Then, let us spin it around our hand [like turning a piece of chain]. The small object spinning around this imaginary circle is called (Nokta-i jawwâla). Since this nokta-i jawwâla turns around so fast, it appears as a circle in a distant view. However, what exits outside is this mentioned ‘nokta’. There is not a circle outside. The existence of the circle is an illusion. Its existence is not the same as the existence of the ‘nokta’. We cannot say this ‘nokta’ is within the circle or outside the circle. Likewise, it is not apart from the circle, nor is it united with the circle. There is not a circle around the nokta so that we can compare the places of these two things.

(Maktubat-i Rabbani Volume 2, Letter 98)

what he said there is what Harun Yahya said in several of his books, when I first read it about 5 or 6 yrs ago, I almost went crazy, I started to imagine how everything around me is only an "illusion", it is NOT real, so I felt like I was going to get out of my mind, get insane, and then replied to the sister who started trying to explain that concept, and I was really angry, I told her how could she start defending such a belief and told her not to teach any Muslim such a thing, it will only make them insane.

This world is real, Allah created it, this world includes us (humanbeings), and we are real, or are we a figment of our own imagination? an illusion??!
what about the angels, jinn, hell, heaven, all illusions??!!
The Prophets' alayhim assalam, our beloved Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, all an illusion?

subhanallah !

I thought Harun Yahya's belief was his own, but learned later that it is actually the beleif of sufis.


Now I challange you to get me one person from the righteous Salaf who stated such a belief.

Even Imam Abul Hasan al Ashari, his students, al Bayhaqi and many other early Asharis did not have such a belief.

This is a pure sufi belief.

[AbuNaim]

nope
it is the belief of the sufis.
and if I am not mistake, that is the belief that is called: wuhdat al wujud.

Its not Wahdat al Wujud, if you claim it is, tell us what it is here otherwise don't talk.

Wahdat al Wujud is to believe that Allah is in everthing in the creation thus one who believes in Wahadt al Wujud say since the material world is Allah's creation, this means that the material world in some way reflects the intention or nature of Allah. The principle quality of God is unity, so it follows that the created world, the real world we live and experience, also comprises a unity. this idea is called Wahdat al Wujud this is called in English Pantheism which means ''All is God''


And the letter of Imam Rabbani which i posted says Allah is neither inside or outside creation so there absolutely no form of any Wahdat al Wujud and Imam Rabbani himself critisized the consept of Wahdat al Wujud.

So do your homework before you claim anything.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

didnt Imam Rabbani (Ahmad Sirhindi) modify Ibn Arabi's 'wahdat al wujud' to his own version of 'wahdat ash-shuhud'?

is this of any relevance? maybe someone can elaborate.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Wahdat al Wujud is to believe that Allah is in everthing in the creation

That is called Hulool.
And from what I understand, hulool and wuhdat al wujud are not samething.


either way, the belief that is mentioned in first post is against teachings of Islam, it has no basis in Islam.
and it is an insane belief.
This world is NOT an illusion/imagination.

[kamran]

That is called Hulool.
And from what I understand, hulool and wuhdat al wujud are not samething.


either way, the belief that is mentioned in first post is against teachings of Islam, it has no basis in Islam.
and it is an insane belief.
This world is NOT an illusion/imagination.

Assalam o alaikum,

A summary of it all. I have used the term 'God' because we might have non-Muslim viewers over here and 'God' simply refers to Deity. With many scholars, and for Bilal's and Abu Alqamah's reference, even Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai has said that there is no harm in doing so. So I hope a fatwa of heresy will not come my way.

Wahdat ul Wujood: Everything is God and God is everything

There are no references to this in the sources of Islam. Nor do we find that this belief existed during the early days of Islam. The influx of this belief started through the translations of Sanskrit, Hindi and Greek literature by the Modernists of this era. This belief was of course institutionalised by Ibn Arabi through specific books. The belief found a following, until Imam Ibn Taimiyah in the Arab lands and Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi in India (may Allah have mercy on them both) made their efforts. The 'Monoism' that uncle William Foster talks about is the same thing. I intend to write a simple piece to introduce Allah to him at some stage so that he may understand the relationship between The Creator and the created.

Wahdat ash Shuhood: Everything is a 'shadow' of God

Here, what is implied is that God is separate from His Creation. However, the Creation is a 'Shadow' of God. The bad side is really bad: We know that this belief did not exist during the early days of Islam. It also does not exist in the sources of Islam. More critically, it implies clear cuts defect in God. I do not intend to go into those details because they demand useless Kalami rubbish. I always stay away from it. However, it can be easily seen that this and Wahdat ul Wujood have very little difference between them.

Hulool and Fanaa: There are times when God enters/unites/becomes on with creation; Fanaa is an intermediate Hulool stage

Hinduism refers to Hulool as "Autaar" (Avatar). This the same belief that Abdullah Ibn Sabah had about Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Later, Hussain Ibn Mansoor al-Hallaj and some other Sufis expressed the same belief too.


Caution:
There may be some folks around who may use this term but would never imply anything of the above. This I have seen among some scholars too. There was a time when my sole motive in life was to prove the heresy of Deobandis and the pathos of Hanafi fiqh. Even on this forum, I wasted days in endless debates. However, after sitting with people of knowledge and even holding 'inquisitions' of some scholars, I can vehemently say that most of them have no clue about this term. It would be criminal if we assume the worst about a person merely because he uses this term. Bilal, this is specifically for your likes since if you care because you are someone whose interests revolve around these things.

A classic case is that we pick up someone big from some other 'sect' and present it to someone of that 'sect' and ask for his opinion as part of our inquisition. Our demand is that the person must declare his disassociation and that becomes our litmus test for Iman. Just like Abu Alqamah's litmus test for Iman is to draw confessions over Urdu scans of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (may Allah have mercy on him and may Allah forgive him - Alert: I have just prayed for him! Fatwa please!) from people who may never read a word from him or even about him all his life.

Similarly, many common folks believe that Wahdat ush Shuhood means that all creation gives evidence of God's existence. There is no problem with such a view and this is how the majority of simple Muslims look at it, at least in my area. Provided of course, they 'know' about this term.

A classic case, in some ways, is our buddy Abu Naim, who is nothing but a loose cannon and does not even know what he is pasting. So before some 'Muftis' start issuing Jahmi, Wujoodi or whatever Fatwas for him, please know where he stands. He is as good as any copy-paster could ever get.

Lastly, we need to understand subcontinental mentality as well. Debates are the livelihood of many 'scholars'. Marketing which ensures cheap publicity is a big plus. So the easiest of things is to call upon a weak representative of the opposite sect and have a debate in front of the Jahil public and then get the verdict... from Jahil public of course. So much so that some leading Ahl Hadiths and Deobandis have reached such lows that they would invite some scholar to visit them for lunch and in turn declare in the Masjids that they are going to have a debate! So while you can go to them for 'understanding' something, rulings and examples are grey area with them.

Kamran

[Um Abdullah M.]

Assalam o alaikum,

A summary of it all. I have used the term 'God' because we might have non-Muslim viewers over here and 'God' simply refers to Deity. With many scholars, and for Bilal's and Abu Alqamah's reference, even Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai has said that there is no harm in doing so. So I hope a fatwa of heresy will not come my way.

Wahdat ul Wujood: Everything is God and God is everything

There are no references to this in the sources of Islam. Nor do we find that this belief existed during the early days of Islam. The influx of this belief started through the translations of Sanskrit, Hindi and Greek literature by the Modernists of this era. This belief was of course institutionalised by Ibn Arabi through specific books. The belief found a following, until Imam Ibn Taimiyah in the Arab lands and Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi in India (may Allah have mercy on them both) made their efforts. The 'Monoism' that uncle William Foster talks about is the same thing. I intend to write a simple piece to introduce Allah to him at some stage so that he may understand the relationship between The Creator and the created.

Wahdat ash Shuhood: Everything is a 'shadow' of God

Here, what is implied is that God is separate from His Creation. However, the Creation is a 'Shadow' of God. The bad side is really bad: We know that this belief did not exist during the early days of Islam. It also does not exist in the sources of Islam. More critically, it implies clear cuts defect in God. I do not intend to go into those details because they demand useless Kalami rubbish. I always stay away from it. However, it can be easily seen that this and Wahdat ul Wujood have very little difference between them.

Hulool and Fanaa: There are times when God enters/unites/becomes on with creation; Fanaa is an intermediate Hulool stage

Hinduism refers to Hulool as "Autaar" (Avatar). This the same belief that Abdullah Ibn Sabah had about Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Later, Hussain Ibn Mansoor al-Hallaj and some other Sufis expressed the same belief too.




jazakallahu khayran for the info.

so what Sirhindi and Harun Yahya were saying in their books (this illusion belief), what is it called?

[kamran]

jazakallahu khayran for the info.

so what Sirhindi and Harun Yahya were saying in their books (this illusion belief), what is it called?

Assalam o alaikum,

Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi was merely going through a stage.

Harun Yahyha is different: He has a team of people writing for him all the time, none of whom is knowledgeable. Coming from a place like Turkey does not help. Add to this the fact, that he is not even original and tends to lift from the works of some others, you can easily conclude that he is a sincere guy who wants to help Islam on all counts but has limited, flawed knowledge and weak ability.

What this view tends to say is that nobody except Allah is Eternal. Now eternal to these people means "real". Everything non-eternal is surreal, a shadow, an illusion. In short, Allah is the only Real Entity.

This is just a small classification and on paper, this is simply giving away code names to the Creator and the created.

However, all this is not a very wise, guarded approach quite obviously.

What happens is that this small assumption with which they start their bit and then go on arguing for it with no knowledge and fall into deviation. This is where all those guidelines that Allah and His Messenger SWS gave us come into play: That we leave aside what does not concern us.

Harun Yahya's other problem is that he somehow believes that Darwinism is the 'Original Evil'. Everything has to have its roots in it. Don't be surprised if he tells you that Iblees was kicked out of Paradise, it was because of Darwinism.

What I am sure of is that neither is Harun Yahya as bad as habitual 'bidah-busters' (like SPUBS) tell us. Nor is he as good as those who read his books tell us. I do not say 'his followers' because his books and movies are usually read and watched by a select breed only. He is far from squeaky clean when passed through the litmus test of some of the specialised matters of aqeedah. However, you do not expect him to be perfect anyway considering his background. At times though this lack of perfection falls into deviation, like in "Timeless and Reality of Faith" etc. When he talks about some issues regarding Allah, my first question is that why in the world does he want to 'argue' about it? Why can't he stay silent? But then again, in troubled times for Muslims, everyone wants to contribute believing that his remedy is the best.

And when we argue too much, we end up getting blinded.

May Allah guide us.

Regards,

Kamran