Hussain Randathani
The twelfth century was a watershed in the history of Islamic mysticism. This was brought about by the introduction and wide spread acceptance of the doctrine of Wahdat al Wujiid or the Unity of Being propounded by Akbar Muhyaddin b. al 'Arabi (1165-1240), a native of Spain. The concept was founded on a primordial belief in the ultimate nature of Unity, which reduced to nothing, ideas of the existence of the entities 'other than God'. According to him the Absolute Being was inseparable from the Absolute Existent and was the ultimate source of all existence. " Ibn 'Arabi didn't, in fact, devise the idea himself but he managed to reconcile varying sufi views on reality and reoriented them in such a way as to form a sound basis for future development in ideas on mysticism.1 He maintained that there is only one essence which had manifested in many out of its own knowledge.2 or as interpreted by Afifi, “the one reveals himself in many…as an object is revealed in different mirrors..... or it is like a source of light from which an infinite number of lights are derived or like a substance which penetrates and permeates the forms of existing objects: thus giving them their meaning and being.’’3
The religious and moral implication of Ibn 'Arabi's teaching had a great impact up on the theologians of Islamic world. In Malabar most of the 'ulama and jurists accepted the concept without question for long. The order Akbariyya started by Ibn 'Arabi was maintained in South India by 'Arif billahi 'Abdul Qadir of Hyderabad with its branches at different parts of Malabar. Other orders also followed the Wahdat al Wujud without rising any doubts. The controversy arose only in the first decade of the twentieth century, when Shaikh. Jamaluddin Sayyid 'Abdu Rahim a sufi of the Qadiri order introduced a dikr (chant), 'La Ilaha Illallah, La Maujuda Illallah (There is none worthy to worship except Allah; Nothing is existing except Allah) at Valapatanam. Kuppath 'Umar Musliyar, a renowned scholor and the khalifa (representative) of the Shadili sufi order at Taliparamaba came against the dikr in 1903 and he decreed that the dikr was un Islamic and declared that those who recite 'LaMaujuda Illallah' are infidels (kafirs). 'Umar Musliyar wrote and article in the journal Salah- al Ikhwan aganist the dikr. He held speeches in the mosques of Alappuzha, Kochi and Talassery to explain his arguments and as evidence he produced the statement of sufi scholars like Imam Sha'rani and Imam Ibn Hajar, in their works Jawahir-al Yawaqit and Fatawa al Hadith respectively. According to Sha'rani, a judge should strike at the neck of those who say 'nothing exists except God'.4 Again Ibn Hajar Says, “ If one say 'La maujuda lllallah' it is a correct infidelity (kufr)5
The declaration of 'Umar Musliyar brought criticism from 'ulama and sufis. The members of different sufi orders collected fatwas (verdicts) in their favour and published them lavishly. Debates were held in the mosques and streets and songs were composed against each other. The songs called La Maujuda lllallah Pattu supporting the dikr and Radd la Maujuda lllallah criticising the dikr became popular in Malabar, particularly in the north.6 At Kochi the issue became serious when one Mayan Musliyar alias Hamadani Shaikh, came out supporting the dikr and holding debates with opponents.7
Sayyid Ismail b. Sayyid Ibrahim, the qazi of Valapatanam and Moulavi kunhahamed Haji of Peenakkadu, collected fatwas criticizing the arguments of Umar Musliyar against the dikr and published them in Septemeber 1905 in the name Hidaytl-al Rahmani al Rahim 'an Zalalt al Shaitan al Rajim (The Guidance of the Mos t Gracious and Merciful from Straying of Cursed Devil). Qazi Sayyid Ismail was a disciple of Jamaluddin Sayyid 'Abdul Rahim, the sufi who had introduced la maujuda Illallah in his ratib(litany). The authors quote the statement of 'Abdul Karim Lahori who describes tawheed (unity of God) as the unity of Being or Wahdat al Wujud, ie., to believe that in the unseen, in the presence, in the form, in the meaning, in the interior and in the exterior there is only one reality or one which exists with essence. It is polytheism (shirk) to believe that there exist things other than the Reality which is Allah. The inner meaning of the faith is to start from one's being which is non existent to his non being which exists. One who had asserted this faith, is a believer inwardly and outwardly and others are believers outwardly and not inwardly.8 To confirm their arguments Sayyid Isma'il and Kunhahamad Haji quoted references from authentic sufi and theological works. Sayyid Ismail says that a novice of sufism is bound to believe in Wahdat al Wujud which contains three ranks (maqam) of which the first one is the knowledge of conviction ('ilm al yaqin)9. He also points out the explanation given by 'Umar Qazi, of Veliyancode for la maujuda illallah in his philosophical compendium called Nafais al Durar. The qazi says: “What ever is seen before the eyes in the world is only the beauty of His majesty (Jalal). In other words His hiding is nothing other than the powerful display of his beauty or His hiding is due to His brightness which surpass the intellect of man”10 Qur-anic verses and prophetic traditions are extensively quoted in support of the 'la maujuda illallah.
The anti la maujuda group came out with a fatwa of Bava Musliyar, the Makhdum of Ponnani to prove their claim. But the other group after a cross examination of the fatwa alleged that the fatwa had been misinterpreted adding some words and deleting some others.11 The Makhdum while explaining the different aspects of Wahdat al Wujud had said: If the concept meant that all the things which exist are not connected with the reality which exists for ever, then the concept is similar to that of the kalimah, La ilaha llalla(There is none worthy to worship except God). If it meant otherwise it is infidelity. When the anti la maujudites brought the statement of Imam Sha’rani that "those who say la maujuda illallah, should be killed", the pro lamaujudites argued that the statement is about the ignorant people and those who are not acquainted with Sufism and those who give false meaning which is contrary to the spirit of the shari'ath. In support of their argument the pro 1a maujudites produced the statement of the famous sufi writer 'Abdul Ghani al Nabulsi.12
Chalilakath Kunhahammad Haji, a scholor of the time gave an elaborate reply to the doubts raised by one Cheekkilodan Kunhippakki, a supporter of anti-la maujudites. His questions were the following:
1. Whether la maujuda illallah is against shari'ath or not?
2. Whether the external meaning of the above dikr had any relation with polytheism (shirk)
3. Whether, the people who say the dikr had to be executed?
4. What is the true meaning of the dikr, la maujuda illallah
5. Whether la maujuda illalllah is accepted as a dikr or not.13
In his answer Kunhahammad Haji asserted his views in favour of la maujuda illallah. Regarding the statement in the sufi work Lataif al Minan that those who say la maujuda illallah should be killed, he said: The statement in the book has a different meaning. It means like this: If any one say that whatever existent is God and there is nothing existing except God, he should be killed, because such a meaning is against the shariah14. He asserted that the sufi term of la maujuda illallah had an entirely different meaning and it is connected with Wahdat al Wujud. The inner meaning of the sentence is that all what is existent is not existing in reality [haqiqath) except God. In other words all the existing things except God can neither benefit nor harm others except through Him. So their existence is equal to a thing which is non existent. Here the might and power of God on all the creations are confirmed and the unity of God is stressed. So the sentence can be recited as a dikr for it contains a powerful expression of tawheed.15 He also subjects the 'la maujuda' to an anatomical study applying the rules of the Arabic grammer and gives the real meaning of the sentence as 'all what is existing is not existing except God" or all what exist do not exist really except God. For example, if one say that that man is not a man, it does not means that the man lacked the shape and qualities of a man or he is not a man at all, but it means only that he is a man with defects or draw backs, or he is a fool or debauchee.16
Sanaullah Makti Tangal, a reformer of the period also involved in the debate. He came out with a pamphlet called La Maujuda la Point meaning “meaninglessness of of la Maujuda’’. He gives the following explanation on the subject.: Maujud bears the meaning that one which is made existent. Here the word comes in the place of a predicate, so a subject becomes necessary. Since God being created without a subject, the word is not relevant to God. Secondly, the word 'wujud' has the meaning 'asset or existence' which should have evidence and possibility. So it is not applicable to God who is not apparent to the eyes. But here wujud is above the nature of the creation and involves three qualities: One : It is self existent as its nature, two: all that exist depend up on it. and three: everything which exists will be perished except it. About wujud there are different opinions; some say that it is one of the attributes(sifat) of God while others say that it is a condition for God, ie the essence(dat) of God has its association in what are existing and this association is indefinable.17
Makti Tangal explains the differences of opinion among the sufis regarding the relation between the creator and the created. Some thinks that God has created every thing and the created has no relation with the essence (dat), attributes (sifat) and actions(af’al) of God; others say that everything created is 'His' or the created are His reflections. A third group of sufis maintain that every thing is Himself. These differences are bound to the philosophers alone and the common people have nothing to do with the controversy. If the people who had never smelled the spiritual knowledge involve in such issues it may aggravate problems. So according to Makti Tangal to popularise 'la maujuda Illallah among the common people will be a calumniation and it is better to limit it to those who had attained spiritual glory.18
Both the groups, as in every theological dispute, declared infidelity against each other and issued social boycotts. The la maujuda party was declared as infidels and their worships and prayers as unauthorised. They countered their opponents by claiming themselves as true Muslims and declared that those who depict a true Muslim as infidel are themselves infidels (kafirs)19 and cited the fatwa of Mawlawi 'Abdul Wahhab Sahib of Madras on the matter. He says: When a question is proposed for solution and if it contains different interpretations a law giver (mufti) should examine all of them, and if he finds all except one leads to infidelity and the one remains against infidelity , he should incline to that one and should abstain from imposing infidelity(Kufr)20
The anti la maujuda group lost its hold when most of the leading 'ulama issued verdicts supporting the dikr. At many places elders intervened in the affair to reach a settlement. In Northern Malabar the controversy turned out to become strong when the issue coincided with the existing family disputes that many families exploited this philosophical controversy to strengthen their clan spirit. Thus the philosophical debate on divine monism developed into a social issue when different Muslim families (taravad) took the issue by themselves to strengthen the family disputes.
References:
================================.
|