Sufi Monism- A mystical controversy among the ulama of Malabar

 

                                                                                                                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:

 

  1. The belief that this concept was a form of pantheism has now been discarded. Louis Massignon  translates it as, 'existential monism'. Affifi calls it 'Islamic Pantheism" See SAA Rizvi, Sufism in India, Vol.1,1978,p 105. See also H. Carbin, Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi. trans., R. Manohar, London, 1969, p.209.
  2. Since the concept was expounded by Ibn Arabi, his order came to be  called as  Wujudiyya, K.S. Khaja Khan, Studies in Tasawwnf, Idara-i Adabiyyat- e Delli, Delhi, 1978, p.9
  3. M.M. Sharif (ed.), A History of Muslim Philosophy Vol. I, Wiesbaden. 1966. p.413
  4.  See Qurrat-al 'Uyun bi Sirri al Dikr al Masun, Published by Ah.mad b. 'Umar b. al Faqir,    Talassery,   January,   1907,   second(ed.)  Sayyid  Fazl   Shihabuddin, Kuttippala, pp.55-56
  5. Ibid., p. 68. See also the statement in the law book called Lataif-al Minan, "my brother  Afzal-al Din was sayig that if you are a judge  you should strike at the head of one who say 'La Maujuda lllallah", quoted in Ibid., p.69
  6. C.N. Ahmad Mawlawi & K.K. Muhammad Abdul Karim, Mahathaya Mappila Sahitya Parambaryam, Calicut,1978, pp 177-78.
  7. SanaullahMaktiTangai, "La Maujuda La Point,"ed. K.K. Muhammad 'Abdul –Kareem, Makti Tangalude Sampurna  Kridikal, Kerala Islamic Mission, Tirur.  1981.
  8. Abdul Karim Lahuri, Mutalib al Salikin quoted in Sayyid Isma'il b. Sayyid Ibrahim and Kunhahamad 'Ali Haji,Hidayat al Rahman al Rahim 'An Zalalat al Shaitani Rajim, Published by the Authors, Valapatanam, 1905, pp.4-5.
  9. Ibid.,pp.6-9
  10. Ibid., p. 11
  11. Ibid.,pp.15-19
  12. Sahimi, Al Muqtadi al Hudhuda, quoted in Qurrat alUyun,pp.18-19
  13. Kunhippakki,February,1907, Ibid.,pp.27-28
  14. Ibid., p.14
  15.  Ibid., pp.17-19
  16. I bid., p. 20
  17. K.K. Muhammad Abdul Karim, Makti Tangalude Sampurna Kridikal op.cit..-54
  18. Ibid., pp.654-55 .
  19. Sayyid Ismail b. Sayyid Ibrahim and Kunhahammad 'Ali Haji, op.ci:.. p.24
  20. Ibid., pp.24-25&48 quoted from Sharah al Durar. Imam Subuki regards it  as a major sin to call a Muslim who recites the dikr as kafir Ibid. p.49.

================================.