what is the concept of wahdatul-wajud

PKPolitics Discuss » Faith and Religion

what is the concept of wahdatul-wajud

(36 posts)

toamin
member

What is the concept of wahdatul wajud?

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Aug 2010 16:42 #
gv
Member

@salam (thanks! :)

I have always been fascinated by this concept which if i understand it correctly is that: There is no reality but God and therefore creation is not separate from God.

According to Karen Armstrong in History of God, it was made popular by Sadruddin Shirazi (Mulla Sadra)in the 16th century who refined al Arabi's similar theory . (pp. 300) - Is this correct?

ps. good article on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahdat_ul-wujud

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Aug 2010 16:55 #
toamin
member

Yes, that is what I also understood, 'absolute being' meaning we don't exist, only thing that exists is the 'absolute being' which means we are god? is that why mansoor al hallaj said 'ana al-haq'? al-haq is an attribute/name of Allah swt...

what is reality? there is no reality it is just ...???

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Aug 2010 16:59 #
gv
Member

I understood it differently - To use a (buddhist) parable

We (created things) are all drops of water in a river flowing to the ocean(God). Once we reach the ocean - we reach true spirituality/true knowledge of the creator (oneness with the creator?)

i.e. Creation is an objective reality but God is not a created thing. However instead of God being a separate being outside of creation - Creation is in fact a part (the philosophical term is an emanation) of God the creator.

If we can attain spiritual perfection - we can then understand the true essence of God.

Does that make sense?

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Aug 2010 17:06 #
gv
Member

@umer

would really appreciate your views/insight

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Aug 2010 21:17 #
hkbajwa
Member

GV

Well i think that basic thing about this concept that humanity fails to understand is that God is not a separate entity from us.

He is the sum totality of existence. This concept is extremely difficult to wrap your mind around. While i believe that all prophets and spiritual people preach this, such teachings usually degenerate into a worship of the purveyors of this message.

Just as the hindus have been reduced to worshipping the personifications of God (relegating bhagwaan to behind the scenes)and just as christians worship Jesus rather than God so too have orthodox muslims today elevated Mohammad (pbuh) to demi-god/greater-than-human status. And by their preference for hadith over the Quran and their continual invocation of the Prophet (pbuh) rather than Allah it is only a matter of time before they are reduced to worshipping him rather than the God/universe/totality of existence that spawned his teachings.

Posted 1 year ago on 27 Aug 2010 6:10 #
gv
Member

@hkb

thanks - agree with you personally - though i dont think its as easy as that because most religious scripture (esp semitic scripture) uses a punishment/reward system to motivate... which implies a paternalistic god figure who is very easily converted by the worshipper to a personal anthropomorphic deity..

i think the key point is whether God is an objective or a subjective reality.. which to me is what the concept of wahdat ul wajud seeks to answer...

Posted 1 year ago on 27 Aug 2010 10:38 #
hkbajwa
Member

gv

indeed the language in scripture does lend itself to such a perception.

However i think that is a function of the limitation of verbal communication.

The mere concept of cause/effect or action/consequence need not be seen in a paternalistic light, nor need it be viewed as a threat.

I would think that it is nothing more than a statement of fact.

By this i mean that the concept of heaven and hell is to show that good actions lead to good consequences and bad actions lead to bad consequences. I have never considered it to be a threat against me but rather a warning that no action that i myself deem as "bad" can be hidden from the singular universe, nor can it ultimately result in "good" consequences.

Fire and brimstone preachers however become very eloquent in describing the nature of heaven and hell, which is why people lose sight of the simplicity of the concept communicated.

Posted 1 year ago on 27 Aug 2010 10:47 #
gv
Member

@hkb

"I would think that it is nothing more than a statement of fact."

I disagree entirely. It is much more likely that people believe it literally especially when you have a few millennia of literal belief in the phsyical concept of heaven and hell behind you... which implies it is inherently flawed as a ontological/theological tool to encourage belief..

It also encourages a Pascal esque approach to belief... where due to logical intuition chances are that its better to believe than not since the 'believer's' 'loss' is limited and 'gain' unlimited...

Like i said earlier - for me the key is how one approaches the reality of god.

Posted 1 year ago on 27 Aug 2010 10:54 #
urazzaq12
Member

Firstly, I am going to say the obvious, that the belief in Wahdat-ul-Wajood is not binding upon the Ummah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), so there is no need to worry much about it. Although Its a shame that the orientalists misunderstand the concept and ascribed all sorts of nonsense to it due to their lack of understanding.

Secondly, Wahdat ul-Wujood is one of those concepts that cannot be fully explained in words, that is why even the majority of Sufia/Ulema who believed in it have stayed away from the explanation. And even if it was fully exlained in words, it would be beyond the comprehension of many, as it has more to be experienced and less to be understood/explained. If one doesn't have the ability to experience pain, no matter how you explain the concept of pain to him, he wouldn't really understand it, unless off course if he could experience it.

And I will stay away from giving my own explanation of this concept, and will quote Ibn Arabi, which should help in some what understanding this:

"He who is the servant of a divine Name is the shadow of that Name, his soul is its epiphanic. But in recognizing that this is so the servant does not negate his own existence. There is indeed a hadith concerning the servant who never ceases to move closer to his Lord; his Lord says of him: "I am his hearing by which he hears, his eyesight by which he sees..." This servant does not become what he was not; what happens is that the "luminous shadow" becomes increasingly transparent. Moreover, the possessive adjective "his" refers explicitly to the reality of the servant or rather presupposes it.”

Further more, this article sheds some more light on this issue in a much better way than I could ever explain:

http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/ez/isl/0-IA/Wahdat%20al-Wujud%20expl.html

And I would also recommend the works of Shah Waliullah(ra) on this subject.

Posted 1 year ago on 27 Aug 2010 11:43 #
gv
Member

@umer

Thanks for the link. (it more or less cofirmed my understanding of the traditional concept) Though I would have really appreciated your own personal views on the concept.

I actually believe that it holds the key to a real understanding of faith and religion and how one should approach the concept of God.

Posted 1 year ago on 27 Aug 2010 12:05 #
urazzaq12
Member

^ In simple words, Wahdat ul Wujood means that Allah(swt) is the only existence which is necessary and all other existence is merely possible, as it is dependent on Allah(swt).

Posted 1 year ago on 27 Aug 2010 22:29 #
barackosama
Member

First thing first!

It is a farce to think that Wehdatul Wujud is a complex concept. In fact it is such a dumb concept one can refute it with basic knowledge of Islam, comparative religion and commensense.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 0:13 #
barackosama
Member

The term Wehtadul Wujood translates to unification of all wujoods that exist into one single, true wujood of God. That is, all is God and God is all, eliminating any distinction in God and His creation.

Does that even make sense?

All the wujoods, that is, all creations originate from God, from prophets to minuscule beings and ultimately they will merge in God. The first part is nothing but spiritual Big Band theory! Wehdatul Wijood takes a shot at the second part too, however, the end or final merge.

A higher purpose of science is to explain where we came from, where we are heading whether thru Physics, Astronomy or Evolution. In the elusive particle theories of Physics, the main goal is to solidify/narrow particles and energy to one single particle, called God's particle or Higg's particle, being thoroughly researched at the Large Hadron Collider. If they ever find it, Physics could explain the composition of matter by explaining how the matter severed at the bang in presence of an unfathomable amount of energy, not to mention atheist Peter Higgs would win a noble. Finding God's particle, the fundamental particle, would eliminate the intermediate particles. Here Physics meets Meta Physics. You have got matter-energy analogous to wujood-spirit pair.

Like science, Wehdatul Wujood too attempts to answer the journey of the human. It attempts to find ways to reach the position of the human inside God, the position he allegedly held before birth. The term further implies origination than manufacture/design/creation. If a carpenter makes a chair, does the chair originate from the carpenter? Are the carpenter and the chair the one and the same? Can the chair or it's essence ever ingress into the carpenter? More importantly, are there ways that the former can be achieved. Since the Wehdatul Wujood theory actually never proves any of the above, it leaves the individual high and dry to retort his wonder. This is the presumed complexity of the concept since it opens a vast door to hypothesize the inexplicable and therefore the matter becomes rather subjective, each practitioner devises own ways. You have nothing concrete but each silsila tries to find own direction for that ultimate goal.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 1:43 #
barackosama
Member

Ibn Arabi is largely credited of having formally introduce the Wehdatul Wujood theory in the 11th century. For any position in religion the only acceptable way is to backtrack. There you find no one talking about it, most notably the Prophet SAW and his Sahabas RA. At best, Wehdatul Wujood is just an explanation that has no roots in Islam. Further, if it's taken as a religious decree, believing in it implies that the Prophet SAW fell short of telling us something so important, the religion is incomplete and ordinary people have authority to further perfect Islam.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 1:57 #
barackosama
Member

One dimension of Wehdatul Wujood concerns where is Allah.

Many people have trouble with this perfectly legitimate question, even with advanced education. However, check what a simple minded slave girl did in not hesitating telling her answer in the narration below.

In fact whenever someone tries to claim that Islamic understanding is complex, the best way to refute is to think that Islam came down on desert dwellers, shepherds, mostly illiterate folks who had simple lifestyle and did not worry about intricacies of the complex civilizations around them. If the content of Islam was complicated few would have understood it, which isn't the case at Khutba al Weda. So if they could understand, we can too.

Muawiyah bin Al-Hakam As-Salmi said:

"I had a slave-girl who used to herd sheep for me. One day I discovered that a wolf had killed one of her sheep, and I'm a man from the children of Adam, I get upset like they get upset, and I slapped her in the face. Then I went to the Prophet who impressed upon me the seriousness of my act. I said, 'O Messenger of Allah, should I not set her free?' He said, 'Bring her to me.' He asked her, 'Where is Allah', She said, 'He is above the heavens.' He said, 'Who am I?' She said, 'You are the Messenger of Allah.' He said, 'Free her, for she is a believer.' (Muslim and Abu Dawud)

Her answer shows someone who does not believe Allah is above heaven is also insane. Her belief that Allah is above the heaven indicates soundness of one's belief, and it is mandatory on every believer to accept this position. Her answer is refutation of the erroneous belief that Allah is in every place by His Essence. The truth is that Allah is with us by His Knowledge not by His Supreme Self. The fact that the Prophet ordered for the slave-girl to be brought to her to allow him to test her shows that he did not possess the knowledge of the unseen either, except of what Allah informed him.

If Allah is in the world, flowers, air, etc. with us does that mean His Power is so weak that there are sins happening all over the place, murders, rape etc. yet His Qudrut is so weak to do anything about it? Does this mean, when He is down here, He becomes weak? If He is in the world, is He also present in filthy places? One guy is claimed to have seen His Noor every where, including the toilet and used to avoid going to there.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 2:20 #
gv
Member

@bo

The concept of an 'old man in the sky' god is a bit childish and immature..

your concept of god is too anthropomorphic...you are humanising god

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 2:24 #
rhyme
Members

Barackosama you explained the whole matter so well...the concept that Allah(swt) is above in Heavens even at Higher place than that was once explained to me years back when i unconciously said that since Allah (swt) is present everywhere so...."...i was also directed towards this explanation nd ruling which i would like to share....

Some people say that Allah is above the heavens (according to one of the ayahs of the quran), and may scholars say that Allah exists without a place, since only the creation has the characteristic of needing a place and We know the ayah "Laysa-ka-mislly-he-shay" - (proving allah does not resemble his creation), is he everywhere, existing without a place, or above the heavens?

Praise be to Allaah,

(1) The Qur’aan describes the "exaltedness" or "highness" of Allaah in different ways, as His being High and Above, and by describing how things come down from Him, and go up to Him, and by stating that He is above heaven. For example (interpretations of the meaning):

(Highness):
". . .and He is the Most High, the Most Great." [al-Baqarah 2:255]

"Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High." [al-A’la 87:1]

(Above):
"And He is the Irresistible, above His slaves . . ." [al-An’aam 6:18]

"They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded." [al-Nahl 16:50]

(Things coming down from Him):

"He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth . . ." [al-Sajdah 32:5]

"Verily We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’aan). . ." [al-Hijr 15:9]

(Things going up to Him):

". . . To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it . . ." [Faatir 35:10]

"The angels and the Rooh (Jibreel) ascend to Him . . ." [al-Ma’aarij 70:4]

(Allaah is above heaven):

"Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven, will not cause the earth to sink with you . . .?" [al-Mulk 67:16]

(2) The Sunnah: many reports were narrated "mutawaatir" (i.e. with a large number of narrators at every stage of the isnaad, such that it is impossible for them all to have agreed on a lie) from the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him), describing his words and deeds and things of which he approved. For example, he used to say "Subhaana Rabbi al-A’laa (Glory be to my Lord Most High)" in sujood, and in some ahaadeeth he is reported to have said "By Allaah Who is above the Throne."

Among his deeds is the gesture of pointing up with his finger, when addressing the people in the greatest gathering, on the Day of ‘Arafaah during his Farewell Pilgrimage. He asked the people, "Have I not conveyed the message?" and they said, "Yes!" He asked again, "Have I not conveyed the message?" and they said, "yes!". He asked a third time, have I not conveyed the message?" and they said "Yes!" Each time, he said: "O Allaah, bear witness!" - pointing up to the sky and then at the people. He also used to raise his hands towards heaven when he made du’aa’, as it reported in tens of ahaadeeth. This is proof via his actions that Allaah is exalted and high.

An example of an approval of the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) which indicates that Allaah is exalted and high is the hadeeth concerning the young slave girl, to whom the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) said: "Where is Allaah?" She said: "In heaven" He asked, "Who am I?" She said, "The Messenger of Allaah." So he said to her master: "Set her free, for she is a believer."

This young girl was uneducated, as many are, and she was a slave, but she knew that her Lord is above heaven. Some misguided people deny that Allaah is above heaven, and say, "He is neither above nor below; neither to the right nor to the left. He is everywhere!"

(3) The consensus of the scholars: the salaf agreed that Allaah is above heaven, as is reported by scholars such as al-Dhahabi, may Allaah have mercy on him, in his book Al-‘Aluw li’l-‘Aliy al-Ghaffaar.

(4) Common sense: highness is a quality which is associated in people’s minds with perfection. If this is the case, then it should be attributed to Allaah because every absolute perfection should be attributed to Him.

(5) The innate instinct of man (fitrah). There should be no dispute that man instinctively knows that Allaah is above heaven. Whenever something overwhelming befalls a person, and he turns to Allaah for help, he looks towards heaven, not in any other direction. But it is strange that those who deny that Allaah is above His creation still raise their hands in supplication to no other direction than towards heaven.

Even Pharaoh, the enemy of Allaah who disputed with Moosaa about his Lord, told his minister Haamaan (interpretation of the meaning): "O Haamaan! Build me a tower that I may arrive at the ways, - the ways of the heavens, and I may look upon the god of Moosaa . . ." [Ghaafir 40:36-37]

He knew in his heart of hearts that Allaah is real, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): "And they belied them (those aayaat) wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof . . ." [al-Naml 27:14]

These are a few of the indications that Allaah is above the heavens; this proof comes from the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, the consensus of the scholars, common sense, man’s own instincts and even the words of the kuffaar.

We ask Allaah to guide us towards the Truth

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 2:30 #
barackosama
Member

@gv

Well He is somewhere, somewhere which surely I must be able to conceive in my mind. I showed He's above the heavens, the other position is He's in the world as the concept implies. Commonsense tells heavens is more suitable than the world/universe. I do not know of a third place. What is really childish is the old man only. It is above heavens, not sky. Further, in this post the subject is Allah's Place, not God's/god's.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 2:37 #
gv
Member

Al-Lah translates to 'the God' in classical arabic once again I repeat you are assuming god is like us humans and needs an abode

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 2:46 #
rhyme
Members

infact we can not actually discover or locate the exact position where God is...its not in our capacity to do so but since in Quran the word "High" is repeatedly used for Him so we can say He is High above even higher than skies....heavens etc...

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 2:54 #
barackosama
Member

@gv

Allah is God's proper name in Islam, this is another debate.

I'm not assuming. I said what I believe. His 'Arsh' has been mentioned, He does not Sleep. He Sees, Hears, Such believing is not to be confused with the physicality we know of thru our senses, essentially it is not a huge workplace operated round the clock where an unfatigued officer is available 24x7x365. His Seeing, Hearing is not like ours i.e. physiologically restricted. Yet as a human being to convey us the concept, a human language is used which has words, the words create concepts. The concept is not a physical realization. It would be wrong with whatever you come up with because the only prototype you know of is what's around you.

So this goes with what Rhyme has said, "High", we're not gonna set empirical values on High. Just leave it to 'High' as He states, don't compare it to any length.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 3:44 #
urazzaq12
Member

Gv, thats what I was afraid of, literalists bombarding the thread with off topic copy/pastes. Their discussion of where is Allah(swt) in the topic of Wahdat ul wajood reveals their knowledge of the subject.

Anyway, here is Dr Israr's take on Wahdat ul wajood.

He did indeed explain it well. And his take on Wahdat ul Wujood tells us that, Sufia do not have a monopoly over this concept, as other people, who by no means are Sufi's believe in it as well. And as Dr Israr said, it really is a complex subject, the one who was jumping up and down while claiming it is farce to say that it is complex, and it is easy to "expose" its fallacies, needs to open his eyes.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 12:01 #
gv
Member

@umer

Thanks for the link. Yes you are right about mis-interpreting a concept but until we dont discuss it we will continue to misinterpret...

@BO

I think to attribute any human condition to god runs the risk of personalsing/humanising god whether it is simply to explain his greatness in human terms or not.

The only thing we do in fact know is that we do not understand the essence and nature of god.

Therefore to attribute human conditions such as high, sleep, sight, hate, love, abode, male,female; even if it is to explain to mankind the supremacy of god is wrong because it leads you to envision god as another being such as yourself.

A known objective reality of which there must be only one true version that all people must adhere to..

i.e. the christians 'know' that their understanding is the only true reality and similarily the hindus 'know' that in fact it is their understanding that is the one true reality..

In my humble opinion this creates fundamentalist thought in religion which tends to focus on a 'tangible' reality instead of the essence of god and faith which is simply to appreciate creation and humanity, live a harmonious life with others and help to create a just and fair society.

For example the zionist jews worship the land of israel, the fundamentalist muslims worship the era of the glorious muslim past and the fundamentalist christians worship Christ the man.

One should first try and appreciate what is the purpose of god and religion before getting sucked into religious dogma..

The concept of wahdat al wujood in my opinion encourages the right kind of belief which is to appreciate creation and understand what is the true essence of god and what binds all humanity and nature together.

Posted 1 year ago on 30 Aug 2010 14:29 #
barackosama
Member

@gv

I'm sorry that you are disappointed. On this thread our view of God would be a framed one for you. You are looking for a more abstract view of God and discussion on Him, independent of any religious preconception. It would be difficult to infer general from the specific. Any antagonist or finder of God would rely on some source or preset view about God; simply you gotta start somewhere.

I have already said, His Seeing is not as your seeing. There is no association of human condition, in fact this is our main contradiction from the rest (Xtians, Hindus, Buddhaists with the possible exception of the Jews) for whom God descended on earth as a human. Your misunderstanding is suggestive of the limitation of the linguistics. Let's say a god has some come quality X which you have no experience of and do not know about from the language terminology either. At best, you would try to explain X using statements such as 'it is like Y but ..', Y you already know of, and thus the dilemma of personification would remain. Even if you say nothing but God is good, you have some sense about good and you are not thru with objectification.

In this case the only way to understand God would be without the tools of the language and feeling. Similar argument had been given in early Islam, why a human prophet why not an angel, why the Arabic language of Quran why not some divine language. If a non-human prophet would have come with an unheard language to tell about God, he would have been taken as God himself.

Now let's analyze your statement about attribution of human conditions. He is Compassionate and Glorified. How would you understand these if you have no preview about the concepts? He is hayyul lazi la yamoot (Everliving Who does not die), this is unhumanly if anything. Finally, laisa kamasile sha'i (there is none like Him), 'none' negates the declension introduced by the fallibility of human thought process. It relieves any tangibility thru mind.

About the idea of understanding nature or essence of God, there is plenty of information in the Quran, just about enough for our satisfaction. Of course if you work for someone, your job is to do his assigned task, you know enough about your boss - his likes and dislikes, but you're not gonna spend time in understanding the nature of your boss and in celebration of his wonderful team. Of course it must be recognized that the workplace is great, the environment he provided is awesome, but these are not the purpose of your hiring. Knowing your purpose at the desk is what's important, not the purpose of your boss.

I'm no way supporting personification- You said about fundamentalist thought emerges from personalzing God. If you mean literalism by fundamentalism, then I think every word in a language would be a metaphor and subjective to one's own view. This would leave with no common ground. Imagine same fallacy in traffic laws if everyone has own interpretation of the colors while only common agreement is the purpose of lights is signalling. If you mean radicalism, I think the faiths in which god is most personified are least radical. Moreover, the champions of figuration have demonstrated radicalism.

As far as the Quran is concerned, literalism only means the Quranic text is true. If He said about His Baseerat, we believe in it in absolute terms which does not mean 20/20.

Posted 1 year ago on 31 Aug 2010 4:58 #
gv
Member

@BO

Thank you for your very articulate post but i fear you missed my original point which was : - any attempt to rationalise god is problematic. This is especially so when one uses human metaphors to attempt to describe god. Even when one clearly points out in advance that language is not a sufficient tool to measure god's attributes.

To come back to the discussion at hand:- I believe that any objective student of religion rapidly realises that there is no logical proof for god - Ergo any perception of god is purely subjective and belongs to the perceiver himself.

Therefore whenever scriptural language is taken literally you automatically perceive a personalised, objectified god who acts like a super dictator (or boss to use your analogy) laying down the 'law'. (note i only say to take scriptural language metaphorically - not everyday language)

The message of Islam is encompassed in the very word itself. 'submission.' which means approach life with zero arrogance and zero hubris.....

ps. your boss analogy is im afraid flawed. if an employee works as an automaton in his role without realising the purpose of his boss or the boss's company he/she will never excel at his chosen career.

Posted 1 year ago on 31 Aug 2010 12:31 #
barackosama
Member

@gv

Most definitely too much rationalizing of God is going to be snarling. We have the story of Ibhrahim AS in which he argued about the star, the moon and the sun for god, then finally gave up on them. Similarly, the Satan comes to the human and asks who created X, who created you, until the man replies Allah, then he asks who created Allah. The proof of God is by our observation but assisted by divine scripture, the causal creation all around us which is not His adobe. This evidence is definitely logically compelling. A similar entangling comes in the rationalizing the concept of taqdeer, which is logically analogous to rationalizing chicken or the egg theory. In all these cases the Muslims are encouraged to shun such inspirations and refresh their Eeman by saying I believe in Allah.

If we didn't have had the scripture, everybody would have been doin what they thought was correct, after all the caveman, the native American Indians, the Shintoists and Taoisists, the atheist (the view is religion antagonism, nevertheless very personal) or the deists all have very subjective views. The purpose of our scripture is to streamling the subjectivity, by refuting all dogmas first. Remember "La Ilaha," you must denounce all the ideas that exist out there, you don't care what they are, they are plain wrong. Then come down to what actually is your core assertion, "Illallah" the only worthy of worship is Allah.

Of course submission means zero pride and unconditional compliance, that's Islam, acknowledge own weakness (Makhlooq) and supremacy of the Khaliq. But it means authority, implying subjugation to an external controller. So right there you are not done with personification as you see it. Moreover the whole idea is stooping. I am interested to know how you find Islamic submission appealing when it has two elements you despise: personalizing of God and patronizing of your ownself. This must have been difficult to reconcile, you did get over with it. And why personalizing element irks you else where, altho I don't see anything humanly when Allah talks about Him.

About my analogy, how many employees at any worplace are tuned into the upper mgmt? How many of your colleagues in business finance line actually would relate what they do everyday with the mission statement of the company? Usually, the employees have short term goals assigned by the boss, how the boss deals with his boss is nothing for the Jr. to worry about. People only excel if they can please their immediate boss even if the company does not do too well overall. I joined companies I knew were going down under, but had to get the experience of higher position and their particular product line. I knew chapter 11 was impendent, but guess what - it was career advancement, because at the next job nobody cared what happened to the old company but my skills/experience in the sinking ship was valuable.

I think in practicing religion we should not indulge in any philosophical or logical moot, it is clear we accept religion of Islam with certain rationality, we have constraints defined in the religion, our religion is quite consistent and lucid, it gives a full spectrum from the man's creation and his end unlike other big religions which defy reasoning. I think for these reasons Gödel, believed to be the greatest logician since Aristotle, found Islam to be consistent. We should get back to wehdatul wujood now.

Posted 1 year ago on 02 Sep 2010 16:56 #
barackosama
Member

Comparative religion also has some similarities with wehdatul wujood as stated earlier.

Since the idea implies God being part of the creation or nature, we have Hinduism, Buddishm and Xtianity in which when god had to descend to earth, he took the form of a human. Obviously god cannot come down here with all his vim, he has to lower himself to a mortal to be able to live among the beings. You have got rama as avatar of god and god came as Jesus (son of god, nonetheless another god). Similarly Gautam Buddha was a man lookalike god. Apparently, god loses vigor when condescends to a human, as jesus allegedly died of wounds and bleeding, rama and buddha I guess also died??

So wehdatul wujood not only self refutes but also helps us in abnegation of Xtianity, Hinudism and Buddhism.

Posted 1 year ago on 03 Sep 2010 4:13 #
LifeH2O
Member

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Sep 2010 2:09 #
toamin
member

Here we had some debate about the concept of "Wahdat al-Wajood"

Let's keep it here and not disturb the other thread which has entirely different subject and objective.

Posted 10 months ago on 03 Jul 2011 15:05 #
gv
Member

@salam

Salaam sahib vaisay aap ne doosray 'thread' pe humaray nukton ka javab koi nahin diya?

Posted 10 months ago on 04 Jul 2011 12:21 #
gv
Member

oblivion
member
NP
I hadn't ask you to explain things.... I just simply ask you do you believe in "Wahdat al-wujūd" Please answer "yes" or "no".... Do you agree with this concept of "Wahdat al-wujūd"?
Does this concept contradict your belief in God. That's what i am asking about.... NP why you always ignore question?
I don't know?

Adaab arz Oblivious sahib!
Chalein aaj hum aap ke savaal ka javaab detein hein!

yes i believe in wahdat al wujud and no if you have sufficient intellect to understand the implications of this it should reinforce belief in God not contradict it.

Posted 10 months ago on 05 Jul 2011 9:54 #
shafiq12
member

gv.... what do you mean by "reinforce belief in God"...

Gv if you believe in your own version of "wahadat ul wajood" like theory of evolution then i have no problem with it.... But if you believe original concept of wahadat ul wajood then i have problem......See, why because
..... Muslim aren't allowed to subject Allah to similitudes or examples....
http://quran.com/16/74
According to Arabi, the Divine element, ,inhabits every being......... Do you believe divine element, inhabits every being... I mean, every particle/creature in universe is divine in his nature....

Posted 10 months ago on 06 Jul 2011 5:56 #
gv
Member

My dear oblivion,

as i keep insisting 'my' theory of evolution is the one that most people seem to follow but to get back to your query i dont see why this concept is proving so difficult.

While I don't quite agree with the way you have phrased it - If the creator has created everything than what is wrong with the idea that an infitismal essence of the creator is present in the creation? i.e. how does it diminish the greatness of the creator ?

Posted 10 months ago on 06 Jul 2011 14:04 #
toamin
member

جی وی

صاحب یقین مانیں کچھ مصروفیات ایسی بڑھ گئیں ہیں کہ حالات حاضرہ کا ایک شو بھی پچھلے مہینے سے نہیں دیکھا

انشاللہ ایک دو ہفتوں میں کچھ فراغت ہوگی تو پھر میں محفل میں حاضر ہوں گا

غیر حاضری پر معزرت

Posted 10 months ago on 07 Jul 2011 5:29 #
shafiq12
member

gv... Theory evolution promotes idea of chances/accidents and rejects idea of special creation..... If you believe God's power behind present evolution then that is different case then of theory of evolution....

that an infitismal essence of the creator is present in the creation?

I am talking in context with sufi concept of wahadatul wajood.... all the elements that constitute the universe: human, animal and every other existing thing are god/divine in their existence...Right... Here is an example how arabi depicted his own master, as a divine reality.....

"In relation to existence, He (God) is the very essence of existing things. Thus in a certain sense, relative beings are elevated in themselves, since in truth they are none other than He who bears the name Abu Said al-Kharraz.
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_bezels_of_wisdom.html?id=p4PeeQGStQkC

Posted 10 months ago on 07 Jul 2011 5:50 #