Anika Reza

Carleton University

Leonard Librande

RELI 3402 A

28 November, 2007

Sufism: the experience of the Process of Fanā and Baqā

Those who have tried to define Sufism would agree that it emerges from the prism of Islam as a

multi-colored spectrum of responses.1 Thus it is not surprising to find that there are as many definitions

of Sufism as there are Shaykhs. When Sufis and scholars are asked “what is Sufism” in most part they

don’t define Sufism so much as they stress a particular aspect of Sufism. One such aspect that Sufis or

scholars stress is that Sufism is a quest for reality, gnosis or enlightenment. 2 This is a view shared by

Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī and philosophically-minded Sufis as well as those who regard tawhīd as the ultimate state

of Sufism. Another approach to Sufism, which Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindī believes in, is defining Sufism

in terms of the experience of fanā and baqā. How this differs from the fanā and baqā according to

those who stress gnosis is that for Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindī the experience of fanā and baqā itself is

important not the knowledge associated with it. Also Sirhindī says that there is no extra knowledge to

be gathered through Sufism that has not already been given to us through the Sharī’ah and that God is

completely other than us. Therefore Sufism is the experience of the process of fanā and baqā which

leads one to realize that God is completely other. Sufism also leads one to know in detail what one

knew in brief and perceive in vision what one knew through argument only; knowledge that is already

in the Sharī’ah of the Prophet but which Sufism intensifies and illuminates.3

Tawhīd, as used in Sufi literatures, can have several different meanings. It can be used to mean

the experience of actual union and oneness with God or just the philosophical word used to describe

the imaginal experience of union with God. The former mentioned is called tawhīd wujūdī (to be one
 Reza |2

with God) while the latter is called tawhīd shuhūdī (to perceive to be one with God). The proponent for

tawhīd shuhūdī is Sirhindī while the proponent for tawhīd wujūdī is Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī as well as William C.

Chittick whose book focuses primarily on Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī’s teachings. Tawhīd shuhūdī is to see or

perceive One Being but the perception does not negate the existence of all else. Muhammad Abdul

Haq Ansari clarifies this point by saying that in the daytime we do not see the stars, only the sun, but

even then we do not deny the existence of the stars. 4 Tawhīd wujūdī on the other hand is to not only see

and perceive One Being but to also believe that there is only One Being and nothing else is in

existence. Chittick sites the Shahadah as explaining this view of Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī. The first

Shahadah-“There is no god but God”- discerns between the Real and the unreal thus there is “no reality

but God” and so everything we experience is actually secondary and derivative. 5 Chittick also says that

according to Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī’s reasoning all things come from God, all things manifest God, all things

signify God and all things are not other than God.6 Therefore God is both the knower and the known,

powerful and the object of power, the willing and the willed, and the mover and the moved. Sirhindī

does not subscribe to tawhīd wujūdī as he says that it is not the tawhīd of the Prophet. The Prophet

does not teach that the Being is one but that God is one therefore he is not denying the existence

of other things besides God. Also the Prophet attributes men as having will, action, power and

experience and he does not reserve these attributes for God alone. This would have been the case if

God was the willing as well as the willed and the knower as well as the known. Prophetic religion

separates the Creator from the created and the Lord from servant and so it supports the existence of

things separate from God. The second observation Sirhindī makes which would undercut tawhīd

wujūdī is the fact that it conflicts with a fundamental principle of Islam. If everything is a sign and

manifestation of God then one can worship any object, such as a tree, as long as one worships it as a

manifestation of God. Also in tawhīd wujūdī God is the Only Actor and so whatever humans choose to

do is actually what God chose to do. Therefore there can be no evil act as God is the Absolute Good.7

These points make Sirhindī a proponent for tawhīd shuhūdī and he firmly believes that tawhīd wujūdī
 Reza |3

has no basis in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah and that it goes against God’s transcendence as well as some

Islamic practices and so should not be practiced.

Sirhindī didn’t always hold the views he came to be known for. As he himself put it he went

through three stages of experience before he realized God’s complete otherness. The first of these

stages of experience is called fanā ’l- fanā wherein he sees the world one with God in complete union,

the second stage is called jam‘ ’l-jam‘ wherein he sees the world as a shadow of God where it is

different from God but in some sense one with Him. The third stage is called farq ba‘d ’l-jam‘

wherein God is completely different from the world and absolutely other.8 Absolutely other meaning

that God has no relation at all with the world and any relation we perceive is only a symbolic form of

God’s creative relation which enables us to conceive God. Sirhindī believes the intoxication state,

where one perceives unity with God, is due to the fact that reality, and the difference between God and

the world, is hidden. Therefore the difference exists but one does not perceive it in the intoxicated

state. The Sharī’ah affirms the difference between God and the world otherwise there would be no

need for people to pray to God. As seen in the case of Bakr ’l-Shiblī who once stood for salāt and said

“Alas if I pray, I deny; but if I do not pray, I become an infidel.” 9 Bakr ’l-Shiblī recognizes the fact that

if he prays then he denies the complete unity with God but if he chooses to not pray then he will be

disobeying God.

Sufism according to Sirhindī differs from Sufism according to Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī and Ansari calls

these differences substantial and fundamental. These differences many not be fully appreciated until all

of Sirhindī’s and Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī’’s works have been explored; however some of the key differences have

been outlined in this essay. Sirhindī would say that Sufism aids one in understanding the Sharī’ah

more fully and deeply. That through the experience of the process of fanā and baqā a Sufis is able to

open himself up to knowledge that can be found in the Sharī’ah but which is understood more deeply

through Sufism. Sirhindī also has a different understanding of existence than Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī. When Ibn

‘l-‘Arabī says the world is imaginary he means that the perception that the world is an entity existing
 Reza |4

separately from God is an illusion and that the reality is that it is one with God. It is existing in God’s

determinate forms. When Sirhindī describes the world as imaginary he means that the world exists

separately from God but that the world’s existence is at a lesser level compared to God’s existence. He

describes it as a circle formed in the air by a fast moving light point; the circle exists but its existence

is nothing compared to a real circle.10 Similarly the view Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī holds on tawhīd, that it is the

ultimate state of being and all exists as a manifestation of God, is different from Sirhindī. Sirhindī

acknowledges that the world depends on God for existence but he also believes that the world is an

altogether different being separate from God. Thus the ultimate state of being is the realization of

God’s complete otherness. I feel Sirhindī’s argument is more powerful as he discusses that if God is

the only Being and everything is one with God then humans would be able to worship any object in the

world as long as they worshipped it as a manifestation of God. Also prayers would be unnecessary

since it would then be God praying to Himself as He is the only Actor since He is the only Being.

Furthermore humans would not be accountable for their actions either as God is the only Being that

can Act. In answer to these questions that arise from Ibn ‘l-‘Arabī’s tawhīd wujūdī, Sirhindī has

stressed tawhīd shuhūdī which takes on a different interpretation of tawhīd, sulūk, existence and reality

and does not contradict any Islamic practices or the Prophet’s religion. Therefore I believe Sirhindī’s

way of practicing Sufism is the more accurate one and the experience of the process of fanā and baqā

is its fundamental purpose.

 1Endnotes

Sekedar Bocahpolah, “Muslim View on Sufism,” Word Press, 19 Sept. 2007, 23 Oct. 2007 <http://bocahpolah.
wordpress.com/2007/09/19/muslim-view-on-sufism-2/ >
2 Ansari 32
3 Ansari 58
4 Ansari 102
5 William C. Chittick, Sufism: A Short Introduction (Oxford, England: Oneworld, 2000) 12.
6 Chittick 76
7 Ansari 108
8 Ansari 41
9 Ansari 48
10 Ansari 116