The Book of Stations
المواقف
Context: A strong statement of waḥdat al-wujūd: creatures do not exist 'fī nafs al-amr' and God 'is the forms'. Ibn Taymiyya and many jurists condemned it as erasing Creator and creature; defenders read a denial of independent existence. The Emir qualifies: imaginal existence is 'neither identical with the Real nor other than Him' (m234:35). His identity reading of Q 54:49 is unusual.AI
قَالَ تَعَالَى: «إِنَّا كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَاهُ بِقَدَرٍ».
He, exalted is He, said: “Truly, every thing We have created by measure” (Q 54:49).
In briefAI
The Emir takes the nominative reading of Q 54:49, ascribed here to Abū l-Sammāk, to mean that everything God conceives in His knowledge is God, since a conception adds nothing to what is conceived. In a dream a man asks him whether existence is other than the existent. He answers with the Sufis' doctrine: existence is one indivisible essence. Created things are only its relations, determinations and loci of manifestation. Their multiplicity and their existence are figurative and imaginal, against the theologians and philosophers. Real existence belongs to God alone.
See the print: Damascus 1966, p. 525 ↗, Damascus 1966, p. 526 ↗, Cairo, vol. 1, PDF p. 482 ↗, Cairo, vol. 1, PDF p. 483 ↗, Cairo, vol. 1, PDF p. 484 ↗ (archive.org)
قِرَاءَةُأَبِي السَّمَّاكِ، بِرَفْعِ «كُلُّ» أَيْ كُلُّ شَيْ مَخَلَقْنَاهُ بِتَقْدِيرِنَا لَهُوَتَصَوُّرِنَا اِيَّاهُ فِي عِلْمِنَا هُوَ نَحْنُ؛
The reading of Abū l-Sammāk, with «kullu» in the nominative: that is, every thing that We created by Our determining it and Our conceiving it in Our knowledge is We;
لِأَنَّ التَّصَوُّرَ لَيْسَ بِزَائِدٍ عَلَى الْمُتَصَوَّرِ، فَوُجُودُهُ وُجُودُهُ، وَلَا وُجُودَ لِلْمُقَدَّرِ. الْمُتَصَوَّرِ اسْمُ مَفْعُولٍ، غَيْرُ وُجُودِ الْمُتَصَوِّرِ اسْمِ فَاعِلٍ.
for conception is not something additional to the conceived; so its existence is His existence, and there is no existence for the determined, the conceived (passive participle), other than the existence of the conceiver (active participle).
رَأَيْتُ كَأَنَّنِي دَخَلْتُ مَسْجِداً لِلصَّلَاةِ فِيهِ فَكَلَّمَنِي اِنْسَانٌ وَجَاوَزَنِي فَتَبِعْتُهُ وَقُلْتُ لَهُ: اِنَّكَ كَلَّمْتَنِي فَمَاذَا قُلْتُ لَكَ؟!
I saw [in a dream] as though I had entered a mosque to pray in it; a man spoke to me and passed me by, so I followed him and said to him: “You spoke to me.” “So what did I say to you?!
أَتَقُولُ الْوُجُودُ غَيْرُ الْمَوْجُودِ؟
Do you say that existence is other than the existent?”
فَقُلْتُ الْوُجُودُ عِنْدَ الطَّائِفَةِ الْعَلِيَّةِ حَقِيقَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ ذَاتٌ لَا صِفَةٌ، لَا تَتَجَزَّأُ وَلَا تَتَبَعَّضُ وَلَا تَتَعَدَّدُ،
I said: existence, for the lofty group, is a single reality, an essence and not an attribute; it is not divided into parts, not split into portions, and not multiplied;
وَتَعَدُّدُ الْمَوْجُودَاتِ لَايُؤَثِّرُ فِيهِ تَعْدَادٌ لِأَنَّهَا نِسَبُهُ وَاِضَافَاتُهُ وَاَسْمَاؤُهُ.
and the multiplicity of the existents produces no numbering in it, because they are its relations, its attributions and its names.
وَلَيْسَ هُوَ الْحُصُولَ وَلَا الثُّبُوتَ وَلَا التَّحْقِيقَ كَمَا هُوَ عِنْدَ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ.
It is not occurrence, nor fixity, nor realisation, as it is for the theologians.
وَالْغَيْرَانِ عِنْدَ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ، أَمْرَانِ وُجُودِيَّانِ، بِمَعْنَى أَنَّ كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنَ الْغَيْرَيْنِ لَهُ وُجُودٌ مُسْتَقِلٌّ بِنَفْسِهِ.
For the theologians, two 'others' are two existential things, meaning that each of the two others has an existence independent in itself.
وَعِنْدَ الطَّائِفَةِ الْعَلِيَّةِ: الْغَيْرِيَّةُ لَفْظَةٌ مَجَازِيَّةٌ، لَا حَقِيقَةَ لَهَا، وَلَا وُجُودَ اِلَّا فِي اللَّفْظِ.
For the lofty group, otherness is a figurative word that has no reality and no existence except in the wording.
وَالْمَوْجُودُ اسْمُ مَفْعُولٍ هُوَ الَّذِي وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ الْوُجُودُ.
The existent, a passive participle, is that upon which existence has fallen.
فَلَا يَجُوزُ اِطْلَاقُ لَفْظَةِ مَوْجُودٍ عَلَى الْحَقِّ ـ تَعَالَى ـ اِلَّا لِضَرُورَةِ تَعْلِيمٍ وَنَحْوِهِ، وَاِذْ قُلْنَا الْوُجُودُ ذَاتٌ لَا يَقْبَلُ التَّعَدُّدَ.
So it is not permitted to apply the word 'existent' to the Real, exalted is He, except out of the necessity of teaching and the like, since we have said that existence is an essence that does not admit multiplicity.
فَقَوْلُنَا فِي الْمُحْدَثِ مَوْجُودٌ مَعْنَاهُ لَهُ نِسْبَةٌ اِلَى الْوُجُودِ، أَوْ اِضَافَةٌ أَوْ نَحْوُ ذَلِكَ.
So our saying of the originated thing that it is 'existent' means that it has a relation to existence, or an attribution, or something of that kind.
فَالْمَوْجُودَاتُ مَا اسْتَفَادَتِ الْوُجُودَ مِنَ الْوُجُودِ الْحَقِّ– تَعَالَى– وَاِنَّمَا اسْتَفَادَتِ الْمَظْهَرِيَّةَ لِلْوُجُودِ الْحَقِّ، بِمَعْنَى أَنَّهَا مَحَالُّ لِظُهُورِهِ.
So the existents did not acquire existence from the Real Existence, exalted is He; they acquired only the status of loci of manifestation for the Real Existence, meaning that they are places for its manifestation.
وَهُوَ الظَّاهِرُ بِأَحْوَالِهَا وَنُعُوتِهَا.
And He is the Manifest through their states and their qualities.
فَوَحْدَةُ الْمَوْجُودَاتِ حَقِيقَةٌ لِوَحْدَةِ الْعَيْنِ.
So the oneness of the existents is real, because of the oneness of the entity.
وَهُوَ الْوُجُودُ الذَّاتُ الْحَقُّ.
And it is existence, the Essence, the Real.
وَتَعَدُّدُهَا مَجَازٌ لِأَنَّهَا مَا تَعَدَّدَتْ اِلَّا بِتَعَيُّنَاتٍ، وَتَمَيَّزَتْ بِتَمَيُّزَاتٍ وَنِسَبٍ عَدَمِيَّاتٍ.
And their multiplicity is figurative, because they are multiplied only by determinations, and are distinguished by distinctions and non-existential relations.
فَهُوَ الظَّاهِرُ، وَهُوَ الصُّوَرُ، بِحَسَبِ مَا يُعْطِيهِ اسْتِعْدَادُ كُلِّ عَيْنٍ مُمْكِنَةٍ، فَيَظْهَرُ بِذَلِكَ الِاسْتِعْدَادِ.
So He is the Manifest, and He is the forms, according to what the preparedness of each possible entity gives Him; and He becomes manifest through that preparedness.
وَلَمَّا ظَهَرَ الْوُجُودُ الْحَقُّ مَنْعُوتاً بِنُعُوتِ الْمُحْدَثَاتِ الْمُمْكِنَاتِ احْتَجَبَ عَنِ الْبَصَائِرِ وَالْأَبْصَارِ،
When the Real Existence became manifest qualified by the qualities of originated, possible things, it was veiled from inner sights and outer eyes,
فَظَنَّ الظَّانُّونَ وَتَوَهَّمَ الْمُتَوَهِّمُونَ أَنَّ الْوُجُودَ الَّذِي ظَهَرَتْ بِهِ هَذِهِ الصُّوَرُ فِي الْمَدَارِكِ الْبَشَرِيَّةِ، وَقَامَتْ بِهِ هَذِهِ النُّعُوتُ وَالصِّفَاتُ هُوَ وُجُودٌ حَادِثٌ خَلَقَهُ اللَّهُ– تَعَالَى– لِلْمُمْكِنَاتِ.
so those who suppose supposed, and those who imagine imagined, that the existence through which these forms appeared in human faculties of perception, and in which these qualities and attributes subsist, is an originated existence that God, exalted is He, created for the possible things.
وَهُوَ وَهْمٌ بَاطِلٌ .
لِأَنَّهُ لَوْ كَانَ ؛ فَاِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ جَوْهَراً أَوْ عَرَضاً ، وَلَا جَائِزَ أَنْ يَكُونَ جَوْهَراً أَوْ عَرَضاً ، وَلَا جَائِزَ أَنْ يَكُونَ جَوْهَراً وَلَا عَرَضاً .
وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ بُرْهَانُ ذَلِكَ فِي أَثْنَاءِ هَذِهِ الْمَوَاقِفِ،
فَالْمَوْجُودَاتُ كُلُّهَا لَيْسَتْ اِلاَّ تَجْرِيدَاتٍ، جَرَّدَهَا الْوُجُودُ الْحَقُّ فِي نَفْسِهِ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ لِنَفْسِهِ.
فَالْوُجُودُ الْمَنْسُوبُ اِلَيْهَا وُجُودُهُ،
وَلَيْسَ الْوُجُودُ بِصِفَةٍ لِلْمَوْجُودِ كَالْبَيَاضِ وَالسَّوَادِ مَثَلاً فَيَكُونَ غَيْراً زَائِداً ، كَمَا أَنَّ الْعَدَمَ لَيْسَ هُوَ بِشَيْءٍ زَائِدٍ عَلَى الْمَعْدُومِ ، فَيَكُونَ غَيْراً .
وَاِنَّمَا هُوَ نِسْبَةٌ وَاِضَافَةٌ لَهُمَا ،
وَلَمْ نَتَعَرَّضْ لِمَذَاهِبِ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ وَالْفَلَاسِفَةِ فِي غَيْرِيَّةِ الْوُجُودِ وَزِيَادَتِهِ أَوْ عَدَمِهَا ، لِاَنَّهُمْ وَاِنِ اخْتَلَفُوا فِي عَيْنِيَّتِهِ وَغَيْرِيَّتِهِ فَهُمْ مُتَّفِقُونَ عَلَى أَنَّ الْمَوْجُودَاتِ مَوْجُودَةٌ فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ ، كَمَا هِيَ فِي الْمَدَارِكِ الْبَشَرِيَّةِ .
اِمَّا بِوُجُودٍ حَادِثٍ عِنْدَ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ ، وَاِمَّا بِالْوُجُودِ الْقَدِيمِ عِنْدَ بَعْضِ الْفَلَاسِفَةِ ، وَلَيْسَ هَذَا بِمَذْهَبِ الطَّائِفَةِ الْعَلِيَّةِ .
فَاِنَّ الْمَوْجُودَاتِ عِنْدَهُمْ لَا وُجُودَ لَهَا اِلَّا فِي الْمَدَارِكِ ، لَا فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ ، وَاِنَّمَا الْوُجُودُ لَهُ – تَعَالَى – ،
وَالْمَوْجُودَاتُ نِسَبُهُ وَاعْتِبَارَاتُهُ وَتَعَيُّنَاتُهُ وَظُهُورَاتُهُ ، وَكُلُّهَا أُمُورٌ عَدَمِيَّةٌ ظَهَرَتْ فِي الْمَدَارِكِ الْبَشَرِيَّةِ لِلْحِجَابِ الَّذِي وُصِفَتْ بِهِ ، وَهُوَ الْجَهْلُ .
وَالْوُجُودُ الَّذِي نُسِبَتْ اِلَيْهِ الْمَوْجُودَاتُ وُجُودٌ خَيَالِيٌّ .
فَلَيْسَ هُوَ عِنْدَ التَّحَقُّقِ عَيْنَهَا وَلَا غَيْرَهَا. كَمَا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ عَيْنَ الْحَقِّ – تَعَالَى – وَلَا غَيْرَهُ.
فَلَيْسَ الْوُجُودُ الْحَقِيقِيُّ اِلاَّ لَهُ – تَعَالَى – .
وَالْعَالَمُ كُلُّهُ أَعْلَاهُ وَأَسْفَلُهُ لَهُ الْوُجُودُ الْخَيَالِيُّ الْمَجَازِيُّ .
Translations, word glosses and term notes are AI-generated (Claude) and marked as such; no published translation is reproduced.Word analysis is automatic (CAMeL Tools), guided by the text's vowelling. How this text was established.