What is Wahdatul Wujood (Part One)?

Wahdatul Wujood

[Continued from: Have Two Thirds of Deobandism Been Destroyed by THE Dumb Person?]

In his baseless allegation No.8, the Salafi coprocreep states:

“Deos claim to be Maturidis. This means that they should affirm the very first piece of text in Nasafiyyah, which is that “the realities of everything is true and real” (not an illusion). Deos also claim to be Sufis. This means they should believe in their Tafseer of Wahdatul Wujood, which is that only Allah really exists and everything else is just an illusion. This is the same  Obstinate Sophism refuted by Nasafiyyah.”

The coprocreep, due to his  stark ignorance, has portrayed two entirely different issues as being contradictory, hence he alleges that the Ulama of Deoband ascribe to a contradiction.  Outlining his stupid understanding on this issue, the jaahil coprocreep says:

“So which one is it gonna be – a huge fundamental of Maturidism as set out in the very first line of Nasafiyyah – i.e. realism for everything, or arguably the most fundamental precept of Sufism – Wahdatul Wujood or realism for only Allah and anti-realism for everything else? Renouncing either is tantamount to renouncing the whole discipline to which it is connected (either Maturidism or Sufism), and not renouncing either is a severe self-contradiction….”

The Ulama of Deoband affirm both issues, viz. all created things have real existence, and the concept of Wahdatul Wujood is correct. But there is a vast difference in  Divine Realism  and the realism of created beings. While the Existence of Allah Azza Wa Jal is independent of all things, the existence of all things is dependent on Allah Azza Wa Jal. Thus, Wahdatul Wujood does not portray created objects to be non-existent and devoid of reality. But, in relation  to Allah’s Existence, the existence of creation has no ‘reality’.

The ‘self-contradiction’ is the hallucination  of the coprocreep, which is the consequence of his mental vermiculation effected by copro-vermin. In presenting this hallucinated ‘self-contradiction’, the coprocreep has conspicuously advertised his jahaalat. He has  extracted from two entirely different subjects (Aqaaid and Akhlaaq or as he terms it: ‘Maturidism and Sufism’), two different concepts, and presented them stupidly as if both deal with the same issue. Thus, he imagines the ‘self-contradiction’ since he did not understand either of the concepts.

His confusion is like  the ignorance of a person who sees a self-contradiction in the  different usage of the word bachelor.  Zaid, a married man, has acquired a   B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) degree. When Zaid informed the coprocreep that he is a Bachelor of Arts, the coprocreep  retorted: ‘But you are married. You have a wife and children.’ Regardless of Zaid’s attempts to explain, the coprocreep demonstrating his jahaalat, obstinately maintains that Zaid is guilty of a ‘self-contradiction’ because he contends that he is a ‘bachelor’. This is precisely the nescience which the calcified brains of the coprocreep displays in his ‘self-contradiction’ stupidity against the Ulama of Deoband.

The ‘reality’ of created things which is stated in Nasafiyyah has absolutely no relationship with the concept of Wahdatul Wujood  which the Auliya (Sufiya) propound. While the former, i.e. the reality of things, refers to the physical existence of tangible or material or physical creations of Allah Azza Wa Jal, denied by the Sophists, Wahdatul Wujood is a state or a spiritual condition. It is among the Ahwaal (spiritual conditions). It is an abstract concept.

Explaining the reality of things, it  is mentioned in Nasafiyyah:  “The haqaaiq (realities) of things (created things) are confirmed.”  This is  in rejection of the Indiyyah sect of the Sufastaaiyyah (Sophists) who believe that  all things as we see and feel them are hallucinations similar to the hallucinations of the coprocreep who has imagined falsities for the Ulama of Deoband.

Wahdatul Wujood does not have the remotest relationship with the reality of created material objects. This concept does not deny the real existence of created things. It merely means that in relation to Allah’s Existence, all things pale into ‘non-existence’ since the only True and Independent Existent is Allah Azza Wa Jal. The existence of entire creation depends on the Command of Allah Azza Wa Jal. If the size of an ant is compared with the size of an elephant, it will be correct to say that the ant has no existence and no size in relation to the  massive body of the elephant. The ant’s physical strength in relation to the elephant’s physical power is ‘non-existent’ – it has no ‘reality’. Such statements to convey superiority and emphasis do not deny the real existence of the inferior and insignificant being.

Wahdatul Wujood  is a technical term which has a specific meaning in the terminology of the Auliya. But because the coprocreep is stupid and lacks understanding of the specific terminologies of the Sufiya, he has interpreted  this  Sufi term to be in contradiction of  a literal term  spoken of in entirely another subject.

Since Wahdatul Wujood does not  deny the material existence of created objects  – in fact it has no relationship with it – the coprocreep’s objection serves only to confirm his gross ignorance  of both subjects. Neither has he understood what is  mentioned in Nasafiyyah nor  does he understand the meaning of Wahdatul Wujood.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself has expounded the Wahdatul Wujood concept of the Sufiya. In a Hadith-e-Qudsi, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The Son of Aadam distresses Me  by abusing dahr (time, age, era) whilst I (i.e. Allah) am Time. All affairs are in My Command. I alternate night and day.”
(Bukhaari, Muslim, Maalik and Abu Daawood)

It is a simple reality that Age (Time) is not Allah Azza Wa Jal. It is Allah’s creation. However, despite the absence of unity of Allah and Time, the Hadith-e-Qudsi  figuratively  states the unification or unity of Allah and Time. This is Wahdatul Wujood which the very same Hadith explains by saying:

“It is I (Allah) Who alternates night and day.”

Age/Time is subservient to Allah Ta’ala. It has no existence without the Command of Allah Azza Wa Jal.  Since it is totally dependent on Allah Ta’ala for its existence, Allah Ta’ala  said: ‘I am Time’. This is Wahdatul Wujood which the coprocreep has been unable to understand. It is not a denial of  the existence of created things.

Continued: What is Wahdatul Wujood (Part Two)?

Back to Contents

2 thoughts on “What is Wahdatul Wujood (Part One)?

  1. Akhwat

    Assalamu alaikum,

    Yaa akhi, I disagree with the wahabis too especially this Madkhali figure. But I would never use harsh words like “copro creep” or “copro vermin”. Also I notice you use a lot of words like morons, idiot, etc. I’m afraid using this kind of namecalling will only avert people from this da’wah message. My sincere suggestion is please refrain from using them, let’s not stoop to their low. Even to call spade a spade, you can use a more polite or respectful language. Rasulullah SAAW had said, “verily Allah hates the harsh words and those who using them”. But for the information and your effort, jazakallah khair and please keep up the positive work.

    1. admin Post author


      The articles containing such words are by Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai, who has a very a harsh attitude towards the Ulama-e-soo and others who are potentially capable of leading countless people to Jahannum. More information about the Maulana and his methodology can be found here:


      Specifically regarding his harsh disposition which exhibits itself when he is refuting the Ulama-e-soo:


      There have been fuqaha in the past who possessed a harsh mizaaj (temperament), and who would use words such as ‘ghabi’ (moron, idiot) to label those who were leading the masses to Jahannum.

      In fact, quite a few of the Sahabahs (radhiyallahu anhum), including Hazrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) were very quick to resort to even physical action (e.g. the whip, pelting stones, etc.) on witnessing the slightest of transgressions of the Deen – the accounts are many. Other Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) such as Hadhrat Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu), who possessed a different temperament, would take a different course of action.

      Such actions directed at the worst of criminals, the Ulama-e-Soo, are not contrary to Islamic Adaab and Akhlaaq. However, the Maulana’s advice, as stated in the second letter in the link above, is for us laymen not to employ his methodology for which he has his reasons.

      I hope that clarifies the matter at least to some extent.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *