an Originator who brought it into being and is the Necessary Existent in Himself; rather, they say: “The world itself is the Necessary Existent in itself.” In reality, these people’s doctrine is worse than that of the theistic eternalists and, upon examination, amounts to the doctrine of the naturalist eternalists.

We have been told that Ibn ʿArabī and Shaykh Abū Hafs al-Suhrawardī disagreed over whether, when the Real manifests Himself to a servant, He can address him or not. Shaykh Abū Hafs al-Suhrawardī said: “Yes, that is possible.” Ibn ʿArabī said: “That is not possible.” I think each spoke in the other’s absence. Ibn ʿArabī was then told: “Al-Suhrawardī says such-and-such.” He replied: “Poor fellow! We were speaking of witnessing the Essence, while he is speaking of witnessing the attributes.”

Many followers of Sufism and spiritual discipline, and seekers of the path of spiritual realization and knowledge—despite believing that they follow the messengers and avoid innovations contrary to their teaching—repeat and revere these words, and esteem Ibn ʿArabī for saying such things. They do not know that he based these words on his corrupt foundation of heresy, which combines the negation of the divine attributes with the identification of Allah with creation. For, in his view, the Lord’s reality is abstract existence, having neither name nor attribute. He cannot be seen in this world or in the Hereafter, nor does He possess speech, knowledge, or any other attribute subsisting in Him. Rather, He is seen appearing in created beings and manifesting Himself in things that have been made. In his view, this is other than the existence of existing beings. He also likened it, at times, to a universal manifesting itself in its particulars, as a genus manifests itself in its species, and a species in the particular—just as animality appears in every animal and humanity in every human being.

He based this on the error of his predecessors, the “Greek logicians,” who supposed that