And Shaykh Qutb al-Dīn ibn al-Qastallānī used to call them “al-Laysiyya,” saying, “Beware of these al-Laysiyya.” Hence Ibn Sab‘īn’s statement, “Multiplicity is an illusion.” This is contradictory, for his word “illusion” presupposes something imagined. If what is imagined is the illusion itself, then Allah would be the illusion. If what is imagined is other than the illusion, then existence has become multiple. Likewise, if what is imagined is Allah, then Allah has been described as a false illusion. Besides being disbelief, this contradicts his statement, “Existence is one.” If what is imagined is other than Him, then he has affirmed something other than Allah, contradicting his own premise. Once he affirms something other, multiplicity necessarily follows; multiplicity would therefore be a reality, not an illusion.

The two verses quoted from Ibn ‘Arabī, despite their contradictions, rest upon this premise. His words:

“O form of intimacy, whose secret is My inner reality,”

are spoken in the voice of the Real, addressing the human form: “O form of intimacy, whose secret is My inner reality.” That is, it is the form, and I am its inner reality. This implies that the inner reality is other than the form, entailing multiplicity and a distinction between the inner reality and the form. If the existence of the inner reality is the very existence of the form—as he explicitly states—then there is no multiplicity. But if the existence of the one differs from that of the other, then his words are contradictory.

And his statement:

“You would not have been created to obey the command, you see, were it not for Me”