called sīmiyā, as well as agreement with Christians, the Qarmatians, and the Rāfidah, all in keeping with his principles. Thus, the more someone knew the inner meaning of this doctrine and agreed with its adherents, the more openly he displayed unbelief and heresy.

As for the ignorant who think well of these people’s statements without understanding them, believing them to resemble the words of spiritually knowledgeable shaykhs whose sound statements many people do not understand, you will find in them Islam, faith, and adherence to the Quran and Sunnah in proportion to their faith based on imitation. You will also find in them approval of these people, a favorable opinion of them, and deference to them in proportion to their ignorance and misguidance. It is inconceivable that anyone would praise these people except a heretical unbeliever or an ignorant, misguided person.

These people belong to the same category as the Jahmiyyah, who say:

“Allah, in His very essence, dwells in every place.”

However, the advocates of the oneness of existence have developed this doctrine more fully than the other Jahmiyyah.

As for the second type, it is the view of those who affirm divine indwelling and union in a particular individual, such as the Christians who affirmed this concerning Jesus the Messiah; the extremists who affirm it concerning ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib and a group from his household; the Hākimiyyah, who affirm it concerning al-Hākim; the Hallājiyyah, who affirm it concerning al-Hallāj; and the Yūnusiyyah, who affirm