as al-Rūmī does. Rather, in his view, there is no other and nothing distinct in any respect whatsoever. He holds that the servant perceives something other only while veiled; once his veil is lifted, he sees that no other exists, and the matter becomes clear to him.

For this reason, he deemed all forbidden things lawful. Trustworthy people even reported that he used to say: “A daughter, a mother, and an unrelated woman are all one and the same. None of this is forbidden to us. It was only these veiled people who said, ‘It is forbidden,’ so we said, ‘It is forbidden to you.’” He also used to say: “The Quran is entirely polytheism; it contains no affirmation of divine oneness. Divine oneness is affirmed only in our words.”

He would say: “I do not adhere to a single religious law.” When he phrased it more favorably, he would say: “The Quran leads to Paradise, whereas our words lead to Allah Most High.” He expounded the Most Beautiful Names according to this principle of his. He also has a collection of poetry containing various compositions, and his verse displays fine poetic craftsmanship. Yet, as the saying goes, it is “pork on a porcelain platter.” He also composed a creed for the Nusayrīs. Their doctrine, in essence, is that the Real is like the sea, and the constituent parts of existing things are like its waves.

As for Ibn Sabʿīn, in al-Badw wa-l-Ihāta he likewise espouses the unity of existence and holds that no other exists. Ibn al-Fārid does the same at the end of Nazm al-Sulūk (The Poem of Spiritual Wayfaring), although he does not explicitly state whether his position resembles that of al-Tilmisānī, al-Rūmī, or Ibn ʿArabī. His words are closer to those of al-Tilmisānī. Yet I have not seen anyone among them fall into this disbelief, which