Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj
This excerpt is taken from Shaykh Ghulām Muṣṭafā Ẓahīr Amānpūrī’s book “Where is Allah?”Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj (309 AH)
Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj (309 AH) was a zindīq and a ḥulūlī. There is consensus and agreement among the scholars of truth regarding his disbelief and heresy. His core belief was that Allah has indwelt within everything. This belief was the foundation of Waḥdat al-Wujūd. Due to his disbelief and heresy, the scholars declared his blood lawful, and he was executed.✔ Statement of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (852 AH)
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله wrote:لَا أَرَى يَتَعَصَّبُ لِلْحَلَّاجِ إِلَّا مَنْ قَالَ بِقَوْلِهِ الَّذِي ذُكِرَ أَنَّهُ عَيْنُ الْجَمْعِ، فَهَذَا هُوَ قَوْلُ أَهْلِ الْوَحْدَةِ الْمُطْلَقَةِ، وَلِهَذَا تَرَى ابْنَ عَرَبِيِّ صَاحِبَ الْفُصُوصِ يُعَظِّمُهُ وَيَقَعُ فِي الْجُنَيْدِ.
“I do not see anyone showing fanatic partisanship for al-Ḥallāj except one who holds the same view as his. It has been mentioned that he affirmed ‘absolute union’ (between the Creator and creation). This is precisely the doctrine of the people of absolute unity (Waḥdat al-Wujūd). That is why you will find Ibn ʿArabī, the author of al-Fuṣūṣ, venerating him and speaking ill of al-Junayd.”
Reference: Lisān al-Mīzān: 2/315
✔ Statement of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Jawzī (597 AH)
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Jawzī رحمه الله wrote:اتَّفَقَ عُلَمَاءُ الْعَصْرِ عَلَى إِبَاحَةِ دَمِ الْحَلَّاجِ.
“The scholars of that era unanimously agreed that the blood of al-Ḥallāj was lawful (to shed).”
Reference: Talbīs Iblīs: 1/154
✔ Statement of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr (773 AH)
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr رحمه الله wrote:قَدِ اتَّفَقَ عُلَمَاءُ بَغْدَادَ عَلَى كُفْرِ الْحَلَّاجِ وَزَنْدَقَتِهِ، وَأَجْمَعُوا عَلَى قَتْلِهِ وَصَلْبِهِ، وَكَانَ عُلَمَاءُ بَغْدَادَ إِذْ ذَاكَ هُمْ عُلَمَاءُ الدُّنْيَا.
“The scholars of Baghdad agreed upon the disbelief and zandaqah of al-Ḥallāj, and they reached consensus on killing him and crucifying him. At that time, the scholars of Baghdad were considered the (leading) scholars of the world.”
Reference: al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah: 14/832 (Hajar ed.)
✔ Statement of Imām Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (505 AH)
Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī رحمه الله wrote:أَمَّا الشَّطَحُ، فَنَعْنِي بِهِ صِنْفَيْنِ مِنَ الْكَلَامِ أَحْدَثَهُ بَعْضُ الصُّوفِيَّةِ... حَتَّى ... فَيَقُولُونَ: قِيلَ لَنَا كَذَا وَقُلْنَا كَذَا ... وَيَتَشَبَّهُونَ فِيهِ بِالْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ مَنْصُورٍ الْحَلَّاجِ ... وَيَسْتَشْهِدُونَ بِقَوْلِهِ: أَنَا الْحَقُّ... حَتَّى ... مَنْ نَطَقَ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْهُ، فَقَتْلُهُ أَفْضَلُ فِي دِينِ اللهِ مِنْ إِحْيَاءِ عَشَرَةٍ.
“As for shaṭaḥ, by it we mean two types of speech invented by some Ṣūfīs. One of them consists of broad, exaggerated claims of love with Allah and a ‘union’ that makes one needless of outward deeds, until some people reach the claim of ittiḥād (union), the lifting of the veil, witnessing by vision, and direct conversation by خطاب. So they say: ‘It was said to us such-and-such, and we said such-and-such.’ In this they imitate Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj, who was crucified for uttering words of this type. They cite his statement: ‘I am the Truth,’ and what is narrated from Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī that he said: ‘Subḥānī, subḥānī (Glory be to me!).’ This is a type of speech whose harm among the masses is tremendous, until a group of farmers abandoned their farming and began making such claims. This kind of talk is found pleasing by the temperament because it contains abandoning deeds while still claiming purification of the soul and attainment of stations and states. The wealthy will not be unable to claim this for themselves, nor to snatch embellished, confused phrases. Whenever they are criticized, they say: ‘This denial comes from knowledge and debate—knowledge is a veil, and debate is the action of the النفس; these words only appear from the inner reality through unveiling of the light of truth.’ Such matters have spread widely in lands, and their harm among the masses has grown, to the extent that whoever utters something of it—killing him is better in the religion of Allah than saving ten lives.”
Reference: Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn: 1/30
He also wrote:
مِنْ هُنَا نَشَأَ خَيَالُ مَنْ ادَّعَى الْحُلُولَ وَالِاتِّحَادَ وَقَالَ: أَنَا الْحَقُّ... وَهُوَ غَلَطٌ مَحْضٌ.
“From here arises the delusion of the one who claims ḥulūl (indwelling) and ittiḥād (union) and says: ‘I am the Truth.’ Around it also revolves the discourse of the Christians regarding the union of the divine (lāhūt) and the human (nāsūt), or the divine being clothed in it, or indwelling in it—though their expressions differ. This belief is pure falsehood.”
Reference: Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn: 2/292
✔ Statement of al-ʿAllāmah al-Dhahabī (748 AH)
Al-Dhahabī رحمه الله wrote:تَدَبَّرْ يَا عَبْدَ اللهِ، نِحْلَةَ الْحَلَّاجِ... فَإِنْ تَبَرْهَنَ لَكَ... فَتَبَرَّأْ مِنْ نِحْلَتِهِ... وَإِنْ تَبَرْهَنَ لَكَ... فَجَدِّدْ إِسْلَامَكَ... فَإِنَّمَا الْهُدَى نُورٌ...
“Reflect, O servant of Allah, upon the doctrine of al-Ḥallāj—who was from the leaders of the Qarmaṭah and callers to zandaqah. Be fair, be cautious, fear this, and hold yourself to account. If it becomes clear to you that the traits of this man are the traits of an enemy of Islam—one who loves leadership and is eager for prominence through mixing falsehood with truth—then disavow his doctrine immediately. And if—Allah forbid—you conclude despite this that he was rightly guided and a guide, then renew your Islam and seek help from your Lord that He grant you success upon the truth and keep your heart firm upon His religion. Guidance is only a light that Allah casts into the heart of His Muslim servant. And there is no power except with Allah.”
Reference: Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ: 14/345
✿ Defending This Doctrine
Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī Thānvī wrote:“Just as the tree of Ṭūr, without choice, became a manifestation of the Divine action for the word إِنِّي أَنَا اللهُ, likewise Manṣūr too, without choice, became a manifestation of the Divine action for the word أَنَا الْحَقُّ.”
Reference: Bawādir al-Nawādir: p. 398
He also wrote:
“Another possible meaning is that I did not reveal this secret—rather the Beloved Himself revealed it; meaning: with أَنَا الْحَقُّ, He Himself is the speaker, just as the Divine speech أَنَا اللهُ appeared from the tree of Ṭūr.”
Reference: Ashʿār al-Ghayyūr bimā fī Ashʿār Ibn Manṣūr: p. 143
He further wrote:
“This level of manifestation is also called tajallī, as there was tajallī in the tree of Ṭūr as well. If speech becomes manifest in a perfect human, then what is the issue?”
Reference: ibid., p. 147
He also said:
“When the voice of أَنَا الْحَقُّ came from the tree of Mūsā عليه السلام, then no one rejected it, yet they rejected it from Ḥaḍrat Manṣūr?”
Reference: al-Kalām al-Ḥasan, Part 2: p. 61
He translated verse 30 of Sūrah al-Qaṣaṣ:
“From this blessed place, a voice came from within a tree: ‘O Mūsā! Indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.’”
Statements of Others
Thānvī’s teacher, Muḥammad Yaʿqūb Nānotwī, said:“This dominance occurred upon the tree of Ṭūr, which became a manifestation of إِنِّي أَنَا اللهُ.”
Reference: Maʿārif al-Akābir by Muḥammad Iqbāl Qurayshī: p. 373
Mawlānā Ẓafar Aḥmad Thānvī wrote:
“One possible interpretation is that at that time Ibn Manṣūr’s tongue was interpreting the Divine speech. From his tongue, أَنَا الْحَقُّ emerged just as from the tree of Mūsā came إِنِّي أَنَا اللهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ. Clearly the tree did not claim itself to be Allah, rather at that time it was translating Divine speech. Likewise this can be conceived regarding Ibn Manṣūr… thus it may be accepted that أَنَا الْحَقُّ came out from Ibn Manṣūr’s tongue, but it is not accepted that Ibn Manṣūr himself said أَنَا الْحَقُّ.”
Reference: Sīrat Manṣūr Ḥallāj: p. 50
Mawlānā Anwar Shāh Kāshmīrī wrote:
إِنَّهُ إِذَا صَحَّ لِلشَّجَرَةِ أَنْ يُنَادَى... أَنَا اللهُ، فَمَا بَالُ الْمُتَقَرِّبِ بِالنَّوَافِلِ أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ اللهُ سَمْعَهُ وَبَصَرَهُ...
“If it is valid for the tree that it be called out within it: ‘I am Allah,’ then why can it not be the case regarding the one who draws near through nawāfil that Allah becomes his hearing and sight? Especially since the son of Ādam—who was created upon the image of al-Raḥmān—is not lesser than the tree of Mūsā عليه الصلاة والسلام.”
Reference: Fayḍ al-Bārī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: 4/429
The author says: “I will say only this much: none from Ahl al-Sunnah holds this view. It would have been better than such interpretations to adopt the way of the Salaf of the Ummah.”
✔ Statement of Imām Abū’l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (324 AH)
Imām Abū’l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī رحمه الله wrote:زَعَمَتِ الْجَهْمِيَّةُ... أَنَّ كَلَامَ اللهِ مَخْلُوقٌ حَلَّ فِي شَجَرَةٍ... تَعَالَى اللهُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا.
“Just as the Christians claimed that the Word of Allah was contained within the womb of Maryam رضي الله عنها, the Jahmiyyah claimed similarly—and even went further—by claiming that the speech of Allah is created, and that it indwelt in a tree, and the tree contained it. This then necessitates that the tree spoke with that speech, and it becomes necessary upon them that a created being from creation spoke to Mūsā عليه السلام, and that the tree said: ‘O Mūsā! Indeed I am Allah, there is no deity besides Me, so worship Me.’ If the speech of Allah were created within a tree, then the created being would have said: ‘O Mūsā, indeed I am Allah—so worship Me.’ Yet Allah تعالى said:
وَلَٰكِنْ حَقَّ الْقَوْلُ مِنِّي لَأَمْلَأَنَّ جَهَنَّمَ مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ
‘But the word from Me has come to pass: I will surely fill Hell with jinn and mankind altogether.’
The speech of Allah is from Allah تعالى; thus it is not permissible that His speech—which is from Him—be created within a created tree, just as it is not permissible that His knowledge—which is from Him—be created within something else. Allah is far above that, immensely exalted.”
Reference: al-Ibānah ʿan Uṣūl al-Diyānah: p. 68
He also wrote:
وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُكَلِّمَهُ اللهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا...
“And it is not for any human that Allah should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger…”
He then explained that if Allah’s speech were only found as something created within created things, these conditions would lose meaning, and it would lead to diminishing the rank of the Prophets—along with other invalid consequences, and he refuted their argument at length.
Reference: al-Ibānah ʿan Uṣūl al-Diyānah: p. 109
✔ Statement of Imām al-Ājurrī (360 AH)
Imām al-Ājurrī رحمه الله wrote:إِنْ قَالَ مِنْهُمْ قَائِلٌ: إِنَّ اللهَ تَعَالَى خَلَقَ كَلَامًا فِي الشَّجَرَةِ... فَهَذَا هُوَ الْكُفْرُ...
“If one of them says: ‘Allah created speech in the tree and then spoke to Mūsā by it,’ it will be said to him: This is disbelief—because he claims the speech is created… and he claims a created being is asserting ربوبية. This is among the ugliest and most repulsive statements. It will be said: O heretic! Is it permissible for other than Allah to say: ‘Indeed I am Allah’? We seek Allah’s protection from such a person being Muslim. Rather, he is a disbeliever; he is to be asked to repent; if he repents and returns from his evil doctrine, then fine—otherwise the ruler kills him… and such a person is abandoned: not spoken to, not greeted, prayer is not performed behind him, his testimony is not accepted, and no Muslim marries his daughter to him.”
Reference: Kitāb al-Sharīʿah: 3/1109
✔ Statement of Ḥāfiẓ al-Bayhaqī (458 AH)
Ḥāfiẓ al-Bayhaqī رحمه الله wrote (with a similar argument):If Allah’s speech were only found created within created things, then all creation would be equal in hearing it from other than Allah (as the Jahmiyyah claim), and this would lower the rank of the Prophets and lead to further corrupt conclusions. He further stated that such a view would necessitate that the tree itself was speaking—meaning a created being spoke to Mūsā عليه السلام saying: إِنَّنِي أَنَا اللهُ...—and this is clearly فساد.
Reference: al-Iʿtiqād: p. 97–98
✔ Statement of Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz al-Ḥanafī (792 AH)
Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz رحمه الله wrote:مَا أَفْسَدَ اسْتِدْلَالَهُمْ...
“How corrupt is their argument from Allah’s statement:
نُودِيَ مِنْ شَاطِئِ الْوَادِي الْأَيْمَنِ فِي الْبُقْعَةِ الْمُبَارَكَةِ مِنَ الشَّجَرَةِ
that Allah created speech in the tree and Mūsā heard it from it! They were blind to what comes before and after it. Allah said: فَلَمَّا أَتَاهَا نُودِيَ مِنْ شَاطِئِ الْوَادِي الْأَيْمَنِ—the call is speech from a distance, so Mūsā heard the call from the edge of the valley. Then He said: فِي الْبُقْعَةِ الْمُبَارَكَةِ مِنَ الشَّجَرَةِ meaning: the call was in the blessed spot near the tree—like someone saying: ‘I heard Zayd’s speech from the house,’ meaning the house is the starting point of the sound, not that the house spoke. If speech were created in the tree, then the tree would have been the one saying: ‘O Mūsā, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds’…”
Reference: Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah: p. 174–175
⚠ تنبیہ (Note)
It is attributed to Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه:رَأَيْتُ الشَّجَرَةَ الَّتِي نُودِيَ مِنْهَا مُوسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، سَمُرَةً خَضْرَاءَ.
“I saw the tree from which Mūsā عليه السلام was called; it was a green acacia.”
Reference: Tafsīr Ibn Jarīr: 19/573
Its chain is severely weak:
① Sufyān ibn Wakīʿ is “weak” according to the majority.
② Imām Abū Muʿāwiyah and Imām al-Aʿmash are both mudallis, and they did not explicitly state سماع.
③ Abū ʿUbaydah did not hear from his father, as Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله wrote:
إِنَّهُ عِنْدَ الْأَكْثَرِ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ مِنْ أَبِيهِ.
“According to the majority, Abū ʿUbaydah did not hear from his father.”
Reference: Muwāfaqat al-Khabar al-Khabar: 1/364
Therefore, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr’s statement—declaring its isnād “close (to acceptable)”—is not correct.
