A Discussion of the Narrations

1. Four Types of Unity

A Bedouin stood up on the Day of the Camel before the Commander of the Faithful and said: “O Commander of the Faithful! Do you say that God is one (wāḥid)?” [The narrator] said: The people attacked him, saying: “O Bedouin! Do you not see what the Commander of the Faithful is dealing with in terms of the division of hearts?” So the Commander of the Faithful said: “Leave him, for what the Bedouin wants is what we want from the people.” Then he said: “O Bedouin! The statement that God is one (wāḥid) has four divisions: two aspects of it are not permissible regarding God, and two aspects are established in Him. As for the two that are not permissible regarding Him: the statement of one who says ‘one’ (wāḥid) intending thereby the category of numbers - this is not permissible because that which has no second does not enter into the category of numbers. Do you not see that whoever said ‘third of three’ (thālith thalātha) has committed disbelief (kufr)? And the statement of one who says ‘He is one of the people’ (wāḥid min al-nās) intending thereby the species (nawʿ) from the genus (jins) - this is not permissible regarding Him because it is likening (tashbīh), and our Lord is far above and exalted beyond that. As for the two aspects that are established in Him: the statement of one who says ‘He is one (wāḥid) having no likeness (shabah) among things’ - such is our Lord; and the statement of one who says ‘He is unique in meaning (aḥadī l-maʿnā)’ meaning thereby that He is not divided in existence (wujūd) or intellect (ʿaql) or imagination (wahm) - such is our Lord.”(75)

Note: Unity (waḥda) has four types: two types are among the negative attributes (ṣifāt salbiyya) of the essence of the Exalted Truth, and the other two types are among His positive attributes (ṣifāt thubūtiyya). If what is intended by unity is numerical unity (waḥda ʿadadiyya) like the unity of Zayd and Bakr, each of whom stands in opposition to the other, or if what is intended by it is categorical unity (waḥda ṣinfiyya), specific unity (waḥda nawʿiyya), or generic unity (waḥda jinsiyya) such that God would be one category or one species in opposition to other categories or species, or one genus in opposition to other genera, these two types of unity are among the negative attributes of the Exalted Truth, and His unity is not of this kind.

But if what is intended by unity is the negation of a partner (nafy sharīk) (uniqueness) or if what is intended by it is the affirmation of simplicity (ithbāt basāṭa) (oneness),(76) these two types of unity are among the positive attributes (ṣifāt thubūtiyya) of God and are true. Thus He is both unique, meaning He has no partner, and one and simple (basīṭ), meaning He has no constituent parts or compositional divisions.

2. Divine Absolute Unity

From the Commander of the Faithful: “The beginning of religion (dīn) is knowing Him, and the perfection of knowing Him is affirming Him, and the perfection of affirming Him is declaring His unity (tawḥīd), and the perfection of declaring His unity is sincerity (ikhlāṣ) toward Him, and the perfection of sincerity toward Him is negating attributes (ṣifāt) from Him, because every attribute testifies that it is other than the one described (mawṣūf), and every described one testifies that it is other than the attribute. So whoever describes God has paired Him, and whoever pairs Him has made Him dual, and whoever makes Him dual has divided Him into parts, and whoever divides Him into parts is ignorant of Him, and whoever is ignorant of Him has pointed to Him, and whoever points to Him has limited Him, and whoever limits Him has numbered Him.”(77)

“Praise be to God, for whom no state preceded another state such that He would be first before being last, and would be manifest before being hidden. Everything named by unity (waḥda) other than Him is little.”(78)

“Praise be to God, who indicates His existence through His creation, and through the temporal nature (muḥdath) of His creation indicates His eternity (azaliyya), and through their resemblance to one another indicates that there is no resemblance to Him. The senses cannot perceive Him, nor can veils conceal Him, due to the distinction between the Maker and the made, the Limiter and the limited, the Lord and the one lorded over. He is One (aḥad) without numerical interpretation (taʾwīl ʿadad); Creator not in the sense of movement and toil; Hearing not through an instrument; Seeing not through the separation of a tool; Witness not through contact; Separate not through the distance of space; Manifest not through vision; Hidden not through subtlety. He is separate from things through His dominance over them and His power over them, and things are separate from Him through their submission to Him and their return to Him. Whoever describes Him has limited Him, and whoever limits Him has numbered Him, and whoever numbers Him has nullified His eternity (azal).”(79)

“Praise be to God, Creator of servants (ʿibād), Spreader of the earth, Maker of valleys to flow, and Fertilizer of highlands. His firstness (awwaliyya) has no beginning, and His eternity (azaliyya) has no end. He is the First and has always been, and the Remaining without term. Foreheads prostrate to Him and lips serve Him. He limited things when He created them to distinguish Himself from resembling them. Imaginations cannot measure Him with limits and movements, nor with limbs and instruments. It cannot be said to Him ‘when?’ nor can a term be set for Him with ‘until’… before every end and duration, and every enumeration and number. He is exalted above what the temporally originated (muḥdathūn) attribute to Him of the qualities of measures (aqdār).”(80)

“He is not unified (waḥḥada) by one who qualifies Him (kayyafa), nor does one who likens Him attain His reality, nor does one who resembles Him mean Him, nor does one who points to Him and imagines Him reach Him… He cannot be encompassed by a limit nor counted by number. Rather, instruments limit themselves, and tools point to their own likes.”(81)

Note:

A. In one of his sermons where its sentences are structured as compound syllogisms (qiyās murakkab), he said that whoever describes God has made Him a partner (qarīn) to that description - since it was mentioned in the previous sentence that description is other than the described, just as every described thing testifies that it is other than its attribute and differs from it, and combining two different things is the same as making them partners - and whoever makes God a partner to something has judged Him to be dual: one being Himself and the other His description; and whoever makes such a judgment has divided Him into two parts, and whoever divides God has acted ignorantly toward Him and has pointed to Him with rational indication (ishāra ʿaqliyya), and whoever points to Him has limited Him (taḥdīd); this final sentence is the false consequent (tālī fāsid) of all the attacks of the compound syllogism where he said “whoever limits God has numbered Him”; meaning he has considered His unity (waḥda) to be numerical unity (waḥdat ʿadadiyya), and number is for something that falls under “quantity” (kammiyya) and is divisible, whereas God does not accept number and His unity is non-numerical (ghayr ʿadadī).

B. Every unit (wāḥid) other than God is few (qalīl), because their unity is numerical, categorical (ṣinfī), specific (nawʿī) and generic (jinsī) unity, in opposition to which there are other numbers, categories, species and genera; but God is a unit who is not few, because He has presence everywhere; then he said: “Everything apparent other than Him is hidden, and everything hidden other than Him is not apparent”;(82) if something other than God was apparent, it is in reality hidden, because the apparent is exclusively God; and if something was hidden, then it has no manifestation, because manifestation (ẓuhūr) is only for the Exalted Truth (ḥaqq mutaʿālī).

C. ʿAlī (a.s.) considered the invalidation of God’s eternity (azaliyya) to be a consequence of affirming His numerical unity (waḥdat ʿadadī), meaning that if someone describes God, he has limited Him (taḥdīd), and whoever limits Him has placed Him in enumeration (shumārish), and whoever places Him in enumeration has invalidated His eternity, while God is unlimited and infinite (nāmutanāhī) from all aspects. Therefore His unity cannot be numerical so as to suppose a second in opposition to it, but rather His unity is non-numerical (ghayr ʿadadī) and boundless (bīkarān), consequently supposing a second in opposition to Him is impossible - not that the supposed thing is merely impossible. If a human being supposes a boundless existent, he becomes immersed in this boundlessness and no longer sees anything outside of it to suppose, such that even the supposition itself and the one who supposes fall under the subset of that infinite matter (amr nāmutanāhī).

The reality of God’s eternity is His being infinite in essence (dhāt) and attributes (ṣifāt). So if it is considered in this way that nothing has preceded God so as to be prior to Him, this is His eternity (azaliyya), and if it is considered in this way that nothing has been attached to God so as to be posterior to Him, this becomes His everlastingness (abadiyya), and perhaps this matter may be considered from both sides, which is God’s perpetual duration (dawām sarmadī).(83)

D. ʿAlī (a.s.) said that for God there is no duration (muddat), coming (āmad), limit (ḥadd), or boundary (karān), and he also said that He is transcendent from what the limiters (taḥdīd kunandagān) limit Him to. Therefore, no one has been given permission to describe God: “Glory be to your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe” (84) except for what God Himself taught them. The Qur’an has only permitted the “sincere ones” (mukhlaṣūn) to describe God: “Glory be to God above what they describe except the sincere servants of God”(85) and this is the best perfection that the Qur’an has mentioned for His sincere servants (ʿibād), because they describe God with the divine tongue (lisān ilāhī), not with their own human tongue: “I become… his tongue with which he speaks”(86) and in reality, the describer is God Himself.

E. God is never subject to limits (ḥadd) and is not counted among numbers (maḥsūb ʿadad), so He is infinite (nāmutanāhī); if His unity (waḥdat) is infinite, in one state (ḥāl wāḥid), one time (zamān wāḥid) and one place (makān wāḥid) while being transcendent from time and place, He is the third of two (thālith ithnayn) not the third of three (thālith thalātha); and the fourth of three (rābiʿ thalātha) not the fourth of four (rābiʿ arbaʿa); unlike numbers and other things which, if they are with two, become the third of them; but at the same time and moment they can never be the fourth of four, and if their connection with those two is severed and they are measured with something else, they become the fourth of four but in two times. So in the discussion of the unity of the Necessary Being (waḥdat wājib) there are two fundamental differences between God and other than Him:

1. God, in the same state and time that He is the fourth of three, is also the fifth of four and the sixth of five; meaning He has all relations (jamīʿ nisbat-hā), while not being confined to any one of them, because “He is with you wherever you are” (87) but others are not like this.

2. God, although He is the fourth of three (rābiʿ thalātha), is not the fourth of four (rābiʿ arbaʿa), just as He is not the third of three (thālith thalātha); but others, if they were with three, would become the fourth of four (rābiʿ arbaʿa) not the fourth of three (rābiʿ thalātha), and this matter is also due to the unlimited nature of the Exalted Truth, which is expressed as the overwhelming unity (waḥdat qāhira).

In conclusion, it is useful to mention this point: although it has been written in the works of some philosophers that God’s unity is numerical (ʿadadī) and the Necessary Being is one in number (wāḥid bil-ʿadad),(88) when the ambiguous parts (mutashābihāt) of their words are referred back to the clear parts (muḥkamāt) of their foundations, it becomes clear that what they mean by numerical unity (waḥdat ʿadadī) is the same as personal unity (waḥdat shakhṣī); but personal in the terminology of philosophy (ḥikma), not personal in the terminology of mysticism (ʿirfān). What is presented as the clear principles (muḥkamāt) of philosophy is that the Necessary Being is transcendent from any essence (māhiyya). When He has no essence, He will not fall under any of the well-known essential categories (maqūlāt māhawī), while number is among the accidental categories (maqūlāt ʿaraḍī) and of the type of essential matters (umūr māhawī), and something that is one in number (wāḥid bil-ʿadad) would be subject to the category of quantity (kamm).