A ‘sûrat’ will have borders and limitations. The ’âlams are His creatures. No creature can border Him or keep Him within certain limitations. To say that Allâhu ta’âlâ has a mithâl does not mean to say that the Dhat-i-ilâhî has a mithâl; it means to say that He may have mithâls in some respects and from some viewpoints. However, I, the faqîr, find it rather hurtful to say that He may have mithâls in some respects and from some points of view. The sûrat of a dhil (shade) that is quite far from the (actual) dhils might be the case. Let us repeat that the ’âlam-i-mithâl contains the sûrats of attributes and meanings, and not the sûrat of the Dhât(-i-ilâhî). Then, the statement, “In Paradise Allâhu ta’âlâ will be seen in His sûrat in the ’âlam-i-mithâl,” which belongs to the blessed author of the book entitled Fusûs, is not expressive of a ru’yat of Him, (i.e. seeing Him.) In fact, not even of a ru’yat of His sûrat. For, the Dhât-i-ilâhî does not have a sûrat. How can something nonexistent can be seen? The sûrat in the ’âlam-imithâl is the sûrat of one of the dhils far away from His dhils. To see it does not mean to see the Dhât-i-ilâhî. Muhyiddîn ’Arabî ‘quddisa sirruh’ proves to be no less good than the group of Mu’tazila or philosophers in the denial of the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ will be seen in Paradise. So good is he in proving that Jenâbi-Haqq (Allâhu ta’âlâ) will be seen in Paradise, that his argument contradicts itself so as to minister to one that would have been intended to prove that He could not be seen. In other words, he perfectly proves that He cannot be seen (in Paradise). For, allusive remarks have more expressive power than do direct remarks. However, whereas the group called Mu’tazila and pilosophers are misguided by their own minds, Muhyiddîn ’Arabî follows his inaccurate kashf. Perhaps, the evidence produced by philosophers and by the Mu’tazila put down roots in Muhyiddîn ’Arabî’s imagination and caused his kashf to err and follow them. However, because he was a Sunnî scholar, he adduced that kashf of his as evidence to prove that the ru’yat (of Allâhu ta’âlâ in Paradise) is a fact.  

Sayyed Muhammad Amîn bin ’Umar bin Abdul’azîz is one of the savants of fiqh. He was born in Damascus in 1198 and died there in 1252 A.H. He became mature with the tawajjuh of Mawlânâ Khâlid-i Baghdâdî ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’, keeping company with him. When that sun of wilâyat set in Damascus, he conducted his janâza namâz as the îmâm. He wrote many books. His explanation of Durrulmukhtâr consists of five volumes and has been printed several times with the title Raddulmuhtâr. It is the most dependable book of fiqh in the Hanafî Madhhab. The major parts of the information concerning fiqh covering 130 chapters of the Turkish version of Endless Bliss has been translated from its five volumes that were printed in Egypt in 1272 A.H.