Copy Image

Shaikh Ahmad of Sirhind (1563-1624) discussed it within the canon of theological tradition and held that ana al-haqq was a situational statement and that it represented a quality of authentic experience. The Shaikh suggested that ana—the personal "I," and al-haqq, the Truth, had no reference to a unitive condition, in fact; al-haqq completely surrounded the consciousness of the contemplative ego. Placed in this state the ana could only know the surrounding al-haqq—and simultaneously lose its own identity. It was in fact the loss of personal identity which gave significance to Hallaj's statement. The Shaikh held that ana al-haqq did not have any reference to unification either with the Divine Essence or its Attribute. Thus, ana al-haqq, as "I am the Truth," was categorically discarded by the Shaikh who interpretted the phrases as affirmation by negation. According to him, ana al-haqq did not carry the affirmatory meaning of "I am the Truth," but simply made the statement that, "I am not, He only is". Without negation of the self, the affirmation of Divine Truth remains unresolved. Hallaj had in fact affirmed the faith through negation of the contemplative ego