Angga Arifka The Mystical Union in Sufism and Christian Mysticism: Inter-Experiential Reading of Hallaj’s Ḥulūl and Eckhart’s Birth of God Mistična združitev v sufizmu in krščanski mistiki: medizkustveno branje Hallajevega Ḥulūla in Eckhartovega Rojstva Boga Abstract: Mystical experience illustrates a fundamental aspect of human relations with the ultimate reality within the framework of religiosity. This article explores the mystical experi- ences of Hallaj and Meister Eckhart, both of whom came from different religious traditions. Employing a hermeneutic approach, this article attempts to read the experiences of both mystics by interpreting one with the other. Inevitably, although both mystics use different religious language and symbols, there is a strong resonance that allows us for inter-experi- ential reading of such mystical experiences. This article argues that mystical experience can be the strong basis of interreligious dialogue wherein although each mystical experience is personal and subjective in nature, there is something foundational that can be found as a pulse that is connected and can explain each other, rendering our interreligious understand- ing richer and more profound. Keywords: Eckhart’s mystical experience, fusion of mystical experiences, Hallaj’s mystical experience, inter-experiential dialogue, interreligious dialogue Izvleček: Mistična izkušnja ponazarja temeljni vidik človekovega odnosa do najvišj e resnično- st i v okviru religioznosti. Ta članek raziskuje mistično izkušnjo Hallaja in Meistra Eckharta, ki sta izhajala iz različnih verskih tradicij. Z uporabo hermenevtičnega pristopa ta članek poskuša prebrati izkušnje obeh mistikov tako, da jih razlaga enega z drugim. Čeprav misti- ka uporabljata različen verski jezik in simbole, neizogibno obstaja močan odmev, ki nam omogoča medizkustveno branje takih mističnih izkušenj. Ta članek trdi, da je lahko mistična izkušnja močna podlaga medverskega dialoga, pri čemer – čeprav je vsaka mistična izkuš- nja osebne in subjektivne narave – obstaja nekaj temeljnega, kar je mogoče najti kot utrip, ki jih povezuje in jih lahko medsebojno razlaga, to pa bogati in poglablja naše medversko razumevanje. Ključne besede: Eckhartova mistična izkušnja, spoj mističnih izkušenj, Hallajeva mistična izkušnja, medizkustveni dialog, medverski dialog Edinost in dialog Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 Izvirni znanstveni članek Original scientific paper (1.01) Besedilo prejeto Received: 20. 1. 2025; Sprejeto Accepted: 28. 4. 2025 UDK UDC: 281:27-587 DOI: 10.34291/Edinost/80/01/Arifka © 2025 Arifka CC BY 4.0 298 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA Introduction The spiritual currents of diverse religious traditions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and others, which often focus upon the rela- tionship between the self and the ultimate reality, are called »mysticism « (Schimmel 2011, 4). The study of mysticism is often concentrated upon what the mystic experiences and what their experience looks like. Mystical experience seems to be something that goes beyond differences of in- stitutionalized religions but is at times delineated in a specific religious language (Stace 1961, 42–44; Underhill 1912, 117). Although mystical experience is at times described in such a specific reli- gious language, it is not necessarily the same as religious one, for there is a difference between experience per se and interpretation thereof, which usually employs a religious framework (Stace 1961, 31–33). Mystical experi- ence involves unitary consciousness wherein a mystic is immersed in such a deep sense of the unity of existence that in the mystic’s mind there is no longer a distinction between subject and object (Gäb 2021, 235). Furthermore, mystical experience is nonspatial and nontemporal in na- ture, while religious one is structured in a certain doctrinal framework (Wainwright 1981, 1–2). Unlike spiritual experience that centres around the discovery of meaning and self-discovery, mystical experience is pertinent to a sense of the dissolution of the self because of a radically altered state of consciousness, epitomizing a specific idiosyncratic phenomenological experience (Gäb 2021, 234). From a philosophical point of departure, several philosophers maintain that religious diversity vertically converges upon the same pole of eso- teric expressions in religions (Schuon 2005, 55–59; Huxley 1947, 30–33; Nasr 1989, 69–70; Smith 2005, xi–xii), that is, mysticism (Stoddart 2007, 231–232). Such convergency is arguably fruitful for interreligious dialo- gue on the grounds that there is an equal footing wherein the adherents of different religions can have a dialogical conversation. There has been a large initiative for interreligious dialogue particularly between Christianity and Islam, which is called A Common Word, which invites the two religious adherents to find the underlying principles of Islamic and Christian teachings that focus upon love for God and love 299 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... for fellow human beings (El-Ansary and Linnan 2010). Interreligious dia- logue is pivotal for human understanding of differences and commona- lities in conjunction with peaceful coexistence between fellow human beings. It can include many kinds, ranging from scriptures, theological doctrines, rituals and practices, ethics to experiences (Cheetham et al. 2011; Cornille 2013). In this respect, mystical experience can be the subject of interreligious dialogue. In Sufism or Islamic mysticism, 1 there is a concept of union with God called fanā’ (self-annihilation), a mystical state wherein one has no longer felt that they and the entire cosmos exist as only God exists and is the existen- ce itself (Schimmel 2011, 44–45; Chittick 2008, 43–45). Hallaj, one of the most controversial Sufis, expresses this kind of mystical state in a famous yet controversial utterance, »Anā al- Ḥaqq« (I am the ultimate truth). Such a mystical utterance led Hallaj to the gallows and has been a matter of de- bate among exoteric Muslim scholars, but it arguably reflects the entire system of Islamic mysticism itself (Nicholson 1923, 27–28). In Christian mysticism, Meister Eckhart, one of the greatest Christian mysti- cs, maintains that unio mystica can be attained once one has succeeded in doing abgeschiedenheit (the perfect detachment) (McGinn 1994, 12–13). Bernard McGinn (2001, 44–45) designates Eckhart’s type of mysticism as the »mysticism of the ground «, referring to the mystical reality that there is no distinction between God’s ground and the ground of the human soul, as Eckhart (2009, 109) explicitly asserts, »Here God’s ground is my grou- nd, and my ground is God’s ground. « The outspoken remark of Eckhart is quite similar to that of Hallaj, both of whom seem to have conveyed their mystical experience as the union with God. There have been some studies of both Hallaj and Eckhart. Nonetheless, the experiences of these two mystics are often perused in a separate way, 1 Broadly speaking, the terms Sufism and Islamic mysticism are loosely used interchangeably (Schimmel 2011, 3; Nicholson 2002, 6). However, there are indeed nuanced differences between these two. Islamic mysticism and Sufism both share a focus on mystical experience, thereby being connected in this regard, but Sufism has broader practices than just mystical experience, such as dhikr (remembrance of God), taqarrub ila Allāh (spiritual proximity to God), and other spiritual practices found in the Sufi order ( ṭarīqah). Besides, Sufism also includes moral dimensions (akhlāq), which Islamic mysticism does not really address (al-Taftazani 1976, 17–18). In this vein, when we discuss mystical concepts in Islam, the terms Sufism and Islamic mysticism are interchangeable. 300 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA calling for inter-experiential perusal of both simultaneously. Hallaj was a controversial figure at the time and is still considered so due to his ecsta- tic utterances (shaṭa ḥāt). Hallaj is regarded as the one who has spread the teaching of ḥulūl (divine indwelling) (Hidayat 2024; Kusuma 2021). Besides, some other Muslim scholars in later times, such as Ibn al-Jawzī (2009, 221–22) and Ibn Taymīyah (1995, 2:480) who were more textua- lists, condemn Hallaj as dangerous and accuse him of being a heretic and infidel since Hallaj’s understanding of God is not compatible with what Islam really teaches. While several Sufis such as Ibn Khafīf, Nūrī, and Shiblī who were contemporaneous with Hallaj held the same belief as Hallaj (al-Hujwīrī 1911, 151; Mason 1999, 69–71), some more orthodox scholars, particularly fuqahā’ (Muslim jurists), accused Hallaj of having propaga- ted heterodoxy and blasphemy. On this basis, he was crucified in front of the mass, though it was more political than theological (Ramli 2013; Hodri 2015; Yaqin and Hadi 2022). Although Eckhart did not face the same thing as Hallaj, he was summo- ned and tried before the bishop of Cologne due to some sections of his teachings and sermons which were deemed either heretical or dange- rous (Schürmann 1978, 27–29; McGinn 2001, 14–15). Eckhart’s concep- tion of the indistinct union is rooted in his mystical understanding that God gives birth to His Word within the human soul (Kieckhefer 1978). In pursuit of divine union, Eckhart suggests that one should practise de- tachment (gelassenheit) from anything created in order that God grants Himself to such a person (Bruce Milem 2013). On this basis, not only does one’s detachment from multiplicity bring about God within the soul, but it therefore leads one to break through God, that is, to the Ground of the Godhead, the silent oneness (Flasch 2015, 200; Charlton 2013, 50). 2 There has been no specific study focusing upon Hallaj and Meister Eckhart, when in fact both were faced with accusation concerning their mystical teachings, in spite of the fact that Eckhart had died before the trial was done, and only twenty-eight articles from his writings count as either 2 There have also been several other studies that address mystics from different religious traditions in comparison, inter alia, between Eckhart and Rūmī (Ghazani and Uysal 2023; Hadi W. M. 2002; Zarrabi-Zadeh 2015), between Eckhart, Shankara, and Ibn ‘Arabī (Shah-Kazemi 2006), and between Eckhart and Ibn Arabi (Almirzanah 2009; Sells 1994; Woods 2013; Royster 1995; Almond 2001). 301 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... dangerous or heretical (McGinn 2001, 17–19). In this article, I concentrate upon Hallaj’s and Eckhart’s mystical experiences as a reflective experien- tial dialogue between two mystics from different religious traditions. The focus upon such a subjective experience is of prime importance since even if it is very personal, it often illustrates a quite similar structure as to what two or more individuals experience. In short, this paper will con- tribute to putting forward inter-experiential hermeneutics and dialogue which puts much emphasis on experiences as living texts rather than on philosophical concepts and doctrines. 1 Research method This study is a library research, involving searching, collecting, reading, understanding, and analysing textual sources pertinent to the matters that are discussed. The primary focus of this study is to expound and analyse the two mystics’ experiences. To study a personal experience and juxta- pose it with another experience calls for hermeneutics, or more precisely »inter-experiential hermeneutics «, wherein mystical experience, for our present context, is considered a »living text « which invites understan- ding and interpretation. The hermeneutical approach used in this study is philosophical hermeneutics of Hans Goerg Gadamer. In his philoso- phical view, understanding is the meeting of the reader’s horizon and the text’s horizon, that is to say, fusion of the two horizons takes place (Gadamer 2006, 305). In conjunction with the perusal of Hallaj’s and Eckhart’s experiences, in- ter-experiential hermeneutics presupposes remarkable congruence thro- ugh which interpretation and dialogue find their ground and therefore can take place. Such remarkable congruence is their rootedness in their respective religious traditions from which they were able to articulate what they had experienced. The mystical experiences of Hallaj and Eckhart indeed lie in their own horizons that have distinct symbolic expressi- ons and different theological contexts, while my role is to interpret such experiences of those two mystics with each other. Nevertheless, reading Hallaj’s and Eckhart’s experiences at issue here leads me not only to fusion of horizons, that is, my horizon and those two mystics’ horizons, but also to »fusion of experiences « wherein I interpret one mystic’s experience with 302 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA the other’s and vice versa. In this regard, I shall interpret Hallaj’s experi- ence of » ḥulūl« (divine indwelling) with Eckhart’s experience of the birth of God in the human soul and vice versa. Put simply, fusion of experiences consists in an attempt to create a productive mystical dialogue between the experiences of those two mystics from different religions. 2 Hallaj’s mystical experience Hallaj is one of the most controversial Muslim mystics throughout the his- tory of Sufism and Islamic thought (Bayat and Jamnia 1994, 14). In the town of Tur in the region of Bayda located in the southeastern Iran, Hallaj was born in 858 from Persian descent. Since his early age, Abū al-Mughīth ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj had commenced studying the Quran as well as commen- tary, grammar, and theology (Bayat and Jamnia 1994, 15). He was very enthusiastic about performing religious rituals. His spiritual masters were famous Sufis, inter alia Sahl al-Tustārī, ‘Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, and Junayd al-Baghdādī (Massignon 1982, 69–79). Hallaj is viewed as the epitome of the intoxicated Sufi who was drowned in the ocean of union. 3 His spiritual concentration was only to be a sincere servant who was so obedient to God that he was careless of the reper- cussions, which was his execution in the gallows (Arberry 2008, 60) in 922 due to charges of heresy by virtue of his mystical experience, particularly his famous ecstatic utterance, »Anā al-Ḥ aqq « (Ernst 1997, 70). In fact, the decision to execute Hallaj was based upon political pressure due to his potential political danger bolstered by the hatred of some Muslim jurists (fuqahā’) towards Hallaj (Ernst 1985, 102–110). If you do not know Him, then know His manifestation. I am His manifestation, and I am the ultimate truth (anā al- ḥaqq) because I do not cease to be aware of the existence of the Truth. (Al-Hallaj 2009, 52; Massignon 2001, 107) 3 There were two types of Sufis in the Sufi school of Baghdad at the time, viz. the sober type and the intoxicated one. Junayd al-Baghdādī was emblematic of the former, whereas Hallaj was of the latter. The intoxicated type is exemplified by those Sufis who were typically drunken in their spiritual states and who expressed ecstatic utterances (sha ṭa ḥāt), which is in stark contrast to the sober type which emphasizes the control of the self (Picken 2021, 22; Ohlander 2021, 40–41; Yazaki 2015, 78–79). 303 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... The story of his execution has made him both praised and despised, and actually, it evokes comparison with the Christian account of the Crucifixion of which Hallaj himself was aware (Hallaj 2015, 105–106). It is worth noting that mystical experiences cannot be categorized as ordinary experiences. Although the Sufis themselves assert that such an experience is a gift from God, it still requires a personal effort from a seeker to undertake a spiritual journey. In the spiritual framework of Sufism, there are three processes of spiritual transformation, viz. takhallī, ta ḥallī, and tajallī. Takhallī is a process in which one seeks to empty and cleanse oneself as a stage of pu- rification (via purgativa) from all things blameworthy so as to then expe- rience tahallī wherein one can adorn one’s personality with praiseworthy characters (via illuminativa). Eventually, one can arrive at tajallī when one experiences spiritual unveiling and feels the unio mystica (via unitiva) with God (Nawawi 2008, 161–62; Schimmel 2011, 4). Since his early age, Hallaj had been a person who was obedient in ob- serving Islamic practices, both observing obligatory and supererogatory prayers, fasting, and other kinds of worship (Massignon 1982, 71). Hallaj performed the Hajj three times. His third Hajj in 902 lasted for two years and brought him to the realization of the truth (Mason 2007, 16). After this third Hajj, Hallaj experienced the disclosure of the veil of illusion that had been covering him. Therefore, Hallaj was able to behold the Truth (al- Ḥaqq). At this moment of spiritual unveiling, Hallaj exclaimed »Anā al- Ḥaqq« in a state of extraordinary ecstasy (Massignon and Gardet 1986, 100; Mason 2007, 17). It is such an ecstatic utterance that led people to ac- cuse him of being a heretic and infidel. Such a mystical state ignited a passion in him to witness God’s love for human by becoming a helpless victim like Jesus for the purification of his community. He was willing to be punished not only for the sins commi- tted by every Muslim, but also for the sins of humankind. On the streets of Baghdad, in mosques, and in markets, Hallaj is said to have called out, »O Muslims, help me! Save me from God. O people! Kill me, for God has 304 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA made my blood ḥalāl for you, and I come willingly.« 4 And Hallaj prayed to God, »Forgive them but punish me for their sins « (al-Hallaj 2009, 6–7). Hallaj’s mystical experience revolves around what is called ḥulūl. 5 In this respect, ḥulūl is the infusion of one thing into another. One entity oc- cupying another entity renders the so-called »mystical union «, and this mystical state is often labeled as ḥulūl in Hallaj’s experience. The reason why it is called ḥulūl is that Hallaj formulates the two natures of God and of a human being (Massignon 1982a, 367). According to Hallaj, God has two natures, viz. lāhūt (divine nature) and nāsūt (human nature) at once (Massignon 1994, 252), since such human nature of God was manifested in the creation of Adam (Schimmel 2011, 72). These two natures are also possessed by humans. In other words, humans not only possess nāsūt, but also possess lāhūt, because they were as a matter of fact created in God’s image (Ibn Arabi 1946, 168). In addition, another ontological reason why human also possesses lāhūt is that God breathed His spirit into human as stated in the Quran. 6 That God possesses the nāsūt nature in Himself shows that God is very near to human and even, as the Quran puts it, »nearer to him than even his jugular vein « (Q.S. Qaf [50]: 16). In addition, the nāsūt nature in God is that which allows God to be known by His creatures and is that which allows God’s love to be felt by His servants so that His servants can also love Him. In addition, the nāsūt nature is an aspect whereby God reve- als Himself to human so that human can obtain knowledge about God (Smith 2012, 36–37). In other words, the dialectic between the lāhūt and nāsūt natures of a human being and of God is the pivotal thing that allows ḥulūl in Hallaj’s mystical experience. 4 Before his execution, Hallaj never wanted to change his beliefs in order to avoid the execution and be forgiven. In this case, Hallaj surrendered himself to God completely, doing self-sacrifice (Nicholson 2002, 32–36). 5 This word is an abstract noun (ma ṣdar) derived from the basic word ḥ-l-l ( ḥall), which means stop- ping, staying, descending, dissolution, incarnation, with the addition of the prefix alif-nun (in ḥall) which means melting or dissolving and union (Wehr 1976, 199–200). As a Sufi term, it suggests the divine indwelling in a human, and it is often understood as incarnation (Armstrong 2001, 76). 6 »When I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit…« (Q.S. Ṣād [38]: 72). 305 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... According to Hallaj, ḥulūl occurs when one has purified oneself inten- sely and consistently. Hallaj’s spiritual purification technique begins with zuhd (asceticism) and ṣabr (patience), which made him detached from worldly matters. Tawakkul, or complete surrender to God, is an important practice that Hallaj underwent to let go of his ego and will (Mason 2007, 82–83). Riyāḍah (spiritual exercise) and mujāhadah (spiritual struggle) such as continuous fasting and including khalwah (spiritual retreat) that Hallaj consistently practised are techniques to empty the heart from eve- rything other than God (Mason 2007, 7.16). Hallaj also internalized the science of the heart (‘ilm al-qulūb) to know the secret movements of the spiritual heart because it is the epicentre of divine consciousness (Mason 2007, 83). In the end, Hallaj reaped the spiritual fruit after the long spiritual process as divine unveiling from which he experien- ced shaṭḥ (ecstatic utterance) where there emerges an explosion of mysti- cal consciousness that exceeds rational control. Put simply, one must, generally speaking, go through spiritual stages by cle- ansing the heart (ta ṭhīr al-qulūb) and purifying the soul (tazkiyat al-nafs) of worldly matters. This spiritual process aims to empty the self (the very soul) by which a servant becomes a vessel for God’s spirit. It is spiritu- ally possible to be a receptacle of God, so to speak, as soon as a person obliterates the nāsūt nature in himself and only leaves the lāhūt nature (Massignon 1982c, 40–41). In other words, after one has cleansed oneself of one’s own nāsūt nature and becomes annulled personality (fanā’ nāsūtīyah) (Massignon 1982c, 48), all that remains is the lāhūt nature in them, and at this point one’s awareness of everything other than God is replaced by awareness of God alone, leading one to the state of fanā’ (self-anni- hilation). The lāhūt nature in them then meets the nāsūt nature of God. On this basis, human awareness of himself or herself is completely taken over by God. Put simply, ḥulūl is the total disappearance of human will in the will of God (Nasution 1995, 88–90). In this regard, Hallaj’s mystical union might be confounded with mystical fusion. The latter refers to the collapse of the ego (fanā’) caused by an overwhelming encounter with the Numinous, while the former to a more stable and harmonious union. 306 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA I argue that such mystical fusion was indeed experienced by Hallaj when he uttered »Anā al-Ḥaqq«, illustrating that the self is unsettled inasmuch as it is gripped by the divine presence so that Hallaj’s identification of himself was unstable, resulting in such an ecstatic utterance. This sort of state is a mystical fusion. That being said, Hallaj himself later arrived at a more sta- ble mystical union in which this spiritual stage reveals harmonious unity because one can already identify oneself in a complete union. Therefore, in such a state, Hallaj then felt the mystical union as he expressed his fol- lowing verse: Your Spirit is mingling with my spirit Just as wine is mixing with pure water And when something touches You, it touches me Now »You « are »me « in everything. (Massignon 1982b, 41; al-Hallaj 1913, 134) Hallaj experienced a state in which the union between him and God took place on the grounds that his existence was totally dissolved into God, highlighting that after attaining a specific spiritual stage, he had no lon- ger seen himself as a separate being but as a part of God. This mystical union is marked by Hallaj’s awareness of his integration with God which is different from the mystical fusion due to his loss of self-awareness. In everyday life, one feels separated from God because of one’s ego and one’s attachment to the worldly matters. Nevertheless, for Hallaj, mystical experience transcends the boundaries of human ego, and even the ego itself vanishes due to the all-encompassing presence of God. Just as the s t a t e m e n t »Anā al- Ḥaqq« is suggestive of taw ḥīd (God’s oneness) instead of arrogance, the expression »You are me « evinces deep acknowledgment that one consciously affirms that one’s individuality is nothing but God (Massignon 1982c, 48). Hallaj neatly delineates deep insight about how the relationships between human and God should be. In Sufi tradition, the highest goal of the Sufi is to attain the close relationship with God until the duality between »You « 307 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... and »I« disappears. 7 In such a spiritual journey, the ultimate goal is when a servant is completely immersed in God’s love until there is nothing left but God, or until there is nothing left but »I « which is God alone. I have become the One I love, and the One I love has become me! We are two spirits infused in a (single) body And to see me is to see Him, And to see Him is to see us. (Massignon 1982b, 42; al-Hallaj 1913, 134) Two spirits, as delineated above, become one, as if God’s spirit entered into Hallaj’s, symbolizing the perfect harmony between Hallaj and al-Ḥaqq (God). In this respect, Hallaj seems to have wanted to assert that he became a divine reflection, that is to say, he became a manifestation of divine attri- butes, showing perfect spiritual realization (cf. Massignon 1982c, 48–49). Put simply, such a verse is suggestive of the relationships between God and the servant as a mirror for each other, as is common in all mystical litera- ture (Ernst 1985, 26). In spite of Hallaj’s ecstatic utterance »Anā al- Ḥaqq«, he never said that he is God or God becomes he. Put differently, Hallaj also puts emphasis on the distinction between God and him. 7 For Junayd al-Baghdādī, the distinction between »You« and »I« can disappear because one truly per- ceives and accepts God’s will in every moment, which brings one to feel God’s unity and majesty that permeates everything. The awareness of union is caused by the constant remembrance of God (dhikr) which then imprints such awareness wherein the recollecting one is no different from the object of one’s recollection (Schimmel 2011, 58). Put differently, dhikr is the chief method to attain such spiritual indistinction. Ibn ‘A ṭā’illāh al-Sakandarī (1984, 32) delineates four levels of dhikr, viz. dhikr with forgetfulness (ghaflah), with vigilance (yaqaẓah), with complete awareness of God’s pre- sence ( ḥu ḍūr), and the peak being with the state in which everything but that which is recollected (al-madhkūr) disappears, which is a state of self-annihilation. Al-Qushayrī (2007, 91) expounds three stages of self-annihilation. The first self-annihilation refers to the state in which one eradicates one’s evil qualities and adorns oneself with divine ones. The second self-annihilation leads one to no longer dwell on the distinction between the previous two, between evil qualities and good ones, but to the complete contemplation of God. In other words, one no longer views the qualities separately. Although the ego has been drastically weakened, one who witnesses God is still in a duality between oneself as the subject and God as the object of one’s witness. Only in the third self-annihilation does one feel the indistinction between oneself and God; there is no longer »You « and »I « since one is not even aware of the two that can be distinguished due to the disappearance of the structure of such distinction. 308 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA I am the Truth And the Truth is not me I am only one part of the Truth Distinguish me from the Truth. (al-Hallaj 2009, 16) Indeed, Hallaj was not a quiet Sufi figure, but rather the opposite. He even questioned why Sufis should not engage with society, should withdraw from political involvement and should be patient in dealing with tyrannical rulers. He took the opposite position that the Sufi should involve ameli- orating the morals of society, which is contrary to the position of Junayd al-Baghdādī and other Sufis. For Hallaj, the Sufi has the moral task of re- forming society. Thus, he took off his Sufi robe (khirqah) and became a wā‘iz (preacher) to admonish the laity in various places (Mason 2007, 7–8; Massignon 1994, 12; Hodri 2015, 148). 3 Eckhart’s mystical experience Meister Eckhart is a mystic, theologian, and philosopher whose mystical ideas, despite his being unjustly accused of heresy, have been considered influential and remarkable in the history of Christian mysticism (Fox 1983, 4; McGinn 2001, 1–2). Eckhart was born in Tambach near Gotha in Saxony, Germany, sometime before 1260 – his exact birth date is unknown – and died in 1328. He was a member of the Dominican Order and held an im- portant position. He studied and taught at leading intellectual centres such as Cologne and Paris, and his thinking was heavily influenced by Aristotle, Neoplatonism, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. Eckhart was an important figure in the Middle Ages who played a role in the vernacularization of the- ology, bringing complex philosophical concepts into the laity through the use of German. He was an influential mystic, despite the fact that some of his sermons are considered either dangerous or heretical (McGinn 2001, 2–14; 1994, 9–10). Mystical experience of Eckhart is grounded in the inti- mate relationship between the human soul and God, epitomizing mystical union in the spiritual journey of the human being. He has given birth to him [Jesus] in my soul. The Father gives birth to his Son without ceasing; and I say more: He gives birth not only 309 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... to me, His Son, but He gives birth to me as Himself and Himself as me and to me as His being and nature. (Eckhart 1981, 187) Eckhart depicts his mystical experience as the birth of God’s Word or Son within himself. In the Christian tradition, Jesus as the Word of God is the embodiment of divine wisdom and love. In this sense, the birth of God’s Word within Eckhart’s soul signifies that the human soul can be the place of a divine manifestation. Eckhart alludes to the Father gi- ving birth to His Son eternally, without beginning or end, which, when related to human experience, refers to the fact that this kind of birth is a spiritual process that is continually taking place within the human soul (Charlton 2013, 55–56). Furthermore, Eckhart not only explains the birth of the Word in himself but also asserts that God gave birth to Himself in Eckhart. Put simply, in Eckhart’s mystical experience, the distinction between his soul and God becomes blurred, indicating that when the human soul is perfect, it can mystically be united with God, that is to say, such union is nothing but indistinction between God and human (McGinn 2001, 47). In this regard, the soul holds a pivotal role. When the soul departs from the body, that is very painful, but when God departs from the soul, the pain is immeasurable. As the soul gives life to the body, so God gives life to the soul. As the soul flows into all members, so God flows into all the powers of the soul and suffuses them so that they overflow with goodness and love over all about them, so that all things become aware of Him. (Eckhart 2009, 187–188) As for the existence of human and God, Eckhart asserts that not only is the existence of the former dependent upon the existence of the latter, but also the former is possible, and is only possible, by virtue of the existence of the latter. Further, Eckhart maintains that the human soul, something very close to God, is nothing other than God’s being, implying that this divine indwelling is undeniable in human spirituality. Therefore, God is always present in the human soul (Kieckhefer 1978, 209), but many are unaware of it. To realize such mystical reality, one has to cut away everything. 310 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA According to Meister Eckhart, emptying oneself is crucial for God to be willing to enter the human soul. The effort to empty oneself is to release all human attachments and dependencies upon all worldly objects, fantasies, and desires. The soul can only receive another thing if it has emptied itself (Eckhart 1981, 220). Put differently, nothing can be realized in the human soul unless the person has detached their soul from all things. I have often said … that a man should be so free of all things and of all works, both interior and exterior, that he might become a place only for God in which God could work. […] For if He finds a man so poor as this, then God performs his own work, and the man is in this way suffering God to work, and God is his own place to work in, and so God is his own worker in himself. (Eckhart 1981, 202) Emptying oneself from everything is a human attempt to attain a state of detachment, which refers to letting go of everything altogether. For Eckhart, detachment, simply put, is a human effort that is centred upon the consistency to do everything only for God alone. Such a person is in the grip of the Good and acts according to the divine will since they have attained a sense of detachment (Almirzanah 2009, 198–201). In other words, detachment is not an attempt to practise passive and con- templative asceticism whereby one withdraws from worldly activities, but rather practise active asceticism in the world, working with God and for God, not for anything else or personal gain (Schürmann 1978, 15), that is, living virtuously, which is called »living without why « by Eckhart (Connolly 2014, 198–199). For Eckhart, such detachment is not a sign of someone losing himself or herself, but rather that they achieve »the highest and best virtue « (Connolly 2014, 154). In the eyes of Eckhart, detachment is not the final stage as there is still the next stage, viz. detachment from detachment. On this basis, when Eckhart attained the state of detachment, he then negated detachment itself, i.e. being detached from detachment (Flasch 2015, 44). Put differently, Eckhart not only observed detachment from everything and even from himself, but also detachment from such detachment. He simply no longer depended 311 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... on detachment. At this spiritual stage, Eckhart then experienced the birth of God in his soul, which he describes as follows: As truly as the Father in his simple nature gives His Son birth natu- rally, so truly does He give him birth in the most inward part of the spirit, and that is the inner world. Here God’s ground is my ground, and my ground is God’s ground. Here I live from what is my own, as God lives from what is his own. (Eckhart 1981, 183) In Eckhart's experience, the soul, which is the divine spark, is the locus in which God gives birth to the Word. Through this mystical birth process, human not only becomes the »Word of God «, but also experiences a mysti- cal union with God, reflecting the spiritual realization of the human will and the divine will (Schürmann 1978, 22). It is significant to note that this birth discloses that what is born shares a likeness with that which gives birth, thereby the two being not completely different from each other (Mojsisch 2001, 77). In his mystical experience, Eckhart places more emphasis on habitual union, which is diametrically opposed to ecstatic union. It is clear that Eckhart’s active asceticism focuses upon a persistent awareness of God, rather than upon an overwhelming and temporary ecstatic awareness, which is characterized by a loss of self-identity (Kieckhefer 1978, 224). This habitual union is arguably predicated upon his experience of the birth of the Word in the soul, signifying the mystical awareness of his union with God in everyday life. Eckhart (2009, 48) interprets the story of Martha and Mary in Luke 10:38-42 differently from conventional interpretations. It is said that Jesus entered a citadel and was greeted by Martha. Martha’s sister, Mary, then sat at Jesus’ feet to listen to his words, while Martha was busy with her activity serving the guests. As is common in interpretation, Martha is considered a person who is negligent in spiritual life, in contrast to Mary who stopped her activities to listen to the Word of God. However, accor- ding to Eckhart, Martha’s spiritual level is actually higher than Mary’s, be- cause the former does not leave worldly activities while still being aware of God’s presence, which refers to habitual union, while the latter, Mary, was engrossed in her contemplation by withdrawing from her worldly 312 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA activity because she had not been able to reach the level of habitual union (Almirzanah 2009, 187–192). In short, Eckhart’s mystical experience took place in three stages. Firstly, Eckhart emptied his soul of everything, or what is called »detachment «. This self-emptying is crucial on the grounds that only then can the birth of God in the human soul be possible. Secondly, the birth of God occur- red in the soul, which is a spiritual process, not a biological one. By virtue of this, the human soul embodies God, because God only wants to be alone in the human soul, without »our this and that «. Thirdly, Eckhart expe- rienced union with God, illustrating a mystical union through a spiritual process in such a way that God’s will takes over and indwells the human will. Thus, Eckhart partook in the divine nature due to such habitual union (Kertz 1959, 334–335). Eckhart (2009, 77–78) describes his mystical experience of the birth of God in the soul with a precise metaphor. The human soul must first be a virgin in order to experience such spiritual birth. To be a virgin means to be empty of everything, of all images, and even of the image of God itself (Sells 1994, 137; Almirzanah 2009, 213). After becoming a virgin, the soul then becomes a wife who allows the birth of the Word of God wit- hin it. Ultimately, the human soul becomes the spiritual mother of God (Connolly 2014, 159–160). The spiritual journey, briefly speaking, begins with being a virgin and ends with being a spiritual mother. 4 Fusion of mystical experiences Hallaj’s mystical experience of the divine indwelling (ḥulūl) implies a mystical union between human and God, and so does Eckhart’s mysti- cal experience of the birth of God in the soul. These two mystics did have different experiences, that is, Hallaj’s experience is more inclined to a sort of ecstatic union, whereas Eckhart’s is that of habitual union. That being said, we can see a strong resonance in both experiences. These two mystics speak of their experience in the form of the mystical union between God and human, viz. through the birth of God in the soul by Eckhart which does resemble the divine indwelling (ḥulūl) in human by Hallaj. Therefore, 313 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... there seems to be a dialogical understanding that can mutually explain one experience with the other. In Hallaj’s experience, ḥulūl refers to the divine indwelling in human, which is a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one. Based upon Eckhart’s mysti- cal experience, such indwelling is indeed the birth of God in the human soul. The human soul has the potential for such mystical birth since the soul, as Eckhart explains it, is nothing but God’s being based upon the fact that by no means does human possess their own proper existence, let alone the soul (Kieckhefer 1978, 29). In this respect, the nearness of the human soul with God’s being is that which makes ḥulūl possible in the spiritual process. The life of Hallaj was inseparable from his religious practices. It is repor- ted that Hallaj was very persistent in living a life of asceticism and obser- ving supererogatory practices every day so as to purify the carnal soul (Massignon 1982c, 433). In Eckhart’s view, such religious practices are crucial to cut away all things from the human soul and mind. It is important to highlight that only if the soul has been the true poverty, does the birth of God take place within it, as the emptiness is the condition whereby one can contain the divine (McGinn 2001, 117). In this regard, due to being free from all things, from duality, that is, from something to nothing, the soul becomes united with God (Eckhart 2009, 208). In fact, the famous expression of Hallaj, which is his ecstatic utterance, »Anā al-Ḥaqq«, evinces that God takes over his awareness of his self, his presence, suggesting that the Word of God is manifest in and takes over Hallaj’s awareness, so that he could not control his own words. For Hallaj was a »virgin «, devoid of all things, and God could be taking over his very self. Indeed, Hallaj then became a spiritual mother through whom God’s words were born during his ecstatic state. Hallaj’s surrender to execution is a symbol of his self-sacrifice before God. He fully accepted God’s will because he let go of his own will and willed according to God’s will, that is, Hallaj’s ground is God’s ground. In other words, Hallaj’s suffering and martyrdom were the consequences of his mystical union with the divine. In this regard, Hallaj’s surrender is arguably Eckhart’s »living without why «, which is the principle that is not based 314 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA upon any search except in harmony with God’s own will. That is to say, living without why is to dedicate life in God (Almirzanah 2009, 203–209). Eckhart’s experience that God was born in his soul is closely related to the two human natures, lāhūt and nāsūt. For human has the lāhūt nature in himself or herself, human can give birth to the Word or God in the soul, referring to the spiritual birth and mystical union, not to biological and physical processes. Such mystical birth is possible because God also has two natures, lāhūt and nāsūt. It is God’s nāsūt nature that can »incarnate « into human. While God’s nāsūt nature meets Eckhart’s lāhūt nature, God’s lāhūt nature remains transcendent, unknown, and unmixed – what Eckhart calls the Godhead, whose being is darkness and is concealed in nature, and thus unknown (McGinn 2001, 170). Be that as it may, the condition that allows the birth of God in the soul is detachment, viz. self-purification (tazkiyat al-nafs) and cleansing of the heart (ta ṭhīr al-qulūb). If Eckhart had still been trapped in his own nāsūt nature, namely the carnal soul, he would not possibly have given birth to God’s nāsūt nature in himself. Therefore, the annihilation (fanā’) of Eckhart’s nāsūt nature, and leaving only the lāhūt nature, is the spiritual key to the birth of God in his soul. God’s presence in Eckhart which refers to union between him and God, in other words, indistinction between Eckhart’s being and God’s being, evinces the principle of taw ḥīd held by Hallaj, that is, there is no duality between »You « and »I « in the self. In this respect, to see Eckhart is to see God, and to see God is to see both of them on the grounds that »two spirits were infused in a single body « (al-Hallaj 1913, 134). Thus, Eckhart’s will is nothing but God’s will manifested in Eckhart’s being, exemplifying a per- fect manifestation of divine attributes (al- ṣifāt al-ilāhīyah). The soul, which is the divine spark, is the vessel wherein the lāhūt na- ture could be born in Eckhart. When such a state took place, Eckhart became a divine reflection. It is worth nothing that »reflection « cannot necessarily be likened to that which reflects. If it is to be portrayed thro- ugh Hallaj’s mystical expression, Eckhart might be saying, »Anā al-Ḥaqq«, but at the same time he was surely not al-Ḥaqq, since the two are not 315 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... ontologically the same. Hence, Hallaj would say, »Distinguish Eckhart from the Truth (al- Ḥaqq) « (al-Hallaj 2009, 16). Though mystical experience is inevitably subjective, i.e. referring to what an individual feels and experiences, it evinces the same pulse of such indi- vidual experiences in the adherents of different religions (Mitias 2021, 102), as Hallaj’s and Eckhart’s experiences illustrate. That is to say, examining a subjective experience of the ultimate truth helps unravel the constraints of theological doctrines. While the expressions of religiosity are common- ly confined to theological doctrines, mystical experience which is abun- dantly imbued with such doctrines often transcends them and in essence seems to hold the same ground (Mitias 2021; Bahri 2021), considering that the mystics in different traditions often delineate what they experience in a quite similar symbolic language (Underhill 1912, 153–156; Keller 1978). Put differently, even though it is a subjective experience of each mystic, such experience seems to reveal something intersubjective and even shows peculiarity that does not fall prisoner to theological boundaries. In Muslim and Christian contexts, Hallaj and Eckhart describe their expe- riences as an indistinct union with God or the ultimate truth. Investigating such individual yet peculiar experiences as an experiential dialogue leads us to seemingly universal aspects that cannot be constrained by religio- us doctrines. This study of experiential dialogue can foster interreligious dialogue in a more personal and deeper level rather than in a rigid theo- logical one, since the dialogue on mystical experience proffers, instead of dogmatic differences, a deeper perspective that highlights spiritual unity and profundity. Conclusion It is inevitable that the mystical experiences of Hallaj and Eckhart have a profound resonance. Even though they clearly differ in their use of sym- bolism and in their theological point of departure, both emphasize the ascetic life and the spiritual effort to empty oneself of worldly attachments as the starting point for attaining mystical experience. Eckhart talks about the birth of God in his soul, while Hallaj speaks of the divine indwelling 316 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA ( ḥulūl) within himself, both of which refer to the mystical union with the ultimate reality. Despite the deep resonance of both mystical experiences, Hallaj and Eckhart stand upon different types of experience. On the one hand, the contour of Hallaj’s experience is an ecstatic union that shows divine in- toxication, in order that he expresses ecstatic utterances. On the other hand, Eckhart emphasizes a more calm and sober experience, viz. habitual union, so that Eckhart’s emotions were not as overwhelming and intoxi- cating as Hallaj’s. The resonance and difference of those two mystics’ experiences notwithstanding, mystical experience can, properly speaking, be the subject of interreligious dialogue to understand each other’s spiritual pulse. Furthermore, understanding the experience of a mystic from the viewpoint of another religious tradition can enrich one’s understanding of his or her own religion. In other words, interreligious hermeneutics can be operative in inter-experiential hermeneutics, particularly mystical experience, which is often viewed as the main pulse in almost all religious traditions. Acknowledgement I express gratitude to Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia for sponsoring and supporting the publication through scholarship. 317 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... References Almirzanah, Syafa’atun. 2009. When Mystic Masters Meet: Paradigma Baru dalam Relasi Umat Kristiani-Muslim. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Almond, Ian. 2001. Divine Needs, Divine Illusions: Preliminary Remarks Toward a Comparative Study of Meister Eckhart and Ibn Al’Arabi. Medieval Philosophy & Theology 10/2: 263–282. Https://doi.org/10.1017/S1057060801020096. Arberry, Arthur J. 2008. Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam. London: Routledge. Armstrong, Amatullah. 2001. Sufi Terminology (al-Qamus al-Sufi): The Mystical Language of Islam. Lahore: Ferozsons. Bahri, Media Zainul. 2021. Satu Tuhan Banyak Agama: Pandangan Sufistik Ibn Arabi, Rumi, dan al-Jili. Jakarta: Elex Media Komputindo. Bayat, Mojdeh, and Mohammad Ali Jamnia. 1994. Tales from the Land of the Sufis. Boston: Shambhala. Bruce Milem. 2013. Meister Eckhart’s Vernacular Preaching. In: Jeremiah M. Hackett, ed. A Companion to Meister Eckhart. Leiden: Brill. Charlton, James. 2013. Non-Dualism in Eckhart, Julian of Norwich and Traherne: A Theopoetic Reflection. New York: Bloomsbury. Cheetham, David, Ulrich Winkler, Oddbjørn Leirvik, and Judith Gruber, eds. 2011. Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe Between Texts and People. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Chittick, William C. 2008. Sufism: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld. Connolly, John M. 2014. Living without Why: Meister Eckhart’s Critique of the Medieval Concept of Will. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Cornille, Catherine, ed. 2013. The Wiley- Blackwell Companion to Inter- Religious Dialogue. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Eckhart, Meister. 1981. The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense. Translated by Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn. New York: Paulist Press. – – –. 2009. The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart. Edited and translated by Maurice O’C. Walshe. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. El-Ansary, Waleed, and David K. Linnan, eds. 2010. Muslim and Christian Understanding Theory and Application of »A Common Word.« New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ernst, Carl W. 1985. Words of Ecstasy in Sufism. New York: State University of New York. – – –. 1997. Sufism: An Introduction to the Mystical Tradition of Islam. Boston: Shambhala. Flasch, Kurt. 2015. Meister Eckhart: Philosopher of Christianity. Translated by Anne Schindel and Aaron Vanides. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Fox, Matthew. 1983. Meditations with Meister Eckhart. New Mexico: Bear & Company. Gäb, Sebastian. 2021. Mysticism without Concepts. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 90/3: 233–246. Https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-021-09799-7. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2006. Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Ma. London: Continuum. Ghazani, Rasoul Rahbari, and Saliha Uysal. 2023. Rūmī’s Asceticism Explored: A Comparative Glimpse into Meister Eckhart’s Thought. Religions 14/10: 1254. Https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14101254. Hadi W. M., Abdul. 2002. Meister Eckhart dan Rumi: Antara Mistisisme Makrifah dan Mistisisme Cinta. Jurnal Universitas Paramadina 1/3: 198–223. Al-Hallaj, Mansur. 1913. Kitab Al-Tawasin. Edited by Louis Massignon. Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner. 318 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA – – –. 2009. Kitab Al-Tawasin. Translated by Kasyif Ghoiby. Yogyakarta: Titah Surga. – – –. 2015. Poems of a Sufi Martyr. Translated by Carl W. Ernst. Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Hidayat, Yogi Fery. 2024. The Concept of Hulul: Al-Hallaj’s Thought and Its Relevance in Sufism. Journal of Noesantara Islamic StudiesJournal of Noesantara Islamic Studies 1/3: 3. Https://doi.org/10.70177/jnis.v1i3.1303. Hodri, Hodri. 2015. Al-Hallaj sebagai Korban Politik atau Transgresor Teologis? Teosofi: Jurnal Tasawuf Dan Pemikiran Islam 1/2: 143. Https://doi. org/10.15642/teosofi.2011.1.2.143-159. Al-Hujwīrī. 1911. The Kashf Al-Ma ḥjūb: The Oldest Persian Treatise on Sufism. Edited and translated by Reynold A. Nicholson. Leiden & London: Brill. Huxley, Aldous. 1947. The Perennial Philosophy. London: Chatto & Windus. Ibn Arabi, Muhyiddin. 1946. Fus ̣ūs ̣ al-H ̣ikam. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-‘Arabī. Al-Jawzi, Ibn. 2009. Talbīs Iblīs. Cairo: al-Mak- tabah al-Tawfīqīyah. Keller, Carl A. 1978. Mystical Literature. In: Steven T. Katz, ed. Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Kertz, Karl G. 1959. Meister Eckhart’s Teaching on the Birth of the Divine Word in the Soul. Traditio 15 (July): 327–363. Https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0362152900008278. Kieckhefer, Richard. 1978. Meister Eckhart’s Conception of Union with God. Harvard Theological Review 71/3–4: 203–225. Https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0017816000026092. Kusuma, Amir Reza. 2021. Konsep Hulul me- nurut al-Hallaj dan Penempatan Posisi Tasawuf. Jurnal Penelitian Medan Agama 12/1: 45. Https://doi.org/10.58836/ jpma.v12i1.10488. Mason, Herbert. 1999. Hallaj and the Baghdad School of Sufism. In: Leonard Lewisohn, ed. The Heritage of Sufism: Classical Persian Sufism from Its Origins to Rumi (700-1300). Vol. 1. Oxford: Oneworld. – – –. 2007. Al-Hallaj. London: Routledge. Massignon, Louis. 1982a. The Passion of Al- Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam. Translated by Herbert W. Mason. Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press. – – –. 1982b. The Passion of Al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam. Translated by Herbert W. Mason. Vol. 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press. – – –. 1982c. The Passion of Al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam. Edited by Herbert Mason. Translated by Herbert W. Mason. Vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press. – – –. 1982d. The Passion of Al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam. Translated by Herbert W. Mason. Vol. 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press. – – –. 1994. The Passion of Al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam. Edited and translated by Herbert W. Mason. Abridged Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. – – –. 2001. Diwan Al-Hallaj. Translated by Maimunah and Abdul Basith. Yogyakarta: Putra Langit. Massignon, Louis, and L. Gardet. 1986. Al- Halladj. In: B. Lewis, V. L. Manage, Ch. Pellet, and J. Schacht, ed. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 3. Leiden: Brill. McGinn, Bernard. 1994. Introduction: Meister Eckhart and the Beguines in the Context of Vernacular Theology. In: Bernard McGinn, ed. Meister Eckhart and the Beguine Mystics: Hadewijch of Brabant, Mechthild of Magdeburg, and Marguerite Porete. New York: Continuum. – – –. 2001. The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Mitias, Michael H. 2021. Possibility of Interreligious Dialogue. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Mojsisch, Burkhard. 2001. Meister Eckhart: Analogy, Univocity and Unity. Translated by Orrin F. Summerell. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 319 Unity and Dialogue 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 THE MYSTICAL UNION IN SUFISM AND CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM: INTER-EXPERIENTIAL ... Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. 1989. Knowledge and the Sacred. New York: State University of New York Press. Nasution, Harun. 1995. Falsafat dan Mistisisme dalam Islam. Jakarta: Bulan Bintang. Nawawi, Ismail. 2008. Risalah Pembersih Jiwa. Surabaya: Karya Agung. Nicholson, Reynold A. 1923. The Idea of Personality in Sufism. Delhi: Jayyed Press. – – –. 2002. The Mystics of Islam. Bloomington: World Wisdom. Ohlander, Erik S. 2021. Al-Junayd al-Baghda- di: Chief of the Sect. In: Lloyd Ridgeon, ed. Routledge Handbook on Sufism. New York: Routledge. Picken, Gavin N. 2021. Al-Harith al-Muhasibi and Spiritual Purification between Asceticism and Mysticism. In: Lloyd Ridgeon, ed. Routledge Handbook on Sufism. New York: Routledge. Al-Qushayri, Abu al-Qasim. 2007. Al-Qushayri’s Epistle on Sufism. Translated by Alexander D. Knysh. Reading: Garnet. Ramli, Yusri Mohamad. 2013. Martyrdom of al Hallaj and Unity of the Existence the Condemners and the Commenders. International Journal of Islamic Thought 3: 106–112. Royster, James E. 1995. Personal Transformation in Ibn Al-’Arabi and Meister Eckhart. In: Yvonne Y. Haddad and Wadi Z. Haddad, Christian-Muslim Encounters. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida. Al-Sakandarī, Ibn ‘Aṭā’illāh. 1984. Ibn ‘A ṭā’illāh’s Sufi Aphorisms (Kitab al-Hi- kam). Edited and translated by Victor Danner. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Schimmel, Annemarie. 2011. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Schuon, Frithjof. 2005. The Transcendent Unity of Religions. Illinois: QuestBooks. Schürmann, Reiner. 1978. Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher. London & Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Sells, Michael A. 1994. Mystical Languages of Unsaying. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. – – –. 1994. The Pseudo-Woman and the Meister: ‘Unsaying’ and Essentialism. In: Bernard McGinn, ed. Meister Eckhart and the Beguine Mystics: Hadewijch of Brabant, Mechthild of Magdeburg, and Marguerite Porete. New York: Continuum. Shah-Kazemi, Reza. 2006. Paths to Transcendence: According to Shankara, Ibn Arabi, and Meister Eckhart. Bloomington: World Wisdom. Smith, Huston. 2005. Introduction to the Revised Edition. In: Frithjof Schuon, ed. The Transcendent Unity of Religions. Illinois: Quest Books. Smith, Paul. 2012. Mansur Hallaj: Selected Poems. Campbells Creek: Book Heaven. Stace, Walter T. 1961. Mysticism and Philosophy. London: Macmillan & CO LTD. Stoddart, William. 2007. Mysticism. In: Martin Lings and Clinton Minnaar, eds. The Underlying Religion: An Introduction to the Perennial Philosophy. Bloomington: World Wisdom. al-Taftazani, Abu al-Wafa’ al-Ghanimi. 1976. Madkhal ilā al-Tas ̣awwuf al-Islāmī. Cairo: Dar al-Thaqafah. Taymiyyah, Ibn. 1995. Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā. Vol. 2. Madinah: Mujamma‘ al-Malik Fahd li- Ṭibā‘at al-Muṣḥaf al-Sharīf. Underhill, Evelyn. 1912. Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual Consciousness. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company. Wainwright, William J. 1981. Mysticism: A Study of Its Nature, Cognitive Value, and Moral Implications. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. Wehr, Hans. 1976. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by J. Milton Cowan. Itacha: Spoken Language Services. W oods, Richard. 2013. Mystical Union in the Teachings of Ibn ‘Arabī and Meister Eckhart. Medieval Mystical Theology 22/1: 74–90. Https://doi.org/10.1179/20465726 13Z.0000000005. 320 Edinost in dialog 80 (2025) 1: 297–320 ANGGA ARIFKA Yaqin, Ainul, and Misbahul Hadi. 2022. Eksistensi Abu Mansur Al-Hallaj: Sang Sufi Martir. Journal of Islamic Thought and Philosophy 1/2: 188–211. Yazaki, Saeko. 2015. Morality in Early Sufi Literature. In: Lloyd Ridgeon, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Sufism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zarrabi-Zadeh, Saeed. 2015. Comparative Mysticism and the Problem of Interpretation: Rumi and Meister Eckhart. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 26/3: 287–306. Https://doi.org/10. 1080/09596410.2015.1018721.