What Junayd tactfully characterized as "some expressions that are useless" many other Muslims called "ecstatic utterances," cries like Hallaj's "I am the Truth" or Bistami's "Glory be to Me," uttered in a moment of mystical transport—valid for the Muslim "Gnostics" or "knowers," as they are called here, no doubt, but the cause of some disturbance, and even scandal, to the ordinary believer. Both Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun tried to put the best face upon what was admittedly a difficult subject.

Those Gnostics, when they return from their ascent into the heaven of Reality, confess with one voice that they saw no existent there save the One Real Being. Some of them arrived at this scientifically, others experimentally and subjectively. For these last the plurality of things entirely fell away; they were drowned in the absolute Oneness, and their intelligences were lost in Its abyss. … They became like persons struck dumb, and they had no power within them except to recall God, not even the power to recall themselves. So there remained with them nothing save God. They became drunk with a drunkenness wherein the sense of their own intelligence disappeared, so that one cried out "I am the Truth," and another "Glory be to Me! How great is My Glory!" and still another "Within this robe is nothing but God!" … But the words of lovers passionate in their intoxication and ecstasy must be hidden away and not spoken of. (Ghazali, Niche for Lights)

There are the suspect expressions which the Sufis call "ecstatic utterances" and which provoke the censure of orthodox Muslims. As to them, it should be known that the attitude that would be fair to the Sufis is that they are people who are removed from sense perception. Inspiration grips them. Eventually, they say things about their inspiration that they do not intend to say. A person who is removed from sense perception cannot be spoken to. More, he who is forced to act is excused. Sufis who are known for their excellence and exemplary character are considered to act in good faith in this and similar respects. It is difficult to express ecstatic experiences, because there are no conventional ways of expressing them. This was the experience of Abu Yazid al-Bistami and others like him. However, Sufis whose excellence is not known and famous deserve censure for utterances of this kind, since the (data) that might cause us to interpret their statements (so as to remove any suspicion attached to them) are not clear to us. Furthermore, any Sufis who are not removed from sense perception and are not in the grip of a (mystical) state when they make such utterances, also deserve censure. Therefore the jurists and the great Sufis decided that al-Hallaj was to be killed, because he spoke (ecstatically) while not removed from sense perception but in control of his state. And God knows better. (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima 6.16) [IBN KHALDUN 1967: 3:102]