Islamic theology makes union language dangerous in a way it is not in some other traditions. Tawhid holds that God is absolutely one and that nothing may be associated with him; the gravest sin, shirk, is precisely the blurring of creator and creature. Any claim by a human being to be God is therefore not merely mistaken but the one thing Islam most forbids.
The tradition has an emblematic case. Al-Hallaj, executed in Baghdad in 922, is remembered for the utterance ana al-Haqq, I am the Truth, Truth being one of the divine names. Sufi tradition itself divides on him: some later masters treat the words as an ecstatic utterance made when the speaker was overwhelmed and not responsible, and Junayd is reported to have rebuked him for indiscretion rather than for unbelief; others regard the case as a warning about disclosing what should be kept. His execution had political dimensions as well, and modern historians do not read it as a simple theological verdict.
Al-Ghazali, in the eleventh century, did more than anyone to make Sufism respectable to the jurists, arguing that the mystical path is the living heart of the law rather than an alternative to it, and explaining the union language as a description of the mystic's perception rather than a change in what is. Ibn Arabi, a century later, developed the doctrine known as wahdat al-wujud, the oneness of being, which has been read by his defenders as an account of God as the only real existence and by his critics, notably Ibn Taymiyya, as pantheism. That argument has never been settled and remains active.
The comparative note is that Sufi fana is often set beside Advaita Vedanta's identity of self and Brahman, or Buddhist realisation of no-self. The phenomenology may be comparable; the doctrinal claims are not. Advaita asserts an identity Sufism must deny, and Buddhism denies the absolute reality that both of the others affirm.