BTISHBUDDIN

.IRAQI
DIVINE FLASHES
TRANSLATION AND INTRODUCTION
BY
\TILLIAM C. CHITTICK and
PETER LAMBORN \TILSON
PREFACE
BY
SEYYED HOSSEIN
NASR
PAULIST PRESS
NEW YORK
.
MAHWAH
Introduction
I The
Mysti cal
Phi l osoPhY
of the
Di vi ne
Fl ashes
Isl am' s fundamental
teachi ng decl ares:
"There i s no god but
God." Throughout
Isl ami c hi story practi cal l y every school
of
thought
has sought to el uci date thi s teachi ng i n i ts own way'
!n-
gen-
eral i he theol ogi ans
(mutakal l i mua) based thei r expl i cati ons
of God' s
oneness on the evi dence-i ncontroverti bl e
i n thei r eyes-provi ded
by the Koran and the Haditb of the Prophet. The Peripatetic
philos-
oph.rr
Qnasbsha'iyyun)
tried to prove God's Unity by appealing to the
po*..r of man' s i ntel l ect
(' aql )
and the data
provi ded by hi s sense
perceptio.t. But the sufis added a third source of knowledge to the
"bou.
t*o' di rect vi si on of the real i ti es of thi ngs, or mysti cal "unvei l -
ing"
(kasbfl,
which is also referred to as "contemplation"
(sbuhud, rnu'
sbi hadah)'
and,,di rect-percepti on"
(dbauq).t In thei r vi ew, unvei l i ng
i s i ncomparabl y
more rel i abl e than the unai ded
i ntel l ect, whi ch can
never attai n true certai nty
concerni ng any matter of l asti ng i mpor-
tance, i n other words, concerni ng
God or man' s ul ti mate end. But at
the same ti me unvei l i ng
must be based on revel ati on and cannot gai n-
say it. Most Sufis were careful to warn their followers against anyone
*iro .u.r said or did anything that contradicted
the fundamental
teachi ngs of the Isl ami c revel ati on,
even i f he shoul d cl ai m di vi ne i n-
spi rati on and produce "mi racl es"
i n support
of hi s cl ai m' 2
-
The i ntermedi ate
posi ti on adopted by the sufi s, i n whi ch i ntel -
l ect was subordi nate to unvei l i ng and unvei l i ng
to revel ati on, i s cl ear-
l y represented by the teachi ngs of the School of Ibn al -' Arabi .
Ibn
at-,A.iaUi
himself often chooses a mode of expression
that makes one
thi nk he i s cl ai mi ng a source of i nspi rati on above even the authori ty
of the Koran, although in other places in his own works he modifies
thi s posi ti on by i nsi sti ng on the supreme authori ty of the Koran and
the Frophet. Moreover, hi s fol l owers, especi al l y hi s successor and
INTRODUCTION
spi ri tual hei r, Sadruddi n
Qnawi -' Iraqi ' s
master-cl earl y si tuate
Ibn al -' Arabi ' s teachi ngs wi thi n the hi erarchy referred to above. And
Iater Sufi s have i nvari abl y seen Ibn al -' Arabi through
Qgnawi ' s
eyes.3
These consi derati ons hel p to expl ai n the pecul i ar method Sufi s
l i ke ' Iraqi empl oy to expl ai n the nature and consequences of God' s
Oneness. ' Iraqi does not set out to wri te a Peri pateti c exposi ti on or to
appeal to the reader' s i ntel l ect-even though the l ogi cal consi stency
of Lama' at shows that he does not i gnore the rati onal facul ty. Rather,
hi s expl i cati on of God' s nature and man' s rel ati on to i t i s based pri -
mari l y on the i ntermedi ate domai n speci fi c to the Sufi s, that of mys-
ti cal unvei l i ng, di rect-percepti on and spi ri tual i ntui ti on. But the
ultimate authority of the Koran and Hadith is never forgotten.
In di scussi ng God' s Oneness, the vari ous school s of Isl ami c
thought empl oy a vari ety of terms to refer to the Ul ti mate and
Uni que Real i ty. The theol ogi ans speak about "God"
(Al l ab)
and i n
Korani c terms expl ai n the nature of Hi s Names and Attri butes and
Hi s rel ati on wi th the worl d and man. The Peri pai eti c phi l osophers
call the Ultimate Reality the "Necessary Being" (wajib
al-wujud). The
Il l umi nati oni st phi l osophers refer to the Ul ti mate Real i ty as "Li ght"
(nur).
The Sufi s use i nnumerabl e terms, most of them Korani c and
most of them i mmedi atel y i denti fi abl e as Di vi ne Names.
As for the parti cul ar Sufi school of Ibn al -' Arabi , i t al so empl oys
numerous terms, i ncl udi ng "Al l ah" and "Truth"
(baqq),
al though
each term i t uses has a parti cul ar techni cal connotati on. Among the
most i mportant of these terms i s "Bei ng," the same word empl oyed i n
the Peri pateti c formul ati on "Necessary Bei ng." So i mportant i s thi s
term i n Ibn al -' Arabi ' s teachi ng that hi s school i s usual l y referred to
as that of the "Oneness of Being"
(wahdat
al-wujud). His disciple
Qnawi
ampl i fi es and refi nes Ibn al -' Arabi ' s teachi ngs on Bei ng' s
Oneness and i n the process begi ns to bri dge the gap between them
and those of the Peri oateti cs.
As for' Iraqi , he fol l ows-to use hi s own words-"the tradi ti on
of the Sparks
(Sawanib)."
In this Persian work, Ahmad Ghazzali
(d.
520
11126),
the younger brother of the more famous theol ogi an and
Sufi Abu Hamid Ghazzali, states that the Ultimate Reality is "Love"
('isbq,
mahabbab), and on the basis of this statement consrructs a com-
pl ex metaphysi cs.a
The very fact that Ghazzali concerns himself primarily with
metaphysics should be enough to alert the reader that in Ghazzali's
INTRODUCTION
view, the statement "God is Love" does not carry the usual sentimen-
tal or emotional overtones. He draws conclusions that would seem pe-
cul i arl y i ntel l ectual to most Chri sti ans who hol d the same bel i ef. In
spite of certain appearances, his "mysticism" is basically one of
knowledge, not of love as usually understood.s
Numerous Sufis followed Ghazzali in speaking of God as Love,
among them ' [raqi . But ' Iraqi di d not fol l ow the termi nol ogi cal de-
tai l s of Ghazzal i ' s metaphysi cs, onl y hi s i denti fi cati on of God wi th
Love; and as with Ghazzal|'Iraqi's teachings are based purely on a
contempl ati ve vi si on of the real i ti es of thi ngs. When ' Iraqi di scusses
the nature of Love, he displays a profound comprehension of the
metaphysical teachings of his own master,
Qgnawi.
But by identify-
ing God with Love throughout the work, and by employing the same
sort of mixed Persian prose and poetry that Ghazzali uses, 'Iraqi is
able to state quite correctly that he is following the tradition laid
down by Ghezzili.
But the fact that' Iraqi fol l ows
Qgnawi ' s
teachi ngs means that hi s
use of the word Love is not
just
a question of terminology. It is not as
if he decides to call God "Love" and to leave everything else the same.
True, often it would be sufficient to change "Love" to "Being" in
'Iraqi's sentences to produce statements identical to those of lbn al-
' Arabi ' s fol l owers who preserved the master' s termi nol ogy. But thi s i s
not always the case. For Ibn al-'Arabi has teachings about Love qua
Love, whi ch are i n turn deal t wi th extensi vel y by
Qgnawi
and' Iraqi .
So ' Iraqi ' s di scussi on represents a synthesi s of two sl i ghtl y di ffer-
ent points of view. In one respect Love is identical with God or Be-
ing, as in Ghazzali's Sparks. In another respect Love is one of God's
Attri butes, as i n
Qgnawi ' s
teachi ngs. But even i n
Qgnawi ' s
teachi ngs
these two points of view can be combined into one, for if Love in one
respect is an Attribute of God, in another respect it is identical with
His very Essence. It is God Himself. For, as
Qgnawi
maintains, "The
Attributes are in one respect the very Essence Itself. . . . They are the
very same as the Essence in the sense that nothing exists there but the
Essence. But they are different from the Essence in the sense that the
concepts understood from the Essence are definitely different from
one another."6
In short, ' Iraqi di scusses the Oneness of Bei ng i n terms of Love.
He emphasizes that Being and Love are the same thing, for every At-
tribute of God is only the Essence viewed from a certain point of
INTRODUCTION
vi ew'
But the
exi stence
of that poi nt
of vi ew means
that Love
can be
spoken^of
in a language
peculiai
to itself,
for
that poirrt
of uie* i, aif_
ferent
from
any
other.
.
'Iraqi's originality,
then,
is that he follows
Ghazzariin
calling Ul-
timate
Reality
,,Love,"
and thus he neglects
the terminotogf
,.tatlrrg
to the discussion
of Bging
preferred
bf most of the other
members
of
Ibn
al -' Arabi ' s
school .
ei i ne ,".r,. ,i -.,
al most
everythi ng
he says
about
Love-not
to speak
of Love qua Betng_;s
d;;;'?r;m
the
teachings
of his master,
enawi.
But nowheie
does his master,
nor
any of the other followers
of Ibn
al-,Arabi,
succeed
i' pr"r*tlrrg
,
di scussi on
of Love i n such
a del i ghtful
and readabl ,
*..,r,.r.
-
so ' Iraqi i s di scussi ng
the Di -vi ne
Uni ty,
or the oneness
of Bei ng,
in a.language
peculiar
to discussions
of lovl.
To clarify tn.r.-r..rrt
,
further,
i t i s necessary
to expl ai n
what Ibn
al -,Arabi
and hi s fol rowers
mean by the ',Oneness
of Being,"
and what they
n"rr.
fr.J- ro say
about
Love's
reration
to Being.
Fiow is it that Lorre
is
"r,
etiJuut.
or
God,
and as such, identical
wlth
His very
Essencel
THE
ONENESS
OF BEING
"Bei ng i s One." Thi s
sentence
i s a constant
refrai n
i n
egnawi ,s
wri ti ngs.
To
expl ai n
i ts meani ng
and i mpl i cati ons
i n
"r,y
a.t-t"i r
"rra
in the overall
conteyt
of
egnarii's
works
wourd
be far"beyorra
,rr.
s9op9
of the present
introduction.z
Here
we can only hope
,o ,.r_*r_
rize his teachings
in the barest
outline.
^
"Being"
is that which,
by its very
nature,
r.r. It cannot
not be. As
for what
exactly
is meant
by this teim
,,to
be,,, on the
one hand
its
meaning
is self-evident,
and on the other,
it is almost
i_porriUt.
,o
grasp',
Fveryone
has an immediate
intuition
of what
it means
for
somethi ng
to
"be" or.to-"exi st."
In fact,
nothi ng
can
be .l or*
i o o,r.
experience
and
knowledge.
The
sufis
would
eriphasize
,rr"t
l,i
o.rty
thi nk
because
I am.,' _In
any case,
everyone
grasps
i mmedi atel y
the
difference
between
the
exisience
of somethi"-g
""a
i,, ,rorr"*iri".r"".
otherwise,
there
would
be no difference
between
having
something
and not havi ng
i t.
But
at the same ti me,
al most
no one trul y
grasps
the fundamental
nature
of thi s "i s-ness."
Unl ess
i t i s accomp"i r.a' by
ro*.
ol i ..,
o.
thing,
no one can comprehe.nd
it.
Everyone
knows
what
is
-r'"rrt
uy
"the penci l
exi sts,"
or that the
com-on
measure
between
,.the
penci l
exists"
and "the galaxy
exists"
is their
existence
or is-ness.
But re-
INTRODUCTION
move al l penci l s and gal axi es, al l obj ects and enti ti es. What then i s
meant by is-ness as such? What can it mean that we have defined being
as "that whi ch, by i ts very nature, i s," when there i s no defi nabl e
thi ng that i s? How can one comprehend thi s sort of i s-ness when i t
does not correspond to any object whatsoever?
Accordi ng to Ibn al -' Arabi and hi s fol l owers, that bei ng whi ch
by its very nature ls, and cannot not be, is "nonentified"
(ghayr
mu-
ta' ayyan) or i ndetermi nate. We cannot trul y name or descri be i t.
Whatever we descri be as possessi ng such and such an attri bute, we
defi ne, del i mi t, and determi ne. We make i t i denti cal to some enti ty.
But bei ng as such-Bei ng-i s nonenti fi ed and i ndetermi nate. It has
no descri pti on or del i mi tati on. It i s no parti cul ar thi ng, not even that
"thi ng" whi ch we usual l y cal l "God," that i s, as a Real i ty di sti nct and
separate from the world.
How do we know that Bei ng i s nonenti fi ed? Because every enti ty
that has bei ng, every thi ng that exi sts, i s a del i mi tati on of Bei ng as
such. We say, "The horse iq the tree lg Tom
4
the devil
4
God ls."
The common measure i s i s-ness. Nor i s thi s i s-ness a mental con-
struct. Rather, i t i s the fundamental nature of al l thi ngs.s Each enti ty,
each thi ng, each exi stent, i s one possi bi l i ty of "enti fi cati on"
(ta' ayyun)
hi dden wi thi n the nature of Sheer Bei ng,
i ust
as each col or i s one pos-
si bi l i ty of "col orati on" possessed by the very essence of pure l i ght.e
If Bei ng i s to assume every si ngl e enti fi cati on and del i mi tati on,
i n Itsel f i t must be nonenti fi ed. It must be abl e to mani fest Itsel f i n
every form.10 For i f It were l arge and onl y l arge, nothi ng smal l coul d
exi st. If It were the Creator and onl y the Creator, there woul d be no
creatures. These poi nts are summari zed i n the axi om "Each enti fi ca-
ti on must be preceded by nonenti fi cati on."l l Every exi stent enti ty or
thi ng deri ves from a source that i n rel ati on to i t i s i ndetermi nate and
Nonent i f i cat i on- Nondel i mi t at i on-
the Essence, or "God" i n the hi ghest sense
Ent i f i cat i on- Del i mi t at i on-
"God" (i n
the sense of a Creator) and the worl d
FI GURE I : PRELI MI NARY DI VI SI ON OF BEI NG AS SUCH
INTRODUCTION
nonentified.
Thus a "horse"
is an entification
of "animal'"
If animal
were by its very neture horse' there could
be no dogs or lions' So the
entification
"horse"
is preceded by the relative nonentification
"ani-
mal." In a similar
way, the entification
"animal"
is preceded by the
relative
nonentification,
"living corporeal-body."
But if all living cor-
poreal-bodies
were animals,
thire could be no plants' Finally'
when
i^r. ,e"ch Being Itself, we reach absolute
Nonentification,
so there can
be nothing belond
it. Moreover,
since
Being is absolutely
Nonenti-
fied, all entifications
are forms It may assume'
Nonentified
Being is none othei than the Essence
(dhat) of
God.
To answer
the questio-n "why
does God create the 'world?'
(al''alam
:
,,everything
other than God")"; or, moving
back to a second
ques-
tion impiied ii the first,
,,Why
does the Essence of God, Nonentified
Being, L..o*. entified
as God the Creator and
His creation?"
we
raust-investigate
more carefully
the nature of Being as such'
-.
Being ii Itself is Nonentified,
and consequently
nondelimited'
inarticula"ted,
without
name' attribute,
or quality' So It cannot.be
de-
scribed
in positive
terms. It is Unknown'
But as soon as Being as-
sumes any Lntification,
that entification
can be described
(see
Figure
l). Now these entifications
are not accidental'
The very nature
of Be-
ing Itself demands
that It possess certain "Perfections"
or "Possibili-
tiJs of Self-Manifesration"
or "Potentialities"
in keeping
with which
entification
will take place. For Being is the source of all things, and
therefore also of all pioperties,
laws, and regularities.
It has Its own
order, rhythm,
"rrd
*odet. It reveals ltself-becomes
entified-only
in keeping with Its own nature, a nature
that
possesses certain con-
comitants-and
properties
that are reflected
in all things.
These con-
comitants
or ontological
perfections
are summarized
in God's
,,Names
and Attributis-
(asrna'wa sifot),
which are Being's universal
entifications.
The Names and
Attributes
divide the infinite
possible
entifications
of Being into a number of universal
categories'
Thus the
basic Attribot",
"r"'Lif.,
Knowledge,
Will, and Power'
The Attri-
butes are al so di vi ded i nto the "99" or "1001"
Di vi ne Names'
But ultimately,
since Being is nonentified,
there is no limit to the
entifications
it can assume.
ThL Divine Names may be said to be infi-
nite.12 Thus they must be looked on as the principles and sources of
all the individual
things existing
within
the world of manifestation.
Here they are no longer called
Names and Attributes,
but rather
,,archetyi al -enti ti es"
(ol n),
"real i ti es"
(haqi qab\,,and "meani ngs"
(ma'na).
Andwhen
existJnce
is bestowed
on them, these very archety-
INTRODUCTION
pal -enti ti es become the exi stent-enti ti es of the worl d. Hence i n Ara-
bi c and Persi an, the one word "enti ty" (' ayn1
i s used for both the
archetypal -enti ty and the exi stent-enti ty, i ndi cati ng that ul ti matel y
the two are one and the same. "Enti ty" i n thi s sense i s synonymous
with "thing"
(sbay)
and "quiddity"
(mabilyab).
All three terms indi-
cate a si ngl e real i ty that may be exi stent or nonexi stent, dependi ng on
whether i t i s consi dered as mani fested wi thi n the worl d or nonmani -
fest wi thi n God' s Knowl edge (see
Fi gure 2).
In short, by Its very nature Nondel i mi ted Bei ng possesses al l
possibilities of Self-Manifestation
(zuhur,
tajalli). By Its very nature Ir
i s Al i ve and has Knowl edge, Power, Wi l l , Heari ng, Si ght, Speech. It
can assume the enti fi cati on that i s represented by every si ngl e
,,possi -
bl e exi stent"
(mumki n),
every creature, every thi ng. However, that
"very nature" i s unknowabl e to us, except through revel ati on. And
even then, the onl y thi ng that can be expl ai ned i s God as He mani -
fests Hi msel f-that i s, Hi s Names and Attri bures-nor God as He i s
i n Hi s very Sel f. That can onl y be known by the great prophets and
sai nts wi thi n the i nmost recesses of thei r own real i ty.
When Bei ng i s envi saged from the poi nt of vi ew that It embraces
al l Names, Attri butes, and the possi bl e enti ti es, It i s cal l ed the
,,Fi rst
Enti fi cati on"
(ta' ayyun-i
awwaf . At the l evel of thi s enti fi cati on, the
i nfi ni te possi bi l i ti es of Sel f-Mani festati on possessed by God are del i n-
eated wi thi n Hi s Knowl edge,
but they are al l "nonexi stent" and non-
mani fest.
The Fi rst Enti fi cati on has numerous names, dependi ng on our
poi nt of vi ew. Some of these are i mportant for our present di scussi on
Nonexi stent
(known
by God but not mani fest wi thi n the worl d)
:
ar chet ypal - ent i t i es, r eal i t i es, meani ngs
Ent i t i es
( qui ddi t i es,
t hi ngs,
possi bl e-exi stents)
Exi stent
(mani fest
wi thi n the worl d,
:
exi stent-enti ti es, exi stents, forms
DI VI SI ON OF THE KI NDS OF ENTI TI ES
9
FI GURE 2: PRELI MI NARY
INTRODUCTION
l . The Fi r st Ent i f i cat i on
( God' s Knowl edge
of Hi msel f
and al l t hi ngs)
Excl usi ve- Uni t Y
( Onl Y God i s)
2 oneness\ r ncl usi ve_Uni t y
( God, s one Bei ng
embr aces
a' Names and
At t r i but es
and al l ent i t i es)
3' TheFi r st l st hmus- Nat ur e( TheFi r st Ent i f i cat i onst andsbet weenandcompr ehends
both Nonenti fi cati on
and enti fi cati on)
4. The Most Hol y Effusi on
:
The Unseen
Theophany
(The Fi rst Enti fi cati on
em-
braces
God' s Unseen
fto*l tdgt
of al l enti ti es'
whi ch
become
mani fest
through
the
Hol y Effusi on
or the \ri si bl e Theophany)
5. TheReal i t yof t hePer f ect Man( TheFi r st Ent i f i cat i oni st hear chet ypal . ent i t yof
the Perfect Man)
FIGURE
]: SOME
NAMES
OF THE FIRST
ENI.IFICATION
(see Fi gure
l ): Si nce
the Fi rst Enti fi cati on
represents
the sum total of
"tt
,fr.lo,.ntialities
of God's Self-Manifestation'
but in a state
where
"""n
pJ.".t,iality
is identical
with every
other
and with Being'
it is
.;i[d
"Oneness."
Nonentification
Itself cannot
be referred
to as
;One,"
since
It is beyond
all names
and attributes'
We can only say'
i n the manner
of ti re Vedanti sts,
that i t i s "not thi s'
not
that' "
fu."*i
even declares
that to call Nonentification
"Being"
is not
,Flctty
correct.
"That
is not Its true name'"13
When
we observe
this Oneness
of the First
Entification'
we see
that in respect
to it, u.iy Self, all many-ness
(kathrah) is effaced
and
obliterated.
From
this
-ioirrt
of view
ii is called "Exclusive-Unity"
(abad.iyyah),since
it ,riniatt
any
kin..d of multiplicity'
If we ohs.erve
the
same
Onenes
ir, ."rp."t
of tht infinite
ontoiogical
potentialities
and
possibilities
of orrr.,r'"ra
manifestation
that
it embraces'
it is called
"Inclusive-U
nitv"
t*oi;aiyyab),
since,
by embracing
all the modes
of
Being,
it includes
the realities
of all things'
since
the First
Entification
is Exclusively-one
from
one point
of
vi ew and
Incl usi vel y-One
from
another
poi nt of vi ew'
i t.compre-
hends
both Oneness
and
the Pri nci pl e
of many-ness'
Thus-i t
acts as
t hei nt er medi ar yuet *eent heEssence' sNonent i f i cat i onandt heent i -
10
INTRODUCTION
fied creatures, or between the absolute Independence of God and the
dependence and need of the existent things. From this point of view
it is referred to as the "First Isthmus-Nature"
(barzahhiyyat-i
ula). For
an "i sthmus" i s somethi ng that l i es between two other thi ngs and
comprehends the attri butes of both.l a On the one hand the Fi rst Enti -
fi cati on i s One and i s nothi ng other than Bei ng, si nce i t i s onl y di ffer-
ent from the Nonentification of the Essence in respect of the fact that
i t i s the potenti al i ty of the Essence' s Sel f-Mani festati on. On the other
hand, i t embraces al l the perfecti ons of Bei ng, each of whi ch requi res
a different locus-of-manifestation, so it is the principle of creation and
mul ti pl i ci ty.
As the locus of God's Knowledge of Himself and the station
wi thi n whi ch "He mani fested Hi msel f to Hi msel f i n theophany"
(ta-
jalla
bi-dhatibi li-dbatibi), the First Entification conrprehends all the
archetypal-entities and realities before they enter into outward exis-
tence. In this respect it is called the "Most Holy Effusion"
fayd-i
aq-
das) or the "tlnseen Theophany"
(tajalli-yi
ghaybi). It is contrasted
with the "Holy Effusion"
fafi-i
muqaddas) or the "Visible Theopha-
ny"
(tajalli-yi
shabadi), through which the archetypal-entities act as re-
ceptacles for being and become existent-entities, or in other words,
through whi ch al l the worl ds are created. Thi s Hol y Effusi on i s al so
cal l ed the "Second Enti fi cati on."l s
In respect of the fact that the First Entification comprehends all
the perfections of God and the world in a single, all-comprehensive
unity, it is referred to as the "Reality of the Perfect Man," a term that
needs to be expl ai ned i n some detai l .16 For the Perfect Man i s not
si mpl y a human i ndi vi dual who has reached "perfecti on." He repre-
sents a metaphysical and cosmological principle that embraces the
whol e of creati on and i s man' s ontol ogi cal prototype. And here the
term "real i ty" must be understood accordi ng to i ts parti cul ar techni -
cal si gni fi cance.
The Perfect Man i s central to Ibn al -' Arabi ' s metaphysi cs. [n a
certain sense he corresponds to the Logos, for concerning him we can
certai nl y say that "He was i n the begi nni ng wi th God; al l thi ngs were
made through hi m, and wi thout hi m was not anythi ng made that was
made"
(Jn.
l :2-3).
' Ihrough
the Perfect Man God creates the worl d,
and ultimately this means that the whole of creation is in one sense
i denti cal wi th hi m. In the Isl ami c uni verse the most perfect outward
mani festi on of the Perfect Man i s of course the Prophet Muhammad.
11
INTRODUCTION
Other prophets and the saints can never quite attain his station.
Hence the "Reality of the Perfect Man" is also referred to as the "Mu-
hammadan Reality."
In order to explain the nature of the Perfect Man more thorough-
ly, we have to refer to the "Five Divine Presences," or, in other
words, the five universal planes of Entified Being. These five "onto-
logical levels"
(maratib
al-wujud) or five "worlds"
('awalim)
summa-
rize all things or entities into five general categories.lT
In Islamic religious terminology, things are divided into two gen-
eral kinds: those we are able to see with our physical eyes, and those
we cannot see. Thus, in the Koran God is often referred to as the
,,Knower
of the Unseen and the Vi si bl e." But as
OJnawi
expl ai ns,
there is one entity that is neither totally Visible nor totally LJnseen,
that is, man and, a
fortiori,
the principle of which man is the manifes-
tation, the Perfect Man. Hence at first sight all of Entified Being can
be divided into three kinds. In
Qnawi's
words, "Although the onto-
logical levels are numerous, they are reducible to the Unseen, the Vis-
ible, and the reality which comprehends these two."18
As was indicated above, Entified Being can be divided into two
basic kinds of entities, the nonexistent and the existent. These two
can be said to correspond to the LJnseen and the Visible.le Nonexis-
tent or fJnseen entities are those that are known to God but not mani-
fest within the world. The existent or Visible entities are outwardly
manifest within the world. Some of them are completely visible to the
naked eye. These things belong to the corporeal world. Others are in
close proximity to God, but although "[.Jnseen" in relation to us, they
must be considered "Visible" in comparison to God's {.Jnseen Knowl-
edge. These are the Spirits, also referred to as "angels" or "intellects."
Finally, some entities stand between the Spirits and the Corporeal-
Bodies. These are known as the "Image-Exemplars." They are "lumi-
nous" like the Spirits, but unlike them they can appear in corporeal
shapes. They form an "isthmus" between the Spirits and Corporeal-
Bodies, thus establishing a relationship between the two sides. With-
out the isthmus the Spirits in their pure luminosity and subtlety
would be completely cut off from the Corporeal-Bodies in their un-
mixed darkness and grossness. These three created worlds-that of
the Corporeal-Bodies, the Image-Exemplars, and the Spirits-make
up three of the Five Divine Presences. The other two are the uncreat-
ed divine Knowledge, and the Perfect Man, who is both created and
uncreated at the same ti me.
t 2
INTRODUCT' ION
When
Qgnawi
enumerates the Fi ve Presences, he usual l y does so
as fol l ows
(see
Fi gure 4): The Fi rst Presence i s the Fi rst Enti fi cati on,
or the Presence of Di vi ne Knowl edge, al so referred to as the
,,[Jn-
seen." The Second Presence, whi ch faces the l Jnseen i n the opposi te
posi ti on, i s the Worl d of Corporeal -Bodi es or the Vi si bl e. Thi s i s the
"materi al worl d," wi thi n whi ch man fi nds hi msel f si tuated. The
Thi rd and Central Presence i s that of the Perfect Man, who acts as a
parti ti on between the two si des and at the same ri me comprehends
and i ncl udes both of them. The Fourth Presence, to the ri ght of the
Perfect Man and nearer to the Unseen, i s the Worl d of the Spi ri ts or
angel s, whi ch i ncl udes the Uni versal Intel l ect (:
the Supreme Pen),
the first thing created by God. The Fifth Presence, to the left of the
Perfect Man and nearer to the Vi si bl e, i s the Worl d of Image-Exem-
plars
(mithal)
or Imagination (hhayal),
within which spirits become
corporeal i zed and appear to prophets and sai nts i n vi si ons; and wi th-
i n whi ch i s the "Isthmus" after death, where moral qual i ti es and
works become spi ri tual i zed and personi fi ed.
These fi ve Presences em-
brace al l l evel s of enti fi cati on, from rhe uncreated to the l owest l evel
of the created. Onl y the Nonenti fi ed Essence-Bei ng
as such-i s out-
si de of them.
Si nce the Perfect Man encompasses al l the Presences, hi s total
macrocosmi c nature has fi ve l evel s:
(l )
hi s real i ty or archetypal -enti ty,
whi ch i s the Fi rst Enti fi cati on
(here
we have the techni cal usage of
the word "real i ty" i n the expressi on the "Real i ty of the Perfect Man"
referred to above);
(2)
hi s spi ri t, the Uni versal Intel l ect, whi ch com-
prehends the whol e of the Worl d of the Spi ri ts and i s the fi rst thi ng
created by God;
(l )
hi s soul , or the Worl d of l mage-Exempl ars,
whi ch
acts as an i ntermedi ary between hi s spi ri t and hi s body;
(4)
hi s body,
whi ch corresponds to the whol e of the corporeal worl d;
(5)
hi s nature
as such, whi ch comprehends al l Presences. Obvi ousl y, man as an i ndi -
vi dual i s a "mi crocosm" refl ecti ng al l these l evel s (Fi gure
5). And al l
these l evel s taken as a whol e, whi ch compri se the fi fth l evel -that of
the Perfect Man as such-are the mi rror i mage of Nonenti fi ed Bei ng.
So al l that exi sts may be di vi ded from a certai n poi nt of vi ew i nto
two categori es: On the one hand i s Nonenti fi ed and Nondel i mi ted
Bei ng, on the other al l the enti fi cati ons Bei ng assumes, enti fi cati ons
that are comprehended i nto a Uni ty by the Perfect Man
(see
Fi gure
6).
We have seen that everythi ng other than Nonenti fi ed Bei ng i s an
enti ty2o and that the enti ti es are of three ki nds: "nonexi stent."
,,exi s-
I J
INTRODUCTION
Ent i f i ed Bei ng
F-
The Outward The Inward
.+l
rhe created
u'lli*od
FI GURE 4: THE FI VE DI VI NE PRESENCES
(The Perfect Man comprehends all of Entified Being)
tent," and "both nonexistent and existent"
(see
Figure 7). But here we
must follow
Qgnawi's
analysis of Entified Being one step further. We
speak of the "existence" of the entities, but, in fact, this is inaccurate.
Our starting point was that "Being is One," and that only Being ls'
There are not two or more Beings, two or more existences. The plu-
rality of the entities cannot affect the fundamental axiom of Being's
Oneness. So how can we correctly speak of "existents"
in the plural?
Is it not true that there is only one Existent?
In fact, since Being is One, and since it is the only true Reality,
the entities as entities have no positive reality. They remain always
nonexistent in themselves. Whatever existence they seem to possess is
r4
INTRODUCTION
Indioiduel lllan
l . hi s archet ypal -ent i t y
2. hi s spi ri t
3. hi s soul
4. his body
Tbe Perfect Man
1. The Fi rst Ent i f i cat i on
2. The Worl d of t he Spi ri t s
3. The Worl d of I mage-Exempl ars
4. The World of Corporeal-Bodies
FIGURE 5: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL MAN
AND THE PERFECT MAN
not thei r own. It bel ongs onl y to God, the onl y Bei ng there i s, the
only thing that may truly be said to erirt.
Bei ng i s Li ght, and nonexi stence i s darkness. So the nonexi stent
entities are never themselves outwardly manifested,
iust
as darkness
itself is never seen. Whatever is seen is Being, Light, the only reality
there is. Only the effects of the nonexistent entities are perceived, in
the sense that the removal of certain perfections from Light
(:
the
delimitation of Being) allows us to see colors. But the color, the enti-
ty, that which is manifested, is nothing but Light ltself.
So all entities considered in themselves are nonexistent, whereas
considered in relation to Being they are the possibilities of Self-Mani-
festati on i nherent wi thi n It. Hence nothi ng but Bei ng exi sts. And Be-
i ng i s One. So when we speak of "exi stence," we mean Bei ng as
delimited, defined, and colored by the entities, or in other words, Be-
Nonenti fi cati on
,t:
the Essence)
/
Bei nel l .
\ /
\_ /--,
' Ent i f i cat i on\
\ ,
God as Knowl edge
( :
t he Fi r st Ent i f i cat i on)
The Worl d of the Spi ri ts
The Worl d of Image-Exempl ars
The Worl d of Corporeal -Bodi es
FI GURE 6: THE TOTALI TY OF BEI NG
The Perfect
Man
t 5
o\
Cangory of Entity
nonexistent
exrst ent
both existent and nonexistent the Perfect Man, the True Man
Corre spo nd i ng A dj ec tioe
supraformal
spi ri t ual
i magi nal
corporeal, sensory
all-comprehensive
FI GURE 7: COMPREHENSI VE DI \ ' I SI ON OF THE KI NDS OF ENTI TI ES
Synonymous Names
archetypal-entities, meanings, realities
forms. existents
spirits, angels,
intellects
image-exemplars,
imagination, images
corporeal-bodies,
sensory things
INTRODUCTION
i ng as It becomes outwardl y mani fest i n respect to one or more of Its
perfecti ons. The Sel f-Mani festati on of Bei ng as sucb i s then the Per-
fect Man, who comprehends al l the perfecti ons of Bei ng i n thei r ful l
depl oyment and i n thei r uni ty at the same ti me.
The Perfect Man acts as a receptacl e for al l of Bei ng' s perfec-
ti ons. He does not del i mi t and defi ne Bei ng, so that some of Its per-
fecti ons woul d be vi si bl e and others hi dden. Hence i t i s someti mes
sai d that the Perfect Man has no enri ry.21 For the "enti ty" i s that
whi ch i s nonexi stent i n i tsel f and detracts from Bei ng' s pure Radi -
ance. But the Perfect Man refl ects Bei ng as such. In thi s sense he hi m-
sel f i s nothi ng but Sheer Bei ng, and i s therefore nonenti fi ed.
In short, no matter how much we speak of thi s and that, thi ngs,
attri butes, col ors, enti ti es, del i neati ons, characteri sti cs, properti es,
these are al l nothi ng but the radi ati on of Bei ng, nonexi stent i n them-
sel ves. Onl y the One Bei ng rs.
Qnawi
summari zes the nature of the Oneness of Bei ng i n nu-
merous passages, i ncl udi ng the fol l owi ng: "God knows al l thi ngs as a
resul t of Hi s very Knowl edge of Hi s own Essence. He i s not qual i fi ed
by any knowl edge deri ved from other than Hi msel f or through other
than Hi msel f. Then He bestows bei ng upon the worl d i n accordance
wi th Hi s Knowl edge of the worl d i n Hi msel f from Eterni ty-wi thout-
begi nni ng. So the worl d i s the form of and l ocus-of-mani festati on for
Hi s Knowl edge, and God never ceases to encompass the thi ngs i n
Knowl edge and Bei ng. . . . Everythi ng whi ch becomes mani fest be-
comes mani fest onl y from Hi m, si nce nothi ng el se possesses a bei ng
whi ch mi ght accompany Hi s Bei ng. Thi s i s the news gi ven by the
Prophet: ' God i s, and nothi ng i s wi th Hi m."' 22
LOVE: THE MOTIVATING FORCE OF GOD' S
SELF-MANIFESTATION
Farghani defi nes l ove as "an i nward i ncl i nati on toward reachi ng
a perfecti on. Its real i ty i s a uni fyi ng rel ati on between the seeker and
the sought, i ts meani ng i s the domi nati on of that whi ch bri ngs about
uni fi cati on and shari ng, and i ts effect i s the di sappearance of that
whi ch bri ngs about di fferenti ati on and di versi ty between the seeker
and t he sought . "23
Love, then, begi ns wi th consci ousness of an i mperfecti on and a
desi re to el i mi nate i t. The desi red perfecti on becomes the goal or be-
l oved of hi m who i s i mperfect, the l over. Moreover, the exi stence of
r7
INTRODUCTION
this inclination depends on a unifying relation between the two sides.
This relation is referred to technically as "affinity"
(rnunasabah).
lt is
defined as "a property through which unification is brought about
between two things."24 lt means that there is already something
shared between the lover and the beloved, something on the basis of
which the affinity can be said to exist. This something must be
strengthened and perfected for the lover to attain his goal, which is
the disappearance of those attributes that prevent unification and
union. If there were no common factor shared between the two sides,
the lover could never make the beloved the obiect of his quest, for he
could never even gain knowledge of the beloved.
Qnawi
writes, "It is inconceivable that one thing should love
another thing in the respect that that thing differs from it. It can only
love that thing as a result of the property of some meaning shared be-
tween the two of them, in respect of which an affinity is established
between them, an affinity which will lead to the domination of the
property of 'that which brings about unification' over the property of
'that which brings about differentiation and separation.' As a result
of knowledge and awareness of this affinity, the person who has this
knowledge and awareness will seek to remove totally the properties
of separation and to manifest the dominating force of 'that which
brings about unification.' Then complete union will definitely fol-
l ow,"25
Now this love, which depends on an affinity between lover and
beloved and which results in union, stems from a Divine prototype. It
exists, and like all things that exist, it must derive from the very na-
ture of Being ltself. [t must be one of the infinite ontological perfec-
ti ons.
The Divine prototype of love is expressed by means of the words
"f loved"
(abbabtu)
in the famous baditb qudsi in which God says, "I
was a Hidden Treasure andl loved to be known. So I created the crea-
tures that I mi ght be known." The "Hi dden Treasure" i s an al l usi on
to the infinite ontological perfections of God, which, as we have said,
are summarized as the Names and Attributes.
Now the Essence Itself is nonentified. So the level to which the
pronoun "f" in "I loved" refers is the First Entification, within
which God's Attributes are delimited, defined, and known. For if
God is to say "I was a Hidden Treasure," He must have conscious-
ness of this Treasure. Thus God's words refer to the level where we
can speak of His Self-Awareness, that is, His Knowledge. Moreover,
18
INTRODUCTION
i t i s onl y here that we can speak of the "necessi ty" for creati on, or of a
certain imperfection rhat needed to be overcome, for Being Itself is
"Independent of al l rhe worl ds"
(Koran
III:97). In speaki ng of the
"mystery of ' I l oved,' "
Qgnawi
remarks that the pronoun
,,I"
refers
to the Lord
(rabb),
since the Lord by His very nature must have a vas-
sal
(marbub)
over which He can exercise His Lordship.ru I. a similar
manner, Ibn al -' Arabi states that each Name and Attri bute demands a
locus-of-manifestation
within which its perfection may be displayed.
Hence the Di vi ne Names "demand i n themsel ves the exi stence of the
worl d."27
In order to understand the significance of these remarks by
Qnawi
and Ibn al -' Arabi , we shoul d recal l that l ove was defi ned as
"an i nward i ncl i nati on toward reachi ng a perfecti on." If we say that
God possesses Love, are we not mai ntai ni ng that He i s somehow i m-
perfect? The remarks of Ibn al -' Arabi and hi s di sci pl e mean rhat
God's Love does imply a certain "imperfection" from a certain rela-
tive point of view. But this imperfection is in ruth a perfection and
the source for the appearance of all other perfections.
To revi ew what we have al ready sai d, we shoul d recal l that a di s-
tinction must be made between God as such-the Essence, Nonenti-
fi ed Bei ng-and God as He reveal s Hi msel f to us through Hi s Names
and Attri butes. Bei ng i n Its Nonenti fi ed Pl eni tude i s perfect i n every
sense, for It can l ack nothi ng. Al l thi ngs, al l perfecti ons, are onl y Its
possi bi l i ti es
of sel f-Mani festati on
actual i zed. In the words of another
of
Qgnawi ' s
di sci pl es, Bei ng i s "rhat whi ch i s tbi ng i n every respecr"
{ma
buwa asb+bay' min kull wajb).28 All the infinite things that have
exi sted, do exi st, and wi l l exi st are nothi ng but Bei ng' s mani festa-
tions, precisely because they exist. Thus Being possesses
all perfec-
ti ons-whi ch are nothi ng but modes of exi stence-by Its very nature.
To speak of It as "i mperfect" i s meani ngl ess.
But when we exami ne Bei ng as enti fi ed by the Attri butes, that i s,
at the l evel where we can say that God possesses such Names as
,,Li v-
i ng, Knowi ng, Powerful , Creator, Lovi ng," a certai n ki nd of theoreti -
cal i mperfecti on
can be envi saged,
al though i t remai ns purel y
theoreti cal and supposi ti onal , si nce i t can never be actual i zed. Each
Name taken as a reality in itself is different from the Essence, al-
though i t i s nothi ng but one of the Essence' s perfecti ons.
But vi ewed
in itself, it can be considered as possessing a certain difference from
Being as such. In other words, the "Al1-Forgiving" (al-gbafur)
is noth-
i ng but God, but God i n Hi s Essence i s not i denti cal wi th the
t 9
INTRODUCTION
All-Forgiving
in every respect, for He is also the "vengeful"
(al-mun-
taqim).
But Being is one. In the Essence there is no trace of multiplicity.
Only at the level of the First Entification
can we speak of a potential
muliiplicity,
that is, the Names and Attributes envisaged as separate
realities. But here also God is One, each Name is identical in its exis-
tence with every other. so in order for the Names and Attributes
of
God to be anything
more than the potentialities
of manifestation
in-
herent within Being, in order for each perfection
to be viewed
in it-
self as an independent
reality, in order for the Hidden Treasure
to be
displayed,
muitiplicity
must be manifested.
As long as there is n_o cre-
ation-as
long ai the i{idden Treasure remains hidden and the Name
,.Outwardly-tlanifest"
(az-zahir) remains latent-the
properties of
God's Names will not be able
to show themselves. The Names can
have no actualized
significance
unless there is a world within which
each of them can display its properties and characteristics
seParate
from, as well as in combination
with, the properties and characteris-
tics of the other Names'
So God's Names would not be displayed
if there were no cre-
ation. Each would remain identical with every other within the Di-
vine unity. As a result, God's Names would have no raison d.'|tre. Fot
if God is ihe
,,Creator,"
it is so that He can have a creation.
If He is
.,Merciful,"
it is so that He can exercise His Mercy. Ultimately-in
Ibn al-,Arabi's
terms-if he is "God"
it is so that He cen heve some-
thing to be
,,god
over"
(ma'lub). so this perfection of the manifesta-
tion of His own Attributes
is what God seeks to realize through His
..Love."
The
,,imperfection"
from which He wishes to escape
is the
nonmanifestation
of His own Names and Attributes'
But, of course, there is a great difference
between the "imperfec-
tion" implied by God's Love and that implied by man's love. God's
,,imperfection"
is only our own mental construct based on the suppo-
sition that His Names might not have loci of manifestation
within
which to display
themselves.
But they do have such loci, for the uni-
verse exists.'And
since God creates
for all eternity-for
He is the
..creator"
now and forever, His nature never changing-there
is no
moment or time when He does not possess the perfection
that is the
obiect of His Love.
Man and the other creetures,
however, are in a constant
flux and
undergo a perpetual movement
toward their respective
perfections.
The obiecti of their loves exist separately
from them, and they can
20
INTRODUCTION
attain these obiects only through temporal becoming. From this point
of view we can speak in their case of true imperfecti,on
and an inward
inclination toward reaching
a perfection
they do not now possess. It
i s onl y when man attai ns hi s true and ul ti mate Bel oved, God, that he
can elude the process of becoming and find his perfection
here and
now in the eternal present.
Ibn al-'Arabi and his followers speak about two
perfections
God
possesses for all eternity. one is the "Essence-derived
perfection"
(a/-
kamal adb-dbati), which God possesses in Himself by His very nature
as Nondelimited Being. The other is the
"Name-derived
peifection"
(al-kamal
al-asma'i),
which requires that all the infinite ontological
perfections inherent in Nonentified
Being become deployed and dis-
played in outward manifestation.2e
Qnawi
often refers to the object of God's Love, that is, the
Name-derived
Perfection,
as the "Perfection of Distinct-Manifesta-
tion and Distinct-Vision" (hamal
al-jala, wa-l-istijla).30
The
perfec-
ti on of Di sti nct-Mani festati on
i s actual i zed when al l the ontol ogi cal
perfections
inherent within Being
(:
the Hidden Treasure) receive
their full deployment. In other words, this perfection
is for the
per-
fect Man to receive his full outward-manifestation
through the de-
ployment
of the Divine Presences
as a result of the Second
Enti fi cati on.
As for the Perfection
of Distinct-Vision,
it consists of the knowl-
edge and vision of the Hidden Treasure once it has become deployed.
But this knowledge
entails several kinds of knowledge
"t
or,... Fi.rt,
God' s Knowl edge
of the Hi dden Treasure can be none other than Hi s
Knowledge of Himself, since God is one. But at the actualization
of
thi s perfecti on,
thi s Knowl edge
has two di mensi ons: the Knowl edge
of the Essence as such, or of the Inward; and the Knowledge of the
Hidden Treasure
as deployed, or of the outward. This "dutward"
becomes differentiated
from God in any true sense only at the level of
creati on. "Before" creati on, i t was one wi th Hi m i n everv wav. But
"after" creation, it can be called "other than God" in respeci of its
multiplicity
and its separation from its source. Moreover, this
,,other"
possesses
a certai n real i ty of i ts own, whi ch i ncl udes knowl edse
and
vi si on.
so the Perfecti on
of Di sti nct-vi si on
al so means that thJ..oth-
er" must contempl ate i tsel f i n i tsel f i nasmuch
as i t i s di fferenti ated
from its source, and likewise it must contemplate
God with its own
eye and wi th God' s eye as wel l .
So the other, whi ch knows God both through i ts own vi si on and
2l
INTRODUCTION
God's vision, can be no one but the Perfect Man. Only the Perfect
Man can know God as such, since only he is the mirror for the totality
of God's Names and Attributes. In other words, only he has the scope
to perceive and thus to know every Attribute of God. All other enti-
ties can reflect and perceive only some of God's Names. Or, if certain
entities can perceive all of them, they can do so only within a certain
ontological level, not within the full range of the deployment of the
Names.31 This is what Ibn al-'Arabi and his followers are referring to
when they call the Perfect Man the "all-comprehensive generated-ex-
istent"
(al-hawn
al-jami'). The Perfect Man is "generated" since, ar
least in his external form, he belongs to the world of generation and
corruption; or since he is a creature and not the Creator. And he is
"all-comprehensive"
because he embraces, quite literally, all things,
from "God" to the tiniest atom.
It follows from what we have said that only the Perfect Man can
truly love God. For love is "an inclination toward reaching a perfec-
tion." To truly love God means first of all to know that God as sucb is
the perfection
one must reach, not God as He reveals Himself
through His Names and Attributes. Thus the Perfect Man is called
the "servant of Allah," since the master whom he serves and loves is
none but the Essence of God, which is named by the All-Comprehen-
sive Name "Allah."32 No Name and Attribute escapes the Perfect
Man's gaze and attentiveness, for he is the mirror of Nondelimited
and Nonentified Being. He desires God as sucb, not God as the Merci-
ful, the Generous, the Bountiful. He is the mirror of Being as sucb,
not of the various perfections or Attributes that are inherent within
Being. Thus
Qnawi
says, "God cannot be the Sought or the Beloved
of anyone, save the Perfect Man."33
Man's capacity to love God in a total manner and to become the
Perfect Man in whom God contemplates His own Name-derived Per-
fection is referred to as man's being the "vicegerent" (kbalifub)
of Al-
lah. It is the "trust" about which God says, "We offered the Trust to
the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to car-
ry i t and were afrai d of i t; and man carri ed i t"
(Koran
XXXIII:72).
Farghani writes:
When the First Theophany
(:
the First Entification) in its
totality and in the perfection
of its all-comprehensiveness,
and in accordance with the property of its holy, Love-de-
rived motion, turned its Attentiveness toward the Perfection
22
INTRODUCTION
of Sel f-Mani festati on
and Maki ng-Mani fest (i .e.,
maki ng the
enti ti es appear i n outward mani festati on),
onl y the real i ty of
the Fi rst Isthmus-Nature (:
the Perfect Man) was i ts cbm-
pl ete vehi cl e and mi rror. . . . God refers to thi s when He
says, "We offered the Trust," i .e., the recepti vi ty for thi s the_
ophany i n i ts total i ty, "to the heavens," i .e., the hi gher
thi ngs
(:
the Worl d of the Spi ri ts),
,,and
the earth," i .e., the
l ower thi ngs (:
the Worl d of Corporeal -Bodi es),
..and
the
mountai ns," i .e., what i s between them
(:
the Worl d of Im_
age-Exemplars),
"but they refused to carry it," because of
their need for the perfection
of their receptivity in order to
bri ng about the perfecti on
of Outward-Mani festati on
i n a
compl ete manner. They l acked perfect preparednesses
and
complete
correspondence (mudabar)
with the reality of that
Isthmus-Narure.
"They were afrai d of i t," i .e., they i eared to
act as a receptacle for it, because they were delimited by the
properti es
of the Names (and
not by the property
of the Al i _
Comprehensi ve
Name, whi ch mani fests Bei ng as such).
"And man carri ed i t," because of hi s perfect recepti vi ty
and
total correspondence
wi th the real i ty
of that Isthmus_Na-
t ur e. 34
Now the real i ty of l ove i s one of the perfecti ons i nherent
wi thi n
Bei ng. And si nce, accordi ng to the Sufi sayi ng,
"Bei ng descends wi th
al l Its sol di ers," l ove pervades
al l thi ngs. wherever
anythi ng exi sts,
Iove i s there, i nherent
wi thi n the very nature of exi stence i tsel f.
wherever
Bei ng di spl ays Its Radi ance,
l ove i s busy i nci ti ng the exi s-
tents toward the goal of al l , the Perfecti on
of Di sti nct-Mani festati on
and Di sti nct-Vi si on.
For the goal of creati on to be achi eved,
al l of Bei ng' s perfecti ons
must be depl oyed wi thi n and real i zed
by the
perfect
M".t. so al l the
creatures must be actual i zed wi thi n the Di vi ne
presences,
si nce each
i s a precondi ti on
for the actual i zati on
of the
perfect
Man. Thus each
thi ng i s God' s bel oved, si nce each thi ng has i ts share to pl ay i n achi ev-
i ng the desi red Perfecti on.
In
Qnawi ' s
words, "whai evl r
i s neces-
sary to actual i ze the Sought i s i tsel f the sought."3s whatever i s
necessary to bri ng about the total depl oyment
of God' s Name-deri ved
Perfecti on i s i tsel f the obi ect of God' s Love.
so l ove pervades
al l thi ngs. Al l moti ons and sti l l nesses, acti ons
and reacti ons,
causes and effects-i n short, each thi ng that exi sts and
23
ru
INTRODUCTION
every
property
and activity
it displays-are
derived
from love'
All
t
"u"
.'rittgfe
gorl' to manifest
the iuli scope of their own ontological
fossibilitiJs
"ttd
,h.r, to deploy
Being
in Its Totality'
or' in other
iuorar,
to bring
about
the i.ri.ction
of Distinct-Manifestation
and
Distinct-Vision.
All derives
from love. In
Qgnawi's
words, "When
the theophany
of Love pervaded
the entities,ihey
sought
from
God the Outward-
Manifestation
of their own realitiis
and
perfections.
Hence
this the-
.pi""y
r, the key to all the . . . motions
which make the hidden
things
manifest and
which bring
the archetypal-entities
' ' '
out into actual-
i ty."ao
Individual
man has a special
role to play in bringing
about
the
Name-derived
Perfection.
By the fact that he is a man' he manifests
t hehumanr eal i t y, whi chi snot hi ngbut t heFi r st Ent i f i cat i oni nr e.
rf.", of the Isthmus-Nature
referred
to above'
But as long as man
it",
,ro, travel on the
path
of spiritual
realization,
as long as he does
not actualize
all the potential
p&fections
inherent
within
himself,
he
will not be able to rrrtritt the role for which he was created.
If he does
not r eacht hest at i onof t hePer f ect Man, hewi l l havef ai l edt ocar r y
the Trust.
Of course
even
those human
beings
who do not ettain
the station
of per f ect i onst i l l havear ol et opl ay, i ust asal l cr eat ur esot her t han
manarenecessaryt brt heName-deri vedPerf ect i ont obeact ual i zed
in its totality.
Farghani
writes,
God placed man uPon
the throne
of vicegerency
and
made
him a mirror of the Presence
of Divinity
and
the Form
of
the Sanctuary
of Lordship'rz
1n"tt He made his elemental
form the primordial
gto"ttd and
the material
for all the hu-
man forms. Some
of-these
forms
are desired
in themselves'
like the Perfect
Men among
the messengers,
prophets'
and
gre"t ,"irrts.
And others are desired
because
of things outside
ihemselues.
Some of the latter are like the causes
and precon-
ditions
for the entification
of the constitution
and
form of
each
Perfect
Man, like their fathers and mothers'
Others act
as organs and helpers
(of
the Perfect
Men) by populating.the
other
levels and
(spiritual) stations,
like the rest of the saints
and the believers.
And some are subjected
to populating
this
world
and
putting it in order,
for
Divine Wisdom
has de-
creed
that the Periect
Men can only
reach the station
of Per-
24
INTRODUCTION
fection by means of this world. These last are the
commonality of people. This disparity
(in
the levels of men)
i s a branch of the di spari ty that occurred at the pri mordi al
ground, when the reality of Love became related to the
worl d and i ts i nhabi tants
(i .e.,
at the l evel of the Fi rst Enti fi -
cati on and the archetypal -enti ti es).38
In short, the beloved of all is the Perfection of Distinct-Manifes-
tation and Distinct-Vision, as a result of which the Perfect Man be-
comes a mirror embracing the full deployment of every ontological
perfection inherent within Being. And the beloved of the Perfect
Man i s al so thi s perfecti on, whi ch i s nothi ng but hi msel f. But i t i s al so
nothi ng but Bei ng, for Bei ng i s One, and at thi s stati on al l mul ti pl i c-
ity has been reintegrated into Unity. In every case the Beloved is
God's perfection, or, rather, God Himself, for His perfection is noth-
ing but His One Being. The Circle has closed upon ltself, Unity has
been realized, but now within the framework of the total deployment
of Being's perfections in Outward-Manifestation.
God is both Love and the Beloved. And since nothing exists but
His One Being, He is also the Lover. But usually by "lover" is meant
man the creature, or, in other words, man as God's Self-Manifestation
still veiled from himself and before he has realized his potential per-
fection. Nevertheless, man is also the "beloved," as was indicated
above, for only he can become the Perfect Man and thus actualize the
ul ti mate obj ect of God' s Love.
Thus
Qgnawi
wri tes,
The Beloved loves the lover because he is the cause of His
Di sti nct-Vi si on of Hi s own Perfecti on wi thi n hi m and the
l ocus wi thi n whi ch the domi nati ng-force of Hi s Beauty exer-
cises its influence and spreads its properties. Therefore
(man
is also) the beloved,
(and
he) is the mirror of the Lover. With-
i n man God di sti nctl y vi ews Hi s own Beauti es, whi ch were
latent in His Oneness before the locup-of-theophany
(i.e.,
the
Perfect Man) became entified. For
(before
the manifestation
of God' s Name-deri ved Perfecti on), excessi ve proxi mi ty and
selfsameness veiled Him from that
(i.e.,
from this Distinct-
Vi si on). Then, when He gai ned a Di sti nct-Vi si on of Hi msel f
i n somethi ng el se-because of the actual i zati on of a ki nd of
distance and differentiation
25
-and when He saw His
INTRODUCTION
own Beauties in the locus-of-theophany, He loved them with
a love which would not have come to Him without the locus
and the differentiation referred to, because of the fact that
proxi mi ty and oneness acted as a vei l , as we menti oned.3e
The obiect of God's Love is Himself; it is the manifestation of
His own Beauties and perfections, known as the "Hidden Treasure."
Love then is God, the Lover is God, and the Beloved is God. All are
One. Moreover, wherever a lover and beloved appear within creation,
they display this oneness. [n all cases, love, the lover and the beloved
are ultimately one, for Being is One. So a lover loves the manifes-
tation of his own attributes,
just
as God loves the Perfection of
Distinct-Manifestation and Distinct-Vision. Every man is a "tran-
scription of Being"
(nuskbat
al-wujud), so within him all God's Attri-
butes are embraced. For
just
this reason, he is potentially a Perfect
Man. So when man l oves somethi ng, he l oves onl y hi msel f, that i s, hi s
own attributes and ontological perfections as reflected in the beloved.
He may love them in God-for God is his very reality, his very Self-
or he may l ove them i n the creatures, whi ch al so mani fest man' s own
real i ty, that i s, Bei ng as such.
This is why
Qgnawi
writes, "Every lover in reality loves only
himself. But the form of the beloved stands before him as a mirror in
which he contemplates himself in respect of complete affinity and
spiritual parallelism
Qnubadhat).
So what is called 'beloved' is a pre-
condition for the lover's love of himself."ao Love can take place only
through the mutual parallelism and affinity that exists between lover
and beloved, each of which reflects the other. Ultimately, this is be-
cause the prototype of all love-that is, God's love for His Name-
derived Perfection-is based on
iust
such a duality.
But the end of love is unity. In the last analysis, God and the Per-
fect Man are One, for Being is One. We can even say that God as the
"Inward" i s the Essence or Bei ng as such, whereas God as the "Out-
ward" is the Perfect Man or Being deployed. And God "is the Out-
ward and the Inward"
(Koran
LVII:3).
DIVINE AND HUMAN LOVE
In discussions of Persian poetry, the question of whether the po-
etical images employed are only symbols or, on the contrary, repre-
sent "real" things is often raised. Is the poet a mystic or a profane
!
INTRODUCTION
man, or has he perhaps empl oyed two poi nts of vi ew i n hi s poetry?a1
From our anal ysi s of ' Iraqi ' s i deas, the reader may have concl uded
that as a poet and author 'Iraqi-at least in the Lama,at-concerns
hi msel f onl y wi th "mysti cal l ove."
But thi s i s a premature j udgment
A careful exami nati on of our
discussion and of the Lama'at itself will illustrare the fact that
,Iraqi-
l i ke
Qgnawi ,
Farghani , and other members
of Ibn al -,Arabi ' s
school-is not discussing mystical love, nor profane love, nor both to-
gether, at l east not i n any excl usi ve sense. He i s di scussi ng l ove as
such, i n al l the forms i t may take, whether "mysti cal l ove"
(man' s
l ove
for God), "profane love"
(man's
love for woman or vice versa),
,,alle-
gorical love"
('isbq-i
majazi-love
for God as conremplated within His
Self-Manifestation in the form of woman), Divine Love
(God's
love
for man and the creatures), "creaturely
love"
(the
love of each crea-
ture for its own perfection),
or any other phenomenon
that may be
properl y cal l ed "l ove."a2 Each of these i s nothi ng but Nondel i mi ted
Love, whi ch has become enti fi ed and del i mi ted i n keepi ng wi th the
receptacl e wi thi n whi ch It mani fests Itsel f.
When Ibn al -' Arabi
and hi s fol l owers speak of
,.Bei ng,"
they do
not mean the Being of God as opposed to that of the creatures, or vice
versa. They mean Bei ng as such, i n al l the forms i t may take, wi thout
excepti on. For them the "sci ence of Bei ng" i s the sci ence of al l sci -
ences, si nce nothi ng but Bei ng l s. If someone can understand thi s sci -
ence, he has understood the pri nci pl e
of everythi ng. To grasp the
nature of Bei ng Itsel f i s to grasp the nature of al l that exi sts.
"Love" i s one of the pri mary
attri butes of Bei ng, whi ch means
that whatever exi sts musr parti ci pate i n i t,
i ust
as i t must parti ci pate
i n Bei ng. To understand the narure of Love and i ts myri adsel f-mani -
festations is to grasp the nature of Being Itself, for the two are in fact
one.
Of course one may sti l l want to mai ntai n that
,Iraqi
i s speaki ng
basi cal l y of a "mysti cal "
concept of l ove. Thi s i s true enough, provi d-
ed one remembers the cl ose rel ati onshi p between the words
,.mysti -
ci sm" and "mystery." If a mysti c i s one who has knowl edge of the
"mysteri es,"
then certai nl y ' Iraqi ' s concept of l ove i s
,,mysti cal ."
In
Ibn al -' Arabi ' s school the Arabi c term that may best be transl ated as
"mystery" (si rr)
i s practi cal l y
equi val ent to "archetypal -enti ty." The
mysteries of things are hidden from all but God and the greatest
prophets and sai nts.
Qgnawi
defi nes a thi ng' s mystery as i ts i nward
and unseen real i ty. He says that when we come to understand some-
27
INTRODUCTION
thing's mystery, we have understood its fundamental nature and
those of its inward dimensions that are concealed from its observed
and outward existence. "Whoever knows a thing's mystery knows the
cause and the peculiarity of that thing. He knows the primordial-
ground of its source, the reason for its properties and its outward
manifestation, and its hidden and evident concomitants."43 More-
over, true knowledge of something's mystery means that man must
have a direct vision of that thing as it is in itself, that is, a suprara-
ti onal knowl edge that deri ves from "unvei l i ng."++
The teachings of Ibn al-'Arabi's school on Being or on Love per-
tain to the "mystery" of these realities, and hence we may call these
fi gures "mysti cs." But i n no way does thi s i mpl y a senti mental or i r-
rational-which is quite different from suprarational-attitude on
their part. Nor does it mean they ignore or are unconcerned with the
phenomena of this world. In their eyes, love is love, whether it is love
for God or love for the human form. God's love for the Perfection of
Distinct-Manifestation and Distinct-Vision is the source of all other
l oves, i t i s the "mystery" of l ove. Whoever trul y understands i t wi l l
understand "the reason for love's properties and its outward manifes-
tation
(in
all the forms it may assume), and its hidden and evident
concomi tants."
In short, the reader must remember that ' Iraqi ' s di scussi on i s not
limited to love for God or love for the human form. He is analyzing
unqualified and nondelimited love, not love of any specific kind. In
whatever manner we may be concerned with love, the treatise will be
of relevance to us and will serve to turn our attention toward love's
very Essence.
NOTES
1. The Sufis of lbn al-'Arabi's school employ the term
"intellect" in
two basic senses, which one can usually distinguish in English by the use of
capital and small letters, Thus the "Intellect" is the first creation of God, also
called the "Holy Spirit" or the
"Supreme Pen." It possesses direct knowledge
of the realities of all things, which it contemplates in God. Then the
"intel-
lect" is the microcosmic reflection of this reality within man, as will become
clear below when the Five Divine Presences are discussed. Through different
degrees of identification with its own source, man's intellect can come to
have direct knowledge of the realities of things as they are known by God.
This knowledge is referred to as "unveiling." But to avoid confusion between
unveiling and the rational, discursive function of the intellect, the Sufis nor-
28
INTRODUCTION
mal l y empl oy t he word "i nt el l ect " i n a pej orat i ve sense, al l udi ng t o t he l i mi t -
ed powers of man' s comprehension as such, cut off from divine illuminarion.
When they do employ the term in a positive sense, they are invariably speak-
i ng about t he "Fi rst I nt el l ect " or t he "i nt el l ect s, " i . e. , t he Spi ri t s or angel s.
Rumi summarizes their reasons for avoiding the term "intellect" to refer to a
positive human function in his verse, "The
particular intellect has disgraced
t he I nt el l ect "
(Mat hnawi
V: 463).
Al l of t hi s hel ps t o expl ai n why i n I sl am t here i s no f undament al opposi -
t i on bet ween "i nt el l ect " and "unvei l i ng, " or i n more West ern t erms, bet ween
"logic" and "mysticism." The Sufis do not deny the findings of the intellect;
they only claim that it is inadequate to reach the fundamental truth about
t hi ngs wi t hout out si de gui dance, i . e. , f i rst revel at i on, and t hen unvei l i ng.
They do not deny the teachings of the Peripatetic philosophers in principle;
rather, they accept those data for the comprehension of which the unaided
intellect is "adequate"
(in
the Thomist sense). But at the same time they hold
that many of the philosophers' teachings are invalid, since they concern mat-
ters that transgress the intellect' s natural limits. See W. C. Chittick, "Mysti-
ci sm vs. Phi l osophy i n Earl i er I sl ami c Hi st ory: The al -Tusi , al -Qnawi
Correspondence," Religiout Stildies 17
(1981):
pp. 87-104.
2. See the forthcoming book tentatively called Ascendant Stars of Faitb:
The Sufism of Sadr al-Din al-@nawi, by W. C. Chittick, especially the first
treatise translated there, in which
Qnawi
presents the Sufi point of view
concerni ng t hese mat t ers.
3. See W. C. Chi t t i ck, "The Last Wi l l and Test ament of I bn al -' Arabi ' s
Foremost Disciple and Some Notes on Its Author," Sopbia Perennlq IV, no. I
(Spring
1978): 43-58; also Ascendant Stars, chap.3.
4. A t ransl at i on and anal ysi s of Ghazzal i ' s work i s bei ng prepared by
Nasrollah Pouriavady. Part of what is said here about the relationship be-
t ween ' I raqi and Ghazzal i i s based on di scussi ons wi t h Pourj avady.
5. See the chapter "Knowledge and Love" in T. Burckhardt, An Intro-
duction to Suft Doctrine
(Lahore,
1950).
6.
Qnawi,
Tabsirat al-rnubtadi usa tadbkirat al-muntabi, part I, 1; trans-
lated in Ascendant Stars.
7. See W. C. Chi t t i ck, "Sadr al -Di n
Qgnawi
on t he Oneness of Bei ng, "
International Pbilosopbical
@tarterly
21
(1981):
pp. 171-184.
8. In order that the present discussion be kept within bounds, certain
statements will be made that would obviously need much more clarification
were a complete philosophical exposition of the subiect at hand being at-
tempted. But that is hardly the purpose of the present work. The whole of
the enormously fruitful philosophical tradition of Islam, especially after Ibn
al-' Arabi, concerns itself largely with clarifying the nature of Being. Such fig-
ures as Ibn Turkah Isfahani, Mulla Sadra, Sabziwari, and dozens of others
concerned themselves primarily with delimiting and defining this most non-
delimited and undefinable of all realities.
29
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important discussions with which many of these figures
occupied themselves was proving that Being is not a mental construct, but is
rather
"principial"
(asil).
It is concretely existent in ltself in the most real of
all senses and is the source of all that exists.
Jami
devotes part of the introduc-
tion of his commentary on the present work to proving that "Being" is not an
abstract term. On the importance of the discussion of Being in Islamic philos-
ophy, see T. Izutsu, Tbe Concept and Reality of Existence
(Tokyo,
1971); and H.
Corbin, Le liare des p|ndtrations mitapbysiques
(T6h6ran-Paris,
1964).
9. See the commentary on Flashes VII, X and XXIV.
10. One should qualify this statement by recalling that rhere are also
"impossible things," i.e., imaginary things that because of the very nature of
Bei ng cannot exi st out si de of t he mi nd.
11.
Jami ,
Naqd an-nusus, ed. W. C. Chi t t i ck
(Tehran,
1977), pp. 26, 84.
12. See Ascendant Slarq Glossary: NAME.
13. An-Nusus, appended to Kashani' s Sbarb manazil as-sa' irin
(Tehran,
l 3l 5/ 1897-1898), p. 296; al so appended t o I bn Turkah' s Tambi d al -qawa' i d
(Tehran,
l 316/ 1898-1899), p. 212; t he same passage al so occurs i n
Qgnawi ' s
Miftah al-gbayb, on the margin of al-Fanari's Mbbab al-ins
(Tehran,
I 323/ 1905- 1906) , p. 7e.
14. See Ascendant.9tars: ISTHMUS.
15. The whole discussion of the First and Second Entifications, the var-
ious names by which each may be called, and the distinction tretween the two
in the views of different Sufis is exceedingly complex. In the above para-
graphs we have largely followed
Jami' s
introduction to his commentary on
the Lama' at, which itself is based primarily upon the views of Sa' iduddin
Farghani, whose writings are based explicitly on
Qnawi' s
lectures.
Qgnawi
himself does not discuss these points systematically in his works, but he does
allude to them. His most explicit discussion is found in Tabrir al-bayan
fi
taq-
rir sbu'ab al-iman and al-Hadiyab
(see
Ascendant,9rars). Other members of Ibn
al-' Arabi' s school often treat the various levels of entification differently. In
particular, it is common for them to identify the First and Second Entifica-
tions with the levels of ahadiyyab and uahidiyyaD respectively.
16. For further discussion of the Perfect Man, although not completely
within the context of
Qnawi' s
teachings, see W. C. Chittick, "The Perfect
Man as the Prototype of the Self in the Sufism of
Jami,"
Stadia Islafiica 49,
(1979\ :
135-157.
17. For a much more thorough development of this concept and the dif-
ferent forms it takes, see W. C. Chittick, "The Five Divine Presences: From
al-Qgnawi to al-Q3;rsari," S tudia Islamica, forthcoming.
18. IJaz al-bayanfi tafsir umn al-@r' an
(Hyderabad-Deccan,
1368/1949),
p. 113; al so as at -Taf si r at -suf i l i -l -Qyr' an, ed. A. A. ' At a' (Cai ro, 1389/ 1969), p.
221.
19. Depending on the point of view and the context, the term "(Jnseen"
may be wider in scope, in which case its correlative "Visible" will be narrow-
l 0
INTRODUCTION
er. The same sort of relationship holds true for many correlative terms. see
the commentary on Fl ash VIII.
20. The term
"entity" is the most common expression in Ibn al-'Arabi's
school for what is called a "quiddity"
(mabiyyah)
by most of the Moslem phi-
losophers. Practically all of Islamic philosophy-especially
the later schools-
devotes a good deal of attention to the question of the distinction between be-
ing
(or
existence) and quiddity.
21. See the commentary
on Fl ashes X and XXI.
enawi
refers to thi s
station as the "Point at the center of the circle"
(nuqtab
wasat ad-da'iraD). see
Ascendan t,frars; CIRCLE.
22. IJaz al-bayan, p. tt21220. On the translation of the badith employing
"is" instead of "was," see Ibn al-'Arabi's remarks quoted by
Jami,
Naqd ai-
nusu.s, p.93, note 96.
23. Masbariq ad-darari, ed. S.
J.
Ashtiyani (Mashhad,
1357
ltg78),
p. 606.
24.
Qnawi,
an-Nafobat al-ilabiyyah (Tehran,
1Il6llg98-18gg), p. ZZO.
25. Ibi d., pp. 6,1-65.
26. Mtftab al-gbayb, p. 150.
27. W. C. Chi tti ck, "Ibn al -' Arabi ' s own Summary of the Fusus:
,The
Impri nt of the Bezel s of Wi sdom,' " Sophi a Perenni s l , no. 2
(Autumn
1975):
88-128; 2, no. I
(Spri ng
1976):67-106 (1,
no. 2, p. 94).
28. 'Afifuddin at-Tilimsani,
Sbarb al-fusus,
..al-fass
al-ibrahimi," Ms.
ge_
hi d Al i Pas3 1248
(Si i l eymani ye
Li brary, Istanbul ).
29. See
Qgnawi,
an-Nusas, p.287
ll99;
also Farghani, Masbariq ad-darari,
D. I / .
30. See IJaz al-bayn, pp. lttl226-1281236, where
enawi
describes in
detail the whole process of creation and its relation to Love in terms of this
perfection.
31. Each of the Presences reflects all of God's Names and Attributes, but
in a limited manner, since it can reflect them only at irs own ontological lev-
el. Thus, for example, the universal Intellect-also
called the "supreme
pen"
and identified with the archangel Gabriel-embraces
all that exisis, but only
at the level of the spiritual world. Things that become manifest in ontologi-
cal levels below it are embraced by it only in principle.
It always remains
transcendent in relation to the world of Image-Exemplars
and the world of
corporeal-Bodies, since its level is that of Intellect and spirit. It may become
manifest in the lower worlds, but in itself it does not enter into them.
32. On the importance
of this Name in this respect, see Chittick,
,.The
Perfect Man."
33. Mtftab al-gbayb, p.256.
34. Mashariq ad-darari, p. 57. See Ascendant
.lrars: TRUST; also,
,,The
Perfect Man."
35. Al-Fuku| on the margin of Kashani's Sbarh manazil as-sa'iin
(Teh-
r an, l 3 15/ 1897- 1898) , p. 227.
36. IJaz al-ba1an, pp. 122
1
230-IZl
l
Zlr.
3l
INTRODUCTION
37. The reader should remerirber the famous baditb: "God created Adam
upon his own Form." See "The Perfect Man."
38. Masbariq ad-darai, p. 52.
39. An-Nafabat al-ilabiyyab, p. 60.
40. I'jaz al-bayan, p.2101324.
41. See A. Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam
(Chapel
Hill, N.C.,
1975), pp. 288ff.
42.
Jami
classifies the different kinds of love in his Lawami'.
43. IJaz al-bayan, p. 245
1359-360.
,14.
See Flash VIII; also Ascerdant Stars: UNVEILING.
3Z