2023/05/03

The Divine Names in Ibn Arabī's Theory of The Oneness of Existence | MAKOTO SAWAI

The Divine Names in Ibn Arabī's Theory of The Oneness of Existence | PDF | Sufism | Quran

THE DIVINE NAMES IN IBN ARABĪ’S THEORY OF THE ONENESS OF EXISTENCE

A Thesis Submitted toThe Department of Arab and Islamic CivilizationsFor the Degree of Master of Arts

By MAKOTO SAWAI

Under the Supervision of Dr. Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad

September/2014

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........... iii

NOTES ON TRANSLITERATION........................... iv

INTRODUCTION.................................. 1

I. Genealogy of Studying Ibn Arabī: Scholarly Methodology......... 7

1. Muslim Scholars........................................................ 7
2. Pioneers of Islamic Studies........................................ 15

II. The Divine Names in the Oneness of Existence.... 20

1. The Historical Development of the Concept of tajallī (self-disclosure) in Sufism
2. The Concept of tajallī in the Oneness of Existence....... 23
3. Kāshānī’s Introduction to the Divine Names..... 29

III. The Self-disclosure of Existence in Ibn Arabī’s Theory of the Divine Names34

1. The Divine Mercy and Its Presence............ 35
2. The Lord as a Divine Name and Its Divine Presence......... 42
3. The Presence of the Divine Names in the Perfect Man............. 48

IV. The Perfect Man as a Spiritual Authority............... 53

1. The Position of the caliph in Fuṣūṣal-ḥikam
2. Muḥammad and the Metaphysical Foundation of the Perfect Man............. 59
3. Human Perfection through Sainthood: the Heirs of the Prophet......... 63

Conclusion......................... 69

=====

====

The American University in Cairo

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

THE DIVINE NAMES

IBNʿARABĪ’S THEORY OF

THE ONENESS OF EXISTENCE

A Thesis Submitted to

The Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations

For the Degree of Master of Arts

MAKOTO SAWAI

Under the Supervision of Dr. Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad

September/2014

The American University in Cairo

THE DIVINE NAMES

IBNʿARABĪ’S THEORY OF

THE ONENESS OF EXISTENCE

A Thesis Submitted by

MAKOTO SAWAI

To the Department

September/2014

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

The degree of Master of Arts

Has been approved by

Dr. Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad

Thesis Committee Advisor____________________________________________

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, The Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations,

American University in Cairo

Dr. Adam Talib

Thesis Committee Reader____________________________________________

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, The Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations,

American University in Cairo

Dr. ʿAbd al-Rahman Salem

Thesis Committee Reader____________________________________________

Affiliation: Associate Professor, The Department of Islamic History, Cairo University

__________________ __________ __________________

____________

Dept. Chair Date Dean of HUSS Date

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................. iii

NOTES ON TRANSLITERATION....................................... iv

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

I. Genealogy of Studying Ibn ʿArabī: Scholarly Methodology ................................................... 7

1. Muslim Scholars ....................................................................................................................... 7

2. Pioneers of Islamic Studies .................................................................................................. 15

II. The Divine Names in the Oneness of Existence .................................................................... 20

1. The Historical Development of the Concept of tajallī (self-disclosure) in Sufism .......... 20

2. The Concept of tajallī in the Oneness of Existence ........................................................... 23

3. Kāshānī’s Introduction to the Divine Names..................................................................... 29

III. The Self-disclosure of Existence in Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Divine Names ............... 34

1. The Divine Mercy and Its Presence ..................................................................................... 35

2. The Lord as a Divine Name and Its Divine Presence ........................................................ 42

3. The Presence of the Divine Names in the Perfect Man .................................................... 48

IV. The Perfect Man as a Spiritual Authority ............................................................................ 53

1. The Position of the caliph in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam ...................................................................... 54

2. Muḥammad and the Metaphysical Foundation of the Perfect Man .............................. 59

3. Human Perfection through Sainthood: the Heirs of the Prophet .................................. 63

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 69

Appendix I: The Distribution Chart of tajallī in Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām ...... 71

Appendix II: The List of the Divine Names in the Works of Islamic Thought .............................. 72

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 79

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my thesis committee chair, Dr. Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad, who has guided me to this new academic sphere of Islamic philosophy. I received much intellectual stimulation through discussion with him in the classroom and private study. Without his sincere guidance, this thesis would not have been possible. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Adam Talib and Dr. ʿAbd al-Rahman Salem. Their academic advice is one of the most beneficial in my studies at the American University in Cairo, and it has meant that they have needed to spare much time for me. Thanks to their academic advice, I could go forward towards a higher level of study. In addition, Professor Dr. Steffen Stelzer, Chair of the department of Philosophy, and his wife Dr. Sanaa Makhlouf have given me many academic suggestions as well as supported my academic life in Cairo. Dr. Catarina Belo and Dr. Jason Blum, faculty members of the department of Philosophy, offered suggestions to me through discussions about Islamic thought. All their scholarship and encouragement will be the treasures in my academic life.

Professor Iwayumu Suzuki, Chair of the department of Religious Studies in Tohoku University kindly continues to encourage me to study abroad, and he supports me in Japan.

Professor Shigeru Kamada of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia in the University of Tokyo has directed me from the time I started to study Islam. I thank both my research instructors in Religious Studies and Islamic Studies.

Furthermore, I am grateful for the financial support from the Tenrikyo Ichiretsukai Foundation and the University fellowship from the American University in Cairo, which supported my two-year course of studying and research. Moreover, I am grateful to Ms. Maggie Daoud, Ms. Marwa Sabry, and Ms. Noha Shawky, and their wonderful arrangements whenever I go to the department office. Michael Stark, my dear friend, was willing to read and check my thesis.

Lastly, I am also thankful to my parents who encouraged me and prayed for me throughout the time of my research.

Finally yet importantly, this thesis is heartily dedicated to the people whom I mention above, and all others who support what I am.

NOTES ON TRANSLITERATION

The English transliteration in this thesis is based mainly on the system of the International Journal of Middle East Studies (IJMES).

The exception to this is that tā’ marbūṭah (ة) in idāfah is rendered as t, and the final tā’ marbūṭah is represented as h (e.g. ḥaqīqah Muḥammadiyyah).

꞊

ṣ

꞊

ḥ

꞊

ḍ

꞊

ṭ

꞊

ẓ

꞊

Long ا or ىٰā

ū و

ī ي

Doubled ־ِ يiyy (final form ī )

־ُ وuww (final form ū)

Diphthongs و aw

ى ay

Short ־َa

u ־ُ

i ־ِ

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this M.A. thesis is to elucidate the theory of the divine names in Islamic philosophy and mysticism (Sufism) according to Ibn ʿArabī’s theory of the Oneness of Existence. Muḥyī al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240), commonly known as Ibn ʿArabī, is a great thinker in Islamic thought as well as the founder of the school of Waḥdat al-wujūd (Oneness of Existence). His masterpieces are Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam (The Bezels of Wisdom) and al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (The Meccan Revelations) which are well known though he wrote many other works during his life.^{^[1]} Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam is a magnum opus in the intellectual history of Islam that has influenced the thinkers of posterity, especially Sufis, philosophers, Shiʿa scholars, as well as intellectuals in the contemporary world, whether Sunnī, Shīʿī, or non-Muslim. There have been many commentaries written on Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam by scholars of the Oneness of Existence (i.e. Ibn ʿArabīʼs school) and they continue to be written even to this day. This thesis will therefore look at this work mainly, because its influence on Islamic philosophy has been as significant as its secondary literature has been heterogeneous.

The divine names (asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā), the main topic of this thesis, function as one of the ways by which human beings, as limited beings, know God who is the Creator.

These divine names are found in the Qurʾān: “The most beautiful names belong to God: so call on him by them” (Q7:180).^{^[2]} Since God has the most beautiful names, the gap between the Creator and the created comes to be seen more clearly. Based on Ḥadīth that God has ninety-nine names, the history and context of the adoption of the divine names has been discussed.^{^[3]}These ninety-nine divine names selected from the Qurʾān represent divine attributes. Though such names are based on the description of God in the Qurʾān, one should recognize that the divine names are not limited but rather unlimited. Thus, there are some differing opinions regarding the names of which Muslim scholars ought to choose.

Based on the above-mentioned background of the divine names in Islam, the present work will focus on the theory of the divine names in the school of the Oneness of Existence. I would like to focus especially on Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam written by Ibn ʿArabī and commentaries on it such as Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam (The Commentary of the Bezels of Wisdom) by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d. 730/1329), Dāwūd Qayṣarī (d. 751/1350), and Nūr al-Dīn al-Jāmī (d. 892/1492).⁴

Overview of the Divine Names in Islamic Thought

In the intellectual history of Islam, the first school that speculatively argued for the divine names is the Muʿtazili theological group. They called themselves “the people of (divine) justice and oneness” (ahl al-ʿadl wa-l-tawḥīd) and claimed orthodoxy for themselves. With regard to the well known discussion about the Muʿtazila, there is the theory of the createdness of the Qurʾān. Muʿtazili theologians denied the general thought prevailing in Islamic community by refuting the idea that the Qurʾān had been eternally with God from the everlasting past. This debate is closely related to the question of the nature of God, which follows the question of His attributes that are inherent to God such as word (kalām) and power (quwwah), and the divine names which indicate the divine attributes.

Thereafter, the theme of the divine names came to be treated in a sophisticated way in Islamic theology (ʿilm al-kalām) related to divine attributes. In the theological group of the Ashʿariyyah, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324/935-6) discusses the divine names in order to clarify the divine attributes in al-Ibānah ʿan uṣūl al-diyānah (The Exposition of the Religious Principles). Later, Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. Hibat Allāh Thiqat al-Dīn b. ʿAsākir (d.

571/1176), commonly known as Ibn ʿAsākir, writes an apology of his theology in Tabyīn

Abū al-Ḥusayn Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, (Riyadh: Dār al-Salām li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 000), p. 1167.

⁴ Concerning the commentary of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, some problems is pointed out about the commentary written by Muʾayyad al-Dīn Jandī (690/1 91). The edition is published under the edition by Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī (19 1-2005), but he could not finish his editorial process. One of his students Ibrāhīmī Dīnānī did it instead of him so problems are found in the edition. For this reason, we do not use it in our edition.

kadhib al-muftarī fī-mā nusiba ilā al-Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (The Exposition of the Calumniator’s Deceit concerning what is Ascribed to the Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī).^{^[4]} In this period, the theological view of the divine names was linked with Sufism by means of the intellectual combination of the divine names between Ashʿarī theology and Sufism. Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī (d. 418/1072) explains the divine names in Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā (The Commentary of the Most Beautiful Divine Names). Moreover, Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) studies them in al-Maqṣad al-asnā fī sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā (The Most Brilliant Contemplation concerning the Commentary of the Most Beautiful Divine Names) and al-Iqtiṣād fi-l-iʿtiqād (The Moderation in Belief). Both are Sufis as well as theologians, and their theological speculation is based on their Sufism, and vice versa. Historically, the divine names are the topic of Islamic theology developed in a speculative attempt to seek God. In this sense, they distinguish the concept of name in general from that of the divine name. Ghazālī’s argument is philosophical and speculative so that the sophisticated controversy about the names themselves reaches a peak in the period of Ghazālī. The discussion of the divine names in Ashʿarī theology has had a great influence on Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought on the Oneness of Existence.

In the intellectual history of Islamic mysticism (Sufism) and philosophy, Ibn ʿArabī and scholars in his school developed a fusion between the idea of emanation (fayḍ) and the divine names. The former is ascribed to later Platonism,^{^[5]} whereas the latter is ascribed to the original source of the Qurʾān and Ḥadith, as well as the relationship between Islamic theology and Sufism. The fundamental idea which unites these various ideas together in Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought is the Perfect Man (al-insān al-kāmil). In other words, it is possible to say that the theory of the divine names also one of the tools to discuss the aspect of human perfection. In the previous stage of this discussion, there is a philosophical interrogative “What is a name?”

Ibn ʿArabī and the scholars of his school start from this question, and argue it by a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Islamic doctrine based on the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth. As we discuss in detail, for example, there is a verse which states that God taught Adam the names of all things (Q2:31). The organic fusion between later Platonism and Islamic ideas based on the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth leads to the idea in Oneness of Existence: “The Muḥammadan Reality” (al-ḥaqīqah al-Muḥammadiyyah) and the “Perfect Man”. In this sense, their discussion is regarded as one of the development of Platonism, as well as the new interpretations of the Qurʾān.

Sources

The above-mentioned Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam^{^[6]} and al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah^{^[7]} are the primary sources upon which this research is based. I would like to analyze Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam in its entirety. At the same time, this analysis is made sequentially by using commentaries written by scholars on Ibn ʿArabī’s school of the Oneness of Existence. It is useful in the academic study of Ibn ʿArabī to refer to those texts in order to understand ambiguous words or phrases more clearly.^{^[8]} In the case of Kāshānī’s Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, for example, his commentary is regarded as the one which shows the most straightforward understanding of Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas. The characteristic feature of Kāshānīʼs commentary is that he tends to provide the structure of the thought of Ibn ʿArabī. It is useful for the reader of his commentary to understand the ideas of Ibn ʿArabī, but it also has a potential problem: Kāshānīʼs explanation may possibly over simplify the ideas of

Ibn ʿArabī. This means that Kāshānī clarifies what Ibn ʿArabī often leaves ambiguous. Thus, one must compare Kāshānī with others in order to avoid this problem, and to show the different interpretations of the same original text.

Concerning al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, I have used the first edited work published in 1876 at Cairo as the main text,¹⁰ referring to the manuscript under the name al-Fath al-makki in Evkaf Müzesi (No. 1845-1876, 4750 folios), and other previous publications. In the analysis of al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, I would like to restrict my analysis to the divine names (the 558th chapter).¹¹

Moreover, there are some Arabic sources for comprehensive analysis in this thesis: glossaries of technical terms such as Kāshānī’s Iṣṭīlāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah (The Glossary of Sufism).

This work is a well known glossary for the novice of the Sufi path and Islamic philosophy. As

Kāshānī is good at summarizing the essence of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought, he concisely defines the terminologies and ambiguous words in the Sufi tradition. Moreover, I use Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām (The Subtleties of Notification in the Signs of People of Inspiration) as a complement to Kashānī’s work.¹² This work has more technical terms and detailed explanation than Iṣṭīlāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah so it can help in gaining a clearer understanding of the terminology. In spite of this advantage, previous scholars of Islamic studies have not used the latter work because of the unavailability of it. This MA thesis treats both works, which are useful for understanding the definition of “name” in the theory of the Oneness of Existence. In

¹⁰Concerning the main text in the analysis, we should bear in mind that there are at least two versions published though the same printed matters are used. This is because the numbers of index before the main text are different in both versions.

¹¹Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. ), ( airo: Dār al- ibāʿah, 1876), pp. 215-421. ¹² Though this work is published under the name of Kāshānī, it is not sure that the work is his. This lexicon is attributed to Kāshānī in the critical edition by Majīd Hādīʿ Zādah. As Bakri Aladdin points out, however, there are some candidate authors of the book: Kāshānī, Qūnawī, and Saʿīd al-Farghānī (d. 700/1300). Brockelman attributes the authorship to Kāshānī and Qūnawī. In the critical edition of Wujūd al-ḥaqq written by ʿAbd al-Ghānī al-Nābulsī (d. 11 3/1731), Aladdin claims that Farghānī is the author of Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fi-l-ishārāt ahl al-ilhām. He reaches this idea based on the manuscript survey in the library of Istanbul. In addition to it, the description of wujūd in Farghānī’s commentary to Muntahā al-madārik (the commentary to Taiyya al-kubra) is the same as that about wujūd in Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī al-ishārāt ahl al-ilhām though there are some minor differences.

ʿAbd al-Ghānī al-Nābulsī, al-Wujūd al-ḥaqq, ed. Bakri Aladdin, (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1995), pp. 40-41.

In the Subject-Guide to the Arabic Manuscripts in the British Library, however, this work is traced to

Kāshānī and of anonymous author. Aladdin’s proof that the author of the work is Farhānī is not valid. However, there is no stable proof that the author is Kāshānī, so this thesis deals with Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām in order to understand the meaning of the technical term more clearly.

The British Library Oriental and India Office Collections, Subject-Guide to the Arabic Manuscripts in the British Library, ed. C. F. Baker (London: British Library, 2001), p. 165 & p. 172.

addition to them, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ fi-l-taṣawwuf (The Book of Flashes in Sufism) by Abū Naṣr ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī Sarrāj (d. 378/988), and al-Risālah al-Qushayriyyah by Qushayrī also have an important role as Sufi dictionaries. They also help us to understand how Sufi terminology is defined and how it changed gradually in a historical transition from classical Sufism to philosophical Sufism. Such dictionaries of Sufism will allow us to understand the historical transition of Sufi terminology such as tajallī (self-disclosure). At the same time, usage of such dictionaries will make the background of the Oneness of Existence better known, and will facilitate deeper analysis of the concept.

I. Genealogy of Studying Ibn ʿArabī: Scholarly Methodology

Ibn ʿArabī has almost always been the center of controversy in Sufism even during his lifetime in the thirteenth century. After his death, people who followed his ideas or admired him came to call him by the honorific titles of Muḥyī al-Dīn (the Revivifier of the Religion), or al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master). On the other hand, some who criticized him harshly came to call him the derogatory title of Mumīt al-Dīn (the Killer of the Religion). These two perspectives on Ibn ʿArabī show that there has been a big gap with regard to the evaluation of his thought.

1. Muslim Scholars

Islamic mysticism or Sufism called taṣawwuf has been controversial from the formative period to the present. This movement of seeking spiritual knowledge of Islam started in Baghdad in the Abbasid period in the 9th century^{^[9]}, and rapidly spread in Muslim society together with saint (walī, pl. awliyā’) veneration. The reason for which Sufism was accepted by the masses is that it offers a “dynamic” understanding of Islam through physical practice and mystical experience. It is natural to contrast Sufi practice to Islamic law or speculative theology, which was limited to intellectuals. Sufism thus had a significant role in revitalizing the spiritual dimension of Islam.

At the same time, however, such spirituality was always likely to be persecuted and regarded as heretical. This is because the act of being a Sufi is not in accordance with Islamic law, or their “intoxicated” expressions are viewed as blasphemy against God. Abū al-Mughīth al-Ḥusayn b. Manṣūr b. Maḥammā al-Bayḍāwī al-Ḥallāj (d. 309/922) is a noted example of a persecuted Sufi as he was executed for his famous words “I am the Truth” (anā al-ḥaqq). The opponent of Sufism thinks that this phrase is a blatant claim of divine status, which is strictly forbidden in Islamic doctrine. In the period after him, Sufi mystics were always in an awkward position because of the “aftereffect” of Ḥallāj. After him, some people who discussed Sufism classified Ibn ʿArabī as an heir of this disputed position in Sufism. Thus, the illustration of Ibn ʿArabī depends on how a speaker or writer describes him in terms of his or her own religious view.

Muḥammad b. Saʿīd b. Muḥammad b. al-Dubaythī (d. 637/1239) described Ibn ʿArabī in al-Mukhtaṣar al-muḥtāj ilay-hi (The Short Excerpt which is Needed), which is his biographical dictionary (ṭabaqāt). This work is named like this because it is an excerpt from his History of Baghdad (Tārīkh Baghdād) for his own usage. Subsequently, Muḥammad b. ʿUthmān al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348)^{^[10]}, an outstanding Iraqi historian, compiled his biographical dictionary under the title of al-Mukhtaṣar al-muḥtāj ilay-hi min Tārīkh Abī ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Dubaythī (The Short Excerpt which is Needed from the History of Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Saʿīd b. Muḥammad b. al-Dubaythī). In spite of the fact that Dhahabī surely read the work written by Ibn Dubaythī, he depicted Ibn ʿArabī differently in Mizān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, which is his own biographical dictionary.

Thus, I would like to consider both contrasting descriptions related to the same specific person.

Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad Ibn al-ʿArabī Abū ʿAbd Allah al-Maghribī: He visited Baghdad in 608 A.H.^{^[11]} The one who gives him victorious position is the way of people of the Reality (ahl al-ḥaqīqah)^{^[12]}, and he has involved in [spiritual] practice and dedication. He had companions and followers. I am acquainted with the group. Indeed, he had dreams, and I read about him in Baghdad: “He (Ibn ʿArabī) narrated you, that is, Muḥammad b. Qāsim b. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Fāsī, al-Salafī, al-Qāsim b. al-Faḍl, and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Sulamī.^{^[13]} Then, I heard Abū ʿAlī al-Shabawī says, “I (Ibn ʿArabī) met the apostle of God [Muḥammad] in a dream. I said [to the prophet Muḥammad]. “God quoted about you (in the Qurʾān),” but you

said, “[Sūrat] Hūd turned my hair white, and what is that he turned your hair?”¹⁸ God said in His word, “So stand you firm [in the straight path] as you are commanded” (istaqim ka-mā umirta, Q11:112). Ibn ʿArabī said, “Because He orders in view of what there has never been [mysterious] knowledge through His occurrence (bi-wuqūʿ-hi), so the Commissioner (al-maʾmūr) is on the fear.” (I [Ibn al-Dubaythī] said, Ibn ʿArabī died in 638 A.H., and he has an explanation of complement and insult).¹⁹

The narrative in his explanation is descriptive and sympathetic to Ibn ʿArabī. According to Ibn Dubaythī, Ibn ʿArabī had much influence even on people in Baghdad which is the birthplace, in the narrow sense, of Sufism. Those who follow his spiritual way are called “people of the Reality.” This phrase is mainly used in the context of Sufism, and users of the phrase intend to show its validity. In his understanding, Ibn ʿArabī is the master of the spiritual path of Islam, as he created the group and was later followed by many people.

Furthermore, there is the explanation about the spiritual dream in which Ibn ʿArabī meets the prophet Muḥammad. Ibn ʿArabī asks Muḥammad about the interpretation of a verse of the Qurʾan and the tradition of the Ḥadīth. Concerning the steadfastness (istiqamah) of belief, God orders humans in the Qurʾān to stand firmly and straightly. That verse just mentions that God ordered “you.” However, Muḥammad understands that Hūd is the person to the divine order because the divine order is executed in Hūdʼs story in the Qurʾān. Such Muḥammadʼs understanding is recorded in a Ḥadīth transmitted by Ibn ʿAbbās, which describes the reason for the descent of divine revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) in Ḥadith. According to him, God gave this verse when Muḥammad said that the chapter of Hūd in the Qurʾān is so difficult that the difficulty makes his hair white. However, Ibn ʿArabī questioned whether the person whom God orders to fix the belief is Muḥammad himself. His description requires the

¹⁸Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʿ al-saḥīḥ wa-huwa Sunan al-Tirmidhī (vol. ), ed. Ibrāhīm ʿAṭwah ʿAwaḍ, (Cairo: Musṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1975), pp. 0 -403.

¹⁹Ibn al-Dubaythī (al-Dhahabī), al-Mukhtaṣar al-muḥtāj ilayhi min Tārīkh Abī ʿAbd Allāh

Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Dubaythī / intiqāʾ Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān al-Dhahabī ; wa-fīhi ziyādat fawāʾid fī al-tarājim lahu wa-li-shuyūkh ākharīn ; ʿuniya bi-taḥqīqi-hi wa-al-taʿlīq ʿalayhi wa-nashrihi Muṣṭafá Jawād (vol. 2), (Baghdad: Maṭbaʿat al-Zamān, 196?), pp. 102-103.

In the later period, Shihāb al-Dīn Abu al-Faḍl Aḥmad b. Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449) quoted Ibn al-Dubaythī’s description, but that version is shorter and simplified. I also refer to his Arabic text for textual criticism.

Ibn Hajar, Lisān al-mīzān, eds. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah and Salmān ʿAbd al-Fattaḥ Abū Ghuddah (Beirut: al- ibāʿah wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ 2002), pp. 394-395.

background of the Qurʾan and Ḥadīth. In fact, thus, Ibn Dubaythī read the article related to Ibn ʿArabī.

In spite of this information which was provided by Ibn Dubaythī, Dhahabī and other later scholars did not refer to his attitude. Dhahabī (d. 748/1348 or 753/1352) was Syrian a historian as well as a theological scholar who belonged to the Shāfiʿī School.^{^[14]} He wrote many works which influenced later scholars like Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373). In Mizān al-iʿtidāl, his biographical dictionary, his fundamental view of Ibn ʿArabī is critical. In order to understand the perspective of Dhahabī, it is necessary to mention the name of Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328). He was a Muslim scholar belonging to the Ḥanbalī School and well known as the figure who criticized Sufism. He did not necessarily attack the idea of Sufism, but the thought of Ibn ʿArabī. Ibn Taymiyyah regarded it not as Sufi, but as heretical, as summarized by the phrase “people of the heresy and freethinking” (ahl al-bidʿ wa-l-zandaqah).^{^[15]}^{^[16]} This is an opposite of Ibn Dubaythīʼs “people of the Reality.” Dhahabī is categorized in the genealogy of Ibn Taymiyyah with such a negative attitude to Ibn ʿArabī.^{^[17]}

Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ḥātimī al- āʾī al-Andalsī (Ibn ʿArabī): The author of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam.

He died in [6]38 A.H. […] He (Ibn Daqīq) says, “I heard from our master Abū

Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Salām al-Sulamī.” He says, “We mentioned about Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿArabī (Ibn ʿArabī).” Then, Sulamī said, “He (Ibn ʿArabī) is the master of deceitful evil (shaykh sūʾ kadhdhāb).” So, I said to him, “[Is he] deceitful, too?” He said, “Yes, we studied together in Damascus about the marriage into jinn.” He said, “this is impossible because human is unclosed body (jism kashīf) and jinn is subtle spirit (rūḥ laṭīf). He cannot treat the unclosing body of subtle spirit (al-jism al-kashīf al-rūḥ al-laṭīf). Then, after short time, I saw him and he has cracking skull (shajjah).”

He (Ibn ʿArabī) said, “I married a female jinn and I was bestowed three children. One

day, it happens that I made her angry. So she hit me with bone, with which I got [my] this cracking skull. I ran away, then I did not see her after this [accident]” […]

[His] literary works are classified into philosophical Sufism (taṣawwuf al-falāsifah), and people of the Oneness (ahl al-waḥdah). He said about forbidden things (ashyāʾ munkarah): their thought is from the sect of deviation and freethinking (murūq wa-zandaqah). [In one hand, someone says that] their thought is from the sect of the subtle knowledge (ishārāt al-ʿārifīn) and symbols of the spiritual path (rumūz al-sālikīn). And [on the other hand, someone says that] their thought is from the sect of obscure word (mutashābih al-qawwal). Its surface meaning is unbelief (kufr) and error

(ḍalāl), [whereas] its hidden meaning is Truth (ḥaqq) and mysterious knowledge (ʿirfān). His thought is right in himself in his big position.

Others say [differently] that Ibn ʿArabī said this kind of false and error. One who said that indeed he died in that situation. Appearance to them about what he is that he came back and turned repentantly to God. If he had been the knower of the words of successor [of the prophet Muḥammad] (al-āthār) and prophetic tradition (al-sunan), he would have been strong copartner of sciences. Concerning my utterance, it is conceivable that he belongs to the sainthood of God (awliyāʾ Allāh), to which the Real gravitated him until their death besides him, and he died with the bless. As to his saying, one who understands and knows him on the basic methods of oneness

(al-ittiḥādiyyah) and the knowledge reducing the value of such people [of Oneness].^{^[18]} Comparing Ibn Dubaythīʼs explanation, Dhahabīʼs one is a basically negative view of Ibn ʿArabī although he acknowledges that he is a talented thinker. Phrases like “master of deceitful evil” are other derogatory titles. However, his understanding of Ibn ʿArabī and Sufi tradition are accurate insomuch as he is a theologian. Moreover, he says that Ibn ʿArabī is “the one person of two men” (aḥad rajulayn) because he is the person who belongs to the “oneness in the hidden,” and who belongs to “believers of God who think that this faith is the most unfaithful of unfaith.”^{^[19]} In this meaning, he realises that Ibn ʿArabi is a controversial thinker. Dhahabī quotes an anecdote which apparently shows the heretical character of Ibn ʿArabī. Mysterious marriage with female jinn is popular in the tradition of Sufism in view of the spiritual connection between Sufis and jinn. However, the content picked up by Dhahabī is scandalous and slanderous.

Moreover, it is significant that the category of “philosophical Sufism” was already used in Dhahabī’s period. This category has had much influence in contemporary debates about classifying Sufism.^{^[20]} As he understands the contrast between the outer meaning (ẓāhir) and the hidden one (bāṭin), Dhahabī does not accept the idea by referring to his opponents. In spite of such controversy, he says that Ibn ʿArabī could be regarded as a saint of God.

In the later period, Shihāb al-Dīn Abu al-Faḍl Aḥmad b. Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449), who was a Ḥadīth scholar, judge, and historian in Egypt, summarized the previous descriptions of Ibn ʿArabī in his biographical dictionary. He stressed how the thought of Ibn ʿArabī was distorted by historians; at the same time, it shows how the perspective which the historian has influenced the previous narratives. In the beginning of his explanation, Ibn Ḥajar quotes the whole description in Dhahabī’s Mīzān al-iʿtidāl, and puts his comment just after it.

Indeed, people of his age mistook about al-Muḥyī [al-Dīn] b. ʿArabī. Ibn Najjār states him in The Appendix of History of Baghdad (Dhayl taʾrīkh Baghdād), Ibn Nuqtah [states about him] in The Supplement of the Perfection (Takmilat al-ikmāl), Ibn al-ʿAdīm [states about him] in The History of Aleppo (Taʾrīkh Ḥalb), and al-Zakī al-Mundhirī [states about him] in The Death Records (al-Wafayāh). I did not see in their words stopping [their] criticism of his faith, as if they do not know his [true] faith,

or as if his work, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, is not famous. Yes, Ibn Nuqtah said, “his poetry (shiʿru-hu) does not amaze me.”^{^[21]}

By collecting previous biographical dictionaries, Ibn Hajar refutes some negative descriptions related to Ibn ʿArabī that do not represent what he was like during his lifetime. In other words, their opinion is not valid because opponents criticize Ibn ʿArabī even though they were not his contemporaries. In contrast with this negative information, he provides other information, which is that there are positive explanations that “he is excellent in the knowledge of Sufism,”²⁷ and “he is the greatest scholar of the [spiritual] way.”^{^[22]} Thus, Ibn Ḥajar’s biographical explanation tries to balance between a positive perspective and a negative one. It can be said that it is a sort of apology by Ibn ʿArabī’s followers.

ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Shaʿrānī (d. 973/1565) was one of the most representative scholars who defended the thought of Ibn ʿArabī as a scholar in the school of the Oneness of Existence. He was an Egyptian scholar and a Sufi. Again, he was a prolific writer who discussed various topics from the history of Sufism to Islamic jurisprudence.²⁹ He wrote The Red Sulfur (al-Kibrīt al-aḥmar) which discusses the truth of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought, and al-Yawāqit wa-l-jawāhir (The Rubies and the Gems). In these meanings, his explanation of

Ibn ʿArabi gives him great respect. Shaʿrānī decorates his master with honorable words like “the expert,” “the perfect,” “the investigator,” “one of the greatest experts on God,” “the honorific title of “Sayyid”, “the revivifier of religion.”

[It is] with characterization just as [Ibn ʿArabīʼs] opinion is through the sentences in The Lineage of the Patched Cloak (Kitāb Nasab al-khirqah)^{^[23]}. The investigators belonging to people of God (ahl Allāh) agree with his majesty in well known knowledge, just as his work testifies. What makes him reject is just his short word without doubt. So, they reject the one who gets his words without active way of

[spiritual] exercise in real. One who is afraid of suspicious achievement in his doctrine

is dead there, and is not realizing the intension of the master [Ibn ʿArabī] because of their own interpretation. Master Ṣafīy al-Dīn b. Abī al-Manṣūr wrote his biographical statement. [According to him], no one has the great friendship of God (al-walāyah al-kubrā), the honesty (al-ṣalāḥ), the spiritual knowledge (al-ʿirfān), and the knowledge (al-ʿilm).^{^[24]}

Shaʿrānī notices that there are some who criticize Ibn ʿArabī. According to Shaʿrānī, thus, it means that his teaching itself does not provide a cause of criticism. Rather, this is because critics can neither follow the spiritual way with practice, nor they do not comprehend the meaning of Ibn ʿArabīʼs words due to their individual interpretations. As Shaʿrānī explains, Ibn ʿArabī has a brilliant role in spiritual Islam, and sits in the loftiest place in proximity to God. In this explanation, some flourishing words are used to decorate his position. Shaʿrānī appraises his great master without criticism. He adds an explanation of the objective evaluation of Ibn ʿArabī.

Ibn ʿArabī (may God bless him) first wrote treatises to some Arab kings. Then, they were refused [by some kings] and accepted [by the others]. Then he traveled and entered Egypt, Shām, Hijāz, and Anatolia. Whenever he entered each country, he wrote essays. Shaykh ʿIzz al-Dīn b. ʿAbd al-Salām^{^[25]} and Shaykh al-Islam in Cairo^{^[26]} made a stop with him for a long time. When Shaykh Abu al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī^{^[27]} (may God bless him) became his companion and knew the conditions of people, he interprets him through friendship with God (walāyah), spiritual knowledge (ʿirfān), and polarity (qatabīyah). He (may God praise him) died in 638 A.H. The word on his sciences drew us. The position of it in our book [biographical dictionary by Shaʿrānī]

moves it away from ignorance about a drop from sea of the sciences of divine friendship (ʿulūm al-awliyāʾ). God, majesty, only knows.^{^[28]}

Ibn ʿArabī traveled to many Arab countries in his lifetime. He sent his treatises which argue his ideas to kings in order to make them accept his thought. As Shaʿrāni honestly states, not every authority welcomed his ideas. Though Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought has been always been controversial, he was an essential thinker in the history of Sufism. Amongst Muslim scholars, oneʼs opinion of him as a Muslim demonstrates oneʼs position to Sufism, whether it is positive or negative. Even representative opponents like Ibn Taymiyyah do not deny the whole of Sufism, and one of Ibn ʿArabīʼs famous defenders like Shaʿrānī carefully puts on hold the evaluation of Ibn ʿArabī.

2. Pioneers of Islamic Studies

In comparison with the number of books on other Sufis or Islamic intellectuals, there are more works available on Ibn ʿArabī. The Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society was established in 1977 A.D., and the journal of the society, The Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, has been published from 1982 A.D.. Academic study of this great thinker has been developing progressively. The establishment of Ibn ʿArabi Society and publication contribute to prevail of his name. Eminent scholars of Ibn ʿArabī were educated in western countries or in a western academic style, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. Their way of studying him is academic, so that they can treat him objectively without any prejudice. In other words, they delay their conclusion on his thought. This is different from the narration by Muslim scholars because the modern scholarly perspective tries to be as objective as possible. Rather, they positively try to find the meaning of his thought in the intellectual thought of Islam though they would regard his thought as the most outstanding of it. Thus, their academic efforts promote the study of Ibn ʿArabī. Among the intellectuals like scholars and students of contemporary Islam, they learn Ibn ʿArabī’s thought by importing the academic results into the western world.^{^[29]}

Most researchers of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought have referred to Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam or al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah as their academic sources. In addition to these books, there are later commentaries on Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam written by disciples or scholars in Ibn ʿArabī’s school: Kāshānī, Qayṣarī, Jīlī, Jāmī, and so on. Technically speaking, studying Ibn ʿArabī’s texts is qualitatively different from studying those of his adherents, or those who built on his ideas. Though the scholars of Ibn ʿArabīʼs school basically follow the idea of Ibn ʿArabī, their detail discussion is diversed in each of them. In spite of this characteristic, the commentaries of the above-mentioned scholars explain the thought of Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought in their words so that their works are also useful for understanding the difficult idea of Ibn ʿArabī. When studying his thought, researchers consider the thought of scholars in Ibn ʿArabī’s school since they came to focus on later development, especially the concept of the Oneness of Existence. One can speak of two methods of approaching the Oneness of Existence in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. One we might call the “metaphysical and downward” way, and the other we might call the “corporeal and upward” way. The former is related mainly to the emanations of Existence, whereas the latter is mostly concerned with sainthood, spiritual practice, and legitimization of authority. The divine name and the Perfect Man are located in the middle part of such two ways. Moreover, the discussion about both acts as a bridge between “metaphysical and downward” way and “corporeal and upward” way which are called as “isthmus” (barzakh). Thus, studying the divine names and the Perfect Man leads to comprehending all the arguments of the Oneness of Existence.

On Ibn ʿArabī’s theory of the divine names, Abū al-ʿAlā ʿAfīfī’s The Mystical

Philosophy of Muḥyid Dīn-Ibnul [sic] ʿArabī (1939) was a landmark study of the divine names. As Afīfī points out, the divine names are “the clue to our knowledge of the categories

Izutsu gave lectures. With regard to Islam specifically, Massignon and his disciple, Corbin, were invited in the conference and gave lectures about Sufism. After publications on Ibn ʿArabī by orbin and Izutsu, moreover, Ibn ʿArabī was used as an example of the evidence for “perennial philosophy” or “traditionalist” represented by René Guénon (1886-1951), Frithjof Schuon (1907-1998), and Martin Lings (1909-2005).

According to Webb, the “second-wave Sufism” in the United States originated in the 1960s. This phrase is used by him to make an overview of Sufism in the United States. This period was a time of discovering knowledge from the East like Yoga, Zen, and Sufism. G. Webb, “Third-wave Sufism in America and Bawa Muhauyadeen Fellowship,” eds. J. Malik and J.

Hinnells, Sufism in the West, (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 88.

manifested in the spiritual and the physical worlds.”^{^[30]} He mentions briefly the relationship between attributes and names that is the theological legacy of Ashʿarism. The unique point in

Afifi’s discussion is that he points out that there are two aspects of the divine names: active and passive. The former aspect is called taḥaqquq: “each Name indicates one or other of the infinite lines of activity of the One,”³⁸ and the latter one is called takhalluq, which shows multiplicity manifested in the phenomenal world. The relationship between the active aspect and the passive one is called taʿalluq.

In L’imagination créatrice dans le soufisme d’Ibn ʿArabi (1958), Henry Corbin who is the pioneer of Shīʿa as well as Iranian studies in the West centers his analysis on “the world of the idea-image” (ʿālam al-mithāl), which can be perceived only by way of imagination. This world is located between the purely spiritual world and the physical world which is perceived with senses. The divine name of Rabb is called “a special divine name” (“un Nom divin particulier (ism khāss)”)^{^[31]}^{^[32]} because it shows the lordship of God and the subservience of humans. Furthermore, Corbin who was the student of Louis Massignon studied Hallāj^{^[33]} and his claim “anā al-ḥaqq,” meaning “I am the Truth” or “I am secret of the Absolute,” in order to raise the example of the self-disclosure of God.^{^[34]}

Among previous research, Toshihiko Izutsu’s Sufism and Taoism (1983) compares Sufism with the idea of the Way (Dao) in Daoism. This work is one of the unique works for understanding Ibn ʿArabī’s Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. He was the first scholar to pose the question of the relationship between signifier and signified, or the “question whether a Name (ism) is or is not the same as the ‘object named’ (musammā)”,^{^[35]} which is an important topic in Islamic theology.

Though he does not contribute a definite solution to the problem, he proceeds to explain some of important points in the area of the divine names such as “the names of the world” (asmāʾ al-ʿālam) and “the divine names” (al-asmāʾ al-ilāhiyyah). By using a clear framework for his discussion of the divine names, Izutsu explains the role of the divine names in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. Furthermore, he attempts to realize the “meta-historical dialogue,” comparing the thought of Ibn ʿArabī in Islam with the thought of Lao-tsǔ in Taoism.

Concerning the theory of the Perfect Man, it could legitimize one’s religious authority once one becomes the Perfect Man. This is because his perfection reaches the level of apotheosis, and his perfect position is as the heir to the prophets, especially Muḥammad. It is possible to regard the theory of the Perfect Man as the result of Ibn ʿArabī’s ideology or legitimization.^{^[36]}

Michael hodkiewicz’s Le sceau des saints: prophétie et sainteté dans la doctrine d’Ibn Arabi (1986) is a masterpiece which offers a systematic study of sainthood (walāyah). Though apostleship (nubuwwah) has been sealed, sainthood has not been sealed and will continue until the end of the world. Chodkiewicz deals with the issue of how the apostleship originally traced to Muḥammad is inherited by later Sufis by changing its name to sainthood.

In “Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic

Thought” (1987), Masataka Takeshita analyzes the idea of the Imago Dei in Ḥadīth which states that God created Adam in His image, and how this motif elucidates the theory of the

Perfect Man in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought.^{^[37]} His analysis focuses on how the term “the Perfect Man” (al-insān al-kāmil) in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam is used and how the idea of sainthood in the history of Sufi thought is treated. His discussion is highly significant because he traces the process of becoming the Perfect man and having sainthood in the Sufi context, like Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d. 318/936 or 320/938).

William C. Chittick was among the first to focus on al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, which, owing to its length, is a difficult source to use. His The Sufi Path of Knowledge (1989) focuses on al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah. He categorizes Ibn ʿArabī’s work into several parts: Theology, Ontology, Epistemology, Hermeneutics, and Soteriology. Though the important idea of the

Perfect Man is central to Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, Chittick’s work can have an important role in supplementing Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. He analyzes his thought in the category of Islamic sciences as well as in the downward and upward methods with regard to the Oneness of Existence. Thus, there is analysis of spiritual practice required to be the Perfect Man as well as a metaphysical argument of the self-disclosure of Existence.

Tonaga Yasushi clarifies the relationship between the emanations of Existence as the downward way and the Perfect man as the upward way in Jīlī’s argument. He explains that there are forty stages of Existence beginning from pure Existence, and tries to show how the higher stages of it corresponds to Jīlī’s arguing six stages of self-disclosure from the Essence of Divinity (al-dhāt al-ilāhiyyah): (1) Absolute Oneness (aḥadiyyah), (2) integrated

Unitedness (wāḥidiyyah), (3) Mercifulness (raḥmāniyyah), (4) Divineness (ulūhiyyah), (5) Lordship (rubūbiyyah), and (6) Kingship (mālikiyyah).^{^[38]} As Tonaga considers, Jīlī seeks to make the way that he maintains the sublimity of God compatible with the way that man as the creature becomes the Perfect Man.

Looking over the extant scholarship, it is possible to say that the arguments about the divine names and the Perfect Man are still not adequate inasmuch as more analysis is needed with regard to what a name is and how such notions were important for Ibn ʿArabī to construct his idea of the Perfect Man. The present M.A. thesis deals with this hitherto relatively neglected issue.

II. The Divine Names in the Oneness of Existence

In general, Islamic doctrine and sciences like Islamic theology do not admit any level of existence more intense than God, whereas Ibn ʿArabī suggests a higher level of existence that cannot be called the divine persona of God. This pure Existence which is just called the Real (al-ḥaqq) does not have any limitation. From this point, called “the hidden of the hidden” (ghayb al-ghayb), Existence discloses Itself ^{^[39]} as shown in the Ḥadīth Qudsī^{^[40]}: “I was like a hidden treasure, and I loved to be known; so I created the world that I might be known.”^{^[41]}Scholars of the Oneness of Existence understand that Existence lets the lower existences know about Itself through self-disclosure. This process is explained in the structure of emanation (fayḍ) from one to many. Sufism in the period prior to Ibn ʿArabī was not used to adopt such kinds of explanation. In this point, consideration of the term tajallī (self-disclosure) in the historical context of Sufism will bring more profound understanding the divine names in the theory of Oneness of Existence.

1. The Historical Development of the Concept of tajallī (self-disclosure) in

Sufism

The concept of tajallī (self-disclosure) in Sufism has not hitherto been an important word in the discussion of early Sufism. Sufis describe their testimonial experience mainly by using other key terms like annihilation (fanāʾ) and subsistence (baqāʾ). Their way of narrating has a high point through purification of the self, represented by spiritual stations (maqāmāt) and subtleties (laṭāʾif). It is possible to say that analyzing the historical development of tajallī in Sufism helps us to understand how the Oneness of Existence introduced a new ontological idea.

In Kitāb al-Lumaʿ fi-l-taṣawwuf (The Book of Flashes in Sufism), Sarrāj (d. 378/988) explains that self-disclosure is the advent of the Truth in the heart of humans is work is one of the earliest glossaries of Sufism. Thus, it demonstrates the meaning of tajallī in the early period of Sufism, and its usage in 9th century Baghdad.

Self-disclosure (al-tajallī) is the brilliance of the light of the advent of the Truth (ishrāq anwār iqbāl al-ḥaqq) on the hearts of those who move toward (qulūb al-muqbilīn) it.

[Abū al-Ḥasan] al-Nūrī (May God bless him) said that He discloses Himself to His creatures (khalq) through His creatures, and He conceals (istatara) Himself from His creatures through His creatures.

Wāsiṭī (May God bless him) said that in His Almighty word: “That is the Day of the True Disclosure” (yawm al-taghābun, Q64:9). He said that the True Disclosure of people of the Truth (ahl al-Ḥaqq) will be the extent of [their] annihilation [of the self]

(maqādīr al-fanāʾ), [their] vision [of God] (al-ruʾyah), and His self-disclosure (al-tajallī) [to them].

Nūrī (May God bless on him) said that it is through His self-disclosure that all that is beautiful is embellished and made handsome, and it is through His self-concealment that the beautiful is made to seem ugly… It thus was said:

He revealed Himself to his heart, by projecting therein from Himself a light;

Thus, it was that the gloom sought the light.^{^[42]}

The points in his argument can be summarized in the following three points in accordance with the beliefs of previous Sufis: (1) the nature of disclosure, (2) disclosure in the Last day, and (3) disclosure as light. First, divine disclosure is through Godʼs creatures, so is divine concealment. There are some implications here. Like the “intoxicated” expression by Ḥallāj, for example,

God reveals Himself through the words of His creature. The timing of the self-disclosure of

God depends on Him, so human attempts alone cannot manage it at all. Second, “the Day of True Disclosure” (yawm al-taghābun) which is derived from the Qurʾān illustrates true disclosure of the elected people by God. At that time, their human selves will be annihilated by their vision of God, and His self-disclosure to them. This narrative describes the situation of the end of the world as well as unity with God. Third, the self-disclosure of God shows in its effects the beauty of light, whereas self-concealment shows ugliness with gloom. It implies the work and power of God by contrast with light and gloom.

Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī gives an explanation of two types of self-disclosure in his treatise about Sufism: (1) tajallī for ordinary people and (2) that for the elected Sufis. The section is edited as a pair with the description “self-concealment and self-disclosure” (al-satr wa al-tajallī).

The ordinary people (al-ʿawāmm) are in the cover of the self-concealment [of God], and [on the other hand] the elected ones (khawāṣṣ) are in the permanence of self-disclosure. In a report [of the prophet Muḥammad], “Verily when God manifests Himself to something, it submits to Him.” A person of concealment is characterized by his own perception, while a person of disclosure is always characterized by submission. Concealment is a punishment for the ordinary people and a blessing for the elect. If He did not protect from them what He unveils to them, they would have [completely] disappeared by the power of the Reality (al-ḥaqīqah). However, just as He manifests Himself to them, so He conceals Himself from them […]

The ordinary people of this group [who can enjoy the divine self-disclosure] enjoy happiness by [divine] self-disclosure and they deteriorate by [divine] self-concealment. [On the other hand,] as for the elected ones, they are between heedlessness and liveliness.^{^[43]} This is because when God appears to them, they become heedless, whereas when He conceals Himself from them, they are thrown back to pleasure and feel happy […]

It reports that he seeks covering his heart against the onslaughts of the True Realities, because creatures cannot survive with finding the Real. In the [prophetic] report, “If [someone] was unveiled from His face, the majesty of His face would burn what reaches His sight.”^{^[44]}

Ordinary people are kept a distance from self-disclosure. When God conceals Himeself, this brings them punishment. On the other hand, His self-disclosure brings them happiness. Sufis as the elect can be near self-disclosure because they are the elects who are close to God. In spite of their experience of the self-disclosure of His grace, their feelings are ambivalent. Self-disclosure itself is a blessing so that it makes them content. Likewise, they realize that self-disclosure gives them intoxication since the extent of the true Reality is so strong that they cannot continue to gaze at His brilliant face.

The explanations by Sarrāj and Qushayrī are given totally in the context of Sufism. It proves that they describe tajallī with satr as its pair. In other words, the concept of self-disclosure does not go without the opposite meaning of self-concealment in early Sufism. In contrast with the argument about tajallī by Sarrāj and Qushayrī, the word satr merely appears in the context of the Oneness of Existence. This shows that the meaning of tajallī changed after its usage by Ibn ʿArabī and his school.

2. The Concept of tajallī in the Oneness of Existence

In Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī explains four aspects of tajallī: (1) “self-disclosure” (tajallī), (2) the “first self-disclosure” (al-tajallī al-awwal), (3) the “second self-disclosure” (al-tajallī al-thāniyy), and (4) the “self-closure of visibility” (al-tajallī al-shuhūdiyy). According to him, the general meaning of self-disclosure is that which manifests to hearts among the divine lights of the hidden.^{^[45]} It shows that (1) the

“self-disclosure” is the divine manifestation to the hearts of creatures through the divine lights. This explanation is given in the context of Sufism, but it is different from the previous explanation. This is because there is no word for self-concealment as the paired forms of self-disclosure.

In the metaphysics of the Oneness of Existence, the starting point, the terminus a quo, is the level of Essence of Existence (dhāt al-wujūd), or Being qua Being (al-wujūd min ḥaythu huwa huwa). Existence at this stage is beyond any word or contemplation, so this is a preceding level at which God becomes available to human language or contemplation. In other words, divine existence is the later self-disclosure of Existence. In this stage of pure Existence, the Real per se does not have any limitation, so It is just called the Real (al-ḥaqq). Based on this previous undescribed situation of Existence, the Absolute One (al-aḥad) discloses Itself in the first self-disclosure. Thus, the word Allāh is not placed on the highest rank in accordance with the Oneness of Existence. This word is something unveiled from the viewpoint of the persona of the Real. In this meaning, self-disclosure (tajallī) is an ontological divergence of Existence from the ineffable level of Existence to the occurrence of the many.

In (2) the “first self-disclosure”, the Absolute One discloses Itself, following that some appear as Its entity in the stage of the Absolute Oneness (al-aḥadiyyah).Kāshānī explains the first self-disclosure with the word the Essence (al-dhāt),^{^[46]} but It is as same as the Absolute One (al-aḥad) in that that both are a departure. Moreover, the Essence at this level is described with some equivalent terms like “pure Existence of Reality,” “unlimited

Non-Existence,” “pure Nothing,” and “the hidden in the hidden.”

The first self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-awwal): it is the essential self-disclosure

(al-tajallī al-dhātī). That is, it is the self-disclosure of the Essence, that is, the One of It to the Essence of It (tajallī al-dhāti waḥdu-hā li-dhāti-hā). The Essence is the stage of the Absolute Oneness (al-ḥaḍrah al-aḥadiyyah), which is not property (naʿt) and not illustration (rasm), i.e. the Essence. It is the pure Existence of Reality (wujūd al-ḥaqq al-maḥḍ), its One is its Entity. This is because what is other than Existence inasmuch as It is Existence (mā siwā al-wujūdu min ḥaythu huwa wujūdu), is only the unlimited Non-existence (al-ʿadam al-muṭlaq), and It is the pure nothing (al-lāshayʾ al-maḥḍ), thus It does not need the One and the determination in [the stage of] the Absolute Oneness (fī aḥadiyyati-hi ilā waḥdatin wa-taʿayynin). They distinguish through It from thing, therefore, nothing without it (al-lāshayʾ ghayr-hu).

Then, Its One is the Entity of Its Essence (waḥdatu-hu ʿaynu dhāt-hi). This One is the springhead of [the stage of] the Absolute Oneness (al-aḥadiyyah) and [that of] Integrated Oneness (al-wāḥidiyyah). Because it (waḥdah) is the Entity of Essence insomuch as it means [what is] non-conditioned (lā bi-sharṭ shay’), that is, the unlimited which contains its Being (kawna-hu), provided that nothing is with It (bi-sharṭ anna lā-shayʾ) -it is the Absolute Oneness (al-aḥadiyyah)-, and its being is, provided that It is with it (bi-sharṭ an yakuūna maʿa-hu shayʾ), thing -It is the Integrated Oneness (al-wāḥidiyyah). The Realities (al-ḥaqāʾiq) in the united Essence is such as the tree in the seed (nawā), that is, it is the hidden of hidden (ghayb

al-ghuyūb).^{^[47]}

Though Existence discloses Itself to Itself in the stage of the Absolute Oneness, there is still no available word to describe this purest level of Existence. So Existence keeps Its pureness without property or illustlation. Philosophically speaking, Existence at this level is called unconditioned (lā bi-sharṭ shayʾ). As Kāshānī explains, moreover, the highest level of Existence is that Existence inasmuch as It is Existence.

In the appearance of Existence, negative adjectives of Existence like “Non-existence” or “pure nothing in this stage.” are used to describe It. It is so pure that It does not accompany the One and the determination. In spite of this property, such Non-existence cannot appear until the first self-disclosure. The Non-existence is explained with the philosophical term of “negatively conditioned” (al-lāshāyʾ ghayr-hu or bi-sharṭ lā-shayʾ), which is described with a negative adjective. Moreover, the entity of the Essence is the One (waḥdah). Due to the Oneness of the entity, the One as the entity of the Essence is called non-conditioned (lā bi-sharṭ shay’).

In (3) the “second self-disclosure” (al-tajallī al-thānī), it is the stage of the emanation of the possible fixed Entities (aʿyān al-mumkināt al-thābitah) which is the spring of all imaginable existences in the universe. In this stage of self-disclosure called “Integrated

Oneness” (al-wāḥidiyyah), existential entity appears. Then the divine essence appears as the result of the “first determination” (al-taʿayyun al-awwal). Thus, in the stage of Integrated Oneness, the entity is disclosed from existential essence to divine essence. From this divine entity which is the spring of all existences in the universe, the divine name Allāh appears. Moreover, every knowledge is fixed through the divine names. This stage reaches the

“conditioned by something” (bi-sharṭ shayʾ), which is the stage of Integrated Oneness (al-wāḥidiyyah). Such conditional existence is perceptible by methods like language and imagination, so it is called the “visible self-disclosure” (al-tajallī al-shuhūdiyy).

The second self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-thānī): it is that which discloses possible fixed

Entities (aʿyān al-mumkināt al-thābitah). It is matters of the [existential] Essence to [divine] Essence, and it is the first determination (al-taʿayyun al-awwal) with the attribute of universeness and faculty. This is because the Entities are their first knowledge. And the essential (al-dhātiyyah) is the next [knowledge] for the visible self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-shuhūdiyy), and for the Reality through this self-disclosure.

[The visible self-disclosure] descends from the plane of the Absolute Oneness (al-ḥaḍrah al-aḥadiyyah) to the plane of the Integrated Oneness (al-ḥaḍrah al-wāḥidiyyah) in regards to the nameness (al-asmāʾiyyah).^{^[48]}

Following the second self-disclosure, “the visible self-disclosure” is the revelation of “named existence” (al-wujūd al-musammā) and that of “Reality in the form of His names.”^{^[49]} Thus name is the clearest appearance of visible self-disclosure. This visibility is followed by the emanation to the world of many.

In addition to Kāshānī’s simple explanation, the description in Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām, which influenced scholars of the Oneness of Existence, explains the same term differently.^{^[50]} As also explained in Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, the first self-disclosure is the appearance of the Essence. Kāshānī thinks that the first determination arose in the second self-disclosure, whereas the description in Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām says that the first determination happens in the first self-disclosure.

The first self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-awwal): it is the appearance of Essence (ẓuhūr al-dhāt), Essence Itself to Itself in the spring of the first determination (al-taʿayyun al-awwal) and the first power (al-qābiliyyah al-ūlā). [The appearance of Essence] is the One (al-waḥdah) as known that the first determination of the Essence and its degree, and as the high degree of self-determination [of existence] will come because of this. Thus, the first self-disclosure is equivalent to the appearance of Essence (ẓuhūr al-dhāt), Itself to Itself in the spring of the first determination and the first power

(al-qābiliyyah al-ūlā), in terms that the Essence appears for the first time to Its Essence (tajaddu al-dhātu dhāta-hā) with what It contains. […] The first disclosure is only the determination with the first determination, which is the One as known. Through this, it is known that the Reality of the first self-disclosure is only equivalent to the visibility of Essence (shuhūd al-dhāt) Itself and grasping It in terms as such Its Integrated Oneness (wāḥidiyyatu-hā) through the entirety of Its reflection and rank.^{^[51]}

As is clearly shown in Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām, the Essence is the spring of the first self-disclosure, and is known as the One. Moreover, the second self-disclosure accompanies the second determination, in which names and intellect appear. Due to the “plane of intellect” and the “plane of meaning,” it is clear that the second self-disclosure is the appearance of the archetype of name, intellect, and meaning.

The second self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-thāniyy): it is the appearance of [divine]

Essence to Essence Itself in the second degree. [It is] through the second determination (al-taʿayyun al-thāniyy) in which names, distinguishing appearance, and intellect as distinction appear. Hence, it is named as the second determination through the plane of the intellect (al-ḥaḍrah al-ʿilmiyyah) and the plane of the meaning (ḥaḍrah al-maʿānī),^{^[52]} that is, the world of the meaning (ʿālam al-maʿānī). ^{^[53]}

The explanations in Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah and Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām are different, but we cannot prove that the author of the latter book is not Kāshānī. As Tonaga points out, the explanation given by Kāshānī himself is neither fixed, nor is it different from Qayṣarīʼs.^{^[54]} Furthermore, the explanation of the process of self-disclosure differs among the scholars of the Oneness of Existence. This means that the big frame work of self-disclosure is shared among the scholars, but its detailed description is different.

Even in the introduction to Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, Kāshānī does not explain the process of self-disclosure of Existence. Instead, he summarizes the idea of the Oneness of Existence.^{^[55]} Differing from the normal prayer phrase in the beginning of the Qurʾān or books written by Muslim,^{^[56]} his first sentence is “praise be to One God through Its Essence and Nobility” (al-ḥamd li-llāh al-aḥad bi-dhāti-hi wa-kubriyāʾi-hi), which depicts the cosmology starting from the Real (al-ḥaqq). The Reality of the Real, the named as the “Absolute Essence” (al-dhāt al-aḥadiyyah), is neither conditioned by non-determination nor by determination.

Here, the Real is also shown with the word of the One (al-wāḥid) and the Supreme Being

(al-mutaʿālī). Self-disclosure is “through Its Essence to Its Essence, then the Realities and the

Entities appear -It made them through veiling Its countenance (wajhu-hu) through Its Existence.”^{^[57]} The Real does not have any name, description, or mental construction (iʿtibār) such that It is “the Existence in terms that it is Existence.”^{^[58]} From this point, the Existence which is over any word is the spring of the Essence from which non-Existence (ʿadam) occurs. The word ʿadam is explained with “sheer non-Existence” (ʿadam ṣirf) and “pure nothing (lā shayʾ maḥḍ). This means that non-Existence emerges from the Real as non-Existence so Existence is the zero-point in the Oneness of Existence.

3. Kāshānī’s Introduction to the Divine Names

Through the second self-disclosure, the Integrated One (al-wāḥid) emanates Itself in the stage of Integrated Oneness (wāḥidiyyah). The fixed entities (al-aʿyān al-thābitah) which are the identity or archetype of the universe are shown in this stage. These fixed entities proceed from existential essence to divine essence. Following the second self-disclosure, the visible self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-shuhūdiyy) brings the essence of “name”, that is, nameness (asmāʾiyyah). In this point, the name with divine essence comes into existence: allāh. This name shows the appearance of the divine essence, and its personal name of Allāh is called “the greatest name” (al-ism al-aʿẓam). Thus, the name with capital letter Allāh is the first name of all names, as well as the divine essences related to the later development of Godʼs faculties. As the name Allāh is the comprehensive name encompassing all names,^{^[59]} Allāh unites other divine names, and “plane of divinity” (ḥaḍrat al-ilāhiyyah) is located on the top of the whole names and essences in the lower name.

Before examining the divine names, the philosophical question of “what is a name” arises. However, it is possible to say that this question is inappropriate in the context of

Oneness of Existence. In Islamic theology, three derivative words -- name (ism), naming (tasmiyah), and the named (musammā) -- are a main key to contemplating God and His attributes. This is related to the way by which human beings are given the various faculties from God.

In theological arguments by Ashʿari theologians like Ghazāli and Qushayrī, they think that the proposition “name is the named” is valid. Every name (ism) is the named (musammā) in accordance with naming (tasmiyah) by God so the creation is attributed to God in terms of its name.^{^[60]} The Muʿtazili theologians claim that the faculty of naming is assigned to humans, whereas Ashʿari theologians insist that naming itself is an inherently divine function, and that the name is equal to the named. Otherwise, they would need to say that the action of naming is a kind of creating by humans. Thus, their theological argument is intended to refute the validity of the Muʿtazili argument.

Scholars belonging to the Oneness of Existence also argue that “name is the named,” which is the same idea as Ashʿari theologians. However, their discussion is based on the ontological process of self-disclosure (tajallī) and the appearance of the divine names. This means that all names come into existence from the self-disclosure of the Existence through the determined process: the name Allāh is emanated first, and the divine names and whole creature determined by name emerge gradually.

Concerning the appearance of name from the divine names, Ibn ʿArabī himself clearly says that the name Allāh following which are other divine names is the Essence of all existences. The divine names are the source and the archetype so properties of “name” in general are required to be understood through the divine names.

The name of Allāh denotes the Essence through the wisdom of correspondence, like (1) the proper [divine] name (al-asmāʾ al-aʿlām) is on the named things. Therefore, (2) a [divine] name denotes the absolute incompatibility (tanzīh). And, (3) [divine] names denote affirmation (i.e. establishment, ithbāt) of the entities of the attributes, though the Essence of the Real does not allow the subsistence of numbers (qiyām al-aʿdād) [because the Essence is always One]. (4) [Divine] names are given the entities of the essential and affirmative attributes, like the Knower (al-ʿĀlim), the Powerful

(al-Qādir), the Willing (al-Murīd), the Hearing (al-Samīʿ), the Seeing (al-Baṣīr), the

Living (al-Ḥayy), the Responder (al-Mujīb), the Thankful (al-Shukūr), and so on. (5) Names are given descriptions (nuʿūt).^{^[61]} Therefore, nothing is understood from ascriptions except relations (nisab) and correlations (iḍāfāh), like the First (al-Awwal) and the Last (al-Ākhir), the Manifest (al-Ẓāhir) and the Hidden (al-Bāṭin), and so on. Furthermore, (6) [divine] names are given action (al-afʿāl), like the Creator (al-Khāliq), the Provider (al-Rāziq), the Author (al-Bārīʾ), the Shaper (al-Muṣawwir), and others among names.^{^[62]}

There are five characteristics of the conceptual divine name derived from the name Allāh: (1) a proper name as the named thing, (2) absolutely free from imperfection, (3) affirmation of the entities of the attributes, (4) the entities of the essential and affirmative attributes, (5) descriptions with relations and correlations, and (6) action of things.

According to the properties of the divine names, even the divine names are the named, and do not exist without any cause. These divine names are totally free from imperfection. In the context of Ibn ʿArabī, the word tanzīh is Godʼs essential and absolute incompatibility with His creatures.^{^[63]} A “name” of God establishes the entities of the attributes, whereas the Essence of the Real just indicates the only thing. This is because the Essence of the Real is always one, and His essence does not have any number other than one. Moreover, a “name” has its entities which show the affirmative and essential attributes. As Ibn ʿArabī suggests, the Knower and the Powerful are the names which shows such entities, which also reflect on the creature. Moreover, a name based on the divine names illustrates the situation which is made up of relation and correlations with others. In other words, some names explain how they are located in comparison with other things. An example is the divine name of the First and the Manifest, which indicates the relationship with others. As well, some divine names show their actions, like the Creator and the Provider.

These characteristics of the divine names are important to understand what is a “name.” As far as a “name” is derived from the divine name, it shares the same properties in spite of the big gap between a divine name and general meaning of “name”. According to

Kāshānī, a name has three layers: essential (dhātiyyah), descriptive (waṣfiyyah), and active (fiʿliyyah, or faʿliyyah).⁷¹ These three layers are important insomuch as this framework is the base of a divine name, too. Furthermore, a name is not a mere phonetic complex (lafẓ), since it is the embodiment of the essence of the named (dhāt al-musammā).⁷² The layer of names are:

(a) essential (dhātiyyah)

(b) descriptive (waṣfiyyah)

[This is] because name has validity (yuṭlaqu) only for essence in respect to relationship

(nisbah) and nomination (taʿayyun). That respect is either

[1] non-existential matter (amr ʿadamiyy):

[A] pure relationship (nisbiyy maḥd) –like the Self-Sufficient (al-Ghaniyy), the

First (al-Awwal), and the Last (al-Ākhir), or

[B] no relationship (ghayr nisbiyy) –like the Holy (al-Quddūs) and the Source of Peace (al-Salām). This part is named “the names of essence” (asmāʾ al-dhāt). [2] Or in meaning, the existential [matter] is considered as the intellect (al-ʿaql) without adding to the essence which is outside of the intellect, though it is unconceivable (muḥāl). It is:

[A] either that does not consist in understanding the other -like the Alive (al-Ḥayy) and the Necessary (al-Wājib) [asmāʾ al-dhāt].

[B] or that consists in understanding the others without its existence -like the Knowing (al-ʿĀlim) and the Able (al-Qādir)-, this is named “the names of attribute”

(asmāʾ al-ṣifāt).

[C] or that consists in the understanding existence of the others -like the Creator

(al-Khāliq) and the Provider (al-Rāziq)-, this is named “the names of actions”

(asmāʾ al-afʿāl) because those are the origin of action.^{^[64]}

There are the general characteristics of a name. “Name” is categorized into three layers: essence, attributes, and action. As the inherent nature of “name”, some names indicate the essence of the named thing, and some show the relationship with other names. Based on this idea, “name” is divided into two categories: non-existent and existent.

Concerning the former “non-existent” matter, it is divided into [A] pure relationship and [B] no relationship with other who has a name. As the example of each divine name shows, pure relationship is a simple relationship shown a pair, or an opposite concept (ex. the First and the Last), and no relationship shows a name which stands by itself (ex. the Holy). On the latter “existential” matter shown as the intellect, it is explained as the way of perception: how we conceive an intellect of the name. Each of the names is regarded as “the names of essence,” “the names of attribute,” and “the names of action.” Significantly, these three parts of the intellect correspond to the three aforementioned conditions of existence: non-conditioned” (lā bi-sharṭ shay’), “provided that nothing is with It” (bi-sharṭ anna lā-shayʾ) and “provided that

It is with it” (bi-sharṭ an yakūna maʿa-hu shayʾ). Thus, it is possible to say that the name of an essence like the Necessary is non-conditioned, that the name of an attribute like the Able is provided that nothing is with it, and that name of an action like Creator is provided that it is with it. As considered in the next chapter, these three layers of “name” are in the essential idea of Ibn ʿArabīʼs theory of the divine names in terms of the divine presence (Chapter III-1).

III. The Self-disclosure of Existence in Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Divine Names

Ibn ʿArabī explains that Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam was written at Damascus in 627 A.H./1229 A.D., seeing the prophet Muḥammad and receiving it from him. The content is restricted to what he memorized in his spiritual meeting with the prophet.⁷⁴ This means that he just narrates what he was taught from the prophet; in this point, this can be regarded as a kind of “revelatory” work. Sometimes in the work, Ibn ʿArabī mentions al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah in the context of the divine names.

In the name of Fuṣūṣ al-hikam, the term faṣṣ, singular of the term fuṣūṣ, means the bezel or groove holding the crystal or stone of a gem in its setting. Otherwise, fuṣūṣ are the gems themselves with rings, whose tops are engraved with decorative words or designs. Since there is no clear explanation by Ibn ʿArabī, it is impossible to determine exactly what he intends in the title of his work. However, this is the setting of ḥikam, which is the wisdom of divine existence, including the wisdom of existence itself in the theory of the Oneness of Existence.

In Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, this wisdom is gradually disclosed in all twenty-seven chapters named by the title for a divine personage,⁷⁵ and the names of apostle of God. For example, the first chapter starts from the messenger Adam, “The hapter of Wisdom of Divinity in the

⁷⁴Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Saiyad Nizām al-Dīn Aḥmad, (Berlin: Orient-Institut Beirut, forthcoming in 2014), p. 31.

⁷⁵The type of wisdom and its correspondent messenger is following:

(1), Wisdom of Divinity (ilāhiyyah) - Adam, (2) Wisdom of Expiration (nafthiyyah) - Seth, (3) Wisdom of Exaltation (subūḥiyyah) - Noah, (4) Wisdom of Holiness (qudūsiyyah) - Enoch, (5) Wisdom of Rapturous Love (muhaymiyyah) - Abraham, (6) Wisdom of Real (ḥaqqiyyah) - Isaac, (7) Wisdom of Sublimity (ʿaliyyah) - Ishmael, (8) Wisdom of Spirit (rūḥiyyah) - Jacob, (9) Wisdom of Light (nūriyyah) - Joseph, (10) Wisdom of Unity (aḥadiyyah) - Joseph, (11) Wisdom of Opening (fātiḥiyyah) - Ṣāliḥ, (12)

Wisdom of Mind (qalbiyyah) - Shuʿaib, (13) Wisdom of Mastery (malikiyyah) - Lot, (14) Wisdom of

Destiny (qadariyyah) - Ezra, (15) Wisdom of Prophecy (nubuwiyyah) - Jesus, (16) Wisdom of

Compassion (raḥmāniyyah) - Solomon, (17) Wisdom of Being (wujūdiyyah) - David, (18) Wisdom of

Breath (nafasiyyah) - Jonah, (19), Wisdom of the Unseen (ghaybiyyah) - Job, (20) Wisdom of Majesty

(jalāliyyah) - John, (21) Wisdom of Domination (mālikiyyah) - Zakariah, (22) Wisdom of Intimacy

(īnāsiyyah) - Elias, (23) Wisdom of Virtue (iḥsāniyyah) - Luqmān, ( ) Wisdom of Leadership (imāmiyyah) - Aaron, (25) Wisdom of Eminence (ʿuluwiyyah) - Moses, (26) Wisdom of Resource (ṣamadiyyah) - Khālid, ( 7) Wisdom of Singularity (fardiyyah) - Muḥammad.

The translation of each prophet is referred to in Austin’s work.

Austin, R. W. J., Ibn alʿArabī, The Bezels of Wisdom, (New York: Paulist Press, 1980).

Word of Adam” (faṣṣ ḥikmah ilāhiyyah fī kalimah Ādamiyyah). This means it shows the wisdom of the divinity disclosed in the form of Adam’s word or the theme of Adam derived from the Qurʾān. Thus, the different type of wisdom in each chapter is provided with the words of each apostle. The divine principles are represented by apostles in the Qurʾān, so that an association is established. Ibn ʿArabī would intertwine two types of name, the divine names and those of the apostles, to show what and how the Perfect Man is.

In the 558th chapter of al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, moreover, Ibn ʿArabī argues the divine names under the title of “On the [spiritual] knowledge of the Most Beautiful Names possessed by the Lord of Might, and on those possible to be literally ascribed to Him and not possible [to be literally ascribed to Him].” It is one of the longest chapters in the rear part of the work. In this chapter, he argues one hundred planes (ḥaḍrah, pl. ḥaḍrāt) of the divine name, starting from the name Allāh.^{^[65]} Differing from previous scholars, he explains the divine names with the presence on each of them.^{^[66]}

1. The Divine Mercy and Its Presence

In Sufism, the word al-ḥaḍrah is used as the counterpart of the word al-ghayb (the absence).⁷⁸ In this meaning, the term includes the meaning that something unknown or hidden appears gradually. The name Allāh is located at the first appearance of the divine existence in the Oneness of Existence. The structure of Ibn ʿArabīʼs theory that Allāh is the highest among all the names is common with that of Islamic theology. However, the discussion of the divine names in Ibn ʿArabī is more ontological than the discussion in Islamic theology. In his usage of ḥaḍrah, there are two main meanings: the first is “plane” and the second is “presence.” Of course, these both meanings are closely connected to each other. First, the meaning of “plane” is the stage of divinity which comes to disclose the divine existence from one to another. Second, “presence” means the ontological reality shown by the divine names. Importantly, the structure of the divine name is equal to that of the divine presence.

Concerning the divine presence, Ibn ʿArabī clearly states:

The prophet [Muḥammad] said about the creation of Adam who is the blueprint (barnāmij) which is the synthesis (jāmiʿ) for descriptions of the divine presence (nuʿūt al-haḍrah al-ilāhiyyah), that is, they [consist of] the Essence, the Attributes, and the Actions (al-afʿāl).^{^[67]}

The divine presence is divided into three parts: the Essence, the Attributes, and the Actions. As discussed above in Kāshānīʼs discussion of the divine names in the last chapter (Chapter II-3), the three parts of the divine name (the names of essence, the names of attribute, and the names of action) are equivalent to the divine presence. In Ibn ʿArabīʼs theory of the divine names, then, the divine name demonstrates the divine presence which demonstrates in turn its Essence, Attribute, and Actions.

Each plane in the one hundred divine names in al-Futūḥāṭ al-makkiyyah is the ontological reality of the divine names and presence. Whole names are derived from the name of Allāh, which is the divinity of the Real. Divinity shows Its existential presence in the name of Allāh. In terms of this point, Ibn ʿArabī explains that the name of Allāh is the Presence that comprehends all divine presences.^{^[68]} These divine names standing as reality are infinite. Though every divine name is from the single source of God and is existent after the same process of self-disclosure, each has its own essence, attribute, and action. Ibn ʿArabī regards ḥaḍrah as the degree of existence which informs the metaphysical thing with the visible.

The names derived from Allah are endless (tatanāhā) because they are known through what comes from them, and what comes from them which are infinite. They derive from unlimited elements (uṣūl mutanāhiyyah), and they (such elements) are the matrices of the names or the presences of the names (ḥaḍrāt al-asmāʾ). Certainly, there is but one Reality. It embraces all of these relations and additions (al-iḍāfāh), which are designated through the names of divinity (al-asmāʾ al-ilāhiyyah).^{^[69]}… In the same

way, [each divine] gift is distinguished from any other gift because of its individuality. Though they are from a single source, [it is] evident that this is another [thing]. The reason is [mutual] distinction of the names.

In the plane of divinity (ḥaḍrat al-ilāhiyyah), to extend [to lower names] is that a thing is repeating as source. This [source] is the Real (al-ḥaqq) who depends [only] on

Itself.^{^[70]}

As well as the names themselves being different from each other, the essence of each name is different. This is the reason that a “name” can hold its nameness (asmāʾiyyah). In the emerging plane of the divine name, there is the acquisition process of “name.” In this formation of

“name”, significantly, Ibn ʿArabī regards the divine name as a thing (shayʾ) stemming from the One essence of God. In the plane of the divine name, the name of Allāh unifies all other names.

Though Ibn ʿArabī proposes one hundred planes of the divine names in al-Futūḥāṭ al-makkiyyah, the name Lord (al-Rabb), based on the plane of Lordness (al-rabbāniyyah), is considered as a special name, that is another plane other than this plane of divinity.^{^[71]} In other words, the name al-Rabb (Lord) is another aspect of the name Allāh (God). Lord is the outside name of divinity, whereas God is the more unified and inside name of it. They are two names, but each aspect of the name Allāh. In the next self-disclosure of the divine names, there is the divine name Mercy (al-Raḥmah)^{^[72]} which is the source of compassionate (rahmān) and merciful (raḥīm) in the plane of divinity. “Thing” as a divine name comes into existence by extension of Mercy.

According to Ibn ʿArabī, every name has its own “thingness” (shayʾiyyah), and this situation is shared among names in general. This thingness is closely related to an appearance of the divine names. In the divine presence, thingness comes into existence as a result of Godʼs Mercy being through Mercy Itself as Its first object. From this determination of existence, he discusses as follows:

The first thing which the Mercy embraces is [the Mercy] Itself. Then, the thingness aforementioned [comes into existence]. Moreover, thingness of every existent which is found [develops] to what is infinite in this world or the next, contingent or substantial, complex or simple.^{^[73]}

This quotation means that every name - whether it is a divine name or name in general - appears in this endless process of acquiring thingness. It seems to be equal to the essence or entity of each thing. However, there are some interpretations by commentators of what thingness shows. Concerning the above quotation of Ibn ʿArabī, Kāshānī adds this comment about it.

(Ibn ʿArabīʼs words) “Thingness of every existent”: that is, the one Entity (ʿayn) which is the first gathering entities and their principle. Then, the Mercy related to this Entity embraces the gathering of the fixed entities (al-aʿyān al-thābitah)”^{^[74]}

In his commentary, Kāshānī regards thingness as that which comprises of entity of thing or principle. Thus, thingness in his understanding is as same as the conceptual idea in Greek philosophy or the perpetual archetype. On the other hand, Qayṣarī makes this comment about thingness.

(Ibn ʿArabīʼs original text) “the thingness aforementioned [comes into existence]”: that is, the Entity of the Merciful […] “Moreover, thingness of every existent which is found [develops] to what is infinite”: that is, the entity of every existent.^{^[75]}

Qayṣarī shares the same understanding of thingness as Kāshānī. Thus, the Essence of the Existence manifests Itself through the name as “thing” in self-disclosure. In this process, the name can settle itself by acquiring thingness. This thingness is the archetype of a hing, which is the essence of “name.” Because of the inherent property of Mercy, all the divine names include the component of Mercy. Thus, the later development caused by Mercy represents some effects. The most important effect of Mercy is “preparedness” (istiʿdād). This is the primal effect of Mercy, appearing as a particular form in standing as existence. It is possible to say that preparedness is thingness shifting to a thing through obtaining its entity. This process is also rephrased that a name comes into existence just by getting its entity, that is, nameness.

So preparedness is the process of acquiring nameness or thingness.

Moreover, Ibn ʿArabī argues two effects of Mercy: (1) effect by the Essence (āthār bi-l-dhāt), and (2) the effect by asking (āthār bi-l-suʾāl). The first one is the effect as a result of the self-disclosure of Mercy by revealing Its Essence. All the created and existent is things fixed its essence inherently, in accordance with compassion of Mercy. On the other hand, the second one is the effect of the Mercy by petition on the part of creatures, especially by human beings. In other words, God gives His Mercy to them as a result of their efforts. They ask God by saying that “Oh, God, show mercy on us” (Q23:109). These people who try to reach God and know the Merciful are called “the people of (divine) presence” (ahl al-ḥaḍrah). In this way, Ibn ʿArabī argues a different aspect of divine Mercy. The two types of Mercy, the Compassionate and the Merciful, is well known aspect of the word.

Two kinds of Mercy, (1) the “mercy of grace” (raḥmat al-imtinān) and (2) the “mercy of obligation” (raḥmat al-wujūb), corresponding both to the Compassionate (al-raḥmān) and the Merciful (al-raḥīm). God [exercises] gracious through the name al-raḥmān and obligation through the name al-raḥīm. This obligation is from the grace, so the Compassionate (al-raḥīm) is included in the Merciful (al-raḥmān) interiorly. “God writes on Himself the Mercy (al-raḥmah)” (Q6:12). This is for his servant because the Truth remembers the action which this servant brings. Truly, to God, the servant is in duty to Him in himself, so that the servant deserves this Mercy -that is, the mercy of obligation.^{^[76]}

The mercy of grace is wider than the mercy of obligation. The former is the essential mercy to all creatures, whereas the latter is the mercy to the servant who does his duty as obligation. This structure is parallel to the two diverse words of Mercy (raḥmah): the Compassionate (al-raḥmān) and the Merciful (al-raḥīm). Namely, all creatures can enjoy the Compassion of God, but not all can see His Mercy.

This relationship is mentioned clearly in al-Futūhāt al-makkiyyah. The

Compassionate (raḥmān) and the Merciful (raḥīm) are names like the “vehicle” (al-markabah) to prevail Mercy.^{^[77]} The mercy of grace is Mercy by the way of a gratuitous gift. It is based on the verses of the Qurʾān: “It is part of the Mercy of Allāh that you deal gently with them” (Q3:159), and “We sent you not but as a mercy for all creatures” (Q21:107). Significantly, the role which is played by the mercy of grace is equal to thingness, in the meaning that Mercy is prevailed to every creature. This is shown in the verse of the Qurʾān, “My Mercy covers everything” (Q7:156).

Moreover, these essential facets of Mercy occur in different ways, the pure mercy (raḥmah khāliṣah) and the mixed mercy (raḥmah mumtazijah).

Concerning the bestowal of nameness (al-asmāʾiyyah): know that the bestowal of God is His creation of the Mercy (al-raḥmah) which is from Him. That bestowal is on [the presences of] the names. (1) On the “pure mercy,” [it is] such as goodness from pleasant blessing in this world, and pureness on the Day of Resurrection. That name “the Compassionate” (al-raḥmān) is given [to the pure mercy]. It is the compassionate gift (al-ʿaṭāʾ al-raḥmāniyy). (2) On the “mixed mercy,” [it is] such as drinking of distaste medicine whose drinking follows relief. It is the divine gift (al-ʿaṭāʾ al-ilāhiyy). In spite of the divine gift, it is not possible except that the bestowal of His gift is through mediate of holder of the names.⁹⁰

The pure mercy in the quotation is given in this world and the next world. It is the essential Mercy, and seems to be bestowed directly. Therefore, it is possible to say that the pure mercy is a compassionate gift is equal to “the mercy of grace.” On the other hand, the mixed mercy requires mediation to show the gift. This kind of mercy is an indirect one, so that the gift of mercy is always through a mediator. Concerning Ibn ʿArabīʼs quotation, Qayṣarī states in his commentary:

What emanates first is the “mercy of existence” (wujūd) and (2) the “mercy of life” (al-hayāh): then what follows both of them? It is divided into three: (a) the pure mercy is in accordance with the visible and the invisible. [Concerning] the mixed mercy, (b) the Mercy is in the visible, and (c) the Avenge (al-Niqmah) is in the invisible. This is as what the Commander of believers [ʿUmar] (praise on him) says, “God is one who

extends His Mercy to His friends in high degree of His Avenge, and one who strengthens His Avenge on His enemies in extent of His Mercy.”

First, [it is] such as pleasant and good blessing -that is, permitted (al-ḥalāl)- in this world, and [it is] such as useful sciences and knowledge in the next world.

Second, [it is] like an appropriate things to nature, forbidden food, drinking of wine, outrage wayfarer, and agreement the deported self (al-nafs al-mubʿadah) for the mind (qalb) from the Real.

Third, [it is] like drinking of distaste medicine, whose drinking follows the relief and health.^{^[78]}

According to Qayṣarī, the “mercy of existence” and the “mercy of life” come into existence by means of emanation. Both mercies consist of the nameness of creation. The words existence and life have important roles in Islamic thought. As known the “seven leaders” (al-aimmah al-sabʿah)⁹², they are words which show the first knowledgeable relationship of the Essence, as a result of determined fixed entities. Such an intellectual relationship is imaginable without being through life (al-ḥayāh). It, thus, is regarded as “the top of leaders” (imām al-aimmah) and through such a relationship it necessitates other words.^{^[79]} After both, three mercies follow.

First, the pure mercy works in this world (visible) as well as in the next world (invisible). Concerning second and third, the visible appears in the form of Mercy, whereas the invisible does in the form of the Avenger. As in the narrative by ʿUmar b. Khaṭṭāb (d. 24/644), God bestows Mercy to His friend in the situation of Vengeance, but bestows Mercy to enemies in that of Mercy. Thus, Vengeance is the opposite counterpart of Mercy. So, some can say that they ask the Avenger to give them Mercy.

Mercy shows Its mercifulness essentially in this world and the next world. In general, the presence of Mercy is ubiquitous in every name and creature. However, there are other fortunes which develop in other topics. The seeker tries to reach Mercy by purifying himself, so that he feels its presence more vividly. Divinity shows concretely Its presence in the divine name of Mercy. Though Mercy comes to the fore as the divine presence in Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought, it is not possible to understand the divine presence except understanding the presence of Lordship.

2. The Lord as a Divine Name and Its Divine Presence

The name Lord (al-rabb) is another aspect of Allāh. As Ibn ʿArabī clarifies that every existent belongs to God other than the particular aspect of Lord (rabbu-hu khāṣṣah).^{^[80]} For this reason, the name of the Lord keeps a privileged position in the divine names. The divine presence which evokes imagination from the name al-rabb is the presence of Lordship. In elevating from Mercy analyzed in the last section, Ibn ʿArabīʼs discussion of the Lord is always with its pair of servant (ʿabd).

In order to understand Lord-servant relationship, the etymology of the word wujūd must be explained. The word which is usually translated as Existence or Being is derived from the consonants wāw-jīm-dāl (و -ج - د). The verb wajada has two important meanings: one is “to find” and the other is “to exist”. In this reason, its nominal form wujūd contains the meanings being, existence, and finding. At the same time, wujūd is equal to the word ʿayn which means spring from which everything is emanated and created God makes the existent or creature exist by His finding them, so the Existence is the cause of other existences. Here the derivative words of wujūd indicate a similar dimension: wājid and mawjūd. The former is an active noun meaning “finder” and “one who makes a thing exist.” On the other hand, the latter is a passive noun meaning “the found” and “one who is existed or created.” The creatures as the found are existent through the Existence of the Finder. The ontological relationship between Existence and the existed can be adapted to the Lord-servant relationship. In considering the presence of

Lordship, Ibn ʿArabī writes the following poem.

The Lord is our King (Māliku-nā), and the Lord is our Conciliator (Muṣliḥu-nā). The Lord fixed us (thabbata-nā) because He is the One who fixes.

If not for my existence [I am not existed]. And Being of the Real made me exist (found them, awjada-nī). What I was knowing better that passing existent (al-kāʾin al-fāʾit).

Then the Real made me exist (found them) from Him and supported me through Him. Thus I was required as the silent speaker.^{^[81]}

This poem also explains the relationship between God and human beings with the derived term wujūd. Humans cannot exist without the Existence and Godʼs finding them. In this meaning, God is the One who fixes their existence.

In al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, Ibn ʿArabī discusses five properties derived from the presence of Lordship: (1) fixity by coloring [the existence] (thubūt ʿalā al-talwīn), (2) reign on the contested people (ahl al-nizāʿ) in the Real, (3) appearance of the matter of possibilities, (4) servanthood which does not accept the liberty (ʿitq) of servant, (5) commitment of life through accustomed reason. Because these five wisdoms do not always connect with the argument about Lordship, we will restrict the theme to a minimum and focus on his direct argument about Lordship.

The first two wisdoms are mainly about the speculation of his cosmology. First, God as the cause of existence makes the existent in every moment. This is based on the verses of the Qurʾān: “Everyday He is involved with some matter” (Q55: 9), and “It is God who alternates the Nighttime and the Daytime” (Q : ). This means that God fixes the world by managing night and day as well as all other things related to the universe. The word “Lord” is not present in this explanation, but Ibn ʿArabī brings out hidden wisdom without stopping such basic understanding. Rather, his argument itself is related to his cosmology, as with some aspects in al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah and other works.

Among the self (nafs) in the universe, no one is except His completion the changing wisdom. [It is] so as not to denote the sun which is the cause of nighttime and daytime self-disclosing not settled nighttime and not [settled] daytime. And [It is] so as not to denote the stars: “all [the celestial bodies] swim along, each in its rounded course” (Q21:33). What He said that stars are settled in the 360 degree which is every degree, rather every minute, rather every second, rather every portion which does not divide from orbit of star (falak). When God reveals any star which is among stars, God on His revelation relates about the every single monad (jawhar fard) of the universe of basic element -nobody knows what it is except God who makes it exist. And He also relates

about the middle group (al-malaʾ al-awsāṭ) among the celestial hearts, under which the deep signs of the zodiac (falak al-burūj)^{^[82]} are among knowledge […] Those who are in this [middle] group and in the universe of basic element are the people of the garden. Those who are in some of this [middle] group are the people of fire who are the people of it. God relates about the higher group. What is over the signs of the zodiac is to the essence of souls and intelligence (ʿuqūl), [following] the heavy clouds (al-ʿamāʾ)^{^[83]} of knowledge which give the names of divinity (al-asmāʾ al-ilāhiyyah).^{^[84]}

His words can be summarized in the following stages of universe. These are the explanatory illustration from the self-disclosure of the divine names to the world of creation.

[Higher group]

1. The Names of the divinity in heavenly clouds.

2. The essence of souls and intelligence.

3. The signs of zodiac.

[Middle group]

4. People of the garden in the universe of basic elements.

5. People of the fire in some of the universe of basic elements. [Lower group]

6. Single monad of the universe of basic elements.⁹⁹

Fig.1 The geocentric cosmos of Ibn ʿArabī cosmology^{^[85]} Fig. 2 The celestial garden of Ibn ʿArabīʼs cosmology^{^[86]}

Related to the stages of the universe, the second wisdom picks up the light (nūr) in brightness and shadow (ẓill) in darkness. The Real is light and essence, whereas creation is Its shadow and form. The Lord breathes the spiritual and sensory energy into the creature as servant: “I breathed into him of My spirit” (Q15: 9).

The third wisdom is the appearance into matter of possibilities, which is in the process of the self-disclosure of the Essence. In the appearance of the Existence, various possibilities come into existence because of the presence of Lordship. As the fortune of Lordship, It creates the possibility of a relationship with time, place, and condition.

Some possibilities (mumkināt) precede some, and [some possibilities] are behind

[some], [some possibilities] are higher [than some], [some possibilities] are lower [than some], and [some possibilities] are coloring [to some]. [Those are] in different conditions and stages, closeness and isolation, produce and commerce, movement and halting, gathering and scattering, and whatever resembles that. He (the Lord) is reshaping (taqlīb) possibilities in possibilities of other variable things.^{^[87]}

The Lord Himself is the Essence which leads to the reality and qualification. Importantly, it is clear that Ibn ʿArabī regards the possibilities as existence as well as the relationship arising between two opposite things. The relationship (nisbah) develops infinitely, this potentiality is called possibilities (mumkināt) organized in the presence of Lordship. Here, possibility can be called “preparedness” (istiʿdād) which is regarded as the possible essence or idea of existence.

The possibilities appear from the fixed entity, which grants their identities.

The Lord-servant relationship is the most important in the presence of Lordship. Lordship necessitates servanthood, and vice versa.^{^[88]} It means that each concept cannot exist without the other.

Every existent under his Lord is pleasing [to Him]. [But] it does not keep because every existent is pleasing to his Lord, on what clarifies that they are pleasing on the Lord of other servant. Since he is what takes Lordship except from every [existent], not from only one. Thus, what determinates every [existent] except what suits to it is his Lord.¹⁰⁴

The fourth wisdom of Lordship is about the liberty of the servant. There are three parts of servanthood (ʿubūdah): “servanthood to God,” “servanthood to creation,” and “servanthood to the situation” which is the servanthood of divine veneration (ʿubūdat al-ʿubūdiyyah).^{^[89]} Concerning the first and third servanthood, they are servitude to God. Thus, it is inevitable for any creature to escape from such servanthood.

Only the second one, “servanthood to creature,” does not allow human to be in free from the servanthood. The free condition is divided into two situations: “servanthood in freedom” (ʿubūdat fī ḥurriyyah) and “servitude of reign” (ʿubūdiyyat al-mulk). Both conditions arise just because of the result of “causes” (asbāb, sing. sabab).¹⁰⁶ In other words, one belongs originally to himself or herself, so they are free. In spite of the natural situation, some of them in creation come to be placed in the Lord-servant relationship, which leads to sale and purchase of servants. Depending on the situation, they can be free from servanthood.

The fifth wisdom is discussed mainly in the context of the relationship with the Lord. Creatures are bestowed nutrition (ghidhāʾ) in their life. The allusions expressed by the word nutrition, “semantic nutrition” (al-ghidhāʾ al-maʿnawī) and “perceptible nutritions” (al-ghidhāʾ al- maḥsūs), demonstrate intelligence fed through Him. These kinds of nutrition make creatures exist, and understand what is existent and in which way it exists, and so on.

Considering the fourth wisdom, it is possible to classify the concept of “Lord.”

This name of “Lord” has much relativeness (iḍāfah), gathering in the relations and dividing in accordance with what relates to it. Therefore, [such] relativeness is to the worlds and to [the letter starting from] “kāf” (ك) of address like single “by your Lord” (fa-wa-rabbi-ka, Q19:68), and dual “Who is the Lord of you two, O Moses?” (fa-man rabbu-kumā (ربكما) yā Mūsā, Q 0: 9), and plural “your Lord” (rabb-kum, ربكم ).^{^[90]} And, [the plural form of “your” refers] to ancestors, to the hidden personal pronoun like his lord (rabb-hu) and their lord (rabb-hum), to heaven and heavens, to earth, to the East and the West, to eastern places and western places, to people, to daybreak, and the personal pronoun of the speaker. [the Lord] does not renew lord (tajaddu-hu) forever except as relativeness. So, your knowledge is through Him, as such he relates to Him.¹⁰⁸

“Relative” (idāfah) in the quotation means what happens relative to others. In this meaning, lordship is the product emerged in the crossing of each thing. However, the Lordship of God is the most intensified, so that Lordship is Essence for other creatures.

Borrowing Izutsuʼs analysis, Lordship has two different levels: absolute (muṭlaq) and relative (iḍāfiyy).¹⁰⁹ The former is the absolute lordship of God over human beings, whereas the latter is changeable lordship in each situation. It is nothing but a relative relationship brought in various situations. Therefore, lordship of creatures is modifiable at any time. As shown by the two kinds of lordship, everything in this universe is but shadow, whose archetype certainly exists. However, existence in the lower stage surely connects with the Real in the higher stage. As Ibn ʿArabī prefers to quote the Ḥadīth, “One who knows himself, knows his Lord” (man ʿarafa nafs-hu ʿarafa rabb-hu),^{^[91]} oneʼs inquiry leads to reaching divine providence. This divine presence is embodied in the perfect man (al-insān al-kāmil) in spite of being created.

3. The Presence of the Divine Names in the Perfect Man

As Ibn ʿArabī argues the presence of Lordship, he acknowledges the gap between the Lord as

God and the servant as human existence. In the spiritual way of Islam, however, the gap in the Lord-servant relationship dissolves in the unity with God. The argument of divine presence related to the Mercy and the Lordship closely connects with the self-disclosure of Existence.

This is the “downward or metaphysical” way of the discussing how Existence shows Itself to lower existence. However, there is another sort of discussion, which is the “upward or corporeal” sort of discussion: that is, how a servant reaches divinity and the Absolute One. The meaning of the aforementioned Ḥadīth “One who knows himself, knows his Lord” is shown in the relationship between the macrocosm and the microcosm. The Perfect Man is just existence who dissolves the opposite idea of Lordship-servanthood. He could integrate such opposite ideas by his embodiment of the divine presence.

Before analyzing the characteristics of the Perfect Man in macrocosm and microcosm, however, it is important to consider the idea of coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of opposites) in Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought. This is well known as the terminology of Nicholas Cusanus (1401-1464). According to him, opposite things contradict each other in creating, whereas they are coincident in God. For example, God is maximum, but at the same time He is minimum. The maximum and minimum coincide in infinite divinity though this situation is impossible in the finite creature. This is because God is maximum as well as minimum, and unifies all existence in Him. This argument of Cusanus can be applied to the metaphysical argument of the divine names, but cannot be done to the physical argument of how one apprehends divinity. The original idea of coincidentia oppositorum in Cusanus is intended to argue the divine attributes of God, by comparison with human beings. It is merely possible to use the idea in order to overcome the theological problem of the contradiction of opposites, and express the miracle of God. Especially in our research, this idea is useful in the anthropomorphic situation: the condition of being the Perfect Man as a result of spiritual training and experience.

Seth, in regard to his reality and his [spiritual] rank, knows everything through his essence, whereas he is ignorant through ignorance itself on the part of his physical body. He is a knower-ignorer (al-ʿālim al-jāhil). He accepts the characteristic of opposites (al-ittiṣāf bi-l-aḍdād), as if he accepted the principle of the characteristic about that, like the Glorious (al-Jalīl), the Manifest (al-Ẓāhir) and the Hidden

(al-Bāṭin), and the First (al-Awwal). He is Godʼs essence^{^[92]} and not other than that. Thus, he knows and [at the same time] he does not know, he is aware and [at the same time] he is not aware, and he perceives and [at the same time] he does not perceive.^{^[93]}

Beyond the situation of Seth (Shīth), Qāshānī comments that this quotation implies that the Perfect Man embodies the divine presence. Because he embodies the divine presence, so the opposite things are enable to coexist inside him. As God is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, the Perfect Man as anthropomorphism makes such opposite attributes coincide.

During the Creation, God created Adam by molding mud and breathing His breath into the body. In the Ḥadith, the prophet Muḥammad says that God created Adam in the form of His image (i.e. the Imago Dei Ḥadīth). The religions of the Semitic tradition regard this process of animating Adam as a blessing from God, which distinguishes human beings from other creatures. Ibn ʿArabī also found the special meaning of this Imago Dei Ḥadīth and he discusses it repeatedly in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. According to him, the first Perfect Man is Adam because his creation is full of divine presence.^{^[94]}^{^[95]}

The prophet [Muḥammad] said about the creation of Adam, who is the blueprint

(barnāmij) which is the synthesis (jāmiʿ) for descriptions of the divine presence (nuʿūt al-haḍrah al-ilāhiyyah), that is, they [consist of] the Essence, the Attributes, and the Actions (al-afʿāl). “Indeed, God created Adam in His form (ṣūrati-hi).” His (Godʼs) form is nothing but the divine presence. In this noble epitome (al-mukhtaṣar al-sharīf) -that is, the Perfect Man-, He made exist the gathering of the divine names and the realities which are outside of him in the macrocosm (al-ʿālam al-kabīr) separated from Adam.^{^[96]}

Adam himself is the epitome of divine presence and the divine names, so he is the Perfect Man. This structure is a microcosm (al-ʿālam al-saghīr), divine manifestation in the finite. Adam as the Perfect Man and microcosm is correspondent to God as the macrocosm. In terms of his name, it indicates two dimensions: Adam as an individual person and Adam as human beings generally. As Ibn ʿArabī adds in the Imago Dei Ḥadīth, “His form” is indeed divine presence. Concerning the two meanings in the word “Adam”: the individual Adam, and human beings in general, the former is clearly a primitive man who has his own personality. He is regarded as an apostle and prophet in Islamic tradition.^{^[97]} The latter is shown in the word of banū Ādam which means “the sons of Adam” literally and “human beings” figuratively. This indicates that each person is the posterity of primitive man, and inherits his various attributes including the spiritual fortune bestowed from God. Though all men have the possibility to be the Perfect Man, they are not anthropomorphic existents when born. Ibn ʿArabī mentions clearly that not all human beings are the Perfect Man, but Adam in person is the Perfect Man made with His own hands.

He (God) made him (Adam as the Perfect Man) as spirit (rūḥ) for the universe, and He subjected to him the high [universe] and the low [universe] because of the perfection of [his] form. As there is nothing in the universe which does not glorify God through his praising, likewise, there is nothing in the universe which is not subject to this man, since the reality of his form (ḥaqīqat ṣūrat-hi) gives him [perfection]. So, God said

“And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in heaven and on earth”

(Q45:13). Everything in the universe is under human subjection. [One who] knows that is the Perfect Man, and [One who] is ignorant of that is the animal man (al-insān al-ḥayawān).^{^[98]}

The Perfect Man is the one who can notice that his ontological highness is in the same position as God. In other words, he realizes the relationship of how he connects with God as macrocosm, although he is finite existence as microcosm. Because of his perfection, Adam as the Perfect Man is subjected to other creatures in the universe, whether it is high or low.^{^[99]} This is one of the reasons why Adam is located at the highest position in the universe, and is eligible to be caliph in this world. Other creatures including angels are ordered by God to prostrate to him, since Adam was taught the names of everything, whereas other creatures were not.¹¹⁸ However, the point here is that perfection is determined in the case of Adam. In other words, human beings as a whole group still do not know what Adam was given by God.

One who knows that in truth is the Perfect Man, but if not, one is called the animal man. In his commentary on this quotation, Qayṣarī emphasizes the gap between God and human beings, though Kāshānī does not mention anything about this point. In Qayṣarīʼs scholarship, he tends to maintain the distinction between God and human beings, and it shows in his commentary on this. According to him, the subjection of the universe to human beings is through their praising and glorifying God. Just like Lordship or servanthood between God and human beings, Qayṣarī looks for this Lord-servant relationship between human beings and other creatures. The same idea of lordship and servanthood is adopted in the case of the caliphate, so that this is a different level of lordship. Thus, it is not until this remoteness

(tanzīh) between human beings and other creatures clarifies that “manifestation of Hisness and Divinity” (al-hūwiyyah al-ilāhiyyah al-ẓāhirah) in the form of humanity becomes the real perfection.^{^[100]} This means that the situation of human perfection necessitates some steps to be completed. Concerning human perfection, man comes to know the truth through unveiling and knowing entities, tasting (dhawq) and ecstasy (wijdān). In this level, there is no distinction between God and human beings, and it is a coincidence between macrocosm and microcosm.

Ibn ʿArabī composes a poem about their unification.

You are servant and you are Lord.For One for Him and in Him, you are servant.

You are Lord and you are servant. For One for Him in the speech, [there is] the obligatory contract (ʿahd).^{^[101]}

Every contract (ʿaqd) [about Lord-servant relationship] is on the individual. One who is equal to the contract dissolves it.^{^[102]}

The oneness between Lord and servant is embodied in the Perfect Man, too. The Lord-servant relationship is dissolved in this ideal situation which is the eternal time before the primordial contract occurs. There is no distinction between them in meaning because the Lord-servant relationship had still not been concluded, so God and human beings are united. This is the reason why one who reaches this perfection is also called the “man of two eyes” (dhū al-ʿaynayn), “one who sees the Real in the creature, and sees the creature in the Real.”^{^[103]} The argument of the Perfect Man is developed more concretely in order to discuss his spiritual authority because he is a form of anthropomorphism revealing the divine presence. In the next chapter, we will consider how the theory of the Perfect Man is discussed through the argument of the divine names and human names.

IV. The Perfect Man as a Spiritual Authority

Historically in Islamic thought, many intellectuals like Ibn Taymiyyah and ābū al-Ḥasan al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), and have discussed sovereignty in the context of caliphate and Imamate. The decisive cause of the schism between Sunnī Islam and Shīʿī Islam was the succession of the caliph after the death of the prophet Muḥammad in 11/632. According to the opinion of Shīʿī Muslims, ʿAlī, a cousin of Muḥammad, was appointed as the caliph directly by him. Moreover, there are records even in the Sunnī Ḥadīth showing the close relationship between them.^{^[104]} ʿAlī did not attend the meeting at the Saqīfah of Banū Sāʿidah just after the death of the prophet. The meeting to decide the first caliph might have been the result of a compromise between each tribe in early Islam. For these reasons, the Shīʿī do not accept the previous caliphs before ʿAlī, but hold that the true successor of the prophet must be ʿAlī. However, it is also true that the selection of Abū Bakr could be regarded as quite natural due to his age and great service. Abū Bakr nominated ʿUmar as the second caliph without having any meeting to decide his successor. Even now, ʿUmar is appreciated highly at least among Sunnīs, because he governed the Islamic community (ummah) and expanded its territory. After the death of ʿUmar, however, politics in Islam became more complicated, accompanied by assassinations and internal dispute between ʿAlī and ʿUthmān of Umayyad clan. In spite of such confusion, the first four caliphs are called by Sunnīs “the rightly guided caliphs” (al-khulafāʾ al-rāshidūn). This was the period of ideal governance in Islam.

The term caliph (khalīfah), which means “deputy”, is based on the Qurʾān, in which it is sometimes found. God makes Adam “deputy of God” (khalīfat Allāh) on the earth, legitimizing the authority of human beings on earth. Likewise, the word is used after the death of Muḥammad for legitimacy in order to show the succession of the leadership. Caliph in this context is “the deputy of prophet of God” (khalīfat rasūl Allāh). In regards to this phrase, Patricia Crone demonstrates that Umayyad caliphs tried to legitimize their religious authority, not using the word “the deputy of prophet of God” (khalīfat rasūl Allāh), but using the word “deputy of God” (khalīfat Allāh).^{^[105]} This usage makes an important difference related to religious authority. In the former meaning, the viceregency is just in accordance with the acceptance of the prophecy of Muḥammad. The caliph is merely an individual who governs the universe based on the Qurʾān and the traditions of Muḥammad. On the other hand, the latter usage indicates theocracy, that God gives the caliph absolute authority. It implies the opinion that the caliph can decide anything that he wishes without referring to any words of the prophet Muḥammad. Thus, the discussion of religious authority in Islam has stemmed from various perspectives and with interchangeable word of imām.

In Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought, it is possible to regard the discussion of the Perfect Man based on the divine names as one of the arguments about religious-spiritual authority. This chapter focuses on the issue of the spiritual authority of the Perfect Man.

1. The Position of the caliph in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam

Adam has an important role as the foundation of various important ideas: the Perfect Man, the caliphate manifest in human beings, the seal of the prophets, the seal of the saints, and so on. The divine names combine all of them complicatedly and subtly. The wisdoms of Ibn ʿArabīʼs book start from Adam in the first chapter of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, and end with Muḥammad in the last chapter. In other words, the circle of this wisdom begins at Adam, and terminates at

Muḥammad.

In the Qurʾanic narrative of the Creation, God made a caliph on earth. The verses of the Qurʾān (Q2:30; 6:165; 38:26) are the legislative guarantee for the caliphate of human beings in the world. Moreover, Adam was taught the names of things by God, whereas the angels were not (Q2:31)^{^[106]}, and Adam was created in the form of God. At the same time as the creation, he was not only made the vicegerent of God in the world, but also was given appropriate properties to be in such position. The chapters of Adam and David (Dāwūd) of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam are fully concentrated on the argument about the caliphate. This reason is based on the descriptions of both of them in the Qurʾān. In addition, although the word khalīfah is also found in other chapters, most of them except in the context of Moses are repetitions of the authority of the caliphate. In this regard, Ibn ʿArabī says:

The universe was completed through his (Adamʼs) existence. So, [that] he is in relation with the universe is as if [that] stone of seal ring (faṣṣ al-khātim) is in relation seal ring (al-khātim). He is the place of inscription (naṣṣ), that is, symbol (ʿalāmah) with which the King seals His treasures. He is called (khalīfah) due to this. Because He is the One who preserves His creature through him,^{^[107]} as if the seal preserves the treasures. As long as the seal of king is on it, nobody dares to open it except by His permission. So, God nominated him for the preservation of the cosmos. The cosmos does not come to an end in the condition of preservation, as long as the Perfect Man [is existent] in the universe. If not seeing him, that is, unbinding [the seal of] treasure in this world, what the Real preserved in it will not stay in it, and what will be in it goes out. [As a result of it] each of them reunites one by one, and the matter is carried to the next world. He is the seal of the treasure of the next world forever.¹²⁷

In the above mentioned sentences, it is clear that the pronoun “he” properly explains Adam himself or an ideal human who can be a Perfect Man, though Ibn ʿArabī generally regards human beings as the perfect man. This wide meaning of al-insān al-kāmil shows the general aspect of human being. The relationship between Adam and the universe corresponds to that between the stone of a seal ring and a seal ring. Adam is the bezel of a ring bearing the various inscriptions and gems. He is the foundation of sealing the divine treasure, through which divinity is preserved in this world and shifts to the next world. Due to his role in keeping the order of the world, he is a deputy of God.

As the Qurʾān says, the angels are not aware that God has His names, or that the universe has its names. Therefore, they cannot understand “the plane of the Real” (ḥaḍrat al-ḥaqq) demanded for the essential servanthood (al-ʿibādah al-dhātiyyah), in which the divine names are decorated. This leads us to the belief that they do not truly comprehend what Adam knows. Moreover, Ibn ʿArabī describes the relationship between Adam and the universe:

The universe is seen (shahādah) and caliph is hidden (ghayb), For that reason, the Ruler (al-sulṭān) is veiled. The Real described Himself as being veils of darkness which are the natural spheres (al-ajsām al-ṭabīʿiyyah), veils of light which are the subtle spirits (al-arwāḥ al-laṭīfah). The universe is between subtlety and unveiling.

Thus, the universe does not perceive the Real who perceives Himself”^{^[108]} Based on the idea of self-disclosure (tajallī), the Real is the hidden or “the hidden of the hidden” (ghayb al-ghayb), whereas the universe is seen and perceptible, described by the phrase tajallī al-shahādah. Ibn ʿArabī thought that the universe is also not aware of what Adam knows, so it is just the object of self-disclosure. The principle that Adam is the deputy indicates that he embodies the divine names (and divine presence), and that he is existent in the form of God in the universe. Concerning the qualification of deputy, he must be in a state of perfection because he has to fulfill the various demands of those who are governed (raʿāyā). In this meaning, Adam as the Perfect Man unites the form of universe (ṣūrat al-ʿālam) and the form of the Real (ṣūrat al-ḥaqq), which is His two hands.^{^[109]} Qayṣarī comments that the former is the realities of the cosmos (ḥaqāʾiq al-kawniyyah), and the latter is the realities of divinity (ḥaqāʾiq al-ilāhiyyah).^{^[110]} Thus, the Real and the universe necessitate the Perfect Man.

The other discussion of the caliph is found in the chapter of wisdom given by Dāwūd. In this chapter, Ibn ʿArabī argues (1) the comparison between Dāwūd and Adam, and (2) the difference between the deputy (khalīfah) and other kinds of authority (sulṭān) like prophethood (nubūwwah), apostleship (risālah), and imamate (imāmah), and (3) his opinion of the difference between “the deputy of God” and “the deputy of the apostle of God.” First, God singled out Dawūd as His deputy in this world: “O David (Dāwūd), indeed We have made you (jaʿalnā-ka) a deputy upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of God” (Q38:26). This verse shows clearly that he was nominated directly as deputy by saying “I made you,” in which the object pronoun is second-person singular. On the other hand, it is fact that the Qurʾān does not mention any name including in Adam, when He says the deputy in the world

Indeed, I will make a deputy upon the earth (innī jāʿil fi-l-arḍ khalīfat-an) (Q2:30).

It is He who has made you (jaʿala-kum) deputy upon the earth” (Q6:165). In both verses, there is no definite nomination from God to make Adam a deputy, though the former verse is particularly under the context of the narrative of Adam in the Qurʾān. As Ibn ʿArabī argues, thus, this verse does not say that God will make Adam deputy on the earth. The latter verse is also in the same case of the former one, in meaning that there is no appointment from God.

Should you say that Adam (peace be upon him) was appointed as His deputy, we said that He does not nominate like the nomination of Dāwūd. Since He said to angels, “Indeed, I will make a deputy upon the earth” (Q2:30), and He did not say “Indeed, I will make Adam deputy upon the earth.” If He had said it, it is not the same as His saying “Indeed, We made you a deputy” (Q38:26), as in the reality of Dāwūd. ^{^[111]} Second, in comparison with the other name of authority, Ibn ʿArabī thinks that the nomination by God to Ibrāhīm is in the same case. In the Qurʾān, God says, “Indeed, I will make you imām of people” (Q2:124). This is not a nomination as caliph, but the imamate is as same as caliphate in the meaning of the leadership. According to Ibn ʿArabī, however, the uniqueness of Dāwūd is the “deputy of judgment” (khalīfat ḥukm) which is also based on the Qurʾān.^{^[112]} Adamʼs caliphate is not as high as Dāwūdʼs because he does not have any necessary requirement. In other words, he is merely the first human created, so that whoever was there before his caliphate can dominate his position.

Some deputies (khulafāʾ) appointed by God are the apostles (al-rusul). They have apostleship, but not all apostles are caliphs. According to Ibn ʿArabī, not every apostle is a deputy, just as not every apostle is a prophet.^{^[113]} The caliph can dismiss and appoint governors freely by the sword, whereas the role of an apostle is to convey the message. According to Ibn ʿArabī, if the apostle has political power, he could be the deputy-apostle (al-khalīfah al-rasūl).

Third, Ibn ʿArabī discusses the caliphate between “the deputy of God” and “the deputy of apostle of God.” Already in the period when Ibn ʿArabī was alive, the deputy was not from God, but from the apostle. This means that the caliph was the deputy of the apostle, and followed the rules which he transmitted to the people. Actually, Ibn ʿArabī admitted the idea of a deputy of God, because a pious believer who follows the apostle can judge the right, and comes to receive the divine principle. Apparently, such a believer is a saint (walī) who, by reaching such a position, is eligible to be a deputy. Of course, Ibn ʿArabī differentiated the apostleship from the caliphate, and emphasized the superiority of Muḥammadʼs apostleship. However, one who stands in the same position as an apostle is a deputy of God esoterically, and a deputy of the apostle of God exoterically.

In truth, he (one who follows God) is special and suitable in what he realizes in the form of reception (ṣūrat al-akhdh) [of the divine principle]. He is in the place which the apostle [Muḥammad] (May God be peace upon him) confirmed the Law of one who preceded [his] apostleship. Through the existence of [previous] apostleship, he could confirm it. We follow Muḥammad in his confirmation [of apostleship before him], not the law for such previous apostles before him. Thus, the reception of the caliphate is from God, just as apostle received [apostleship] from Him. Esoterically speaking, we say of such a person that he is a deputy of God, and exoterically speaking, he is a deputy of the apostle of God.^{^[114]}

Ibn ʿArabīʼs discussion of the caliphate is the argument of spiritual authority though which one reaches divine wisdom in preserved treasure and preserves it as deputy of God. The Perfect Man is embodied as apostle, prophet, and saint. Against the caliphate of spiritual authority, Ibn ʿArabī raised the idea of the caliphate of religious/political authority, and pointed out that a deputy sitting in the position of political caliphate often mistakes his role in judgment by not following the tradition of the prophet Muḥammad and instead persisting in their personal opinion. Moreover, the political caliphate called “outer caliph” (al-khilāfah al-ẓāhirah) and the spiritual caliphate called the “spiritual caliph” (khilāfah al-maʿnawiyyah) can coexist at the same time in the context of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. Thus, the term khilāfah is word which gives him the imagination of the Perfect Man.

2. Muḥammad and the Metaphysical Foundation of the Perfect Man

Adam was the first human being created in the form of God, and he embodies the divine names. For this reason, he is regarded as the Perfect Man, that is, deputy in this world. In spite of his perfection, it is fact that he does not have any validity to sit in the position. His honored position is the result of an “accident,” and at least is not the necessary requirement. Again, Ibn ʿArabī did not mention the matter in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. On the other hand, Muḥammad fully satisfied the necessity of the position, as Ibn ʿArabī often cites the Ḥadīth in his works: “I was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay (bayna al-māʾ wa-l-ṭīn).”^{^[115]} Moreover, the phrase “Muḥammadan reality” (al-ḥaqīqah al-Muḥammadiyyah) in al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah reinforces the mythical-metaphysical foundation of his priority though Ibn ʿArabī did not use the phrase in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam.^{^[116]} Though there is no clear statement that Muḥammad is equal to the Perfect Man, it is beyond doubt that he is the Perfect Man.

Based on the analysis of the Perfect Man, it has two categories with regard to the deputyship: (1) the perfect man with a general meaning, and (2) the Perfect Man with a specific meaning. First, human beings are given the names of all things and created in the form of God, as far as they are the posterity of Adam. They look towards making other creatures on the earth obey them by force. This kind of vicegerency corresponds to “outer caliph,” which is the material authority. In this meaning, the idea that any human being could be the perfect man by birth matches our general imagination of a deputy. Second, there is the idea of the Perfect Man having superiority to others, by which someone can be the “spiritual caliph” who realizes the Truth and guides others to gnosis. The Perfect Man in this specific condition can be the holder of a hidden knowledge which is the treasure of God. Apostles, prophets and saints can be the Perfect Man. This classification makes the framework of the theory of the Oneness of Existence. The idea of the Perfect Man in the context of self-disclosure of Existence (tajallī) demonstrates the metaphysics of the divinity. Moreover, apostleship and prophethood are positions given by God. On the other hand, the process of becoming the Perfect Man by deeply understanding the divine principle^{^[117]} is an acquired position. This is equal to spiritual training in Sufism. Ibn ʿArabī discussed the position of the Perfect Man, in comparison with the universe.

Amazingly on the matters of the being who has humanity, the highest in whole existent is the Perfect Man. Height (ʿulū) does not matter to him except adherently

(bi-l-tabiʿiyyah), whether it is place (makān), or position (makānah), that is, station (manzilah). Thus, his height is not through his essence. He is high through the height of place and the height of position, so his height is due to both [place and position]. ^{^[118]} Thus human beings are the perfect man of the general meaning in accordance with our classification. However, height of rank, which shows the existential place and spiritual position in the universe, is not decided in nature. The position is not determined thorough essence. In addition, Ibn ʿArabī argues the height of rank of the Perfect Man as follows:

Concerning the deputyship among people, if their height were through the deputy [who is implicitly] essentially high, all of them will have height. When it is not general, we know that the height belongs to the position. Among His beautiful names is “the Most

High” (al-Aʿlā)¹³⁹

This quotation is not related to the matter of the outer caliphate, but that of the spiritual caliphate. As far as human beings go, they are the perfect man in the general meaning, following the deputy automatically. The height of deputyship just belongs to the position, so it is said that the height is given from God adherently. In order to be the Perfect Man in its true meaning, one needs the spiritual position as divine favor.

The representations of divine favor are apostleship and prophethood, which are gifts from God to humans. Therefore, these are neither rewards as results of their efforts, nor their requirement to Him.¹⁴⁰ Moreover, God bestows benevolence to individuals on each occasion, as one of the divine names al-Wahhāb (the Bestower) shows. Ibn ʿArabī says that the holder of the name Yahyā (John) as described in the Qurʾān was the first one bestowed the name.^{^[119]} The name of Dāwūd also demonstrates a special gift from God. In Arabic writing, each letter of his name is isolated (داوود). This is because the letters comprising his name do not connect with those which follow. God intends to show through his name that Dāwūd himself is separated from the universe by God. On the other hand, the name of Muḥammad (محمد) has connected letters with the next letter (mīm, ḥā), and unconnected letter with the next one (dāl). According to Ibn ʿArabī, he is separated from the universe, and is connected with God. In this explanation, Kāshānī comments that his name shows divine favor for the gathering of apostleship, prophethood, caliphate, kingship, knowledge (ʿilm), wisdom (ḥikmah), and disjunction (faṣl) without any intermediary.^{^[120]}

In this way, God shows His grace in human names to give special positions to them. Without any exception, however, every human name connects with God. Based on the self-disclosure of existence, the emanation of existence in the higher level contains that of existence in the lower level. Due to the entity of existence, the divine names contain every name in the universe, so does any human name.

The divine names are every name on which the universe depends, and [every name] from the Universe is equivalent to Him or the entity of the Real. It is precisely God, not others. Thus, He says, “O you men! It is you that have need of God, while God is the Self-sufficient, the Praised” (Q35:15). It is known that we are mutually dependent, [and not the self-sufficient]. Therefore, our names are the names of God, that is, the requirement to Him is without doubt. And, our entities are nothing but His shadow

(ẓillu-hu). He is [at once] our Hisness (hūwiyyatu-nā), and [at the same time] not our Hisness.^{^[121]}

In the allusion of shadow, the creature is nothing but the shadow of the Real. The entity of human beings is derived from the Real, so they enjoy the Hisness of the Real. At the same moment, however, the intensity of His Hisness is thin because humans are on a lower level of existence.

Despite of this thinness of existence, the prophet Muḥammad is separated from the

universe, and shown his specialty. The wisdom illustrated by him is singularity (fardiyyah), because he is the most perfect of humankind (al-nawʿ al-insāniyyah). According to Ibn ʿArabī, nothing starts and ends except with him.

His wisdom is [the wisdom of] singularity (fardiyyah), because he is the most perfect existent in this humankind. Thus, the matters are begun with him and ended (khutima) [with him]. He was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. Through his elemental origin (bi-nashaʾati-hi al-munṣuriyyah), he is the seal of the apostles, and first (awwal) of the three singular ones, insomuch as all others derive from this firstness (awwaliyyah) of singular ones. Thus, he is its entity. He (be peace upon him) was the clearest evidence for his Lord, and he was given the totalities of words, which is the names named by Adam.^{^[122]}

The proof of his uniqueness is based on his fundamental position at the seal of apostleship, and the first singularity of three. About the latter of “the first of three,” Qayṣarī regards the three as “the absolute Essence” (al-dhāt al-ahadiyyah), “divine degree” (al-martabah al-ilāhiyyah), and the “Muḥamaddan spiritual reality” (al-ḥaqīqah al-rūḥāniyyah al-Muḥammadiyyah) which is called “the first intelligence” (al-ʿaql al-awwal), and regards the first as the “Muḥamaddan spiritual reality.”^{^[123]}

In the same part, however, Kāshānīʼs understanding is complicated. In the solidarity of Muḥammad, he shows the perfect gathering of the one (aḥad), the even (shafʿ), and the odd (watr). According to him, each of them shows the emanation of Existence: one means the one spring of “the Essence of the Absolute Oneness” (al-dhāt al-aḥadiyyah). The “even” indicates the Absolute Oneness (aḥadiyyah). Moreover, the odd consisting of knowledge (al-ʿilm), the knower (al-ʿālim), and the known (al-ʿmaʿlūm) is equal to the Integrated Oneness (wāḥidiyyah). Muḥammad is the one who understands the subtle relationship among knowledge, the knower, and the known.¹⁴⁶ In this way, Qayṣarī and Kāshānī interpret differently what the first of the three means, but they share the same idea that this word expresses the ontological explanation of Muhammadʼs position related to the self-disclosure of Existence.

Because of his realization through his prophethood and metaphysics, Muḥammad is the clearest proof for his Lord. This point leads to the relationship between God and Muḥammad. As discussed above, the divine name of al-Rabb is the outer name of Allāh, whereas Allāh inwardly integrates other divine names below the Merciful. The relationship of Muḥammad to God is as same as that of Perfect Man to the hidden treasure of God. That is, as the Perfect Man is the seal of the treasure and the proof of divine gnosis, Muḥammad is the seal of the prophets (khātim al-anbiyāʾ) and the proof of his Lord. However, the universe necessitates the Perfect Man for preservation of it even after the seal of the prophets. The argument of the seal of the saints originates in this point.

3. Human Perfection through Sainthood: the Heirs of the Prophet

The Arabic term walī (pl. awliyāʾ) is translated literally “to be near,” and is translated generally “friend of God” in the context of the Qurʾān.^{^[124]} The term al-Walī is one of the divine names in spite the of Lord-servant relationship between God and human beings. In the context of Sufism, it is translated “saint,” who is nearer to God than ordinary people. Thus, some Sufi who has wilāyah or walāyah (sainthood) is regarded as a walī (saint), and is the object of saint veneration. Ibn ʿArabī also develops the concept of sainthood fully in the context of Sufism.

The death of the prophet Muḥammad caused many problems in Islam because he was the seal of the prophets, meaning that no new prophet will appear with revelation or new laws. People face the problem that they cannot receive the direct message from God concretely, and the universe leads to a spiritually inactive situation. Concerning the latter meaning, the lack of the Perfect Man would be the disorder of the universe because the highest among prophets and apostles - all of whom are the Perfect Man - will never appear in this world. Instead of him, saints inherit the spiritual caliphate whether it is the “deputy of God” or “deputy of apostle of God,” and preserve the mystical knowledge of God.

Know that sainthood (wilāyah) is the comprehensive and universal sphere (al-falak al-muḥīṭ al-ʿāmm), so it will never cease. The sainthood has [the faculty of] universal communication (anbāʾ) [with God]. As to the legislative prophethood (al-nubūwwah al-tashriyyah)^{^[125]} and apostleship, they ceased. It stopped at Muḥammad (May God peace and blessing upon him), so there is no prophethood after him, meaning [there is neither] anyone who legislates (musharriʿ), nor anyone who is legislated, nor any prophet who is legislator.^{^[126]}

The apostleship represented by Muḥammad is called the “legislative prophethood,” which is lawgiving. He brought law and gave the community divine rule. After Muḥammad, the “universal prophethood” (al-nubūwwah al-ʿāmmah), which is prophethood without law, remains. This universal prophethood is equal to sainthood, which started from the past without start, and lasts forever.

In accordance with the Oneness of Existence, al-Walī is a divine name. This name can show the relationship between God and man though they are in a Lord-servant relationship. The friend of God is one of the names which denote the nature of the relationship like the apostle of God or the prophet of God. After Muḥammad, the name al-walī has an important role to indicate the supreme name which shows such relationship (al-Walī) and the friend of God (al-walī). The friendship between God and man derived from the divine name al-Walī has lasted forever in this world and the next world, as well as being adopted for the living and the dead.

This name (walī) remains to apply to the servants of God in this world [the alive] and the next world [the dead]. The name [of walī] which is peculiar to servant, excluding to the Real- remains until the end of prophethood and apostleship. However, God shows subtlety through servants, and left the universal prophethood (al-nubūwwah al-ʿāmmah) which does not have legislation with it. Moreover, He left legislation for them in individual effort (al-tashriʿ fi-l-ijtiḥād) for fixation of opinions. And, He left legacy (wirāthah) for them in legislation. The prophet said, “The scholars (ʿulamāʾ) are the legacy of prophets.”^{^[127]}

Instead of direct law or revelation, God gave people after Muḥammad some tools instead of the prophet. The first is universal prophethood, that is, sainthood. The second is legislation by themselves through individual efforts (ijtiḥād). The third is the legacy of scholarly discussion in the Islamic sciences. Concerning the relationship between prophethood or apostleship and sainthood, Ibn ʿArabī regards that sainthood is the base of prophethood and apostleship. Both prophethood and apostleship derive from sainthood and knowledge (ʿilm).¹⁵¹ As whoever knows himself knows the Lord, obtaining mystical knowledge of God leads to becoming a true knower (ʿārif). Compared to “legislative apostleship” which bears law, sainthood seeks knowledge by saying “O my Lord, increase me in knowledge” (Q20:114). Through sainthood and obtaining knowledge, one becomes perfect and a true knower: the Perfect Man. Thus, it is clear that perfection through sainthood demonstrates an upward direction from lower existential level to higher existential level. In this sense, it is possible to say that the spiritual training in Sufism aims to reach the sainthood. Ordinary man steps up to God from low to high so that he becomes the Perfect Man by acquring sainthood.

Every prophet from Adam enjoys the “Muḥammadan reality” in which Muḥammad is

manifest ontologically in his niche (mishkāh). In spite of the fact that the prophecy of

Muḥammad was the last in time, he is always located as the first in terms of ontology. Moreover, even when he was in the condition of clay, his reality (ḥaqīqatu-hu) is existent which indicates the Muḥammadan reality in the self-disclosure. In this sense we understand “I (Muḥammad) was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay.” He always displays his prophethood through other prophets beyond time and space, whereas other apostles could be apostles only when they are sent to the people. In this sense, apostles except Muḥammad were restricted. Ibn ʿArabī suggests an existence that can be higher than apostles.

This knowledge [of gnosis] is not [attained] except through the seal of apostleship and the seal of saints. Nobody among those posessing apostleship or sainthood can understand it except from the niche of the seal of the apostle, and nobody among those posessing sainthood can understand it except from the niche (mishkāh) of the seal of the saints. As a result, no apostle can understand it when he [tries] to understand it except the niche of the seal of the saints. This is because the prophet and the apostle -meaning legislative apostleship (nubuwwat al-tashrīʿ)- have their roles end, while sainthood does not cease. Thus, the apostles who belong to saints cannot understand what we have mentioned except from the niche of seal of the saints. How are they lower than sainthood? Though the seal of the saints follows the judgment brought by the seal of the prophets of legislation, that does not diminish his position (maqām-hu), or contradict what we have said about him. In one sense, he is lower [than an apostle], and in another sense he is higher [than an apostle].^{^[128]}

As we understand in the consideration of the Perfect Man, height of spiritual rank is not inherent to human beings or the Perfect Man. Rather, one has to acquire it through oneʼs own efforts. However, the niche here, which is a kind of height, is given inherently. The niche of the seal of the apostles was given to Muḥammad, and the niche of the seal of the saints is to be given to someone. The niche makes a difference between the holder of it and non-holders, so that the seal of the saints is lower than an apostle or a prophet in some sense, and higher than them in some sense.^{^[129]} Truly, even a prophet, apostle, and saint of high status cannot reach gnosis except with the height of the seal of the prophets and the seal of the saints. In other words, the seal of the prophets can access what the seal of the saints reaches, but such special people need to elevate themselves until the niche at which both seals are located. For this reason, Ibn ʿArabī says that the seal of the saints was a saint when Adam was between water and clay. Ibn ʿArabī seems to have a unique idea that this world will last without end. The end of sainthood is the end of this world, but this world will not be able to end until sainthood is sealed. Sainthood is the spiritual deputyship for preserving the treasure of God and bringing order in the universe.

In spite of the special status of the seal of the saints, he also follows the law brought by Muḥammad. It neither contradicts sainthood, nor lowers the level of the seal.^{^[130]} This is because Muḥammad is also a saint and a prophet, so he can share what the seal of the saints has intrinsically. Beyond the commonness between both, the existence of Muḥammad itself has incomparable property with the seal of sainthood.

The seal of saints is the saint (al-walī), the heir (al-wārith), and the looker at [whole] grades (al-mushāhid li-l-marātib). It is excellent among excellence of the seal of the prophets, Muḥammad (peace and blessings of God upon him) is the guardian (muqaddim) [of the Community], (honorable title of) Sayyid, preceding Adam in opening door of intercession (shafāʿah). [Here] he defines (ʿayyana) what spreads universally as level and in particular (ḥāl-an khāṣṣ-an). In this special level, he precedes the names of divinity.¹⁵⁵

The seal of sainthood as well as the seal of prophethood are the two wheels for maintaining the universe and preserving divine knowledge. Ontologically speaking, though human creation has a large gap in rank from the prophet Muḥammad, their human perfection is executed through sainthood. As a result of their perfection, the Perfect Man who embodies the divine names and divine presence reveals himself in the universe, being the true knower and the spiritual deputy. The saint is the heir of the prophets and the bezel of divine wisdom: this process lasts perpetually as if it is a circle, with neither beginning nor end.

The Perfect Man has a privileged rank in the universe because God gave Adam knowledge of the names and created him in His form. He is the seal of the treasure of God, so that he is called a deputy (the Perfect Man in its specific meaning). Human beings as his posterity inherit him, so Ibn ʿArabī also regards them as the “perfect man” innately (the perfect man in its general meaning). In creation, the prophet Muḥammad has special status. The wisdom of singularity showed by him is that he is the seal of the prophets and gives

ontological prestige to other created things like the Muḥammadan Reality (al-ḥaqīqah al-Muḥammadiyyah). After him, sainthood was left for people to reach gnosis through obtaining knowledge. The saints are the heirs of the prophets, and they maintain the universe by preserving divine treasure.

In the intellectual history of Islam, Ibn ʿArabī presented a new perspective of Islamic ontology in the context of the divine names, which is based on the Qurʾān, Ḥadīth, and previous theological speculations. Thus, his thought is epoch-making in the meaning that it opens new aspects of divine knowledge.

Conclusion

We have considered how the divine names are discussed in Ibn ʿArabīʼs theory of the Oneness of Existence. Historically, he is one of the most controversial thinkers in terms of othersʼ evaluation of his thought. Some intellectuals like Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī, and their followers had a hostile attitude towards him, whereas some like Ibn Ḥajar and al-Shaʿrānī appreciated his thought very much. In the academic world of Islamic Studies, moreover, scholars have engaged with Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought. Academic results have been published at high levels, but discussion about the divine names based on the name itself and about the relationship between the divine names and the Perfect Man is not clearly undertaken. The Oneness of Existence brings another meaning to the concept of tajallī

(self-disclosure), which means the ontological self-disclosure of Existence from the One to many. In the purest level of Existence, It cannot be described with any word (the level of Essence of Existence or the level of Being qua Being). The divine name Allāh which is the persona form of allāh comes into existence, just after the determination of Existence. In other words, the name of Allāh is the appearance of existence in the process of determination. The first self-disclosure is the undescribed emanation of the unlimited Existence, and the Real appears by determination in the stage of Absolute Oneness (al-aḥadiyyah). Next, the second self-disclosure is the emanation of a fixed entity (ʿayn) and, through shifting from existential essence to divine essence, the name of allāh comes into existence. God as Allāh is as a result of the appearance of the divine persona, and a result of the determination of the unlimited Existence in the stage of the Integrated Oneness (al-wāḥidiyyah). Other divine names also appear in the plane of divinity. “Name” in general has five properties and consists of three parts: essence, attribute, and action. This framework in “name” is derived from the divine name, and from the fixed entity of divine names.

Among the divine names, the name of Allāh is the first name showing divinity. The

Lord (al-Rabb) has the external role of God as a relationship with creatures, whereas God

(Allāh) integrates other divine names internally. Following both names, the Mercy

(al-Raḥmah) is ranked, and the essence of the Mercy is included in other names. As far as the divine presence consists of essence, attribute, and action, its visible appearance is the divine names. In this meaning, the divine name is a “thing” which stems from essence and contains the divine presence. The Mercy executes the deed of preparedness (istiʿdād) in order to affect the Essence of it to other names. The process of preparedness is equal to that of acquiring a name after nameness. Moreover, the Lord necessitates the servant to have a Lord-servant relationship. This Lord-servant relationship based on the primordial contract cannot be dissolved, whereas the lord-servant relationship in human world could be dessolved. The Perfect Man embodies this divine presence in the perfect situation, and becomes the mediator between God and human beings.

The Perfect Man has a privileged rank in the universe because God gave Adam names of things and created him in His form. He is the seal of the treasure of God, and for this reason he is called a deputy (the Perfect Man in its specific meaning). Human beings as his posterity inherit various natures him, so Ibn ʿArabī also regards them as the “perfect man” innately (the perfect man in the general meaning). The prophet Muḥammad has special status in creation. The wisdom of singularity possessed by him is that he is the seal of prophets and he has ontological prestige over other creatures through the “Muḥammadan reality.” After him, sainthood is left for people to reach gnosis through the attainment of knowledge. The saints are the heirs of the prophets, and they, true knowers, maintain the universe by preserving divine treasure. Thus, the Perfect Man has an important role of ithmus (barzakh) by acting as bridge between supreme Existence and universe.

In the intellectual history of Islam, Ibn ʿArabī had a new perspective of Islamic ontology in the context of the divine names, which is based on the Qurʾān, Ḥadīth, and previous theological speculation. His thought is epoch-making in the meaning that he opened new aspects of divine knowledge and a new interpretation of the Qurʾān.

Appendix I: The Distribution Chart of tajallī in Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām

The number after each term is the one used in Kāshānī’s work. An asterisk (*) means that he does not indicate exactly any equivalent word in his definition. For example, if the sentence is “al-tajallī al-dhātī: it is the tajallī awwal,” the word al-tajallī al-dhātī is categorized into the tajallī awwal.

The first self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-awwal 293)*

(al-tajallī al-dhātiyy 295)=293

(al-tajallī al-aḥadiyy al-jumʿiyy 296)=293

(al-tajallī al-ghayb al-mughīb 297)=293

(tajallī al-ghayb al-mughīb 297)=293

(tajallī al-hūwiyyah 301)=297=293

(tajallī ghayb al-hūwiyyah 302)=301=297=293

(al-tajallī al-muʿṭī li-l-istiʿdād 304)=297=293

(al-tajallī al-ikhtiṣāṣiyyah 320)=295=293

(al-tajallī al-bargiyyah 321)=295)=295=293

(al-tajallī al-tajarradiyyah 322)=295=293

The second self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-thāniyy 294)*

(tajallī al-ghayb 298)=294

(tajallī al-ghayb al-thāniyy 300)=294

(tajallī al-mumīz li-l-istiʿdādāt 305)=294

The others

(tajallī al-shahādāh 303)*

(tajallī al-muʿṭī li-l-wujūd 306)=303

(al-tajallī al-sārī fī jamīʿ al-dharārī 307)*

(al-tajallī al-sārī fī ḥaqāʾiq al-mumkinah 308)=307

(al-tajallī al-muḍāf 309)=307

(al-tajallī al-fiʿliyy 310)*

(al-tajallī al-taʾnīṣiyy 311)=310

(tajallī al-jamʿiyy 316)*

(tajallī al-jami bayna humā 318)=316

(tajallī al-bāṭiniyy 315)*

(tajallī al-muḥbūbī 317)=315

(tajallī al-ṣifātī 312)*

(tajallī al-ism al-ẓāhir 313)*

(tajallī al-ẓāhirī 314)*

(tajallī al-dhātiyyah 319)*

Appendix II

Appendix II: The List of the Divine Names in the Works of Islamic ThoughtThe List of Divine Names in the Works of Islamic Thought

	Tirmidhī Sunan		Qushayrī *Al-Fuṣūl fī al-uṣūl*		Qushayrī Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā		Ghazālī al-Maqṣad al-asnā fī sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā		Ibn ʿArabī *al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyah*
1	Allāh	1	Allāh	1	Allāh	1	Allāh	1	Allāh (al-ḥaḍrah al-ilāhiyyah)
2	al-Raḥmān	2	al-Raḥmān, al-Raḥīm	2	al-Malik	2	al-Raḥmān	2	al-Rabb (al-ḥaḍrah al-thāniyyah, al-ḥaḍrah al-rubāniyyah)
3	al-Raḥīm	3	al-Malik	3	al-Quddūs	3	al-Raḥīm	3	al-Raḥmān, al-Raḥīm (ḥaḍrat al-raḥamūt)
4	al-Malik	4	al-Quddūs	4	al-Salām	4	al-Malik	4	al-Mālik (ḥaḍrah al-mālik)
5	al-Quddūs	5	al-Salām	5	al-Muʾmin	5	al-Quddūs	5	al-Quddūs (ḥaḍrat al-taqdīs)
6	al-Salām	6	al-Muʾmin	6	al-Muhaymin	6	al-Salām	6	al-Salām (ḥaḍrat al-salām)
7	al-Muʾmin	7	al-Muhaymin	7	al-ʿAzīz	7	al-Muʾmin	7	al-Muʾmin (ḥaḍrat al-īmān)
8	al-Muhaymin	8	al-ʿAzīz	8	al-Jabbār	8	al-Muhaymin	8	al-Muhaymin (al-ḥaḍrat muhayminiyyah)
9	al-ʿAzīz	9	al-Jabbār	9	al-Mutakabbir	9	al-ʿAzīz	9	al-ʿAzīz (ḥaḍrat al-ʿizzah)
10	al-Jabbār	10	al-Mutakabbir	10	al-Khāliq	10	al-Jabbār	10	al-Jabbār (ḥaḍrat al-jabarūt)
11	al-Mutakabbir	11	al-Khāliq	11	al-Bāriʾ	11	al-Mutakabbir	11	al-Mutakabbir

			(=al-Bāriʾ)						(ḥaḍrat kasb al-kibriyāʾ)
12	al-Khāliq	12	al-Muṣawwir	12	al-Muṣawwir	12	al-Khāliq	12	al-Khāliq (ḥaḍrat al-khalq)
13	al-Bāriʾ	13	al-Ghaffār	13	al-Ghaffār	13	al-Bāriʾ	13	al-Bāriʾ (ḥaḍrat al-bāriʾiyyah)
14	al-Muṣawwir	14	al-Qahhār	14	al-Qahhār	14	al-Muṣawwir	14	al-Muṣawwir (ḥaḍrat al-taṣwīr)
15	al-Ghaffār	15	al-Wahhāb	15	al-Wahhāb	15	al-Ghaffār	15	al-Ghaffār, al-Ghāfir, al-Ghafūr (ḥaḍrat isbāl al-sutūr)
16	al-Qahhār	16	al-Razzāq	16	al-Razzāq	16	al-Qahhār	16	al-Qahhār (ḥaḍrat al-qahr)
17	al-Wahhāb	17	al-Fattāḥ	17	al-Fattāḥ	17	al-Wahhāb	17	al-Wahhāb (ḥaḍrat al-wahb)
18	al-Razzāq	18	al-ʿAlīm	18	al-ʿAlīm	18	al-Razzāq	18	al-Razzāq (ḥaḍrat al-alzāq)
19	al-Fattāḥ	19	al-Qābiḍ	19	al-Qābiḍ	19	al-Fattāḥ	19	al-Fattāḥ (ḥaḍrat al-fatḥ)
20	al-ʿAlīm	20	al-Basīṭ	20	al-Basīṭ	20	al-ʿAlīm	20	al-ʿAlīm, al-ʿĀlim al-ʿAllām (ḥaḍrat al-ʿilm)
21	al-Qābiḍ	21	al-Khāfiḍ	21	al-Khāfiḍ	21	al-Qābiḍ	21	al-Qābiḍ (ḥaḍrat al-qabḍ)
22	al-Basīṭ	22	al-Rāfiʿ	22	al-Rāfiʿ	22	al-Basīṭ	22	al-Bāsiṭ (ḥaḍrat al-basṭ)
23	al-Khāfiḍ	23	al-Muʿizz	23	al-Muʿizz	23	al-Khāfiḍ	23	al-Khāfiḍ (ḥaḍrat al-khafḍ)
24	al-Rāfiʿ	24	al-Samīʿ	24	al-Mudhill	24	al-Rāfiʿ	24	al-Rāfiʿ (ḥaḍrat al-rifʿah)
25	al-Muʿizz	25	al-Baṣīr	25	al-Samīʿ	25	al-Muʿizz	25	al-Muʿizz (ḥaḍrat al-iʿzāz)
26	al-Mudhill	26	al-Ḥakam	26	al-Baṣīr	26	al-Mudhill	26	al-Mudhill

									(ḥaḍrat al-idhlāl)
27	al-Samīʿ	27	al-ʿAdl	27	al-Ḥakam	27	al-Samīʿ	27	al-Samīʿ (ḥaḍrat al-samʿ)
28	al-Baṣīr	28	al-Laṭīf	28	al-ʿAdl	28	al-Baṣīr	28	al-Baṣīr (ḥaḍrat al-baṣar)
29	al-Ḥakam	29	al-Khabīr	29	al-Laṭīf	29	al-Ḥakam	29	al-Ḥakam (ḥaḍrat al-Ḥakam)
30	al-ʿAdl	30	al-Ḥalīm	30	al-Khabīr	30	al-ʿAdl	30	al-ʿAdl (ḥaḍrat al-ʿadl)
31	al-Laṭīf	31	al-ʿAẓīm, al-ʿAlī, al-Kabīr, al-Mutaʿālī, Dhū al-Jalāl, al-Jalīl	31	al-Ḥalīm	31	al-Laṭīf	31	al-Laṭīf (ḥaḍrat al-luṭf)
32	al-Khabīr	32	al-Ghafūr (=al-ʿAfūw)	32	al-ʿAẓīm	32	al-Khabīr	32	al-Khabīr (ḥaḍrat al-khibrah wa-l-Ikhtibār, ḥadrat al-ibtilāʾ bi-l-niʿam wa-l-niqam)
33	al-Ḥalīm	33	al-Shakūr	33	al-Ghafūr	33	al-Ḥalīm	33	Ḥalīm (ḥaḍrat al-ḥilm)
34	al-ʿAẓīm	34	al-Ḥafīẓ	34	al-Shakūr	34	al-ʿAẓīm	34	al-ʿAẓīm (ḥaḍrat al-ʿAẓamah)
35	al-Ghafūr	35	al-Muqīt (=16 al-Razzāq)	35	al-ʿAlī	35	al-Ghafūr	35	al-Shakūr al-Shākir (ḥaḍrat al-shukr)
36	al-Shakūr	36	al-Ḥasīb	36	al-Kabīr	36	al-Shakūr	36	al-ʿAlī (ḥaḍrat ʿulūw)
37	al-ʿAlī	37	al-Karīm	37	al-Ḥafīẓ	37	al-ʿAlī	37	al-kabīr (ḥaḍrat al-kubriyāʾ al-ilāhiyy)
38	al-Kabīr	38	al-Raqīb	38	al-Muqīt	38	al-Kabīr	38	al-Ḥafīz (ḥaḍrat al-ḥifẓ)
39	al-Ḥafīẓ	39	al-Mujīb	39	al-Ḥasīb	39	al-Ḥafīẓ	39	al-Muqīt (ḥaḍrat al-muqīt)
40	al-Muqīt	40	al-Wāsiʿ	40	al-Jalīl	40	al-Muqīt	40	al-Ḥasīb

									(ḥaḍrat al-iqtifāʾ)
41	al-Ḥasīb	41	al-Ḥakīm	41	al-Jamīl	41	al-Ḥasīb	41	al-Jalīl (ḥaḍrat al-jalāl)
42	al-Jalīl	42	al-Wadūd	42	al-Karīm	42	al-Jalīl	42	al-Karīm (ḥaḍrat al-karam)
43	al-Karīm	43	al-Majīd (=al-ʿAẓīm, al-Kabīr cf. 31)	43	al-Raqīb	43	al-Karīm	43	al-Raqīb (ḥaḍrat al-murāqabah)
44	al-Raqīb	44	al-Bāʿith	44	al-Mujīb	44	al-Raqīb	44	al-mujīb (ḥaḍrat al-ijābah)
45	al-Mujīb	45	al-Shahīd	45	al-Wāsiʿ	45	al-Mujīb	45	al-Wāsiʿ (ḥaḍrat al-siʿah)
46	al-Wāsiʿ	46	al-Ḥaqq	46	al-Ḥakīm	46	al-Wāsiʿ	46	al-Ḥakīm (ḥaḍrat al-ḥikmah)
47	al-Ḥakīm	47	al-Wakīl	47	al-Wadūd	47	al-Ḥakīm	47	al-Wudūd (ḥaḍrat al-wudd)
48	al-Wadūd	48	al-Qawī, al-Matīn (=61 al-Qādir)	48	al-Majīd	48	al-Wadūd	48	al-Majīd (ḥaḍrat al-majd)
49	al-Majīd	49	al-Walī	49	al-Bāʿith	49	al-Majīd	49	al-Ḥayy (ḥaḍrat al-ḥayāʾ)
50	al-Bāʿith	50	al-Ḥamīd	50	al-Shahīd	50	al-Bāʿith	50	al-Sakhāʾ (ḥaḍrat al-sakhāʾ)
51	al-Shahīd	51	al-Muḥṣī	51	al-Ḥaqq	51	al-Shahīd	51	al-Tayyib (ḥaḍrat al-tīb)
52	al-Ḥaqq	52	al-Mubtadīʾ	52	Al-Mubtadīʾ	52	al-Ḥaqq	52	al-Muḥsin (ḥaḍrat al-Iḥsān)
53	al-Wakīl	53	al-Muʿīd	53	al-Wakīl	53	al-Wakīl	53	al-Dahr (ḥaḍrat al-Dahr)
54	al-Qawī	54	al-Muḥyī, al-Mumīt	54	al-Qawī	54	al-Qawī	54	al-Ṣāḥib (ḥaḍrat al-ṣuḥbah)
55	al-Matīn	55	al-Ḥayy	55	al-Matīn	55	al-Matīn	55	al-khalīfah (ḥaḍrat al-khilāfah)
56	al-Walī	56	al-Qayyūm	56	al-Walī	56	al-Walī	56	al-jamīl (ḥaḍrat al-jamāl)

57	al-Ḥamīd	57	al-Wājid (al-ghanī)	57	al-Ḥamīd	57	al-Ḥamīd	57	al-Misʿar (ḥaḍrat al-tasʿīr)
58	al-Muḥṣī	58	al-Mājid (43 al-Majīd)	58	al-Muḥṣī	58	al-Muḥṣī	58	al-Qurbah, al-Qarb, al-Qurab (ḥaḍrat al-iqrab)
59	al-Mubdiʾ	59	al-Wāḥid	59	al-Mubdiʾ	59	al-Mubdiʾ	59	al-Muʿṭā (ḥaḍrat al-ʿAṭāʾ wa-l-Iʿtāʾ)
60	al-Muʿīd	60	al-Ṣamad	60	al-Muʿīd	60	al-Muʿīd	60	al-shāfī (ḥaḍrat al-shifāʾ)
61	al-Muḥyī	61	al-Qādir	61	al-Muḥyī	61	al-Muḥyī	61	al-Fard (ḥaḍrat al-ifrād)
62	al-Mumīt	62	al-Muqaddim, al-Muʾakhkhir	62	al-Mumīt	62	al-Mumīt	62	al-Rafiq (ḥaḍrat al-rafq wa-l-Murāfaqah)
63	al-Ḥayy	63	al-Awwal	63	al-Ḥayy	63	al-Ḥayy	63	al-Bāʿith (ḥaḍrat al-baʿth)
64	al-Qayyūm	64	al-Ākhir	64	al-Qayyūm	64	al-Qayyūm	64	al-Ḥaqq (ḥaḍrat al-ḥaqq)
65	al-Wājid	65	al-Ẓāhir (61 al-Qādir)	65	al-Wājid	65	al-Wājid	65	al-Wakīl (ḥaḍrat al-wilālah)
66	al-Wāḥid	66	al-Bāṭin	66	al-Wāḥid	66	al-Mājid	66	al-Quwan (ḥaḍrat al-quwwah)
67	al-Ṣamad	67	al-Wālī (=49 al-Walī)	67	al-Aḥad	67	al-Wāḥid	67	al-Mutīn (ḥaḍrat al-matānah)
68	al-Qādir	68	al-Barr	68	al-Ṣamad	68	al-Ṣamad	68	al-Walī (ḥaḍrat al-naṣr)
69	al-Muqtadir	69	al-Tawwāb	69	al-Qādir	69	al-Qādir	69	al-Ḥamīd (ḥaḍrat al-ḥamd)
70	al-Muqaddim	70	al-Raʾūf (=al-Tawwāb 2 al-Raḥmān, al-Raḥīm)	70	al-Muqtadir	70	al-Muqtadir	70	al-Maḥsī (ḥaḍrat al- Iḥṣāʾ)
71	al-Muʾakhkhir	71	Mālik al-Mulk	71	al-Muqaddim	71	al-Muqaddim	71	al-Mubdaʾī

			(=3 al-Malik)						(ḥaḍrat al-badʿ)
72	al-Awwal	72	al-Muntaqim	72	al-Muʾakhkhir	72	al-Muʾakhkhir	72	al-Muʿīd (ḥaḍrat al-iʿādah)
73	al-Ākhir	73	al-Muqsiṭ	73	al-Awwal	73	al-Awwal	73	al-Muḥī (ḥaḍrat al-iḥyāʾ)
74	al-Ẓāhir	74	al-Jāmiʿ	74	al-Ākhir	74	al-Ākhir	74	al-Mumīt (ḥaḍrat al-mawt)
75	al-Bāṭin	75	al-Ghanī	75	al-Ẓāhir	75	al-Ẓāhir	75	al-Ḥayy (ḥaḍrat al-hayāh)
76	al-Barr	76	al-Mughnī	76	al-Bāṭin	76	al-Bāṭin	76	al-Qayyūm (ḥaḍrat al-qayyūmiyyah)
77	al-Tawwāb	77	al-Māniʿ	77	al-Barr	77	al-Wālī	77	al-Wājid (ḥaḍrat al-wajidān, ḥaḍrat al-kun)
78	al-Muntaqim	78	al-Ḍārr	78	al-Tawwāb	78	al-Mutaʿālī	78	al-Wāḥid (ḥaḍrat al-tawḥīd)
79	al-Barr	79	al-Nāfiʿ	79	al-Muntaqim	79	al-Barr	79	al-Ṣamad (ḥaḍrat al-ṣamadiyyah)
80	al-Raʾūf	80	al-Nūr	80	al-ʿAfuww	80	al-Tawwāb	80	al-Qādir, al-Qadir, al-muqtadir (ḥaḍrat al-iqtidār)
81	al-Muntaqim	81	al-Hādī	81	al-Raʾūf	81	al-Muntaqim	81	al-Muqaddim (ḥaḍrat al-taqdīm)
82	al-ʿAfuww	82	al-Badīʿ	82	Dhū al-Jalāl wa-l-Ikrām	82	al-ʿAfū	82	al-Muʾakhkhar (ḥaḍrat al-taʾkhīr)
83	al-Raʾūf	83	al-Bāqī	83	al-Muqsiṭ	83	al-Raʾūf	83	al-Awwal (ḥaḍrat al-awwaliyyah)
84	Mālik al-Mulk	84	al-Rashīd (=81 al-Hādī)	84	al-Jāmiʿ	84	Mālik al-Mulk	84	al-Ākhir (ḥaḍrat al-ākhiriyyah)
85	Dhū al-Jalāl wa-l-Ikrām	85	al-Ṣabūr (=30 al-Ḥalīm)	85	al-Mughnī	85	Dhū al-Jalāl wa-l-Ikrām	85	al-Ẓāhir (ḥaḍrat al-ẓuhūr)
86	al-Muqsiṭ	86		86	al-Māniʿ	86	al-Muqsiṭ	86	al-Bāṭin (ḥaḍrat al-buṭūn)

87	al-Jāmiʿ	87	87	al-Ḍārr	87	al-Jāmiʿ	87	al-Tawwāb (ḥaḍrat al-tawbah)
88	al-Ghanī	88	88	al-Nāfiʿ	88	al-Ghanī	88	al-ʿAfuww (ḥaḍrat al-ʿAfw)
89	al-Mughnī	89	89	al-Nūr	89	al-Mughnī	89	al-Raʾfah (ḥaḍrat al-raʾfah)
90	al-Māniʿ	90	90	al-Hādī	90	al-Māniʿ	90	al-Wālī (ḥaḍrat al-imāmah)
91	al-Ḍārr	91	91	al-Badīʿ	91	al-Ḍārr	91	al-Jāmiʿ (ḥaḍrat al-jamʿ)
92	al-Nāfiʿ	92	92	al-Bāqī	92	al-Nāfiʿ	92	al-Ghinan (ḥaḍrat al-Ghina wa-l-Ighnā)
93	al-Nūr	93	93	al-Wārith	93	al-Nūr	93	al-Maʿṭā al-Māniʿ (ḥaḍrat al-aʿṭāʾ wa-l-minaʿ)
94	al-Hādī	94	94	al-Rashīd	94	al-Hādī	94	al-ḍārr (ḥaḍrat al ḍarar)
95	al-Badīʿ	95	95	al-Ṣabūr	95	al-Badīʿ	95	al-Nāfiʿ (ḥaḍrat al-nafʿ)
96	al-Bāqī	96	96		96	al-Bāqī	96	al-Nūr (ḥaḍrat al-nūr)
97	al-Wārith	97	97		97	al-Wārith	97	al-Ḥādī (ḥaḍrat al-hadī wa-l-hudā)
98	al-Rashīd	98	98		98	al-Rashīd	98	al-Badīʿ (ḥaḍrat al-ibdāʿ)
99	al-Ṣabūr	99	99		99	al-Ṣabūr	99	al-Wārith (ḥaḍrat al-wārith)
100		100	100		100		100	al-Ṣabūr (ḥaḍrat al-ṣabr)

Bibliography

Primary Sources Ibn ʿArabī’s Works

Ibn ʿArabī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh, Dhakhāʾir al-aʿlāq, Sharḥ Turjumān al-ashwāq, ed. Klalīl ʿUmrān Manṣūr, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2000).

--------, Mashāhid al-asrār al-qudsiyyah, ed. Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2009).

--------, al-Mukhtār min rasāʾil Ibn ʿArabī, ed. Saʿīd ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2005).

--------, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Saiyad Nizām al-Dīn Aḥmad, (Berlin: Orient-Institut Beirut, forthcoming in 2014).

[--------, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Abū al-ʿAlā ʿAfīfī, (Tehran: Intishārāt al-Zahrāʾ, 1946 [1955]. ]

[--------, The Wisdom of the prophets (Fusus al-Hikam), tr. (from Arabic to French) T. Burckhardt and tr. (from French to English) A. Culme-Seymour, (Aldsworth: Beshara Publications, 1975).] [--------, Ibn alʿArabī, tr. The Bezels of Wisdom, R. W. J. Austin, New York: Paulist Press, 1980).]

--------, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah ( vols.), ( airo: Dār al- ibāʿah, 1876a). [--------, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah ( vols.), ( airo: Dār al- ibāʿah, 1876b).]

[--------, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, manuscript located in Evkaf museum, Istanbul (No. 1845-1876, 4750 folios).]

[--------, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (1 vols.), ed. ʿUthmān Yaḥyā, ( airo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣriyyah al-ʿĀmmah li-l-Kitāb, 197 -).]

[--------, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (8 vols.), ed. Aḥmad Shams al-Dīn, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1999).]

[--------, Ibn alʿArabi: The Meccan Revelations (2 vols.), trs. M. Chodkiewicz, W. C. Chittick, and J. W. Morris, (New York: Pir Press, 2002-2004).]

[--------, The Tarjumān al-ashwāq: A Collection of Mystical Odes, (Oriental Translation Fund, new series 10), tr. R. A. Nicholson, (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1911).]

[--------, Stations of Desire: Love Elegies from Ibn ʿArabī and New Poems, tr. M. Sells, (Jerusalem: Ibis Editions, 2000).]

--------, Divine Sayings Mishkāt al-Anwār: 101 Ḥadīth Qudsī, trs. S. Hirtenstein & M. Notcutt, (Oxford: Anqa Publishing, 2004).

Āmulī, Ḥaydar b. ʿAlī, Muqaddimat Kitāb Naṣṣ al-nuṣūṣ, ed. Muḥammad Riz ā Jawzī, (Tehran: Intishārāt Rawzanah, 1996 or 1997). ʿAzab, Muḥammad Zaynahum Muḥammad, Silsilat al-taṣawwuf, (Cairo: Maktabat al-Madbūlī, 1993).

Dhahabī, Mizān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, ed. Abū al-Faḍl ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. Al-Ḥusayn al-ʿIrāqī, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995)

Ibn al-Dubaythī, Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-, al-Mukhtaṣar al-muḥtāj ilay-hi min Tārīkh Abī ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad bn Saʿīd Ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Dubaythī/ intiqāʾ Muḥammad Ibn Aḥmad b. ʿUthmān al-Dhahabī; wa-fī-hi ziyādat fawāʾid fī al-tarājim la-hu wa-li-shuyūkh ākharīn, ed. Muṣṭafā Jawād, (Baghdad: Maṭbaʿah al-Zamān, 196? ).

Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid al-, al-Iqtiṣād fī al-iʿtiqād, (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj li-l-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 2012).

[--------, al-Iqtiṣād fī al-iʿtiqād, ed. Muṣṭafā Umrān, ( airo: Dār al-Baṣāʾir, 009).]

Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid al-, al-Maqṣad al-asnā fī sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, ed. Muhạmmad ʿUthmān al-Khisht, (Cairo: Maktabat al-Qurʾān, 1985).

[--------, The Ninety-nine Beautiful Names of God = al-Maqṣad al-asnā fī sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, tr. D. B. Burrell and N. Daher, (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1995).] Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1994).

Ibn Sawdakīn, Wasāʾil al-sāʾil, ed. M. Profitlich, Die Terminologies Ibn ʿArabīs im “Kitāb wasāʾil al-sāʾil” des Ibn Saudakīn, (Freiburg im Breisgau: Klaus Schwarz, 1973).

Ibn ʿAsākir, Abū al-Qāsim Alī b. al-Ḥasan b. Hibat Allāh Thiqat al-Dīn, Tabyīn kadhib al-muftarā fī-mā Nusiba ilā al-Imām Ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, (Damascus: al-Qudsī, 19 8).

[McCarthy, R. J., The Theology of al-Ashʿarī, (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1953).] Ibn Hajar, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, Lisān al-mīzān, eds. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah and Salmān ʿAbd al-Fattaḥ Abū Ghuddah, (Beirut: al- ibāʿah wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ 00 ).

Jāmī, Nūr al-Dīn al-, Naqd al-nuṣūṣ li-l-shaykh Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bn Aḥmad al-Jāmī fī Naqsh al-fuṣūṣ li-l-shaykh al-akbar Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī al-Ḥātimī, ed. Vīliyām hītīk [William Chittick], (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 20?? ).

[--------, Naqd al-nuṣūṣ fī sharḥ Naqsh al-fuṣūṣ, ed. Vīliyām hītīk [William hittick], (Tehran:

Anjuman Shāhanshāhī Falsafah Īrān, 1977).]

Jandī, Muʾayyid al-Dīn, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī, (Qum: Bustān Kitāb Qum, 2002).

Jīlī, ʿAbd al-Karīm al-, Kashf al-ghāyāh fī sharḥ mā iktanafat ʿalay-hi al-tajalliyyāh, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Namiri, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2008). Kāshānī (Qāshānī), ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-, Iṣṭīlāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, ed. Majīd Hādī Zādah, (Tehran: Muʾassasa-yi Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 2002).

[--------, Iṣṭīlāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah (2 vols.), ed. ʿAbd al-Khāliq Maḥmūd, ( airo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 198 ).] [--------, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, ed. David Pendlebury, A Glossary of Sufi Technical Terms, (London: Octagon Press, 1991).]

--------, Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām, ed. Majīd Hādīʿ Zādah, (Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 2000).

--------, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Majīd Hādīʿ Zādah, (Tehran: Anjuman-i Āsār va Mafākhir-i

Farhangī, 2004).

Muḥammad, Maḥrūs Sayyid Aḥmad, Naẓariyyat al-ittiṣāl bayna al-taṣawwuf al-sunni wa-al-taṣawwuf al-falsafī, (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, 009).

Muslim, Abū al-Ḥusayn, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, (Riyadh: Dār al-Salām li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 000).

Qayṣarī, Dāwūd, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī ( vols.), ed. Dār al-Iʿtiṣām, (Iran: Muʾassasat Muḥibbīn li-l- abāʿah wa-l-Nashr, 2002).

[--------, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Sayyid Talāl al-Dīn Āshtīyānī, (Tehran: Shirkat-i Intishārāt-i ʿIlmī wa Farhangī, 007 or 008).]

[--------, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam (2 vols.), ed. Āyat Allāh Ḥasan Ḥasan Zādah al-Āmilī, (Qum: Būstān Kitāb, 2007).]

Qushayrī, Abū al-Qāsim al-, Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, eds. āhā ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Saʿd and Saʿd Ḥasan Muḥammad ʿAlī, ( airo: Dār al-Ḥaram li-l-Turāth, 2001).

--------, al-Risālah al-Qushayriyyah ( vols), eds. ʿAbd al-Ḥālīm Maḥmūd and Maḥmūd Ibn al-Sharīf, ( airo: Dār al-Kutub al-Ḥadīthah,1966).

[--------, al-Risālah al-Qushayriyyah fī ‘Ilm al-Taṣawwuf, eds. Maʿrūf Zaryūq and ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Balṭajī, (Damascus; Beirut: Dār al-Khayr, 1988).]

[--------, Principles of Sufism, tr. B. R. Schlegell, (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2004).]

[--------, Al-Qushayri’s Epistle on Sufism, tr. A. D. Knysh, (United Kingdom: Garnet Publishing, 2007).]

Sarrāj, Abū Naṣr ʿAbd Allāh, Kitāb al-lumaʿ fi-l-taṣawwuf, ed. R. A. Nicholson, E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series 22, (London: Luzac & Co, 1914).

[--------, Schlaglichter über das Sufitum: Abū Naṣr as-Sarrāğs Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, tr. R. Gramlich, (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990).]

Shāfiʿī, Ḥusayn Muḥammad Fahmī al-, al-Dalīl al-mufahras li-alfāẓ al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, (Cairo: Dār al-Hadīth, 1998).

Shaʿrānī, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-, Tahdhīb ṭabaqāt al-kubrā: taʾlīf ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Anṣārī al-Shāfiʿī al-Miṣrī al-Maʿrūf bi-l-Shaʿrānī; hadhdhabahu Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Ṭuʿmī. Wa-maʿa-hu al-Barq al-sāṭiʿ al-arqā fī sharḥ mā ashkala min al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā / li-Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Ṭuʿmī (vol. 1), ed. Mhḥyī al-Dīn ūʿmī ( airo: Dār al-Rawḍah, 2009).

Tirmidhī, Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā, al-Jāmiʿ al-saḥīḥ wa-huwa Sunan al-Tirmidhī (vol. ), ed. Ibrāhīm ʿAṭwah ʿAwaḍ, (Cairo: Musṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1975).

Turkah, Ṣāʾin al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam (2 vols.), ed. Muḥsin Bīdārfar, (Qum: Intishārāt-i Bīdār, 1999 or 2000).

Translations of the Qurʾān

Arberry, A. J., The Koran Interpreted (2 vols.), (London; Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1955). Bell, R., The Qurʾān: Translated, with a critical re-arrangement of the Surahs (2 vols.), (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937 [1960]).

Pickthall, M. M., The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation, (Pakistan, New American Library, 1??? ).

Yūsuf ʿAlī, ʿAbdullah, The Meaning of the Holy Qurʾān, (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2007).

Secondary Sources

Adamson, P., The Arabic Plotinus: A Philosophical Study of the Theology of Aristotle, (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 2002).

Addas, C., Quest for the Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn ʿArabī, (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993).

--------, Ibn ʿArabi, ou La quête du soufre rouge, (Paris: Gallimard, 1989).

--------, “Andalusi Mysticism and the Rise of Ibn ʿArabi,” in ed. S. Jayyusi, The Legacy of Muslim Spain, (Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 909-933.

--------, “Abu Madyan and Ibn ʿArabi,” in eds. S. Hirtenstein and M. Tiernan, Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi: A Commemorative Volume, (Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1993), pp. 163-180.

--------, Ibn ʿArabī: The Voyage of No Return, (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2001).

Afīfī, A., The Mystical Philosphy of Muḥyid Dīn-Ibnul ʿArabī, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939).

Akkach, S., Cosmology and Architecure in Premodern Islam, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005).

Austin, R. W. J. Sufis of Andalusia, (London: Allen & Unwin, 1971).

--------, Ibn alʿArabī, The Bezels of Wisdom, (New York: Paulist Press, 1981).

Badron, M. S., Ibn al-ʿArarī’s Conception of Religion, (Kuala Lumpur: Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia [IKIM], 2012).

Böwering, G., The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Qurʾānic Hermeneutics of the Ṣūfī Sahl At-Tustarī (d. 283/896), (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1980).

--------, “Islamic ase,” ed. Peter L. Berger, The Other Side of God, (New York: Anchor Press, 1981), pp. 133-153.

--------, “The Light Verse: Qurʾānic Text and Sūfī Interpretation,” in Oriens 36, 2001, pp. 113-144. Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (6 vols.), Leipzig: C.F. Amelangs, 1901). --------, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (supplement 2 vols.), (Leiden: Brill, 1943). Burckhardt, T., Mystical Astrology according to Ibn ʿArabi, (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 2001). hittick, W. ., “Death and the World of Imagination: Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Eschatology,” in The Muslim World 78, 1988, pp. 51-82.

--------, “IbnʿArabī and His School,” in ed. S. H. Nasr, Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations, (New York: Crossroad, 1991), pp. 49-79.

--------, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Metaphysics of Imagination, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989).

--------, “ʻYour Sight Today Is Piercing’: Death and the Afterlife in Islam,” ed. H. Obayashi, Death and Afterlife: Perspective of World Religions, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), pp. 125-39.

--------, Imaginal Worlds: Ibn al-ʿArabī and the Problem of Religious Diversity, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994).

--------, “Rūmī and Waḥdat al-wujūd,” eds. A. Banani and G. Sabagh, Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The Heritage of Rumi, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994). --------, Sufism: A Short Introduction, (Oxford: One World, 2000).

Chodliewicz, M., Le sceau des saints: prophétie et sainteté dans la doctrine d’Ibn Arabi, (Paris: Gallimard, 1986).

[--------, Seal of the Saints: prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn ʿArabī, tr. Liadain

Sherrard, (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993).]

--------, “The Diffusion of Ibn ʿArabī’s Doctrine,” in Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society 9, 1991, pp. 36-57.

--------, An Ocean without Shore: Ibn ʿArabi, the Book, and the Law, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993).

Corbin, H., L’imagination créatrice dans le soufisme d’Ibn ʿArabi, (Paris: Flammarion, 1958. --------, Histoire de la philosophie islamique, (Paris: Gallimard, 1962 [1986]).

[--------, History of Islamic Philosophy, tr. L. Sherrard, (London; New York: Kegan Paul International, 1993).]

[--------, Creative Imagination in the Sūfism of Ibn ʿArabi, tr. R. Mahheim, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).]

Crone, P., God’s caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

Elmore, G. T., Islamic Sainthood in the Fullness of Time: Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Book of the Fabulous Gryphon, (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999).

Enayat, H., Modern Islamic Political Thought: The Response of the Shīʿī and Sunnī Muslims to the Twentieth Century, (London; New York: I.B.Tauris, 1982)

Gimaret, D., Les noms divins en Islam: exégèse lexicographique et théologique, (Paris: Les éditions du cerf, 2007).

Graham, W. A., Divine Word and prophetic Word in Early Islam, (Hague: Mouton, 1977).

Gramlich, R., “Der Urvertrag in der Koranauslegung,” in Der Islam 60, 1983, pp. 205-230.

Henderson, J. B., Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).

Hirtenstein, S., The Unlimited Mercifier: The Spiritual Life and Thought of Ibn ʿArabī, (Oxford: Anqa Publishing, 1999).

Hirtenstein, S. and M. Tiernan eds., Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi: A Commemorative Volume, (Shaftesbury: Element, 1993).

Howarth, G. and O. Leaman, Encylopedia of Death and Dying, (London; New York: Routledge, 2001).

Islam, K. M., The Spectacle of Death, Including Glimpses of Life Beyond the Grave, (Lahore: Tablighi Kutub Khana, 1976).

Izutsu T., Sufism and Taoism, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983 (1984).

Jafri, H. M. Origins and Early Development of Shiʾa Islam, (London; New York: Longman, 1979).

Karamustafa, A. T., Sufism: The Formative Period, (Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007).

Katz, S. T., “Mysticism and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture,” ed. Steven T Katz, in Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 7-67.

Knysh, A. D., Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999).

--------, Islamic Mysticism: A Short History, (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2000).

Kopf, L., “Religious Influences on Medieval Arabic Philology,” in Studia Islamica 5, 1956, pp. 33-59.

Kvam, K. E., L. S. Schearing and V. H. Ziegler eds., Eve & Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999).

Madelung, W., The Succession to Muḥammad: A Study of the Early caliphate, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Massignon, L., La passion d’al-Hosayn-ibn-Mansour al-Hallaj, martyr mystique de l’Islam (2 vols), (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1922)

--------, Essay on the Origins of the Technical Language of Islamic Mysticism (Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane), tr. Benjamin Clark, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1922 [1991]).

--------, “L’alternative de la pensée mystique en Islam: monisme existentiel ou monisme testimonial, ” Annuaire de Collège de France 52, 1952.

--------, “Le ‘jour’ du covenant (yawm al-mīthāq),” in Oriens 15, 1962, pp. 86-92.

Mohamed Haj Yousef, Ibn ʿArabī -Time and Cosmology, (London and New York: Routledge, 2008).

Molé, M., Les mystiques musulmans, (Paris: Presses Univesitaires de France, 1965).

Momen, M., An Introduction to Shi’i Islam, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).

Morris, J., “Ibn Arabi and His Interpreters, Part I. Recent French Translations,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 106-3, 1986, pp. 539-551.

--------, “Ibn Arabi and His Interpreters, Part II: Influences and Interpretations. Influences and Interpretations,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 106-4, 1986, pp. 733-756.

--------, “Ibn Arabi and His Interpreters, Part II ( onclusion). Influences and Interpretations,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 107-1, 1987, pp. 101-119.

--------, “The Spiritual Ascension: Ibn ʿArabī and the Miʿrāj,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 107-4, 1987, pp. 629-652;

--------, “The Spiritual Ascension: Ibn ʿArabī and the Miʿrāj,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 108-1, 1988, pp. 63-77.

--------, “Listening for God: Prayer and the Heart in the Futūhāt,” in Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society 13, 1993, pp. 19-53.

Murata, S., The Tao of Islam: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationship in Islamic Thought, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992).

Nasr, S. H., Three Muslim Sages, Cambridge: (Harvard University Press, 1964).

--------, “Islam and the Encounter of Religions,” S. H. Nasr, Sufi Essays, (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1972), pp. 123-51.

--------, Knowledge and the Sacred, (New York: Crossroad, 1981).

--------, Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations, (New York: Crossroad, 1987 [1991]).

Nguyen, M., Sufi Master and Qurʾān Scholar: Abūʾl-Qāsim al-Qushayrī and the Laṭāʾif al-isātāt, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Nicholson, R. A., The Mystics of Islam, (Penguin Books, 1914 [1990]).

--------, The Idea of Personality in Sufism, (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1922 [1964]). Nyberg, H. S., Kleinere Schriften des Ibn al-ʿArabī, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1919).

Robinson, ., “Prophecy and Holy Men in Early Islam,” eds. J. Howard-Johnston and P. A. Hayward, The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown, (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 256-62.

Ritter, H., “Philologika. XIII: Arabische Handschriften in Anatolien und İstanbul,” in Oriens 2-2, 1949, pp. 236-314.

--------, “Philologika. XIII: Arabische Handschriften in Anatolien und İstanbul (Fortsetzung),” in Oriens 3-1, 1950, pp. 31-107.

Rosenthal, F., “Ibn ʿArabi: Between Philosophy and Mysticism,” in Oriens 31, 1988, pp. 1-35. Rubin, U., “Pre-Existence and Light,” in Israel Oriental Studies 2, 1975, pp. 62-119.

Schimmel, A., Mystical Dimensions of Islam, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975).

Schuon, F., The Transcendent Unity of Religions, (London: Faber and Faber, 1953).

--------, Sufism: Veil and Quintessence (Le Soufisme: voile et quintessence), trs. M. Perry, J.

Lafouge, and J. S. Cutsinger, (Bloomington: World Wisdom, 1980 [2006]).

Sells, M. A., Mystical Languages of Unsaying, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

--------, Early Islamic Mysticism: Sufi, Qurʾān, Miʿraj, Poetic and Theological Writings, (The Classics of Western Spirituality), (New York: Paulist Press, 1996).

Sezgin, F., Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums (15 vols.), (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967-84).

Smith, J. I., and Y. Y. Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981). Smith, J. I., “ oncourse between the Living and the Dead in Islamic Eschatological Literature,” in History of Religion 19-3, 1980, pp. 224-236.

Takeshita, M., “The Theory of the Perfect Man in Ibn ʿArabīʼs Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam,” in Orient 19, 1983, pp. 87-102.

--------, “Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought,” (Ph.D Dissertation submitted to University of Chicago, 1986).

--------, Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought, (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1987).

Tonaga, Y., Islām to Sūfism (Islam and Sufism), (Nagoya: Nagoya University Press, 2013).

Tottoli, R., Biblical prophets in the Qurʾān and Muslim Literature, (Richmond: Curzon, 2002). Tustarī, al-, Tafsīr al-Tustarī, tr. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler, (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 2011).

Van Ess, J., “L’authorité de la tradition prophétique dans la théologie muʾtazilite,” in La motion d’authorité au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident, (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1978 [1982]), pp. 211-226.

--------, Theologie und Gesellshcaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra (6 vols.), (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992-1997).

Vermes, G., “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis,” eds. P. R. Ackroyd and . F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible (vol. 1), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 199-231.

Wadād al-Qāḍī, The Primordial Covenant and Human History in the Qurʾān, (Occasional Papers sponsored by The Margaret Weyerhaeuser Jewett Chair of Arabic), (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 2006).

Walbridge, J., The Science of Mystic Lights: Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī and the Illuminationist Tradition in Islamic Philosophy, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).

Watt, W. M., Islamic Philosophy and Theology, (Islamic Surveys 1), (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1962).

Webb, G., “Third-wave Sufism in America and Bawa Muhauyadeen Fellowship,” eds. J. Malik and J. Hinnells, Sufism in the West, (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 88. Yahyā, O., Histoire et classification de lʼoeœuvre dʼIbn ʿArabī: étude critique (2 vols.), (Damas: Institut franc ais de Damas, 1964).

[1] O. Yahyā compiles a list of Ibn ʿArabī's all works.

O.Yahyā, Histoire et classification de lʼoeœuvre dʼIbn ʿArabī: étude critique (vol. ), (Damas: Institut franc ais de Damas, 1964), pp. 547-600.

[2] The English translation of the Qurʾān in this thesis is based on Yūsuf ʿAlīʼs translation, but his version is not always appropriate, thus it is modified in this context and compared with other translations. ʿAbdullah Yūsuf ʿAlī, The Meaning of the Holy Qurʾān, (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2007).

[3] This Ḥadīth is the one transmitted by Abū Hurayrah.

Abū Hurayrah reported the Messenger (May God peace be upon him) as saying: “There are ninety-nine names of God, that is (the number) subtracted one from hundred. And he who memorizes them will enter Paradise.” And Hammām adds (tradition reported) from Abū Hurayrah, and the Messenger (May God peace be upon him): “Verily, God is odd-number, and He loves odd-number.”

[4] Ibn ʿAsākir, Tabyīn kadhib al-muftarī fī-mā Nusiba ilā al-Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, (Damascus: al-Qudsī, 19 8) [abridged translation in R. McCarthy, The Theology of al-Ashʿarī, (Beirut:

Imprimerie Catholique, 1953)].

[5] Concerning the later Platonism and its development in Islam, refer to the following works.

Peter Adamson, The Arabic Plotinus: A Philosophical Study of the Theology of Aristotle, (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.), 2002.

[6] There are some translations of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam in English. They might be useful for reader to understand the general ideas of Ibn ʿArabīʼs thought, but it is hard to say that they are trustworthy translations of the Arabic text. Rather, my translation is based on the commentary by Kāshānī and Qayṣarī though I referred to such publications.

[7] For the Arabic text we examine in our research, the main text of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam is the forthcoming publication edited by Saiyad Nizamuddin Aḥmad. In general, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam is published with notes based on commentators like Kāshānī, Qayṣarī, and so on. Each commentator divides Ibn ʿArabīʼs original text into some portion, and states his comment after it. On the other hand, his edition of Fūṣūṣ al-ḥikam collects only Ibn ʿArabīʼs text, and adds footnotes in terms of ambiguous phrase based on Qayṣarīʼs commentary. In this meaning, his edition overcomes the weak point of previous editions of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. Moreover, his edition is trustworthy for academic usage because it is based on the only known surviving copy dictated by the author himself to his disciple Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī, Evkaf Müzesi 1933. It is in Qūnawīʼs handwriting and bears an authorization note in Ibn ʿArabīʼs handwriting on the first page, which is dated 630/1232. However, I adopt different vocalization (tashkīl) and punctuation from his in accordance with some publications of Sharh Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam and their punctuation.

[8] T. Izutsu mentions that he uses Kāshānī’s commentary of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam in his analysis of Ibn ʿArabī.

T. Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), p. 25.

[9] A. Karamustafa, Sufism: The Formative Period, (Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007).

[10] Dhahabī was an Iraqi historian and biographer. His History of Baghdād called Dhayl or Mudhayyal is the historical biography which continues the work of Abū Saʿd ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Samʿānī (d. 562/1166). cf. “Ibn al-Dubaythī” and “Samʿānī” in EI².

[11] A. Knysh also translates the explanation of Ibn ʿArabī, but the edition he uses may be different version from this quotation. According to him, Ibn al-Dubaythī met Ibn ʿArabī during the short visit to Baghdad though he does not describe any information.

A. Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), p. 27.

[12] The phrase of “people of the Reality” is used in Sufism to show that Sufis are close to God.

[13] Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad al-Sulamī (d. 412/1021) is a well known Sufi biographer who wrote the work of biographical dictionary of Sufism: Ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfiyyah (The Biographical Dictionary of Sufism).

[14] His name is known as Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿUthmān b. Qaymāẓ b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Dhahabī al-Turkumānī al-Fāriqī al-Dimashqī al-Shāfiʿī; “al-Ḏh ahabī,” in EI².

[15] cf. Tonaga, Islām to Sūfism (Islam and Sufism), (Nagoya: Nagoya University Press, 2013), pp.

[16] -203.

[17] Knysh makes a chart of the genealogy of Ibn Taymiyyah. Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, p. 64.

[18] Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, pp. 269-270.

Ibn Ḥajar quotes Dhahabī’s whole explanation in his biographical dictionary. In order to conduct textual criticism, Ibn Ḥajar’s quotation of Dhahabī is referred to. Ibn Hajar, Lisān al-mīzān, pp. 391-392.

[19] Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, p. 270.

[20] Some separate “Sunni Sufism” from “philosophical Sufism.” According to them, the former is orthodox way of Islam following Sharīʿah, whereas the latter is apostasy based on Greek philosophy and Shīʿī tradition.

cf. Maḥrūs Sayyid Aḥmad Muḥammad, Naẓariyyat al-ittiṣāl bayna al-taṣawwuf al-sunnī

wa-l-taṣawwuf al-falsafī, (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, 009); Muḥammad Zaynahum Muḥammad ʿAzab, Silsilat al-taṣawwuf, (Cairo: Maktabat Madbūlī, 1993).

[21] Ibn Ḥajar, Lisān al-mīzān, p. 393. cf. “Ibn Ḥad j ar al-ʿAsḳalānī,” in EI². ²⁷ Ibn Ḥajar, Lisān al-mizān, p. 394.

[22] Ibn Ḥajar, Lisān al-mizān, p. 396. ²⁹ “al-S h aʿrānī,” in EI².

[23] The name of the book is mentioned in the list of Ibn ʿArabī’s works, which was compiled by O.

Yaḥyā.

Yaḥyā, Histoire et classification de lʼoeœuvre dʼIbn ʿArabī: étude critique (vol. 2), p. 581.

[24] Shaʿrānī, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-, Tahdhīb ṭabaqāt al-kubrā: taʾlīf ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Anṣārī al-Shāfiʿī al-Miṣrī al-Maʿrūf bi-l-Shaʿrānī; hadhdhabahu Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Ṭuʿmī. Wa-maʿa-hu al-Barq al-sāṭiʿ al-arqā fī sharḥ mā ashkala min al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā / li-Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Ṭuʿmī (vol. 1), ed. Muḥyī al-Dīn ūʿmī ( airo: Dār al-Rawḍah, 2009), p. 383.

[25] ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbd al-Salām b. Abī al-Qāsim b. al-Ḥasan al-Dimashqī (d. 660/1262), who was born in Damascus and died in Cairo.

“al-Sulamī” in EI².

[26] Shaykh al-Islām is an honorific title in Islam.

“Shaykh al-Islām” in EI².

[27] Abu al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (d. 656/1258) is the founder of Shādhilī Sufi ṭarīqah, but there is actually no evidence that he met IbnArabī.

[28] Shaʿrānī, Taghhīb ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, p. 384.

[29] In this context, interests in spiritual thought or mysticism in the world flourished rapidly in the western world. In the Eranos conference founded by Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), famous scholars who were interested in mysticism like C. Jung, L. Massignon, H. Corbin, M. Eliade, G. Scholem, and T.

[30] A. Afīfī, The Mystical Philosphy of Muḥyid Dīn-Ibnul ʿArabī, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), p. 33. ³⁸ Ibid., p. 46

[31] H. Corbin, L’imagination créatrice dans le soufisme d’Ibn ʿArabi, (Paris: Flammarion, 1958), p.

[32] .

[33] Massignon created two types of classification of Sufism; one is “monisme existentiel” which is the Oneness of Existence (waḥdat al-wujūd), and the other is “monisme testimonial” meaning the Oneness of Testimony (waḥdat al-shuhūd). According to him, Ibn ʿArabī is categorized into the former, but Ḥallāj is put into the latter.

L. Massignon, “L’alternative de la pensée mystique en Islam: monisme existentiel ou monisme testimonial, ” Annuaire de Collège de France 52, 1952.

[34] H. Corbin, L’imagination créatrice dans le soufisme d’Ibn ʿArabi, p. 98.

cf. L. Massignon, La passion d’al-Hosayn-ibn-Mansour al-Hallaj, martyr mystique de l’Islam (2 vols), (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1922).

[35] Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, p. 99.

[36] In spite of this, this neither means that the present work focuses on political thought in Islam, nor regards Ibn ʿArabī’s thought as what Hamid Enayat mistakenly says:

The modernists reiterate the meaning of tawḥīd to denounce devotion to anything other than God, and this includes not only the apotheosis of ‘perfect man’ as suggested by Ṣūfī teachings, but also servile obedience to the tyrants and ṭaghūts (‘satans’ or illegitimate rulers).

H. Enayat, Modern Islamic Political Thought: The Response of the Shīʿī and Sunnī Muslims to the Twentieth Century, (London; New York: I.B.Tauris, 1982), pp. 8-9.

[37] M. Takeshita, “Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought,” (Ph.D Dissertation submitted to University of Chicago, 1986).

[38] Tonaga, Islām to Sūfism (Islam and Sufism), pp. 132-153.

[39] Arabic uses huwa to indicate the pure Existence because it does not have any neuter gender like it in English and es in German. On the level of pure Existence, it is not appropriate to call such a Being qua Being any gender. Though the term It instead of He is better for indicating this level of Existence, how to translate the word, whether to say It or He, depends on the context. Again, in this thesis, I will use capitalized “He” or “It” in translating the transcendent.

[40] Ḥadīth Qudsī is the prophetic tradition in which the subject of the tradition is God.

[41] Ibn ʿArabī, Divine Sayings Mishkāt al-anwār: 101 Ḥadīth Qudsī, trs. S. Hirtenstein & M. Notcutt, (Oxford: Anqa Publishing, 2004), p. 99.

[42] Sarrāj, Kitāb al-lumaʿ fi-l-taṣawwuf, ed. R. A. Nicholson, E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series 22, (London: Luzac & Co, 1914), p. 363.

[43] In the analogy of Sufism, the word heedlessness (ṭaysh) corresponds to drunkenness (sukr), and the word liveliness (ʿaysh) does to recovering from intoxication (ṣaḥw). In other words, they are heedless because of the drunkenness of the divine ecstacy, whereas they are lively because of they are sober after drunkenness.

[44] Qushayrī, al-Risālah al-Qushayriyyah (vol. 1), eds. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm Maḥmūd and Maḥmūd Ibn al-Sharīf, ( airo: Dār al-Kutub al-Ḥadīthah, 1966), pp. -225.

[45] Kāshānī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, ed. Majīd Hādī Zādah, (Tehran: Muʾassasa-yi Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 2002), p. 126.

[46] In the context of the Oneness of Existence, there are some words which show absolute Existence. The Absolute Unity (al-aḥad) is one of them. According to the section in Iṣṭīlāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, it is described as “the name of the Essence (al-dhāt) in respect to the absence of multitudes of attributes, names, relationships (nisbah), and divergences (taʿayyunāh) from them.” In this meaning, it is possible to understand that Kāshānī’s use of dhāt (the Essence) is as same as al-aḥad (the Absolute Unity). Kāshāni, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, p. 5.

[47] Ibid., pp. 126-127.

[48] Ibid., p. 127.

[49] The explanation of visible self-disclosure is based on “al-wujūd al-musammā.” Ibid., p. 127.

[50] Concerning all the terminologies related to tajallī, refer to Appendix I The Distribution Chart of tajallī in Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām.

Kāshānī, Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām fī ishārāt ahl al-ilhām, ed. Majīd Hādīʿ Zādah, (Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 2000).

[51] Ibid., p. 151

[52] The word maʿānī is used here as the opposite meaning to form (ṣūrah). That is the level of abstractness which is distinguished from the concreteness.

[53] Ibid., p. 151

[54] Tonaga, Islām and Sūfism, p. 1 9.

[55] He divides his introduction into three parts: 1) investigation of the Reality of the Absolute Essence (ḥaqīqat al-dhāt al-aḥadiyyah), 2) clarification of the Reality of names and their infinities, and 3) clarification of the divine affairs. These are intended by him to explain “the principles of The Bezels of

Wisdom.”

Kāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Majīd Hādīʿ Zādah, (Tehran: Anjuman-i Āsār va Mafākhir-i Farhangī, 2004), p.76.

[56] The prayer phrase al-hamd li-llāh rabb al-ʿālamīn is usually used in the books, following the beginning of the first chapter of the Qurʾan.

[57] This word is based on the following verse in the Qurʾān: “To Allah belong the East and the West; whithersoever you turn, there is the Face of Allah (wajh Allāh). For Allah is All-Pervading, All-Knowing” (Q :115).

[58] Kāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 77.

[59] Kāshānī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, p. 9.

[60] Qushayrī, Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, eds. āhā ʿAbd al-Raʾuf Saʿd & Ḥasan Muḥammad ʿAlī, ( airo: Dār al-Ḥaram lil-Turāth), 001, p. 59.

[61] According to hittick, Ibn ʿArabī does not always distinguish between descriptions and attributes. Chittick, Ibn alʿArabi: The Meccan Revelations (2 vols.), trs. M. Chodkiewicz, W. C. Chittick, and J. W. Morris, (New York: Pir Press, 2002-2004), p. 248.

[62] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), (Cairo: Dār al- ibāʿah, 1876a), p. 216.

[63] Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, p. 49. ⁷¹ Kāshānī, Iṣṭīlāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, p. 120. ⁷² Ibid., p. 9.

[64] Ibid., p. 120.

[65] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), p. 316. See the list of divine names raised by Ibn ʿArabī: “Appendix II The Divine Names in Islamic Thought.”

[66] Appendix II “The List of the Divine Names in Islamic Thought” in the end of this thesis shows the list of the divine names by representative scholars who discuss the divine names. ⁷⁸ Qushayrī, al-Risālah al-Qushayriyyah (vol. 1), pp. 214-216.

[67] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 348.

[68] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), p. 316.

[69] The main text edited by Saiyad Aḥmad makes tashkīl as yukannā, but I read tukannā in accordance with Kāshānīʼs commentary.

Kāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 133.

[70] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 46.

[71] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), p. 317.

[72] These important names - Allāh, al-Rabb, and al-Raḥmān illustrating the Reality - occur in the first chapter (sūrat al-fātiḥah) of the Qurʾān.

[73] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 304.

[74] Kāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 450.

[75] Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (vol. ), ed. Dār al-Iʿtiṣām, (Iran: Muʾassasat Muḥibbīn li-l- abāʿah wa-l-Nashr, 2002), p. 1147.

[76] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 244.

[77] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), p. 320. ⁹⁰ Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 45.

[78] Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (vol.1), p. 368. ⁹² Kāshānī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, pp. 14-15.

[79] There are seven names in imām al-aimmah: the life (al-ḥayāh), the knowledge (al-ʿilm), the wish (al-irādah), the power (al-qadrah), the hearing (al-samʿ), the sight (al-baṣar), and the speech (al-kalām).

[80] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 110.

[81] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), p. 317.

[82] According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (8th edition), the zodiac means “the imaginary area in the sky in which the sun, moon and planets appear to lie, and which has been divided into twelve equal parts each with a special name and symbol.”

[83] In IbnʿArabīʼs thought, ʿamāʾ is the abstract place in which creations appear. This idea is based on the Ḥadīth: “Where was our Lord before He created the creatures?” “He (Muḥammad) answered: “He was in a cloud (ʿamāʾ).” This Ḥadīth is often used in al-Fuṭūḥāt al-makkiyyah. Mohamed Haj Yousef considers the issues related to Ibn ʿArabī cosmology.

Cf. Mohamed Haj Yousef, Ibn ʿArabī -Time and Cosmology, (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), p. 8 and pp. 193-194.

[84] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), pp. 317-318. ⁹⁹ Refer to Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

[85] This figure is copied from the following work.

Samer Akkach, Cosmology and Architecure in Premodern Islam, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005, p. 114.

[86] Ibid., p. 131.

[87] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), p. 319.

[88] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, P. 175. ¹⁰⁴ Ibid., P. 112.

[89] Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 4), p. 319. ¹⁰⁶ cf. “sabab” in EI².

[90] In regards to enclitic forms of personal pronoun (al-ḍamāʾir al-muttaṣilah) in Arabic, there are three types which denotes “you.” The Singular form is ka (masculine, ك -) and ki (feminine, ك -), the dual form is kumā (same word is used in both masculine and femine, كُما-), and plural form is kum (masculine, كُم-) and kunna (feminine, كُ ن-). ¹⁰⁸ Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 149. ¹⁰⁹ Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, p. 113.

[91] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 229.

[92] In this point, commentators have different opinions. Qayṣari and Kāshāni regard it as the Reality

(al-haqīqah), but Jāmī identifies it as “the essence of principle” (ʿayn al-aṣl). Qayṣarī, Dāwūd, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (2 vols.), p. 380.

[93] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, pp. 67-68.

[94] Takeshita points out that the phrase al-insān al-kāmil appears seven times in The Bezels of Wisdom, but four out of these seven times are in the first chapter (The Chapter of Wisdom of Divinity in the Word of Adam) of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam.

Takeshita, “The Theory of the Perfect Man in Ibn ʿArabīʼs Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam,” Orient 19, 1983, pp.

[95] -102; Takeshita, “Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought,” pp. 9-73.

[96] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, pp. 348-349.

[97] In general, the doctrine of Islam distinguishes the prophet (rasūl) from the Apostle (nabī). A prophet is sent as a new law-giver or with divine canon, but an apostle succeeds the old one and guides people. Thus, prophets are apostles, but not all apostles are prophets. However, this differentiation is not necessarily obvious in the topic of sin. cf. “Rasūl” in EI².

[98] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 349.

[99] According to the Qurʾān, it is said that there are seven heavens (sabʿat samawāt), but Ibn ʿArabī says that there are fifteen heavens, divided into higher spheres and lower spheres. In Ibn ʿArabī's cosmology, planets and stars are located based on their ranking. See the last section in this chapter. ¹¹⁸ For example, the background of this idea is based on the following verses in the Qurʾān:

He (God) said: “Indeed, I know what you know not.” And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He showed them to the angels, and said: “Tell Me the names of these if you are right.” They said: “Glory to You, we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise.” He said, “O Adam, tell them their names.”

And when he had told them their names, He said, “Did I not tell you that I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed.” And when We said to the angels, “Prostrate before Adam”; so they prostrated, not so Iblīs. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers (Q2:30-34)

[100] Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (vol.2), p. 1263.

[101] Kāshānī and Qayṣarī think that this part denotes the “primordial covenant” (Q7:17 ), which is the first Lord-servant contract between God and human beings:

When your lord drew forth the Children of Adam from their loins and their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): “Am I not your Lord?”, they said: “Indeed (balā)! We do testify!” (Q7:17 ).

Kāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 227; Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (vol.1), p. 614.

[102] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 115.

[103] Kāshānī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah, p. 134.

[104] Concerning the refer to the following works: W. Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad: A Study of the Early caliphate, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997); H. M. Jafri, Origins and Early Development of Shiʾa Islam, (London; New York: Longman, 1979); M. Momen, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).

[105] P. Crone, God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

[106] “And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: ‘Tell me the names of these if ye are right’” (Q :31).

[107] I read the text by adding bi-hi (through him) in accordance with Qayṣarīʼs Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, though the main text does not mention it. Jāmī notes that he in the world is the Perfect Man.

Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (vol.1), p. 247. ¹²⁷ Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, pp. 18-19.

[108] Ibid., p. 26.

[109] Ibid., p. 26.

[110] Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (vol.1), p. 295.

[111] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 267.

[112] This verse is the same verse in which God nominates Dāwūd as deputy: “Judge between the people in truth” (Q38:36).

[113] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 363.

[114] Ibid., p. 270.

[115] Ibid., p. 377; Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 1), p. 243.

[116] Chodkiewicz points out that the terms al-ḥaqīqah al-Muḥammadiyyah and al-insān al-kāmil are not purely synonymous, but express differing views of man: the former is in terms of his primordiality, and the latter is in terms of his finality.

M. Chodliewicz, Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn ʿArabī, tr.

Liadain Sherrard, (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993), p. 71.

[117] This point will be considered in the next section.

[118] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 73. ¹³⁹ Ibid., pp. 73-74. ¹⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 263.

[119] “O, Zakariah! Indeed, We give you good tidings of a boy whose name will be Yaḥyā. We have not assigned to any before [this] name” (Q19:7).

[120] Kāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 406.

[121] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, pp. 146-147.

[122] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, pp. 377-378.

[123] Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam li-l-Qayṣarī (vol.2), 1328. ¹⁴⁶ Kāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, pp. 538-539.

[124] “God is the Friend of those who believe” (Q2:257). “He is the Friend, the Praiseworthy” (Q42:28).

[125] Ibn ʿArabī distinguishes “legislative Prophethood” (al-nubuwwah al-tashriyyah) from “universal Prophethood” (al-nubuwwah al-ʿāmmah). The former is the Prophethood which is brought with law, but the former is the one which is not brought with law (Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 205). In al-Fuṭūḥāt al-makkiyyah, the former corresponds to “legislative Prophethood” (al-nubuwwah al-tashriyyah), and the latter corresponds to the “absolute Prophethood” (al-nubuwwah al-muṭlaqah).

Concerning “absolute Prophethood,” see Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (vol. 2), p. 53; Takeshita, “Ibn ʿArabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought,” p. 120.

[126] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 205.

[127] Ibid., pp. 204-205. ¹⁵¹ Ibid., p. 207.

[128] Ibid., pp. 40-41.

[129] As a proof on it, Ibn ʿArabī raises the example of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644) in the war of Badr. Concerning to the treatment of enemyʼs captures, ʿUmar had the opinion that they should kill them, whereas Abū Bakr (d. 12/634) issued that they should ransom them. At that time, Abū Bakrʼs idea was accepted, but later the verse of the Qurʾān (Q8:67) proved that ʿUmarʼs opinion is right: “It is not for a Prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts a massacre [upon Allāhʼs enemies] in the land. Some Muslims desire the commodities of this world, but Allāh desires [for you] the Hereafter. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise” (Q8:67).

[130] Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 41. ¹⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 44.