Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Al-Ghazali's concept of Lataif

              Islamic epistemology offers a special role to qalb in attaining to knowledge of the wonders of creation in general, and the knowledge of Allah in particular. The Holy Quran is dotted with appeals to man’s realization of significance, resourcefulness and vitality of qalb in matters of “belief” and cautions man of the sealing of his qalb in case he fails to employ it to seek maarifat and yaqeen in Allah. [1]The Traditions of the Prophet also attest to the pivotal nature of qalb to an extent that one even finds the Prophet himself invoking Allah to make his qalb steadfast on religion[2] and direct it towards His obedience.[3]  A reading through Islamic epistemology also shows that out of all the parts of a human body, it is the heart which has been specialized to “contain” [4]the knowledge of Allah, and hence, it is this organ through which revelation ( which is in turn, the way towards knowledge of Allah) is received. Imam Ghazali too accords a significant role to qalb in his epistemology: for him, qalb is the real essence or the asl of man.[5]
               Moreover, when he aims to understand the concept of qalb in particular, or tasawwuf in general, in matters as pertain to getting to knowledge and certainty, he leaves no room whatsoever for non-Islamic epistemology in a sense that he makes revelation and prophecy the “essence” of his discourse on the matter, on the pretext that spirituality or tasawwuf emanates exclusively from wahy and nubuwwat. However, he includes another thing in his treatise which is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran and is only metaphorically alluded to as being a special characteristic of the qalb, and that is, intellect/intelligence/reason or aql. Moreover, a reading through Ghazali’s books verifies the fact that his discussions on the function and properties of qalb are never devoid of an allusion to the significance of aql as being the receptacle of the special characteristics of the qalb. This paper is an attempt to explore the concepts of aql and qalb in Quran and Ghazali’s epistemology and argue that aql resides in the spiritual qalb. That is to say, aql dwells in the latifa of qalb. The discourse will end with a concordance between the two epistemologies. To this end, section one of this discourse will put forth various verses from the Holy Quran which are relevant to the concepts of aql and qalb. Section 2 will present and analyse Ghazali’s understanding of the two afore-mentioned terms and his explication of the subtlety which the aql enjoys with qalb by giving some analogies. The last section will attempt to harmonize the two frameworks of attaining knowledge: the Holy Quran and Ghazali.
I- Seeing, sight, insight and qalb from the Holy Quran :
          A careful glance at the approaches employed towards the Quranic sciences, the way the exegetes have expounded on the Quranic verses, and also the way various translators have translated the Holy Book shows that a word may have assorted meanings and it could mean differently at different occasions, and hence, could be translated in a horde of meanings depending on the context. The way Quran has dealt with the concept of aql is very interesting to notice, for the reason that it has used several words connoting aql , other than the word itself. Sometimes, it has also used qalb to denote aql, which will be demonstrated in due course. Notwithstanding there exist a whole myriad of ways the word aql could be used and interpreted,  the following discourse will only mention those ways which are relevant and equally helpful in establishing that aql takes place in the latifa of the qalb. 
               The Quran highlights the means by which knowledge can be attained to and the means with which a human’s will-power may be directed towards the obedience of Allah. For example, it pinpoints and appeals to the usage of sight, hearing, aql and qalb in order to ponder at the Signs of Allah. However, some of these words are often been used to connote intellect or aql as well, alongside carrying their original meaning.  Their description in terms of their connotation of intellect with examples from the Holy Quran is in order:
1) Sight: The Holy Quran uses different words such as ayn, basar etc to connote sight.  At some places, the word sight refers to the eyes, at others, it refers to the faculty of physical sight while at still others, it connotes insight or intellect.
 For example,
a) And again, you shall see it with certainty of sight! ( 102: 7 )  {عَيۡنَ}
b) Then look again and yet again, your sight will return unto you weakened and made dim. ( 67: 4 )   { الۡبَصَرُ}
c) (Remember also) the `Ad and the Thamud (people): clearly will appear to you from (the traces) of their buildings (their fate): the Evil One made their deeds alluring to them, and kept them back from the Path, though they were gifted with Intelligence and Skill. (29:38)  {   مُسۡتَـبۡصِرِيۡنَۙ‏  }

d) And commemorate Our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, possessors of Power and Vision. ( 38:45 )  { وَالۡاَبۡصَارِ }

2) Aql: Quran uses this word normally to connote the intellectual faculty native to humans, and that characteristic in man which drives him to obey Allah and turn away from passions and lustful desires.
a) We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). ( 43: 3)  { تَعۡقِلُوۡنَۚ‏ }
b) They will further say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!" ( 67: 10 ) {  نَعۡقِلُ }
3) Qalb and Af’idah: It is the part of a human body which contains the knowledge of Allah., that is, it is that organ which receives wahy.
a) Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts (and mind) may thus learn wisdom and their ears may thus learn to hear? Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts. ( )  { قُلُوۡبٌ يَّعۡقِلُوۡن بِهَا }
b) But their hearts are in confused ignorance of this; and there are, besides that, deeds of theirs, which they will (continue) to do. ( 23: 63 ) {  قُلُوۡبُهُمۡ }
c) Verily in this is a Message for any that has a heart and understanding or who gives ear and earnestly witnesses (the truth). ( 50: 37 )  { قَلۡبٌ }
d) It is He Who brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers when ye knew nothing; and He gave you hearing and sight and intelligence and affections: that ye may give thanks (to Allah). ( 16: 78 )  {  وَالۡاَفۡـِٕدَةَ‌ }
e) And We had firmly established them in a (prosperity and) power which We have not given to you (ye Quraish!) and We had endowed them with (faculties of) hearing, seeing, heart and intellect: but of no profit to them were their (faculties of) hearing, sight, and heart and intellect, when they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah; and they were (completely) encircled by that which they used to mock at! ( 46 : 26 ) {   اَفۡـِٕدَتُهُمۡ }
f) The which doth mount (Right) to the Hearts:  { الۡاَفۡـــِٕدَةِ }
II- Seeing, sight, insight and qalb according to Ghazali:
 One of the salient features of Imam Ghazali’s mizaaj is his methodology of classifying concepts into sub-categories or types. His writings are dotted with examples illustrating this trait of his. Hence, one finds a categorization too, when he discusses aql and qalb. Imam Ghazali has put forth a framework in his book Maarij whereby he explicates animals’ faculties and human’s faculties and then asserts that the innate characteristic which distinguishes a man from animals is his intellectual faculty or aql.[6] He does so by establishing that it is the intellect which governs all other faculties so much so that it controls the animalistic characteristics such as shahwah and ghadab[7], that a man may also possess. Ghazali then divides this intellect into four levels such that three of them serve to acquire the “real” nature of things, successively either by way of theoretical sciences, axiomatic truths or empirical knowledge [8]while the fourth, if allowed to mature and develop fully enables an individual to conquer his carnal desires and inculcate in him a will-power to obey Allah. Moreover, the first type of intellect is what distinguishes man from animals: it serves as guiding light for the heart to understand and grasp concepts and things. It is this form of aql from which all other intellects originate and by which their respective attributes are enhanced and controlled. Also, the first two levels of intellect are native to a human being while the other two acquired and developed to an extent that all the first three intellects grow and evolve into the fourth level of intellect, which is      
                           the fruit and the ultimate aim.[9]
One should bear in mind that these are four levels of intellect and not categories, and hence, an individual will have to develop his intellect and undergo all these levels if he wants to inculcate in him a mature intellect. This is because only a mature intellect will help him perceive the knowledge of the Divine and realities of the nature of things seemingly hidden from him and previously unknown to him. Here a question could be raised as to the realities which transcend reason, because of Ghazali asserting in one of his books Maqsad[10] that there may be some truths which exceed reason. The answer to this is as follows: this reason could be at the level of one of the three intellects mentioned above, because of Ghazali stating elsewhere that intellect helps attaining to the knowledge of the hidden realities. Needless to say, intellect, be it of any type or level, is the place where knowledge resides, be it axiomatic or acquired, and that, the fact that a mature intellect is capable of perceiving the consequences of an action with the help of the knowledge acquired through the other three levels and as a result, is able to exert himself in attaining the benefits which accrue from  that act, or striving against his appetite to avert the evilness of the action, proves that an intellect engenders a certain will-power in man and channels it towards a right direction based on its knowledge and the perceptibility of the benefits or the evils of an act. Thus, in short, this could be said: an intellect is the makaan of knowledge and will-power.
               Furthermore, in “Wonders of the Heart” Ghazali asserts that knowledge and will-power are special characteristics of the heart. From this and what we have mentioned above, either of the two things could be inferred: 1) aql resides in the spiritual qalb, 2) the spiritual qalb resides in the aql. Ghazali argues the first notion without taking into consideration or explaining his elimination of the second interpretation from any discussion whatsoever. We would attempt to prove or disprove his stance by using the analogies which he uses to establish the relation between heart and knowledge.
Analogies:
A) King and his Kingdom:[11]
This is the simplest analogy Ghazali employs to explain his position that aql dwells in the heart. He relates aql to a king: an aql governs all the faculties such as imagination, memory etc as its aides in controlling the affairs of the kingdom i.e. hearts. This can be understood thus: aql governs all other faculties, motor or apprehending or speculative and through some, it gathers knowledge and using this knowledge, it becomes capable of perceiving the possible outcomes of an act, thereby, creating in man a desire and will-power which he in turn applies towards performance of that act. Conversely, the intellect, by means of its perceptive faculty, enables man to ward off the enemy, that is, the carnal desires, following which result in evil consequences, that is, disobedience to Allah, His Wrath and eventually to the utter loss of man, in the form of Hell-fire as his permanent abode. Moreover, since for Ghazali, heart is the asl of man, any loss faced by a man is in fact a loss for the heart. This explains the analogy and thus, it follows that aql is to qalb as a king is to his kingdom. One should also notice that the king is of no value or importance without his kingdom and the converse also holds true. Similarly, aql is of no value without a qalb which receives the knowledge, and vice-versa. A qalb without a mature aql is vulnerable to attacks from the enemies and aql without its dominion loses its control over it and in turn, loses its importance. So aql and qalb have to be related to each other in a way that the heart receives knowledge in the form of wahy and the mature intellect then processes, justifies it, and makes it comprehensible for the heart, thereby making the “belief complete.” [12] Hence, it could be said that according to Ghazali, aql, qalb and wahy together constitute the equation for certainty of belief in Allah, and none can be dispensed with, if kamil yaqeen and kamil maarifat are to be acquired. Also, since for Ghazali, knowledge and will are the special properties of the heart, this leads him to imply that aql which is the makaan or place of origin of knowledge and will, actually dwells in the spiritual qalb, that is, latifa-e-qalb.
2) The horseman and his mount[13]:
Here aql is likened to a horseman who controls his mount, i.e the horse. The blindness of the horse is not that destructive or dangerous as the blindness of the horseman. If the horseman is well-trained, he is able to succeed even if his mount is undisciplined, but if he himself is unruly and stupid, he will not be able to control his mount. Similarly, a person whose intellect has not matured yet, will not be able to fully acquire the knowledge and perceive the consequences of an act, and hence, will not be able to control his passions. The weakness of a horseman in commanding and restraining his mount is indicative of his own ignorance and weakness of his insight. Having said this much, a point which needs worth iterating is as follows: Ghazali posits this analogy in a chapter titled “Exposition of relation of heart to knowledge”. But in this analogy, he has not even once alluded to the heart, or analogized anything to the heart as in the previous case. Thus, it could be inferred that his including this analogy in the above-mentioned chapter presumes the intimate relationship between aql and heart. Also, he emphasizes on the harnessing of aql or intellect to the reins of the obedience to revelation “contained” by the heart in way that aql is
            at the service of faith…It will be a way of practice and interiorization. [14]
These two analogies if understood together suffice to conclude that for Ghazali, aql resides in the spiritual qalb.
III-Seeking concordance between the Holy Quran and Imam Ghazali:
The Quranic verses mentioned above are only a few in the multitude that pertain to the topic under consideration. These aayaat nonetheless evoke a certain attitude towards approach to reading and understanding the Quran in a way that it appeals it audience to use their sense-perception and intellect in order to believe and then attain to its certitude. For instance, whenever it invites reflection on the Signs of Allah, it calls for the usage of the senses such as sight and hearing as in the case of the aayat (67:4).However, when it refers to the disbelieving peoples of the Aad and Thamud, it invokes the readers to attend to the fact that although these people were bestowed with “intelligence”, they were not able to overcome the lures of the “Evil”, and hence, faced their dreadful “fate”. Moreover, the aayat regarding the Prophets Ibrahim, Moses, etc, signifies the importance of the utilization of the intellectual and physical faculties. [15]Similarly, when it uses the word aql, it uses it as understanding as well as a means to understand the articles of belief, so much so that it makes it a criterion for somebody to deserve Paradise or Hell-fire: If a man uses his intelligence (that is, mature intellect ), he will always be guided towards obeying Allah and will ultimately come to deserve eternal bliss and happiness in Paradise. Ghazali’s concept of happiness is similar: God’s Pleasure and Wrath are in accordance to man’s capacity of understanding and engaging in intellectual activity which in turn leads to an improvement of his soul. The author of the Lughaatul-Quran defines aql as the following: a) knowledge, b) the quality to perceive the goodness or the evil nature of things and to judge their benefits and risks, c) to tell the better one between two good things and the worst between two bad things, d) knowledge of universal principles, e) it is the trait which sets the decisive criterion between right and wrong, f) the intellectual activity with which the objectives and aims of a human being are channeled to a right direction, g) the noble trait in man which translates into his actions and speech.[16] Ghazali also understands aql as a means of perceiving knowledge and the goodness of an act, and instilling in man a will to translate his knowledge into action i.e. obedience of Allah.
Moreover, the Quran uses two words to connote heart: qalb and af’idah. A careful perusal of the translation and the exegesis of the Holy Book shows that by af’idah is meant the physical heart which is the seat of the spiritual heart and intellect, which in turn, is the seat of knowledge and will, which motivate a man to believe and obey Allah. This is the reason why in some instances such as in the case of the verse (16:78), the word af’idah has been translated as “intelligence and affections”. Thus, it becomes clear that af’idah is the place where the qalb and aql reside. Harmonizing it with Ghazali’s standpoint on the issue, we could say that af’idah would mean the physical cone-shaped heart which he mentions in the Wonders of the Heart, and to which is the spiritual qalb connected. Furthermore, the Holy Quran regards the qalb as the part of a human body which receives knowledge and “learns wisdom” and in case it fails to process this knowledge into firm conviction and certainty, it has been rebuked as being blind and ignorant. This shows that the absence of a faculty which would explain and understand the knowledge received by the heart in form of revelation is tantamount to the blindness of the heart. Moreover, if devoid of such a quality, heart will continue to be overcome by evil desires, thereby continuing to sin against the commands of Allah. This proves the criticality of the relationship between aql and qalb: qalb is the centre of the intellectual activity and it cannot attain knowledge of Allah without the aid of aql. Since the spiritual qalb for Imam Ghazali is the latifa-e-qalb, synchronizing his discourse on aql and qalb with that in the Holy Quran it can be concluded that aql takes place in the latifa of qalb. .





































 Works Cited:

  • Al-Jalali, Maulana Syed Abdul Daim, and Maulana Mohammad Abdul Rasheed Nomani. LughaatulQuran. Delhi: Union Printing, 1953. Web.


  • Al-Ghazali.The Alchemy of Happiness.Trans. Claud Field. 1909.Web.

  • Al-Ghazzālī. Wonders of the Heart. Trans. Walter James Skellie. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2007. Print.


  • Burrell, David B. "The Unknowabilty of God." Religious Studies 23.2 (1987): 171-82. JSTOR. Web. 06 Mar. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019207>.

  • Ghazzālī. Al-Ghazālī's The Ascent to the Divine through the Path of Self-knowledge = Maʻārij Al-quds Fī Madārij Maʻrifat Al-nafs : Being a Psychological Approach to Theology. Trans. Yusuf Easa. Shammas. 1958. Print.

  • Ghazzālī. The Ninety-nine Beautiful Names of God = Al-Maqṣad Al-asnā : Fī S̲h̲arḥ Asmāʼ Allāh Al-ḥusnā. Trans. David B. Burrell and Nazih Daher. Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 1995. Print.


  • Quasem, Muhammad Abdul. "Al-Gazali's ConceptIion of Happiness." Arabica T.2.Fasc.2 (1975): 153-61. BRILL. Web. 10 Apr. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4056279>.


  • Muḥammad, Shafīʻ. Maʻariful-Quran. Ed. Muḥammad Taqī. ʻUs̲mānī. Trans. Muhammad Hasan Askari and Muhammad Shamim. Karachi: Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, 2005. Print.

  • The Holy Quran






























[1] Quran, 63:3
[2] Tirmizi
[3] Muslim
[4] A Tradition reads: Allah said: My earth cannot contain Me, neither My heaven, but the tender anc calm heart of My servant., in Wonders of the Heart, p 46
[5] Al-Ghazzālī. Wonders of the Heart. Trans. Walter James Skellie. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2007.p. 6
[6] Ghazzālī. Al-Ghazālī's The Ascent to the Divine through the Path of Self-knowledge = Maʻārij Al-quds Fī Madārij Maʻrifat Al-nafs : Being a Psychological Approach to Theology. Trans. Yusuf Easa. Shammas. p. 174
[7] Ibid., p. 175
[8] Ghazzali. The Book of Knowledge. Trans. Nabih Amin, Faris. p.218-220
[9] Ibid,. p. 220
[10] Ghazzālī. The Ninety-nine Beautiful Names of God = Al-Maqṣad Al-asnā : Fī S̲h̲arḥ Asmāʼ Allāh Al-ḥusnā. Trans. David B. Burrell and Nazih Daher. Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society. 1995. p. 157


[11] Wonders of the Heart, p. 28-29
[12] The Book of Knowledge, p. 221
[13] The Ascent to the Divine through the path of Self-Knowledge, p. 286
[14] Burrell, David B. "The Unknowabilty of God." Religious Studies 23.2 (1987): 171-82. JSTOR. Web. p.  174
[15] Maariful Quran, p. 535
[16] LughaatulQuran, p. 336

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

A Dialogue Between Ibn Arabi and Iqbal

Iqbal: Assalam Alaikum, Ya Shaikh al-Shaikh! It is an honour to find you here in Cordoba.
Ibn ‘Arabi: Walaikum as Salam! Pleasure is all mine, sir. I always wished to meet the lover of my keen follower, Rumi. What brings you here, my son? I am extremely sorry to hear about the sorry state of affairs the Muslims of the Sub-Continent are faced with these days. However, I am greatly rejoiced to see a young yet valiant Jinnah as their leader. Pray tell, what brings you here, my son, in these times when your country is going through the most trying conditions of its history?
Iqbal: I only wanted to have a look at the Mosque of Cordoba. May I ask, Sheikh Sahib, what really is because of which a juvenile like me attained the privilege of meeting up with you?
Ibn ‘Arabi: I came here to meet Averroes, the master interpreter of Aristotle[1]. By the way, I have read your anthology of poems and listened to your lectures and to be very honest, I do not agree with you when you say that the true nature of the Ultimate Reality can also be understood by employing the means of a comprehensive philosophical criticism. In my opinion, it is impossible to understand unity as a unity of plurality by means of an analytical, discursive thinking. It is only possible by way of intuition.
Iqbal: I agree with you to the extent that intuition is a direct revelation of the true nature of the Ultimate Reality. However, allow me to assert that a philosophical analysis and critique of the facts of experience also bring us to the conclusion that “life is a synthetic activity and that the Ultimate Reality is a rationally directed creative life”[2]. However, the latter view is necessarily pantheistic in nature. I, nonetheless, find this opportunity worthwhile to request you to elaborate on the concept of wujudism[3] that you are a proponent of.
Ibn Arabi: Well, to begin with, I must state that while the traditional Muslim scholars stringently uphold theological monism( tawhid uluhi)[4], I venture to distinguish between the hidden aspect of the Being we call God, the aspect of unity, and the aspect of lordship. In the first aspect there is no plurality whatsoever and it is the concept preached to the multitude of masses. However, the second aspect espouses multiplicity and differentiation, in so far as God is both the Creator and the multitude of created objects. This aspect which I would hereby pronounce as ontological monism (tawhid wujudi)[5], also known as wahdat-ul-wajud, replaces the formula of theological monism “There is no God but Allah” with “There is no Being but Allah”. Moreover, when I proclaim , “al-kull huwa”[6] ( everything is He), I maintain that one can not say of individual things that they were God; only being as a whole was God and that it is a matter of “integrality”[7] of things and not of their aggregate or totality.
Iqbal: I am in total agreement with you. I, will however, shed light on the concept of wahdat-ul-wajud using my faculty of philosophy. I describe an individual being as a self or ego and therefore, I define life as a manifestation of selves. Explicitly, it is a “synthetic activity”[8] run by a rationally directed creative will which I call an ego. In order to ascertain the individuality of the Ultimate Ego, the Holy Quran has given Him the proper name of Allah. In short, allow me to assert that the Ultimate Reality is actually the Ultimate Ego from which all other egos emanate.
Ibn Arabi: Fair enough, but then how does your philosophical intellect account for the Divine Attribute of Eternity and Infinity, when you assert that God is an ego and hence an individual? Does not individuality imply finitude?
Iqbal: I agree with you to the extent that God is Infinite, but having said that, let me also add that He cannot be conceived Infinite in the sense of spatial infinity. Space and time are mere possibilities of Ego, and we only partially realize them in our mathematical interpretation of space and time. What we tend to discount while associating Infinity with God is the fact that beyond Him, and after the realm of His Creative Activity, there is no space and time to close him off in reference to other egos. His infinity consists of the infinite inner possibilities of His Creative Activity, of which the universe is only an abridged exhibition. As I mentioned in my book “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”, in one word, God’s Infinity is intensive and not extensive[9]. With regards to His Eternity, I would hereby assert that there are infinite varieties or successions of time, of varying degrees existing between this material world and the spiritual world up there. As we rise higher and higher in time, the time of gross bodies in this world dissolves and disappears into the Divine Time- time which is independent of the attribute of succession or priority, and hence of change. In short, it has neither beginning nor any end. I would like to quote myself here again: “The priority of God is not due to the priority of time; on the other hand, the priority of time is due to God’s Priority.”[10]
Ibn Arabi: Your point is well-taken. But then what do you have to say about the Creativity of God? Pray, tarry a while! Before you proceed with your reflection on the afore-stated area of discussion, I would like to give my own account of God’s Attribute of Creativity. Well, I reject the religious tradition that God created the world over a definite interval of time (six days)[11]. On the contrary, I believe that God was always creating and that His Creation is Permanent and Continuous outside time. The world is dynamic and thus the constant flux and renewing of this world is a consequence of God’s continuous self-manifestation in the forms of concrete things, and in reality, identical to this self-manifestation. The universals have an ontological status in the mind, even though they do not have any independent, tangible existence outside the mind. Similarly, the creation existed originally in the Divine mind, as a series of prototypes, which I call “fixed entities”(a`yan thabitah)[12]. But God, who had remained hidden, desired to manifest Himself and loved to be known so He beckoned the whole creation into being by His Divine decree or fiat (al-amr)[13]. Pointless to say is the fact that this creation of His is to Him what a mirror is to the image, the shadow to the figure and number to the unit. The highest epiphany or manifestation of the Divine Being is the human form, identified with Adam. Indeed the existence of this perfect man is the raison d’être of the existence of this world. Yes, you can pronounce my position on this subject to be a theosophical one. Now, I am all ears to listen to your stance on the same.
Iqbal: I agree with you when you assert that the Universe is not an independent reality standing in opposition to Him and is thus not a mere accident in the life of God. To further your point, I would like to posit my stance in light of the theory of atomism, enunciated by the Ash’arites, according to which, the world is made up of infinitely small parts of atoms and since the creative activity of God is ceaseless, fresh atoms are being created every moment. This accounts for the ever-lasting growth of the world. This becomes clear that an atom has a position but no magnitude nor does it occupy any space. Another feature of this theory of creation asserts that the continuity of the existence of atoms depends on the perpetual creation of accidents or nufoos[14](singular: nafs). If God ceases to create accidents, atoms cease to exist. Nevertheless, I am completely at variance with this theory. I think that there can be no motion without time and no time without an intuitive life. An atom having received its quality of existence involves space too and hence becomes spiritual because it now embraces Divine energy. “Nafs is a pure act”[15], and the body comprising of the atoms (which have now received the quality of existence) is only a visible expression of the act. Every atom of Divine energy is an ego and this expression of ego seeks its perfection in man. In short, we live and have our being in the perpetual flow of Divine Life. However, we cannot perceive of His Life in terms of our conscious experience of life because while doing so, we will inadvertently ignore the deeper phases of His Divinity. He is Living because He has been described so in the Holy Quran, and hence, not because He is Living in the sense of our experience of life.
Ibn Arabi: Yes, this is exactly what I state in my book Fusus-ul-Hikam. In my opinion, the Reality is Living and Knowing and so we say of man and the angels.
Iqbal: And would you please enlighten me with your notion on the Attribute of Knowledge of Allah?
Ibn Arabi: The reality of Knowledge is one as that of life and the relationship of each respectively to the knower and the living remains the same. When we speak of the knowledge of the Reality, we say that it is Eternal while we pronounce that of the man to be contingent. Having said that, the point worth mentioning is that knowledge determines one who uses it as a knower, and also does the knower determine knowledge as contingent in the case of man or the contingent knower, and eternal in the case of the Eternal One. Thus, both the universal and the individual existence are determining the other of the two, yet being determined by the other. Reiterating the fact that the universals remain intelligible in the minds of the individuals where they are manifested, while not being particularized, when we say that, that which possessed the individual existence and that which does not, are interrelated even when there is no unifying element, we can safely assert that an individual being is similarly interconnected with another individual being. With having said that, we actually affirm that the individual being which is in fact originated depends on that which originates it, while the latter is necessarily independent of any other. However, the latter because of its essence, requires the former for its (the latter’s) manifestation, and which is in effect, its own essence, and as a consequence, the dependent or the originated must conform to all the Attributes and the Names of the Ultimate Reality. Conclusively, we know Him through ourselves and thus attribute to Him, whatever we attribute to ourselves.
Iqbal: And according to you, if I am not mistaken, this is the reason why the Divine Revelations come to us through man-prophets. Fair enough. Giving your theory my words, allow me to assert that knowledge in the sense of analytically discursive thinking , cannot be connoted to an Ego who knows and at the same time forms the ground for the object known. Omniscience may do for the present.  
Ibn Arabi: Moreover, since He is free from all dependence, He is rightly called the First and the Last because all reality that exists, has existed or will exist is His and thus, we cannot attribute to him any chronological priority. He is Final while being Prior, and Prior while being Final. This accounts for His attribute of Eternity which you embarked to expound on a little while ago.
Iqbal: And what grounds do you use to proclaim him as the Outer and the Inner, and the Manifest and the Unmanifest?
Ibn Arabi: God is the Outer and the Unmanifest in the Cosmos which is subtle and does not perceive God as He perceives Himself. Moreover, God does not depend on the Cosmos to attain Self-sufficiency. Thus, Reality can never be known through Cosmos. On the other hand, God is the Inner and the Manifest in man, since He Created His inner Form to “match His Own Form”[16], and since man has a share in the Synthesis of Divine realities, God is Manifest in man. Needless to say is the fact that it is only because of this Synthesis that man is superior to all other beings.
Iqbal: So you think that God has united this polarity of qualities in man, so as to render him distinguished from other creation of His; that man unites in himself the Cosmos and the Reality, his outer form comprising the subtle Cosmological realities, while his inner form composed of the Ultimate Reality?
Ibn Arabi: Certainly. To be precise, all what I have thus elaborated is an illustration of the concepts of “tashbih and tanzih”[17]. They were first introduced by the Mutakallimun and were posed as a problem but gnostics like me have fortunately found a solution to the polarity of these concepts. On the one hand, God is free from all qualities, so that He is transcendental and absolutely a pure being; this is the view of tanzih. On the other hand, God is immanent in all creations and thus, “there cannot be any quality completely separate from the Divine Quality” [18] so that all realities are His reflections; this being the view of tashbih. Thus, the Divine Attributes are only the pathways leading to God and are the means by which God Manifests Himself in the world, while remaining Unmanifest in the Cosmos. The point worth mentioning here is that a Sufi or a gnostic affirms the combination of opposites, that is, the transcendental-ness and the immanent-ness of God, tanzih in tashbih and tashbih in tanzih. Also, these Divine Names and Qualities play a fundamental role in providing both the language and the means to ascend to seek a “unitive”[19] knowledge of Divine Reality.
Iqbal: Having listened to this much, I would like to confess that there was a time when I had read your book Fusus-ul-Hikam, and proclaimed that “from what I know, it contains nothing but atheism and impiety”[20]. However, I would seek leave from you now with much more admiration and respect than ever would have I given to anybody.
Ibn Arabi: Having known you was a pleasure, my son. Consider that as long as we know who the Reality is, it doesn’t matter whether they call us a pantheist or a deist.
Iqbal: Very well-said. Good bye.
Ibn Arabi: God Bless You!
Iqbal: Assalam Alaikum, Ya Shaikh al-Shaikh! It is an honour to find you here in Cordoba.
Ibn ‘Arabi: Walaikum as Salam! Pleasure is all mine, sir. I always wished to meet the lover of my keen follower, Rumi. What brings you here, my son? I am extremely sorry to hear about the sorry state of affairs the Muslims of the Sub-Continent are faced with these days. However, I am greatly rejoiced to see a young yet valiant Jinnah as their leader. Pray tell, what brings you here, my son, in these times when your country is going through the most trying conditions of its history?
Iqbal: I only wanted to have a look at the Mosque of Cordoba. May I ask, Sheikh Sahib, what really is because of which a juvenile like me attained the privilege of meeting up with you?
Ibn ‘Arabi: I came here to meet Averroes, the master interpreter of Aristotle[1]. By the way, I have read your anthology of poems and listened to your lectures and to be very honest, I do not agree with you when you say that the true nature of the Ultimate Reality can also be understood by employing the means of a comprehensive philosophical criticism. In my opinion, it is impossible to understand unity as a unity of plurality by means of an analytical, discursive thinking. It is only possible by way of intuition.
Iqbal: I agree with you to the extent that intuition is a direct revelation of the true nature of the Ultimate Reality. However, allow me to assert that a philosophical analysis and critique of the facts of experience also bring us to the conclusion that “life is a synthetic activity and that the Ultimate Reality is a rationally directed creative life”[2]. However, the latter view is necessarily pantheistic in nature. I, nonetheless, find this opportunity worthwhile to request you to elaborate on the concept of wujudism[3] that you are a proponent of.
Ibn Arabi: Well, to begin with, I must state that while the traditional Muslim scholars stringently uphold theological monism( tawhid uluhi)[4], I venture to distinguish between the hidden aspect of the Being we call God, the aspect of unity, and the aspect of lordship. In the first aspect there is no plurality whatsoever and it is the concept preached to the multitude of masses. However, the second aspect espouses multiplicity and differentiation, in so far as God is both the Creator and the multitude of created objects. This aspect which I would hereby pronounce as ontological monism (tawhid wujudi)[5], also known as wahdat-ul-wajud, replaces the formula of theological monism “There is no God but Allah” with “There is no Being but Allah”. Moreover, when I proclaim , “al-kull huwa”[6] ( everything is He), I maintain that one can not say of individual things that they were God; only being as a whole was God and that it is a matter of “integrality”[7] of things and not of their aggregate or totality.
Iqbal: I am in total agreement with you. I, will however, shed light on the concept of wahdat-ul-wajud using my faculty of philosophy. I describe an individual being as a self or ego and therefore, I define life as a manifestation of selves. Explicitly, it is a “synthetic activity”[8] run by a rationally directed creative will which I call an ego. In order to ascertain the individuality of the Ultimate Ego, the Holy Quran has given Him the proper name of Allah. In short, allow me to assert that the Ultimate Reality is actually the Ultimate Ego from which all other egos emanate.
Ibn Arabi: Fair enough, but then how does your philosophical intellect account for the Divine Attribute of Eternity and Infinity, when you assert that God is an ego and hence an individual? Does not individuality imply finitude?
Iqbal: I agree with you to the extent that God is Infinite, but having said that, let me also add that He cannot be conceived Infinite in the sense of spatial infinity. Space and time are mere possibilities of Ego, and we only partially realize them in our mathematical interpretation of space and time. What we tend to discount while associating Infinity with God is the fact that beyond Him, and after the realm of His Creative Activity, there is no space and time to close him off in reference to other egos. His infinity consists of the infinite inner possibilities of His Creative Activity, of which the universe is only an abridged exhibition. As I mentioned in my book “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”, in one word, God’s Infinity is intensive and not extensive[9]. With regards to His Eternity, I would hereby assert that there are infinite varieties or successions of time, of varying degrees existing between this material world and the spiritual world up there. As we rise higher and higher in time, the time of gross bodies in this world dissolves and disappears into the Divine Time- time which is independent of the attribute of succession or priority, and hence of change. In short, it has neither beginning nor any end. I would like to quote myself here again: “The priority of God is not due to the priority of time; on the other hand, the priority of time is due to God’s Priority.”[10]
Ibn Arabi: Your point is well-taken. But then what do you have to say about the Creativity of God? Pray, tarry a while! Before you proceed with your reflection on the afore-stated area of discussion, I would like to give my own account of God’s Attribute of Creativity. Well, I reject the religious tradition that God created the world over a definite interval of time (six days)[11]. On the contrary, I believe that God was always creating and that His Creation is Permanent and Continuous outside time. The world is dynamic and thus the constant flux and renewing of this world is a consequence of God’s continuous self-manifestation in the forms of concrete things, and in reality, identical to this self-manifestation. The universals have an ontological status in the mind, even though they do not have any independent, tangible existence outside the mind. Similarly, the creation existed originally in the Divine mind, as a series of prototypes, which I call “fixed entities”(a`yan thabitah)[12]. But God, who had remained hidden, desired to manifest Himself and loved to be known so He beckoned the whole creation into being by His Divine decree or fiat (al-amr)[13]. Pointless to say is the fact that this creation of His is to Him what a mirror is to the image, the shadow to the figure and number to the unit. The highest epiphany or manifestation of the Divine Being is the human form, identified with Adam. Indeed the existence of this perfect man is the raison d’être of the existence of this world. Yes, you can pronounce my position on this subject to be a theosophical one. Now, I am all ears to listen to your stance on the same.
Iqbal: I agree with you when you assert that the Universe is not an independent reality standing in opposition to Him and is thus not a mere accident in the life of God. To further your point, I would like to posit my stance in light of the theory of atomism, enunciated by the Ash’arites, according to which, the world is made up of infinitely small parts of atoms and since the creative activity of God is ceaseless, fresh atoms are being created every moment. This accounts for the ever-lasting growth of the world. This becomes clear that an atom has a position but no magnitude nor does it occupy any space. Another feature of this theory of creation asserts that the continuity of the existence of atoms depends on the perpetual creation of accidents or nufoos[14](singular: nafs). If God ceases to create accidents, atoms cease to exist. Nevertheless, I am completely at variance with this theory. I think that there can be no motion without time and no time without an intuitive life. An atom having received its quality of existence involves space too and hence becomes spiritual because it now embraces Divine energy. “Nafs is a pure act”[15], and the body comprising of the atoms (which have now received the quality of existence) is only a visible expression of the act. Every atom of Divine energy is an ego and this expression of ego seeks its perfection in man. In short, we live and have our being in the perpetual flow of Divine Life. However, we cannot perceive of His Life in terms of our conscious experience of life because while doing so, we will inadvertently ignore the deeper phases of His Divinity. He is Living because He has been described so in the Holy Quran, and hence, not because He is Living in the sense of our experience of life.
Ibn Arabi: Yes, this is exactly what I state in my book Fusus-ul-Hikam. In my opinion, the Reality is Living and Knowing and so we say of man and the angels.
Iqbal: And would you please enlighten me with your notion on the Attribute of Knowledge of Allah?
Ibn Arabi: The reality of Knowledge is one as that of life and the relationship of each respectively to the knower and the living remains the same. When we speak of the knowledge of the Reality, we say that it is Eternal while we pronounce that of the man to be contingent. Having said that, the point worth mentioning is that knowledge determines one who uses it as a knower, and also does the knower determine knowledge as contingent in the case of man or the contingent knower, and eternal in the case of the Eternal One. Thus, both the universal and the individual existence are determining the other of the two, yet being determined by the other. Reiterating the fact that the universals remain intelligible in the minds of the individuals where they are manifested, while not being particularized, when we say that, that which possessed the individual existence and that which does not, are interrelated even when there is no unifying element, we can safely assert that an individual being is similarly interconnected with another individual being. With having said that, we actually affirm that the individual being which is in fact originated depends on that which originates it, while the latter is necessarily independent of any other. However, the latter because of its essence, requires the former for its (the latter’s) manifestation, and which is in effect, its own essence, and as a consequence, the dependent or the originated must conform to all the Attributes and the Names of the Ultimate Reality. Conclusively, we know Him through ourselves and thus attribute to Him, whatever we attribute to ourselves.
Iqbal: And according to you, if I am not mistaken, this is the reason why the Divine Revelations come to us through man-prophets. Fair enough. Giving your theory my words, allow me to assert that knowledge in the sense of analytically discursive thinking , cannot be connoted to an Ego who knows and at the same time forms the ground for the object known. Omniscience may do for the present.  
Ibn Arabi: Moreover, since He is free from all dependence, He is rightly called the First and the Last because all reality that exists, has existed or will exist is His and thus, we cannot attribute to him any chronological priority. He is Final while being Prior, and Prior while being Final. This accounts for His attribute of Eternity which you embarked to expound on a little while ago.
Iqbal: And what grounds do you use to proclaim him as the Outer and the Inner, and the Manifest and the Unmanifest?
Ibn Arabi: God is the Outer and the Unmanifest in the Cosmos which is subtle and does not perceive God as He perceives Himself. Moreover, God does not depend on the Cosmos to attain Self-sufficiency. Thus, Reality can never be known through Cosmos. On the other hand, God is the Inner and the Manifest in man, since He Created His inner Form to “match His Own Form”[16], and since man has a share in the Synthesis of Divine realities, God is Manifest in man. Needless to say is the fact that it is only because of this Synthesis that man is superior to all other beings.
Iqbal: So you think that God has united this polarity of qualities in man, so as to render him distinguished from other creation of His; that man unites in himself the Cosmos and the Reality, his outer form comprising the subtle Cosmological realities, while his inner form composed of the Ultimate Reality?
Ibn Arabi: Certainly. To be precise, all what I have thus elaborated is an illustration of the concepts of “tashbih and tanzih”[17]. They were first introduced by the Mutakallimun and were posed as a problem but gnostics like me have fortunately found a solution to the polarity of these concepts. On the one hand, God is free from all qualities, so that He is transcendental and absolutely a pure being; this is the view of tanzih. On the other hand, God is immanent in all creations and thus, “there cannot be any quality completely separate from the Divine Quality” [18] so that all realities are His reflections; this being the view of tashbih. Thus, the Divine Attributes are only the pathways leading to God and are the means by which God Manifests Himself in the world, while remaining Unmanifest in the Cosmos. The point worth mentioning here is that a Sufi or a gnostic affirms the combination of opposites, that is, the transcendental-ness and the immanent-ness of God, tanzih in tashbih and tashbih in tanzih. Also, these Divine Names and Qualities play a fundamental role in providing both the language and the means to ascend to seek a “unitive”[19] knowledge of Divine Reality.
Iqbal: Having listened to this much, I would like to confess that there was a time when I had read your book Fusus-ul-Hikam, and proclaimed that “from what I know, it contains nothing but atheism and impiety”[20]. However, I would seek leave from you now with much more admiration and respect than ever would have I given to anybody.
Ibn Arabi: Having known you was a pleasure, my son. Consider that as long as we know who the Reality is, it doesn’t matter whether they call us a pantheist or a deist.
Iqbal: Very well-said. Good bye.
Ibn Arabi: God Bless You!
 
WORKS CITED:


Ø      Iqbal, Dr. Allama Muhammad. The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1988. 1-205.


Ø      Ibrahim, Taufic, and Arthur Sagdeev. Classical Islamic Philosophy. Moscow: Progress, 1990.1-350.

Ø      Arabi, Ibn Al'. Fusus-ul-Hikam.

Ø      Fakhry, Majid. A History of Islamic Philosophy. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia UP, 2004. 1-430.

Ø      Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Three Muslim Sages Avicenna - Suhrawardi - Ibn'Arabi. Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1988. 1-185.

Ø      Shafique, Khurram Ali. Iqbal an Illustrated Biography. Lahore: Iqbal Academy, 2006. 5-208.