Introduction
One of the enduring challenges in theology and philosophy is how to describe and understand God’s attributes. This issue, following the proof of God’s existence, has historically divided scholars into two broad camps: those who assert that God can be known and described and those who contend that His majesty is beyond human comprehension and description. This divide has given rise to extensive debates, especially concerning the semantic implications of the language used to describe God.
At the heart of this discussion lies the tension between transcendence and simile. The former emphasises God’s absolute otherness and separation from creation, while the latter acknowledges the analogies and similarities that allow humans to relate to the divine. Differences in interpreting these concepts have led to theological errors, such as reducing God to a mere resemblance of His creatures (absolute simile) or removing any relational understanding of God (absolute transcendence).
This article examines these issues from Ibn Arabi’s perspective, focusing on his synthesis of transcendence and simile. Ibn Arabi’s approach seeks to reconcile these seemingly opposing views, offering a nuanced understanding of God’s attributes and names. We will first explore the concepts of transcendence and simile, analyse their semantic underpinnings, and then delve into Ibn Arabi’s treatment of God’s attributes and names.
Transcendence
In theological discourse, transcendence is referred to by the Arabic term Tanzih, which denotes God’s absolute dissimilarity and separation from creation. Linguistically, Tanzih is derived from the Arabic root associated with purification and distancing, emphasising the negation of any imperfection or similarity between God and creation. For theosophists, transcendence signifies that God’s Essence exists beyond all attributes, names, and qualities that can be ascribed to Him. Though these attributes may appear analogous to human characteristics, they are understood as uniquely and incomparably divine. [1]
The Essence of transcendence lies in its assertion that God is not a body, substance, or material entity. Consequently, attributes such as form, quantity, or state are considered inapplicable to Him. For example, physical properties such as colour, taste, or smell, which are inherently tied to material existence, cannot pertain to the divine Essence, as noted by Dughaym[2]. Similarly, Jurjani defines transcendence as the act of affirming God’s perfection by removing any qualities that imply limitation or defect. [3]
In this view, God’s Essence is not only beyond comprehension but also beyond all rational or sensory attributes associated with created beings. Transcendence elevates God’s majesty to a level that defies human conceptualisation, affirming His incomparability while simultaneously asserting His unique singularity.
Simile
Simile, or Tashbih in Arabic, refers to attributing similarity between two entities. Linguistically, it means drawing an analogy[4]. In theological terms, simile involves recognising commonalities between the divine and the created, allowing humans to relate to God through familiar concepts. Jurjani defines simile as the simultaneous attribution of shared qualities while denying the essential characteristics of one entity to the other[5].
For theosophists, simile is akin to perceiving God’s beauty through mental and sensory faculties. For instance, sensory experiences might include descriptions such as “I saw God like a radiant youth,” attributed to prophetic visions. Mental experiences, on the other hand, involve conceptualising divine attributes such as “I am as My servant’s opinion of Me,” reflecting God’s relational and accessible nature. Despite these anthropomorphic representations, simile does not imply limitation or imperfection in God’s Essence.
Theosophists emphasise that simile should be understood as a balanced recognition of God’s immanence. It involves acknowledging that God manifests in forms perceivable to human faculties without compromising His transcendence. When rightly understood, simile complements transcendence by affirming God’s intimate presence in creation. However, only those who have attained spiritual maturity can fully grasp this delicate balance between simile and transcendence. [6]
Explanation of Some Terms in Ibn Arabi’s Theoretical Framework
To understand Ibn Arabi’s profound theosophical system, we must clarify key terms that form the foundation of his thought. In his introduction to Ibn Arabi’s works, Qeisari refers to him as the “Seal of Muhammadan Sainthood,” emphasising his unparalleled depth in unveiling divine truths. This section explains some crucial concepts from his system of thought[7].
The Divine Essence (Dhat): Ibn Arabi defines the Divine Essence as the ultimate reality of God, devoid of form or limitation. This rank of existence is absolute and cannot be comprehended or articulated fully by human intellect. “Essence” signifies the pure unity and foundational truth of all existence, transcending all attributes and categories.
Singular Oneness (Ahadiyyah): This term refers to the Divine Essence in its state of absolute singularity, free from duality or multiplicity. At this level, polarity is inapplicable, and God’s unity is hidden in its dominant and absolute form beyond any manifestation or relational understanding.
The Absolute Identity (Huwiyyah): This concept highlights the Divine Essence as perceived in its transcendence, apart from all things. Often referred to as the “Absolute Identity,” this rank represents the unknowable aspect of God, veiled from creation and beyond human perception.
Unity of Being (Wahdat al-Wujud): The second rank of existence where the Divine Essence becomes knowable through its names and attributes. This is the level at which God’s immanence begins to manifest, forming the basis for understanding the interplay of oneness and multiplicity.
Theophanic Unity (Wahdat al-Tajalli): This term represents the collective manifestation of the Divine Essence through its names and attributes. At this level, God reveals Himself through creation, with His names serving as the signs of His presence. This is the realm of divine self-disclosure, where the Essence’s unity harmonises with its manifestations’ multiplicity [8].
Names and Adjectives
In Ibn Arabi’s framework, God’s names and attributes reflect His divine Essence and represent the means by which creation can perceive and relate to Him. These names and attributes manifest through various degrees and ranks, bridging God’s transcendent and immanent aspects. Ibn Arabi views the epiphanies of existence as manifestations of these divine names and attributes, which arise from the infinite potential of the divine Essence [9].
The attributes of God are categorised into two broad types: Affirmative Attributes (Sifat Ithbatiyyah): These are inherent qualities that affirm God’s perfection, such as life, knowledge, power, and will. They are either essential, like life and existence, or relational, such as being the Creator or Sustainer. Some of these attributes are intrinsic, while others emerge through God’s relation to His creation. Negative Attributes (Sifat Salbiyyah): These negate imperfection or limitation in God, such as declaring Him free from dependence or flaws. For example, “al-Ghani” (the Self-Sufficient) signifies a state where no need or deficiency exists in the divine Essence.
Theosophists emphasise that all attributes, whether affirmative or negative, derive from the singular Essence of God. They manifest in creation as diverse reflections, yet they remain united in their origin. For example, the attribute of mercy (Rahmah) encompasses multiple dimensions, manifesting as nurturing care and stern justice, depending on the relational context.
The divine names and attributes are not static; they unfold dynamically through epiphanies in the existential plane. This dynamic unfolding allows for the multiplicity of creation, as each entity reflects a unique combination of divine names. Despite this multiplicity, the Essence remains singular and indivisible.
Theosophists also underscore the importance of understanding the interplay between the attributes and their epiphanies. Attributes such as mercy and wrath or satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposites but complementary expressions of the divine Essence’s infinite capacity. They highlight God’s ability to manifest Himself in contrasting ways, reflecting His absolute transcendence and immanence.
In this view, creation itself becomes the theatre of divine self-disclosure. Through their various epiphanies, God’s attributes and names provide the means by which humans can know and connect with the divine. However, this knowledge is always partial and mediated, as the divine Essence remains beyond full human comprehension.
The Modes of Divine Epiphany in Ibn Arabi’s Thought
In Ibn Arabi’s framework, God reveals Himself through two primary modes of epiphany: Unity (Wahdat) and Theophanic Unity (Wahdat al-Tajalli). These correspond to different aspects of God’s Essence and attributes. The first, unity, pertains to God’s Essence as entirely unknowable and beyond human comprehension. In Ibn Arabi’s view, even the Prophet Muhammad could not fully perceive God in this aspect, as it remains hidden and transcendent, symbolising God’s “far” or inaccessible dimension.
The second mode, Theophanic Unity, is where God becomes knowable through His names and attributes. In this epiphany, God manifests Himself in forms and qualities that creatures can comprehend, allowing a relational understanding of the divine. This duality raises essential theological questions: Can humans ever truly know God? Does describing God through attributes introduce limitations? Furthermore, how does transcendence interact with the knowability of God?
Ibn Arabi answers these questions by emphasising the infinite potential of the divine Essence to manifest in countless forms. Names and attributes are not intrinsic limitations but expressions of the divine’s self-disclosure to creation. Thus, what we refer to as “names” or “attributes” are, in reality, linguistic and conceptual frameworks that reflect God’s infinite manifestations.
For Ibn Arabi, the Holy Essence has two complementary dimensions: the hidden and the manifest. The hidden dimension is eternally concealed, leaving humanity in awe of its majesty. The manifest dimension, however, becomes accessible through God’s self-revelation, where He appears as the Creator, the Sustainer, or the Merciful, among others. This self-revelation does not alter or diminish God’s Essence but provides the means for creatures to perceive and know Him[10].
In this view, transcendence and simile are not contradictory but complementary. Transcendence reflects God’s absolute separation from creation, while simile affirms His immanence by manifesting His attributes in forms perceivable by the created world. Through this balance, Ibn Arabi resolves the apparent tension between the unknowable Essence of God and the relational attributes that allow creatures to engage with the divine.
Unity of Existence
Unity of Existence is central to Ibn Arabi’s metaphysical system. According to him, despite their apparent multiplicity, all things in existence are fundamentally one in their Essence. The world’s multiplicity of forms and appearances does not contradict the essential unity of being. Ibn Arabi argues that existence belongs to God alone, and all things derive their existence from Him. Therefore, the world’s existence is nothing other than the manifestation of God’s names and attributes.
This does not mean that the created world is identical to God or that the world limits God. Instead, the world is a mirror reflecting God’s attributes. Each entity in existence is a unique reflection of one or more of God’s names, and through this diversity, the infinite potential of the divine is made manifest. The world is where God discloses Himself, and creation serves as a means for the divine to be known.
For Ibn Arabi, recognising this unity leads to a deeper understanding of the relationship between God and the world. It dissolves the duality between creator and creation, emphasising that all apparent distinctions are ultimately rooted in the singular reality of existence. However, this unity is not to be confused with pantheism, as Ibn Arabi maintains the transcendence of the divine Essence beyond all manifestations.
The idea of Unity of Existence challenges the intellect to move beyond the surface of multiplicity and perceive the underlying oneness that pervades all things. It invites individuals to recognise the divine presence in every aspect of existence, transforming the act of perception into a spiritual journey toward the ultimate reality.
Simile
According to Ibn Arabi, all descriptions ascribed to God are, in Essence, reflections of ourselves, except for the divine Essence itself, which remains unique to the Holy Truth. He explains that any attributes or descriptions we associate with God are derived from our perspective, as we can only understand Him concerning ourselves. The Essence, however, belongs solely to God and cannot be fully comprehended or described.
This idea is reflected in the statement of the Holy Prophet Muhammad: “Indeed, God created human beings in His image.” In this sense, God has described His Essence to us through our existence. Thus, when we observe Him, we observe ourselves, and when He observes us, He observes Himself. This interplay highlights the inseparability of the divine and human realities while maintaining the unique transcendence of God’s Essence [11].
Transcendence
The Holy Truth, in its Essence, remains completely distinct from forms, attributes, and relational descriptions. It cannot be characterised by the limited symbols and concepts humans use to understand the world mentally or sensually. We perceive grand phenomena or worldly realities as mere epiphanies of the divine Essence in constrained, symbolic forms. These are not absolute truths but limited manifestations, separated from the unrestricted reality of the Essence. [12]
Ibn Arabi considers the multiplicity of the world, manifesting in various forms and types, to be undeniable. This multiplicity comprises material (body) and immaterial (soul) worlds. Despite the shared origin in a singular truth, distinctions arise between individuals and forms, preventing the complete merging of multiplicity into unity. Without these distinctions, the concept of plurality within unity would be inconceivable. Although we attempt to describe the Holy Truth through the attributes and forms discernible to us, such descriptions inevitably fall short due to the divine Essence’s inherent transcendence.
As noted by Kharazmi, Ibn Arabi’s approach begins with simile, using relatable descriptions to make the divine more accessible. However, he ultimately concludes with transcendence, following the method of the prophets. [13]
When considering created beings, the divine truth reflects their very existence. All beings serve as mirrors for the divine; what is seen in the mirror is nothing but reflections of the Holy Truth. These manifestations, described as events or occurrences, represent the divine in various forms. There is nothing in existence but the Holy Truth, and stability or permanence belongs solely to the divine majesty. For the theist, whose vision is dominated by divine observation, the world is seen as the form and identity of the divine. Yet, the divine remains hidden from complete comprehension, accessible only to those who perceive the world as a manifestation of His form and Essence.
The Interplay of Simile and Transcendence
The primary debate between those who accept the theory of Wahdat al-Wujud (Unity of Existence) and those who reject it centres on the tension between simile and transcendence. In religious thought, God is often regarded with a sense of glory, honour, and holiness that places Him beyond human comprehension, sense, and reason. On the other hand, proponents of Wahdat al-Wujud have been accused of negating God’s transcendence by positing that the divine Essence penetrates the created realm (Lahut, in Islamic terminology). They are criticised for rejecting the complete dissimilarity between the Holy Truth and creation.
Those who believe in transcendence separate God from creation, while those who believe in simile attribute material or corporeal characteristics to the divine. Both perspectives, when held in isolation, fail to grasp the truth. Assimilating God to creation through Essence or attributes is erroneous because material things are finite, while the Holy Truth is limitless. Conversely, completely dissociating God’s Essence from all qualities denies His immanence, as God manifests in all possibilities. Ibn Arabi asserts that simile and transcendence must be reconciled. (Ibn Arabi, 2006, pp. 75-76)
Ibn Arabi critiques absolute simile and absolute transcendence, arguing that either extreme imposes limitations on God. Absolute transcendence distances God from His creation to the point of rendering Him unknowable, while absolute simile confines Him to finite forms. Transcendence reflects the absoluteness of the Holy Truth, while simile relates to the divine’s capacity to manifest. A one-sided emphasis on transcendence leaves religious systems incomplete, as it denies the relational aspect of God, who is infinitely present and active in creation. Therefore, a balanced approach that integrates transcendence and simile is necessary to understand the divine thoroughly.
Sometimes, the dominance of epiphanies leads individuals to perceive nothing but God in all things. This vision allows them to see the divine inwardly and outwardly, achieving a state where transcendence and simile are unified.
Theosophists like Mulla Sadra advocate for this synthesis as the safest path. They describe God’s speech, which reflects His transcendence in its Essence and aligns with materiality in its manifestation. The Prophet’s family, described as the “vicars of the Prophet,” integrates simile and transcendence, reflecting the divine’s various ranks—distinction and combination, summation and detail.
Ibn Arabi emphasises that understanding the interplay of simile and transcendence requires observation and experience. Observation leads to a knowledge that reconciles distinction and combination, allowing the seeker to see God’s Essence in all things without conflating the divine with creation. God’s Essence has no form in which it can fully emerge, but its manifestations reveal aspects of the divine. The observer perceives these epiphanies as forms that balance divine immanence and transcendence.
In Ibn Arabi’s thought, perfection is reached when the epiphany of the Essence becomes apparent to the seeker. However, the limited form of creation cannot fully grasp the absolute Holy Truth. Instead, each individual reflects divine names and attributes to the extent of their capacity, serving as a mirror through which the divine perceives Himself.
Thus, the Holy Truth is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, manifesting inwardly and outwardly. This dual manifestation confirms that only those who harmonise transcendence and simile are true theosophists[14].
The Necessity of Balancing Simile and Transcendence
Since the divine and origin degree corresponds to the world of souls, characterised by distinct and individualised wisdom, it is inherently transcendent, free from the imperfections of contingent beings. All their perfections actively reflect divine attributes, while their imperfections arise from the finite limitations of their existence. Thus, proponents of transcendence seek to purify God from imperfections stemming from these limitations[15].
Ibn Arabi criticises those who advocate absolute transcendence, arguing that such a perspective imposes limitations on God. According to Ibn Arabi, the idea of transcendence, as understood by this group, ultimately restricts the divine, making it an unwise or disrespectful stance. Transcendence separates God from the imperfections of possible existents or human attributes deemed perfect within creation. To the observer, either stance represents a limitation. Advocates of transcendence cleanse God of all worldly attributes but accept His manifestations in degrees appropriate for transcendence, ignoring those requiring simile—such as life, knowledge, power, hearing, and seeing. Thus, the proponent of mere transcendence misunderstands God, either unknowingly limiting Him in certain degrees or willfully disregarding His manifestations. If the former, they act foolishly; if the latter, they disrespect the Holy Truth and the prophets by denying what God has affirmed about Himself. Holy prophets have declared that the divine reality is beyond such reductionist notions of transcendence[16]. Ibn Arabi directly addresses the proponents of absolute transcendence, pointing out that while they believe they have removed imperfection from God, they have merely projected their limitations onto Him.
Elsewhere, Ibn Arabi explains that God surpasses and opposes anything that wisdom or imagination can grasp. Observers have noted that knowledge lies between simile and transcendence. The secret of transcendence is revealed in the name “The Inner,” while the secret of simile is found in “The Outward.” [17]
The phrases “Eyes cannot understand him” and “You cannot see Him” refer to the name “The Inner,” which aligns with transcendence. In contrast, statements such as “I saw my God in the best form” point to the name “The Outward,” aligning with simile. Thus, God transcends both pure transcendence and pure simile. The outward name is necessitated by the emergence of the world, which is the outward manifestation, while the inner name pertains to the soul of these realities[18].
Unveiling the Harmony of Simile and Transcendence
Ibn Arabi explains that simile and transcendence are not mutually exclusive but reflect different aspects of divine reality. When God is considered in His Essence, He transcends all descriptions and limitations. He is independent of the world, dominant over all, and beyond the comprehension or influence of any being. In this sense, transcendence signifies God’s absolute independence and freedom from limitation. However, when God is viewed through the lens of existence, He manifests Himself in forms that reflect His names and attributes. For example, God’s hearing and seeing are not like human faculties but represent His self-disclosure through beings that hear and see. In this way, God both transcends and is immanent within creation.
Ibn Arabi emphasises that true understanding of the divine requires recognising transcendence and simile. A person whose inner self is illuminated first by faith and then by the light of certainty and divine epiphany can grasp the unity of these two concepts. Such individuals understand that God’s Essence permeates all levels of being without being confined by them.
According to Ibn Arabi, acknowledging only transcendence or only simile leads to a limited view of God. Pure transcendence denies God’s immanence, while pure simile confines God to finite forms. The truth lies in the balance between the two. Recognising this balance aligns with the prophetic path, making one a true theosophist. Denying either aspect is seen as a deviation from the holistic understanding taught by the prophets.
To support his argument, Ibn Arabi cites the Quran: “There is nothing like Him” (transcendence) and “He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing” (simile). These statements illustrate the interplay between transcendence and simile. Ibn Arabi further interprets the Arabic grammatical structure of these verses to demonstrate how the same phrases can embody both transcendence and simile, depending on how they are understood. For instance, if the phrase “There is nothing like Him” is read with emphasis on its uniqueness, it conveys transcendence. Conversely, if it is read as affirming similarity while negating equivalence, it suggests simile. Thus, the verses encapsulate a combination of these two aspects.
Ibn Arabi also compares the prophetic invitations of Noah and Muhammad to illustrate the importance of combining transcendence and simile. Noah’s invitation focused solely on transcendence, presenting God as wholly beyond the material world and incomparable to His creation. This one-sided approach was rejected by his people, who could not relate to a God so detached from their reality. They sought nearness to God through idols, believing these could serve as intermediaries. According to Ibn Arabi, if Noah had incorporated elements of simile in his message, presenting God as both transcendent and relatable, his people might have accepted his invitation.
In contrast, the Prophet Muhammad’s message achieved this balance. His invitation emphasised the unity of transcendence and simile, presenting God as both beyond all things and intimately present within creation. This comprehensive approach resonated with his audience, allowing them to recognise God’s transcendence without losing sight of His immanence.
Ibn Arabi concludes that the Quran’s perfection lies in its combination of transcendence and simile, not their separation. This synthesis allows for a complete understanding of the divine, fostering a deeper connection between God and His creation. While Noah’s mission was defined by distinction and separation, Muhammad’s mission was characterised by unity and integration. According to Ibn Arabi, this represents the ultimate prophetic method and the path to true theosophy.
The Essence of Simile and Transcendence in Union
Ibn Arabi uses the concepts of simile and transcendence in absolute and limited senses. When God is considered in His Essence, He is beyond any description or limitation. In this regard, He is independent of the world, dominant over all creation, and not subject to any knowledge or thing. He penetrates all beings yet is not confined by any particular being. No adjective other than “absolute” can be used for Him; in this sense, transcendence is synonymous with absoluteness.
Conversely, God is assimilated when viewed as manifesting through the forms of existence. He sees and hears, but not in the manner of His creatures. Instead, He reveals Himself in the form of anyone who sees or hears, or He becomes the Essence of anything seen or heard.
Ibn Arabi asserts that those whose inner selves are illuminated first by faith, then by the light of certainty, and finally by the rays of divine epiphany can comprehend both simile and transcendence together. Such individuals perceive that God’s Essence penetrates all degrees and ranks of being.
Therefore, according to Ibn Arabi, it is possible to understand that there is no transcendence without simile and no simile without transcendence. To consider only transcendence is to impose a limitation while focusing solely on simile introduces restriction. Acknowledging the interplay between the two reveals the truth. Those who achieve this understanding follow the path of the prophets and become leaders among theosophists.
Furthermore, Ibn Arabi cautions that anyone who allows another’s proof to preempt their understanding has equated God with something else. Conversely, one who acknowledges God’s individuality without attributing any association to Him is a true theist.
Ibn Arabi, in confirming the theory of combining simile and transcendence, refers to the Quranic statement: “There is nothing like Him (transcendence), and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing (simile).” He interprets this verse to show that transcendence and simile are simultaneously affirmed. Similarly, Ibn Arabi references another Quranic verse: “There is nothing like Him,” which illustrates both assimilation and negation and “He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing,” which reflects the same duality.
As Ibn Arabi explains, a sensible example of the combination between transcendence and simile lies in these verses. On one hand, “There is nothing like Him” is understood as transcendence, and “He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing” as simile. On the other hand, “There is nothing like Him” can also be seen as a simile, affirming a form of similarity before denying the full resemblance. At the same time, “He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing” becomes transcendence, denoting God’s unique manner of seeing and hearing.
Ibn Arabi discusses the Arabic phrase “Laitha ka mithlihi shay” (“There is nothing like Him”). If the particle “ka” is considered additional in Arabic grammar, the verse implies complete transcendence, with “He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing” reflecting simile. However, if “ka” is not additional, the phrase implies a subtle form of similarity, acknowledging certain attributes shared with creation before emphasising God’s incomparability. Ibn Arabi finds a harmonious blend of simile and transcendence in both interpretations.
Ibn Arabi also contrasts the prophetic invitations of Noah and Muhammad to highlight the importance of combining simile and transcendence. According to Ibn Arabi, Noah’s invitation represented mere transcendence, emphasising God’s separation from all material and worldly limitations. This one-sided approach failed to resonate with his people, whose beliefs were steeped in simile, leading to their rejection of his message.
In contrast, Muhammad’s prophetic invitation combined simile and transcendence, making his message more relatable. By integrating elements of simile, Muhammad’s message acknowledged his audience’s existing beliefs while guiding them toward the truth of transcendence. This balanced approach enabled his people to see God as relatable and incomparable, ultimately accepting his message. Ibn Arabi argues that if Noah had adopted a similar approach, his people might have accepted his invitation[19].
Noah’s people believed their idols served as intermediaries to God, saying, “We worship them only so they may bring us closer to God.” They thought their idols possessed perfection that could mediate divine closeness. Ibn Arabi suggests that by combining simile and transcendence, Noah could have appealed to their belief system and led them to a proper understanding of God. Approaching God, Ibn Arabi notes, is only possible through descriptions that reflect divine perfection, distinguishing God’s holy station from all else.
Thus, according to Ibn Arabi, if Noah had used assimilation in his invitation, his people might have accepted the transcendence rule by nullifying themselves. However, Noah invited them directly to the absolute manifest God, leading them to worship the forms of divine majesty with their bodies and senses. After this, he sought to guide them inward toward an absolute inner respect grounded in their souls and wisdom, inviting them to worship God as the holy archangels do.
Due to the partial epiphany of divine love as their God, and because this penetrated their hearts, they rejected Noah’s invitation. Noah recognised that his people’s denial stemmed from his distinction between the Holy Truth and creation or the separation between transcendence and simile. Ibn Arabi concludes that the Quran’s perfection lies in combining these two, not their distinction. However, this synthesis was not within Noah’s mission. If he had been tasked to present the comprehensive Quranic approach, combining transcendence and simile, he would have compelled his people to accept it.
Ultimately, it was Muhammad’s mission to embody this combination. His invitation to the Holy Truth did not focus solely on the identity aspect of God—existence within all existence—but rather on the aspect of divine names. Muhammad’s invitation led from partial names to comprehensive divine names, such as Allah (God) and Al-Rahman (the Merciful)[20].
Conclusion
Simile and transcendence are two essential attributes that cannot be separated. Transcendence alone is insufficient for comprehending God, as it isolates His Essence beyond all understanding. Conversely, simile alone cannot grasp the divine reality in its entirety. Therefore, simile and transcendence must be combined. Regarding transcendence, it can be said that the Essence is above all forms, as there is no “otherness” for God. On the other hand, Simile affirms that the Holy Truth manifests in all things and forms, revealing Himself through His epiphanies.
In Ibn Arabi’s perspective, transcendence reflects the absolute dimension of the Divine, highlighting its incomparability. He argues that any thought system or religion that emphasises only one side—transcendence or simile—is incomplete in its understanding of God. Transcendence is reserved for the Holy Oneness, the first divine self-disclosure, while simile emerges in the divine names and attributes epiphany. This duality finds its ultimate realisation in Muhammad, who embodies the comprehensive manifestation of all divine names, often called the Major Name or Holy Grace.
Ibn Arabi views the Quran as the perfect balance of transcendence and simile. This Quranic synthesis was uniquely manifested in Muhammad, who represents the comprehensive combination of all divine names. As such, his people, by following him, achieve a more complete understanding of God. The Quran’s declaration that “There is nothing like Him” integrates the unity of transcendence with the immanence of simile, emphasising the synthesis that Muhammad exemplifies: the union of unity and multiplicity, summation and detail, transcendence and simile.
According to Ibn Arabi, the perfect human comprehends the Holy Truth in all its manifestations and recognises God in the harmonious combination of all His names and attributes. This understanding transcends specific locations or forms, as the divine Essence penetrates all beings and reveals itself in various ways according to the diverse existences of creation. Despite this multiplicity, all manifestations are ultimately united in the singular reality of God.
In the framework of Quranic thought, the Furqan (the place of detail) derives from the Quran (the place of synthesis). The Quran, being comprehensive, integrates both simile and transcendence, while the Furqan reflects the specifics within this unity. Thus, the Quran serves as the ultimate synthesis, combining the details of divine manifestations into a singular, unified understanding of God.
Bibliography
- Ashtiyani, Jalal al-Din. (1993). Sharh-e Moqadamey-e Qaysari Bar Fusus al-Hikam Shaykh Akbar Muhiyy al-din ibn ‘Arabi. Vol. 1. Qom, Iran: Daftar-i Tablighat-i Islami-yi Hawzah-‘i ‘Ilmiyyah-yi Qum, Markaz-i Intisharat.
- Hassanzadeh Amoli, H., (2000), Doroos Itihad ‘Aqil wa ma’qool, Qom: Qiyam.
- Kharazmi, T.H. (1985). Sharh-e Fosous al-Hekam (Volumes 1 & 2). Tehran: Mola.
- Mazaheri, A. (2006). Sharh-e Naqsh al-Fusus Tehran: Khorshid Baran.
- Ibn Arabi. (2004). Tarjomeye Futuhat Makiyyeh. Translated by M. Khajavi. Tehran: Mowla.
- Izutsu, T. (1999). Sufism and Taoism. Translated by M.-J. Gohari. Tehran: Rowzaneh.
- Jurjani, A. I. M., & ibn Arabi, M. I. A. (1991). Al-Ta’rifat (Jurjani). Tehran: Nasser Khosrow.
- Shirazi, Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, and Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani, (1999). Three Philosophical Treatises: Similarities in the Qur’an, Sacred Questions, and Answers to Questions. Qum: The Office of Islamic Propaganda of Qom Seminary.
- Dughaym, Samīḥ (2001). Mawsūʻat Mustalaḥāt al-Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. 1 vol. Beirut: Maktabat Lubnān Nāshirūn.
- Tahānawī, M. A. b. ‘Alī, et al. (1996) Mawsū‘ah Kashshāf Iṣṭilāḥāt al-Funūn wa-al-‘Ulūm. 2 vols. Bayrūt: Maktabat Lubnān Nāshirūn.