Ibn ‘Arabi - Time
and Cosmology
Mohamed Haj Yousef
Routledge
Taylor Si Francis Group
Ibn ‘Arabî - Time and
Cosmology
Time is one of the most important issues in physics,
cosmology, philosophy and theology. Many books and articles have been published
in this interdisciplinary field before, but none of those studies have fully
described Ibn ‘Arabi’s unique view which is central to understanding, for
example, his controversial theory of the ‘oneness ofbeing’.
This
book is the first comprehensive attempt to explain Ibn ‘Arabi’s distinctive
view of time and its role in the process of creating the cosmos and its relation
with the Creator. By comparing this original view with modern theories of
physics and cosmology, Mohamed Haj Yousef constructs a new cosmological model
that may deepen and extend our understanding of the world, while potentially
solving some of the drawbacks in the current models such as the historical
Zeno’s paradoxes of motion and the recent Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (EPR)
that underlines the discrepancies between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
Ibn
‘Arabî - Time and Cosmology is
an important contribution to the fields of philosophy, cosmology, physics and
theology.
Mohamed Haj Yousef is lecturer in the Department of Physics, United Arab
Emirates University.
Culture and civilization
in the Middle East
General Editor: Ian
Richard Netton
Professor of Islamic Studies, University of Exeter
This series studies the Middle East through the twin foci
of its diverse cultures and civilizations. Comprising original monographs as
well as scholarly surveys, it covers topics in the fields of Middle Eastern
literature, archaeology, law, history, philosophy, science, folklore, art,
architecture and language. While there is a plurality of views, the series
presents serious scholarship in a lucid and stimulating fashion.
1 The Epistemology of Ibn
Khaldun
Zaid Ahmad
2 The Hanbali School of
Law and Ibn Taymiyyah
Conflict or conciliation
Abdul Hakim I Al-Matroudi
A pragmatic analysis
Hussein Abdul-Raof
4 Arab Representations of
the Occident
East-West encounters in Arabic fiction
Rasheed El-Enany
5 God and Humans in
Islamic Thought
Abd al-Jabbar, Ibn Sïnâ and al-Ghazâlï
Maha Elkaisy-Friemuth
Malik and the madhhab of Madina
Yasin Dutton
One book, many meanings
Martin Whittingham
8 Birth of The Prophet
Muhammad
Devotional
piety in Sunni Islam
Marion
Holmes Katz
At the limits of the labyrinth ofFez
Simon O’Meara
The
intellectual career ofNizam al-Din al-Nizaburi
Robert
G. Morrison
11 Ibn ‘Arabî - Time and
Cosmology
Mohamed
Haj Yousef
Ibn ‘Arabî - Time and Cosmology
Mohamed Haj Yousef
First published 2008
by Routledge
To the Spirit of al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyi ed-Din Ibn
al-‘Arabî, may Allah’s Mercy be upon him,
To
the Spirits of my parents, may Allah’s Mercy be upon them,
To my
dearest wife who supported me all the times,
To my
two sons Abdullah and Yousef, and my daughter Fatima,
To my
brothers and sisters, in Islam, and in humankind,
To
all I dedicate this humble work.
List of
figures x
List of tables xi
Foreword by
Professor James W. Morris (Boston College) xii
Preface xv
Acknowledgements xix
Abbreviations xx
2
GeneralaspectsofIbn‘Arabî’sconceptoftimeanddays 27
3
The significance of the
divine week and its seven days 73
5
Unicity and multiplicity 117
6
The Single Monad model of
the cosmos 140
7
The Single Monad model
and its implications for modem
physics 165
Notes 193
Bibliography 205
Index 218
1.1
‘The Cloud’ and what it contains, down to the ‘establishing
Throne’ 10
1.2
The establishing Throne and what it contains down to the
Pedestal 11
1.3
The (divine) Pedestal and what it contains down to the
constellations 12
1.4
The orb of the constellations and what it contains down to
the
Earth 13
2.2 The daytime and night in
the sky 63
4.2
The intertwined days, and their relation with the
circulated
days 108
4.3 The Zodiac and the motion
of the days through it 112
5.1 The Real, the ‘Possible’
existents, andthe ‘Impossible’ 121
6.1 Summaryofthedifferenttypesofknowablethings 149
6.2 TheDifferentDivisionsofExistence 150
6.3 The Kaaba, with people on
the Hajj circumambulating it 153
6.4
How circumambulating the Kaaba is similar to the Greatest
Element’s creation of the Single Monad 154
2.1 Daysofsomeorbsanddivinenames 53
3.1
The correspondences between the seven days of the divine
week and the seven heavens, seven earthly regions, divine
names, lunar mansins and letters of the Arabic
alphabet 85
4.2 Theintertwineddays(Sunday) 107
4.3 Theintertwineddays(alldays) 109
4.4
The action
of the Soul (on the world) in each day of the seven
days
of events and the ratio of contribution by the seven
heavens 113
Students of the world’s religious traditions, together with
specialists in the history of premodern science and philosophy, are well aware
of the centrality within the scriptures and theologies of the major world
religions, over many centuries, of detailed symbolic accounts of cosmology and
metaphysics (including the intricate problematics of creation) - and of the
crucial role played within each of those religious traditions by corresponding
philosophical and scientific schemas of astronomy and cosmology that often
provided a common language and framework of understanding shared by their
educated elites. In premodem times, this key interpretative function was
particularly important in the case of that complex of Hellenistic philosophic
and cosmological disciplines largely shared by educated proponents of each of
the three Abrahamic faiths. Given today’s widespread journalistic stereotypes
about the supposed ‘opposition’ of science and religion, this book is a
salutary reminder - and an extraordinarily rich and detailed illustration - of
the complex interpenetration of philosophical and scriptural elements
throughout the central traditions of later Islamic thought, prior to the recent
scientific revolutions. At the same time, Dr Haj Yousef’s training and
expertise as a modern physicist allow him to suggest, in his provocative final
chapter, intriguing ways in which the earlier cosmological and theological
speculations of Ibn ‘Arabi carefully outlined in this study may also parallel
very recent developments and insights in the cosmological theories (especially
String Theory) of modem physics. In that sense, this study provides a more
demanding, Islamic parallel to such recent popular works such as F. Capra’s Tao
of Physics.
While the prolific Andalusian Sufi writer Ibn
‘Arabi (1165-1240) is most widely known today as a mystic and spiritual
teacher, his voluminous writings - and particularly his immense magnum opus,
the Meccan Illuminations, which is the primary source for this study -
constantly refer to the insights, theories, and cosmological schemas of earlier
Muslim philosophers and scientists, such as Avicenna and the popular spiritual
treatises of the ‘Brethren of Purity’ (Ikhwân al-Safâ’). For that
reason, this book begins with a helpful survey of the standard theories of
cosmology and time found in earlier Hellenistic thinkers, which were largely
taken over into the succeeding traditions of Islamic philosophy and science.
However, the most creative and unfamiliar aspects of Ibn ‘Arabi’s cosmological ideas - especially his
distinctive conception of the ever-renewed, ongoing and instantaneous nature
of the cosmic process of creation (tajdîd al-khalq) - are carefully
woven together from what have always been profoundly mysterious, problematic,
and complexly interwoven symbolic formulations in the Qur’an. Thus the main
focus and novel scholarly contribution of the central chapters of this volume
lie in the author’s careful unfolding and clarification of the intended
meanings and references of this dense Qur’anic cosmological symbolism of time
and creation, as that multi-dimensional world-view is systematically expounded
in elaborate accounts scattered throughout several of Ibn ‘Arabi’s major works.
Every reader who engages with this demanding discussion will come away, at the
very least, with a heightened appreciation of the symbolic richness and
challenging intellectual dilemmas posed by this unduly neglected - yet
arguably quite central and unavoidable - dimension of the Qur’an and its
metaphysical teachings.
In
the penultimate chapter of this study, before taking up possible analogies to
Ibn ‘Arabi’s ideas in modem physics, the author turns to the language of
ontology and to a subject - the paradoxical relations of the divine One and the
many - far more familiar to students of Ibn ‘Arabi, or of comparable forms of
thought in earlier Neoplatonism and the metaphysics of other world religions.
Despite the initial unfamiliarity (for non-specialists) of some of Ibn ‘Arabi’s
Qur’anic symbolism and technical terminology here, his approach to conceiving
and intellectually explaining the mysterious relationship between the divine
Source and its infinite manifestations clearly mirrors Plato’s classical
dialectical enumeration of the alternative ontological hypothesis outlined in
his Parmenides. Today, of course, no one is used to thinking of those
recurrent metaphysical problems in terms of the theological language of
creation. But by this point Dr Haj Yousef has outlined just how Ibn ‘Arabi, by
carefully elaborating the complex literal indications of the Qur’an itself, is
able to illuminate both the temporal and the ontological dimensions of the
divine cosmogonic Origination of all things.
The
fascinating ‘phenomenology’ of the human psychological and experiential
dimensions of this cosmic creative process, we might add, is also the subject
of even more fascinating discussions in Ibn ‘Arabi and later Islamic
philosophers (as well as earlier Sufis and mystical thinkers). But the
elaboration of that closely related topic would require another, equally
wide-ranging and original study. So the author has prudently set that related
issue aside while focusing on those dimensions of ontology and time most
directly connected with the analogous approaches of modern theoretical physics
that he outlines in his concluding, more speculative chapter.
This
constantly challenging and thought-provoking study is clearly the fruit of
years of research on one of the most difficult subjects to be found in the writings
of one of Islam’s most seminal, creative, inspired, and notoriously difficult
thinkers. So even those who may find Ibn ‘Arabi’s language and speculations
difficult to follow will surely come away from their reading with a heightened
xiv Foreword
appreciation of the relative poverty, thoughtlessness and
lack of sophistication in today’s dominant public discourse about religion and
science, and in our prevailing ways of conceiving and approaching these
fundamental human issues of cosmology, ontology and theology.
James W. Morris, Boston College
Ibn ‘Arabî is one of the most prominent figures in Islamic
history, especially in relation to Sufism and Islamic philosophy and theology.
In this book, we want to explore his cosmology and in particular his view of
time in that cosmological context, comparing his approaches to the relevant
conclusions and principles of modem physics whenever possible. We shall see
that Ibn ‘Arabi had a unique and comprehensive view of time which has never
been discussed by any other philosopher or scientist, before or even after Ibn
‘Arabi. In the final two chapters, in which we shall discuss some of the ways
his novel view of time and cosmology may be used to build a complete model of
the cosmos that may deepen and extend our understanding of the world, while
potentially solving some of the drawbacks and paradoxes in the current
cosmological models of modern physics.
As we discuss in the opening chapter, there is no doubt
that time is one of the most important issues in physics, cosmology, philosophy
and theology, and hundreds of books and articles have been published in these
fields. However, none of these studies had fully developed Ibn ‘Arabi’s unique
view of time in its cosmological dimensions, although his conception of time
is indeed central to understanding, for example, his controversial theory of
the ‘oneness of being’. One possible reason for this relative neglect is the
difficult symbolic language he usually used. Also, he did not discuss this
subject at length in any single place in his extant works - not even in
chapters 59, 291 and 390 of the Futûhât whose titles relate directly to
time - so we must piece together his overall cosmological understanding of time
from his scattered treatments in many works and different contexts within his
magnum opus, the Futûhât, and other books. Therefore this book may be
considered the first comprehensive attempt to set forth all the relevant
dimensions of time in Ibn ‘Arabi’s wider cosmology and cosmogony.
To
start with, Ibn ‘Arabi considers time to be a product of our human ‘imagination’,
without any real, separately existing entity. Nevertheless, he still considers
it to be one of the four main constituents of existence. We need this imagined
conception of ‘time’ to chronologically arrange events and what for us are the
practically defining motions of the celestial orbs and other physical objects,
but for Ibn ‘Arabi real existence is attributable only to the actually existing
thing that moves, not to motion nor to time (or space) in which this motion is
observed. Thus Ibn ‘Arabi distinguishes between two kinds of time - natural and
para-natural - and he explains that they both originate from the two forces of
the soul: the active force and the intellective force, respectively. Then he
explains that this imaginary time is cyclical, circular, relative, discrete and
inhomogeneous. Ibn ‘Arabi also gives a precise definition - drawing on the
specific usage of the Qur’an and earlier Arab conceptions of time - of the day,
daytime and night, showing how these definitions are related to the relative
motions of the celestial orbs (including the Earth), where every orb has its
own ‘day’, and those days are normally measured by our normal observable day
that we count on the Earth.
In
Chapter 3 (and also in Chapter 6), we explain the central significance, in Ibn
‘Arabi’s notion of time and cosmology, of the divine ‘Week’ of creation, and we
begin to develop some of its interesting consequences. To begin with, Ibn
‘Arabi considers the cosmic, divine Week, rather than the day or any other time
unit, as the main primitive time cycle. Thus he explains how the world is
created in seven (cosmic, divine) ‘Days’, what happens on each Day, and the
underlying ontological relation between the Week’s Days of creation and the
seven fundamental divine Names of Allah. Ibn ‘Arabi also shows that all the
Days of this cosmic Week, including the last Day (Saturday), all actually occur
in Saturday, the ‘Day of eternity’. This complex understanding of the ever-
renewed divine creation in fact underlies his conception of the genuine unification
of space and time, where the world is created ‘in six Days’ (from Sunday to
Friday) as space, and then is displayed or manifested on Saturday in the
process that we perceive as time. However, we perceive this complicated process
of creation in Six Days and the subsequent appearance of the world on the
seventh Day, we perceive all this only as one single moment of our normal time.
In fact, on the basis of Qur’anic indications and the corresponding
experiential confirmations of the mystical ‘knowers’ (furafâ”) (later
explained in Chapter 5), Ibn ‘Arabi insists that the entire created world
ceases to exist immediately and intrinsically right after its creation, and
that then it is re-created again and again. For him, this process of divine
re-creation happens gradually (in series), not at once: i.e. it always takes
six divine ‘Days’ to be prepared and the last Day to manifest. However, we - the
creatures - do not witness this re-creation in six Days, since we witness the
created world only in the seventh Day (Saturday, which he calls ‘the Day of
eternity’). So the creation of the world in six Days actually happens every
moment, perpetually and recurrently. Therefore, those first six divine Days are
actually the creative origin of space and not time, which is only the seventh
Day. In this novel conception, for the first time in history, the ‘Week’, as
the
Preface
xvii basic unit of space-time, will have a specific and quite essential meaning
in physics and cosmology.
Even more important in Ibn ‘Arabi’s conception of time,
however, is his understanding of the ‘Day’ of creation as a minimum indivisible
Day, a kind of ‘instant of time’ (al-zaman al-fard) that also includes
(since it includes all of creation) the instants of that normal day itself
which we live in and divide into hours, minutes, seconds and so on. In order to
explain this initially paradoxical notion, Ibn ‘Arabi introduces - again initially
mysterious Qur’anic on the basis of indications - the different nature and
roles of three very different kinds of compounded days (the ‘circulated’ days,
the ‘taken-out’ days and the ‘intertwined’ days), which highlight the fact
that the actual flow of time is not as uniform and smooth as we feel and
imagine. The key concept underlying these complex developments is that Ibn
‘Arabi emphasizes, following the Qur’an, that only one creative ‘event’ should
be happening on every Day (of the actual cosmic, divine Days of creation), and
not the many different (temporal and spatial) events that we observe. To
reconcile this apparent contradiction between the unitary Act (and ‘instant’)
of Creation and the apparent phenomena of spatial and temporal multiplicity, he
reconstructs the normal, observable days that we actually perceive in a special
manner that is complexly grounded in the different divine ‘Days’ of the actual
flow of time. We shall explain his complex conception of these very different
types of days in detail in Chapter 4.
The principle of perpetual re-creation, one of the more
famous elements of Ibn ‘Arabi’s cosmology and cosmogony, is fully explained in
Chapter 5, where we also take up the related question of Ibn ‘Arabi’s
controversial theory of the ‘oneness of being’. This theory can be easily
understood once we have grasped his underlying conception of the eternally
renewed creation in time. This comprehensive cosmological vision, when added
to his understanding of the actual flow of time based on the three kinds of
days described in Chapter 4, can be used to build a new unique model of the
cosmos. This cosmological model, which we shall call ‘the Single Monad model’,
is explained in Chapter 6. We shall see in this chapter that, according to this
distinctive perspective on creation, the manifest world works exactly like a
super-computer which - despite its tremendous speed - can do only onejob at a
time, where the display on the computer monitor is analogous to the manifest
world: though we appear to see a complex, continually changing picture on the
screen, that complex image is actually built one pixel at a time by one single
electron-beam. This particular illustration helps us to grasp the actual
functioning of Ibn ‘Arabi’s central conception of the ultimate oneness of
being, despite the undeniable visible multiplicity of the world.
Finally, Chapter 7 is devoted to discussing some of the
implications of the Single Monad model for various related principles of modem
physics and cosmology, including the possibilities of testing such a
cosmological model. We shall discuss in particular some of the known
time-related paradoxes in current models of physics and cosmology, and how they
may be resolved according to this novel view. It can be fairly said that Ibn
‘Arabi’s view of time and the cosmos is a fruitful concept that potentially
bridges the gap between traditional
theological metaphysical views of the world and the
contemporary scientific views that are based on experimental procedures and
logic. In addition to explaining the ‘oneness of being’ and ‘creation in six
Days’, other important results of Ibn ‘Arabi’s unique concept of time include
the ways it helps to resolve the famous EPR paradox, thus potentially
reconciling the two great theories of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity in
modem physics, how it offers a new understanding of the historical Zeno’s
paradoxes, and how it potentially explains the reason behind quantization, how
quantities are either discrete or continuous.
This book is mainly based on Ibn ‘Arabi’s major
comprehensive work Al- Futûhât Al-Makkiyya. Because we refer to this
book often, we shall use a short reference style: each quotation from the Futûhât
is followed by a reference in brackets: [X.000.00] which means:
[volume.page.line]. When the line number is omitted - in rare cases - this
means that the reference is in the entire page; in a few cases a range of a few
pages is indicated as [11.229-231]. We have mainly used the standard edition of
the Futûhât issued by many publishers based on a reproduction of the old
edition of Bulaq 1329/1911 which comprises four volumes each about 600-700
pages of35 lines; the page size is 20 by 27 cm (see the Bibliography). You
should notice, however, that newer reset editions may be different although
some of them are also in four volumes.
In addition to the Futûhât, we use short form of
references to many other books by Ibn ‘Arabi (for example Ayyâm Al-Sha’n
and Al-Masâ’il) and other related famous works (such as William Chittick’s
two important works: The Sufi Path of Knowledge |SPK| and The
Self-disclosure of God |SDG|) as explained in the Bibliography. In most of
these cases we put the short form of the reference followed by the page number,
with only two exceptions: for Osman Yahya’s classification of Ibn ‘Arabi’s
books and for Ibn ‘Arabi’s Al-Masâ’il, where we refer to the listed item
number instead of the page number.
|
Abbreviation Kanz |
Original
book Al-Muttaqî
Al-Hindî (1989) Kanz Al-‘Ummâl (The Treasure of the Workers), Beirut:
Mu’assasat Al-Risâla |
|
Futûhât |
Ibn
‘Arabî (n.d.) Al-Futûhât Al-Makkîyya, Vols 1-4, Beirut: n.p. (see
above) |
|
Fusûs |
Ibn
‘Arabi (1946) Fusûs Al-Hikam, Cairo: n.p.; critical edition by Abu
‘Alá ‘Affifi |
|
Dîwân |
Ibn
‘Arabi (1996) Dîwân Ibn ‘Arabî, Beirut: Dâr Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya, ed.
Ahmad Hasan Basaj |
|
Ayyâm
Al-Sha’n |
Treatise
number 5 in Ibn ‘Arabî (n.d.) Rasâ’il Ibn ‘Arabî, Beirut: Dâr Ihyâ’
Al-Turath Al- ‘Arabi; reprint ofHyderabad ed. |
|
‘Uqlat
Al-Mustawfiz |
Ibn‘Arabi(1919)
‘UqlatAl-Mustawfiz, including Kitâb Inshâ’ Al-Dawâ’ir and Kitâb
Al- Tadbîrât Al-Ilâhiyya fî Islâh Al-Mamlaka Al- Insâniyya, Leiden:
Brill, in Kleinere Schriften des Ibn Al-‘Arabî, ed. H. S. Nyberg |
|
Inshâ’
Al-Dawâ’ir |
Ibn
‘Arabî, Kitâb Inshâ’ Al-Dawâ’ir, in Kleinere Schriften des Ibn
Al-‘Arabî, ed. H. S. Nyberg |
|
Al-Tadbîrât
Al-Ilâhiyya |
Ibn
‘Arabî, Al-Tadbîrât Al-IlâhiyyafîIslâh Al- Mamlaka Al-Insâniyya, in Kleinere
Schriften des Ibn Al-‘Arabî, ed. H. S. Nyberg |
|
Al-Durrat
Al-Baydâ’ |
Ibn
‘Arabî (2002-04) Risâlat Al-Durrat Al- Baydâ’ in Rasâ’ilIbn ‘Arabî,
Beirut: Mu’assasat Al-IntishârAl-‘Arabî, ed. Sa‘îd ‘AbdAl-Fattâh, vol. II:
131-145 |
|
Al-Tanazzulât
Al-Layliyya |
Ibn
‘Arabî (2000) Al-Tanazzulât Al-Layliyyafî Al-Ahkâm Al-Ilâhiyya in Majmû‘at
Rasâ’il Ibn ‘Arabî, Beirut: Dâr Al-Mahajjat Al-Baydâ, vol. II: 5-66 |
|
Al-Tanazzulât
Al-Mawsiliyya |
Ibn
‘Arabî (2000) Al-Tanazzulât Al-Mawsiliyya fî Asrâr Al-Taharât Wa-l-Salawât
Wa-l-Ayyâm Al-Asliyya in Majmû‘atRasâ’ilIbn ‘Arabî, Beirut: Dâr
Al-Mahajjat Al-Baydâ, vol. II: 67-314 |
|
Kitâb
Al-Azal |
Book
11 involumelofRasâ’ilIbn ‘Arabî, Beirut: Dâr Ihyâ’ Al-Turâth
Al-‘Arabî, n.d.), which is a photographic reprint of the same famous
collection published by the Dâ’irat Al- Ma‘ârifAl-‘Uthmâniyya (Hyderabad, 1948) |
|
Al-Mu‘jam
Al-Sûfi |
Al-Hakim,
S. (1981) Al-Mujam Al-Sûfî: Al- Hikma fî Hudûd Al-Kalima (The Sufi
Dictionary: The Wisdom in the Word), Beirut: Dandarah |
|
SPK |
Chittick, W. C. (1989) TheSufiPath of Knowledge: Ibn
Al-‘Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination, Albany, NY: SUNY Press |
|
SDG |
Chittick, W. C. (1998) The Self-disclosure of God:
Principles of Ibn Al-Arabi’s Cosmology, Albany, NY: SUNY Press |
|
OY |
Yahya, 0. (1964), Histoire et classification de
l’œuvre d’Ibn Arabi, 2 vols, Damascus: Institut Français |
|
EP |
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Paul Edwards (1967), 8 vols, New York:
Macmillan Publishing |
|
EI2 |
Bianquis, Th., Bosworth, C. E., Vandonzel E. J. and
Heinrichs, W. P. (eds) (1987) Encyclopaedia of Islam, 9 vols, Leiden:
Brill |
Cosmology is the science that studies the universe, the
cosmos. Cosmos is a word used in earlier Greek metaphysical thought that
means ‘harmony’ or ‘order’, as opposed to chaos. In one Greek theory of
creation, chaos is the formless matter from which the cosmos, or
harmonious order, was created (EP: ‘Cosmology’, II: 237-244; ‘Chaos and
Cosmos’, II: 80-81). And time is one of the most fundamental issues in
philosophy and cosmology, since the whole of existence is nothing but
consecutive series of events in time. Everybody feels time, but most people do
not question it because it is commonly experienced every day in many things and
is so familiar. However, it is far more difficult to understand the
philosophical nature of time and its characteristics.
Throughout
the history of philosophy, many opposing views have emerged to discuss and
describe the different aspects of time, and some novel hypotheses have
eventually emerged in modern cosmology. However, it is still the dream of every
physicist to unveil the reality of time, especially since all modern theories
have come to the conclusion that time is the key.
1.1
A brief overview of early
cosmological models
Beginning in the twelfth century, Arab scholars, scribes
and various translators gradually introduced Europe to the science of astronomy
as it had developed in Islamic civilization, based on earlier Hellenistic
models (primarily Ptolemy and Aristotle). But once the Catholic Church had
decided to adopt the Ptolemaic or Aristotelian geocentric1
cosmological model as a theological principle, it considered scientists who
criticized this model as heretics. Therefore, the Polish scientist Nicolai
Copernicus (ad
1473-1544) circulated his heliocentric model anonymously, and his book De
Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium (‘On the Revolutions of the Heavenly
Orbs’), was not published until 1543, just one year before his death. In this
model, Copernicus postulated that the Sun and the stars are stationary and the
Earth and the planets circulated around the Sun in circular orbits.2
It was not until 1609, when Galileo invented the telescope,
that Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the universe was completely
discarded by knowledgeable researchers, and replaced by the heliocentric model
(Drake 1990: 145-163). At
around the same date (1609-19), the scientist Johannes Kepler formulated three
mathematical statements that accurately described the revolution of the planets
around the Sun. In 1687, in his major book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica, Isaac Newton provided his famous theory of gravity, which
supported the Copernican model and explained how bodies more generally move in
space and time (Hall 1992: 202).
Newton’s
mechanics were good enough to be applied to the solar system, but as a
cosmological theory it was completely false in so far as he still considered,
like Aristotle, the stars to be fixed and the universe outside the solar system
to be static. Although a dynamic universe could easily be predicted according
to Newton’s theory of gravity, the belief in the Aristotelian static universe
was so deep and strong that it persisted for some three centuries after Newton
(Seeds 1990: 86-107).
In
1718, Edmund Halley compared the positions of stars recorded by the Babylonians
and other ancient astronomers with the latest observations and realized that
the positions of some of the stars were not the same as they had been thousands
of years earlier. Some of the stars were in fact slightly displaced from the
rest by a small but noticeable amount. This is called ‘proper motion’, which is
the apparent motion of the star (perpendicular to the line of sight) in
relation to the background stars that are very far away. In 1783, William
Herschel discovered the solar motion, the Sun’s motion relative to the stars in
its galactic neighbourhood. Herschel also showed that the Sun and other stars
are arranged like the ‘grains of abrasive in a grindstone’ (Ferguson 1999:
162-165), which is now called the Milky Way galaxy. More than a century later, in
1924, Hubble was able to measure distances to some stars (based on the
‘redshift’),3 and he showed that some bright dots that we see in the
sky are actually other galaxies like ours, although they look so small because
they are very far away (Hartmann 1990: 373-375).
The
Aristotelian theory of a static universe (i.e. of all the stars) had to be
reviewed after Hubble’s discovery of the redshift of light coming from all
distant stars, which indicated that everything in the universe is actually
moving; just as Ibn ‘Arabî had said many centuries before. In his bestselling
book of the 1980s, Stephen Hawking says:
Even Einstein, when he formulated the general
theory of Relativity in 1915, was so sure that the universe had to be static
that he modified his theory to make this possible, introducing a so-called
cosmological constant into his equations.
(Hawking 1998: 42)
This of course was soon proved to be wrong, and everybody
now knows that the cosmos is in continuous motion. Einstein himself later
considered this to be one of his greatest mistakes. Ibn ‘Arabî, however,
declared plainly that the stars cannot be fixed at all, and he even gave
numbers and units to the speed of their proper motion [III.548.28, II.441.33],
which are consistent with the latest accurate measurements.
After
these developments, and with the advent of new technologies employed in making
even more accurate observations, in addition to accelerated research in physics
and astronomy, a whole new view of the cosmos finally replaced the ancient
short-sighted ones. However, we cannot ever claim that all the questions have
been answered and that we have drawn a fully correct picture of the cosmos. On
the contrary, new sets of even more profound questions are still a riddle, such
as dark matter and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox (see section 6.6).
Along
with the vast amount of data collected by telescopes and space shuttles in
recent decades, many new theories have arisen to try to explain those observations.
The mere concepts of ‘time’ and ‘space’ were in focus especially after the
strange and courageous ideas of Einstein about relative and curved space-time
were proved by Eddington through the observation of the total eclipse of the
Sun in 1918 in South Africa. Since then, other theories including Quantum
Mechanics, the Field Theory, the Superstrings Theory, and Quantum Gravity
Theory, have tried to discover and describe the actual relation between
material objects and energy on one hand, and between space and time on the
other hand. Yet no fully convincing view has ever been achieved.
Since Copernicus’ time, our view of the cosmos has grown
both larger and more accurate. It is not our purpose here to explain the modern
complicated theories of cosmology, but simply to summarize the present picture
of the cosmos as seen by scientists. Our modern picture of the cosmos dates
back only to 1924, when Edwin Hubble showed that our galaxy is not the only one
in space; many of the faint spots of light that we see in the sky are in fact
other galaxies as large as our own, but we see them so small only because they
are extremely far deep in space.
Owing
to the force of gravity, everything in the sky is moving or orbiting around
some point in space. The Moon orbits around the Earth, and the Earth and other
planets orbit around the Sun, which also orbits - along with other hundreds of
thousands of millions of stars - around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy,
which is in turn one of thousands of millions of galaxies all flying through
the vast distances of space.
In
order to give a clear spatial view of this immense universe, it is better to use
big units of distance instead of using big numbers. The best accepted units of
distance in cosmology are the ‘light year’ (9,500,000,000,000,000 metres),
which is the distance travelled by light in one year, and the ‘parsec’, which
equals 3.26 light years. Light travelling at 300,000 km/sec can go seven times
around the Earth (which has a circumference of approximately 44,000 km) in one
second, but it takes 8.33 minutes to reach us from the Sun (150,000,000 km).
Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to us apart from the Sun, is about 4.24
light years away. Our galaxy, like most other galaxies, is a collection of
about 200 billion stars plus thousands of clusters and nebulae that form
together a disk of more than 100,000 light years in diameter, and that is about
15,000 light years thick. The nearest galaxy to us lies in the Andromeda
constellation, and it is about 2.9 million light years away. Then galaxies are
grouped in somewhat irregular clusters that greatly differ in size from
millions to hundreds of millions of light years. The most distant objects
discovered so far are about 13 billion light years away. These numbers are
simply approximate, just to give an idea of where we are (Hartmann 1990: 413).
It is now also well established that everything in the world
is moving: nearby stars have proper motion, because they are pulled towards the
centre of the galaxy, and galaxies are moving away from us, because the
universe is expanding. On the other hand, and despite these various motions,
the universe does not have a centre or edges. It is hard to imagine, but the
universe is contained or curved around itself so that if you fly straight in
one direction and keep moving in a straight line you will one day, if you live
long enough, come back from the opposite direction to the same point (supposing
no gravitational fluctuations), just as it would happen to a person travelling
around the Earth.
The stars that we see in the sky are, just like our Sun,
huge nuclear fusion reactors that are constantly converting hydrogen into
heavier elements and hence producing heat and light. But not all stars are the
same: some are big and some are small; some are young and some are old; some
are bright and some are faint. Also, many stars are dying and many others are
born all the time in a process of very complicated evolution (Seeds 1990:
134-281).
So how is all this explained according to the new
cosmological theories? We can not discuss here all the different theories in
physics and cosmology, but we want to make a quick summary of the basic
principles of the different models of the cosmos so that we can understand the
potential importance of the ‘Single Monad model’ which we are going to propose
in the last chapter of this book, based on Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique understanding of
time and his famous theory of the oneness of being.
1.3
Summary of modern theories
of cosmology
After the amazing discoveries and the enormous amount of
data obtained by telescopes and space shuttles, and with the success of the
theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, scientists tried to build new
cosmological models to explain the structure and origin of the universe on the
basis of the new information. We shall give here a very short summary of the
major theories of cosmology that have developed recently.
Scientists up to the beginning of the twentieth century
believed in a stationary universe outside the solar system, but this was soon
proved to be wrong. Actually the same theory that Einstein first tried to make
fit a steady universe and fixed stars later proved that the universe is
expanding. This implied that the universe had started at one moment, about 15
billion years ago, from a very small point, but with very high density, and
then it expanded to its present state. This was called the ‘Big Bang’, and many
cosmological models were developed on the basis of this view (Narlikar 1993:
ch. 2, ch. 5).
The
‘Steady State’ theory tried to explain the expansion of the universe by
supposing a continuous creation of matter that filled the space produced by the
expansion, but the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965
by Penzias and Wilson caused the Steady State model to be completely discarded.
The background radiation was interpreted as the faint afterglow of the intense
radiation of a ‘Hot Big Bang’, which had been predicted by Alpher and Hermann
back in 1949, although some people also attribute it to Gamov back in 1946
(Dolgov et al. 1990: 11).
The
problem with the background radiation was that all measurements showed it to be
very uniform in all directions. This isotropy of the background radiation was a
riddle because with homogeneity no stars or galaxies could be produced (Tayler
1993: 194). It was only in 1992 that NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer
satellite (COBE) detected the first anisotropies in this background radiation:
one part in a hundred thousand, which may indicate the seeds from which
galaxies formed (Schewe and Stein 1992).
The
Big Bang model was very good in explaining many of the observations, yet on the
other hand there were many contradictions (Linde 1990: 4). Many of these
theoretical contradictions were resolved by the ‘inflationary scenario’ devised
by Alan Guth in 1979. Guth looked at a very early stage in the development of
the universe from about 10 32 to 10 43 of a second after
the initial creation. During this period matter was in very highly excited
states, causing the most extreme conditions of high density and pressure which
made the cosmos expand exponentially, filling the universe with an intense
dense fire of particles and photons (Linde 1990: 42).
In
classical (Newtonian) mechanics, one could predict the behaviour of a system if
one exactly knew its initial state. But in Quantum Mechanics, we can only
calculate the probability of how the system will evolve (White 1966: 29). In
either case, however, the main problem in cosmology is to determine the initial
state that the laws should be applied to. One successful approach to get round
this problem is to work backwards by using the observed properties of the universe
to deduce what it was like in an earlier state.
The
problem with the inflationary theory is that, in order for inflation to have
occurred, the universe must have been formed containing some matter in a highly
excited state, but the next question is why this matter was in such an excited
state. To overcome this, some scientists tried to apply Quantum Mechanics to
the whole universe, and the result was the theory of Quantum Cosmology.4 This
may sound absurd, because typically large systems (such as the universe) obey
classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is a
classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the universe from
the first fraction of a second of its existence up to now. However it is known
that General Relativity is inconsistent with the principles of Quantum Theory,
and is therefore not an appropriate description of the physical processes that
occur at very small length scales or over very short times. To describe such
processes we require the theory of Quantum Gravity.
In
non-gravitational physics, the approach to Quantum Theory that has proved most
successful involves mathematical objects known as ‘Path Integrals’ that were
introduced by the Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman. In the Path Integral
approach, the probability that a system in an initial state A will
evolve to a final state B is given by adding up a contribution from
every possible history of the system that starts in A and ends in B.
For large systems, contributions from similar histories cancel each other in
the sum and only one history is important. This history is the history that
classical physics would predict. At any moment, the universe is described by
the geometry of the three spatial dimensions as well as by any matter fields
that may be present. Given this data, one can in principle use the Path
Integral to calculate the probability of evolving to any other prescribed
state at a later time. However, this still requires knowledge of the initial
state.
Quantum
Cosmology is a possible solution to this problem. In 1983, Stephen Hawking and
James Hartle developed a theory of Quantum Cosmology which has become known as
the ‘No Boundary Proposal’. In practice, calculating probabilities in Quantum
Cosmology using the full Path Integral is formidably difficult and an
approximation has to be used. This is known as the ‘semi-classical
approximation’, because its validity lies somewhere between that of classical
and quantum physics. In the semi-classical approximation, one argues that most
of the four-dimensional (space-time) geometries occurring in the Path Integral
will give very small contributions to the Path Integral and hence these can be
neglected, so we can deal only with three dimensions (space). The Path Integral
can be calculated by considering just a few geometries that give a particularly
large contribution. These are known as ‘Instantons’ (from ‘the instant’,
because it aims at omitting time, so it is like a snapshot that takes into
account only the three co-ordinates of space), which describe the spontaneous
appearance of a universe from literally nothing. In this way we do not have to
think about the cosmos as something that takes place inside some bigger
space-time arena. Once the universe exists, Quantum Cosmology can be
approximated by General Relativity, so time appears.
Research
in these areas is still ongoing, but one of the many outstanding problems in
trying to construct a Quantum Field theory of gravitation concerns the
appropriate interpretation of quantum states for configurations that make no
overt reference to ‘time’. We shall see by the end of this book that Ibn
‘Arabî’s understanding of time could be a key to eliminating these
peculiarities, because he simply views the world as an eternal existence that
is perpetually being recreated. He also unified space and time in a manner
that has apparently never been thought of before or since.
1.4
Preliminary outline of
Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmology
Ibn ‘Arabî (ah560-638/ad 1165-1240) was a great Sufi thinker of the
Middle Ages and one of the most influential authors in Islamic history, whose
writings have deeply influenced Islamic civilization for centuries, and have
more recently attracted wide interest in the West. The full name of Ibn
al-‘Arabî (more com-
Cosmology and time 7 monly referred to in English without the definite
article) is Abû ‘Abd Allâh Muhammad Ibn al-‘Arabî al-Hâtimî al-Tâ’î. He was bom
in Murcia (in eastern Andalusia), into a very pious and cultured family. When
he was seven they moved to Seville, and at the age of 16 he ‘entered on the
path’ (of Sufism). Then he travelled throughout and between Andalusia and
Morocco for some years before a vision compelled him to go to the East. In 1201
he travelled to Cairo, al-Quds (Jerusalem), and finally to Mecca for pilgrimage.
His many works eventually brought him fame, and sometimes notoriety, so that
he was eventually sought out by Seljuq and Ayyubid princes and accompanied by a
group of disciples. Later on he came to be popularly called Muhyî al-Dîn
(‘Reviver of Religion’) and al-Shaykh al-Akbar (‘the Greatest Master’).
He continued travelling throughout the Middle East until he settled in 1224 in
Damascus, where he remained until his death in 1240.5
Ibn ‘Arabi’s two most famous and influential works are Al-Futûhât
Al-Makki- yya (The Meccan Illuminations), an encyclopaedic discussion of
Islamic wisdom (Nasr 1964: 92-98), and the shorter Fusûs al-Hikam (The
Bezels of Wisdom), which comprises chapters named after prophets who
characterize different spiritual types. But Ibn ‘Arabî also wrote many other
lesser known works, many of them now available in print, such as the Kitâb
Al-Tajalliyyât, Tarjumân Al- Ashwâq, Mashâhid Al-Asrâr Al-Qudsiyya,
Mawâqi‘ Al-Nujûm, ‘Uqlat Al-Mus- tawfiz, Inshâ’ Al-Dawâ’ir and Al-Tadbîrât
Al-Ilâhiyya, in addition to 29 shorter treatises published in the Hyderabad
collection commonly known as the Rasâ’il Ibn ‘Arabî, and many other
shorter books and treatises. In one of his treatises, Ibn ‘Arabi himself listed
289 titles, which increase to 317 confirmed works when added to other titles he
mentioned throughout his various books. More than 850 books have been
attributed to him.6
Ibn ‘Arabî was not an astronomer, and was never interested
in astronomy as a science. But as a Sufi and mystical theologian constantly
inspired by the cosmological teachings and symbolism developed throughout the
Qur’an and in a number of related Hadith (Prophetic sayings), he talks about
planets and orbs and their motion as a structure Allah created on His Image
(see section 3.2) and relates them to the divine Names. He uses cosmology to
refer to the ways we acquire more knowledge of Allah. Apart from a few short
treatises where he talks about some astronomical subjects mixed with philosophy
and theology, Ibn ‘Arabî did not devote any special book to describing the
heavens. Nevertheless, in his major book al-Futûhât al-Makkiyya
(henceforth referred to as ‘the Futûhâf), for example, we find many
paragraphs that can be used to illustrate his profound view of the cosmos.
It can surely be said that Ibn ‘Arabî’s view of the cosmos
is truly challenging, even as compared to the latest modern theories. For
example, he clearly declared that the stars are not fixed at all, more than
seven centuries before this was scientifically known, and he explained why we
do not see their motion. Moreover, he gave numbers to the average velocities of
the proper motion of stars as 100 years per arc degree, which is quite
consistent with the measurements taken only few decades ago [III.548.28,
II.441.33]; indeed he even used exactly the same unit of
measurement now being used (Smart 1977:
249) at a time when no such measurements were possible at all. He also
explained the observed ‘retrograde motion’ of some planets and the formation of
the planets in the solar system in a similar manner to what is widely accepted
today [II.443.24, III.203.21]. But most important in this regard is that his
view of the world is heliocentric, similar to what Copernicus suggested many
centuries afterwards. He also clearly affirmed that the Earth is spherical,
moving and rotating, and he also explained why people do not realize the motion
of the Earth around its centre [I.123.17,
Ibn
‘Arabî’s unique understanding of the process and reality of ongoing creation
has been discussed by many scholars in some details. Ibn ‘Arabî himself
mentioned in particular a number of key cosmological developments in chapter
371 and in the very detailed chapter 198 of the Futûhât, as well as in
other cosmological books such as Inshâ’ Al-Dawâ’ir, Al-Tadbîrât Al-Ilâhiyya
and ‘Uqlat Al-Mustawfiz. William Chittick has devoted an immense volume
called The Selfdisclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-’Arabi’s Cosmology
(this will be abbreviated as SDG) specifically to Ibn ‘Arabi’s
cosmology and ontology, in addition to some chapters of other books like The
Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-‘Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination (this
will be abbreviated as SPK), and also Henry Corbin discussed some aspects
in his pioneering study, now entitled in English Alone with the Alone.
Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabi (Corbin 1969: 184). Here
we want to give a very short summary of Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmology, in a way
somewhat different from the approach followed by Chittick and Corbin. We only
want to give a general description of his cosmological views, without too much
further analysis and explanation, so that we can concentrate on the central
subject of time in the rest of the book. Also we will leave the discussion of
the ontological aspects of his cosmology to the following chapters (see in
particular section 3.3). Here in the following we shall use the same figures
Ibn ‘Arabî drew in chapter 371 of the Futûhât, and the following broad
cosmological account is mainly drawn from that chapter [III.416-448], along
with a few paragraphs taken from the long chapter 198 [II.390-478] of the same
work.
Ibn
‘Arabî’s universe comprises both the material and the abstract, spiritual or
noetic ( ‘aqlî) worlds. He says that the main reason for creating the
cosmos is ‘Love’. In explaining this underlying principle he often refers to a
famous divine saying (the ‘Hadith of the Hidden Treasure’)7 which
states that Allah ‘loved’ to be known in order to grant the creatures the
privilege of coming to know Him. Thus Allah’s love to be known is a Mercy (rahma)
from Him that He wanted to grant to all His creatures. This Mercy is the first
state of the presence of Allah with regard to the world to be created, and
hence it formed the abstract place (or ‘space’) in which creations would
appear. Following indications in another Prophetic Hadith, Ibn ‘Arabî calls
this abstract place al-‘amâ’ (‘the Cloud’).8 According to his
account, the reality of al-‘amâ’ accepted the forms of the ‘Roaming
Spirits’ (al-arwâh al-muhayyama) that Allah created directly, without
any intermediaries. This direct creation caused these angelic Spirits to roam
in the presence of Allah, knowing nothing but Him. They did not even know about
themselves (i.e. they had no self-consciousness). Allah appointed one of these
spirits and granted him a special epiphany of divine Knowledge (tajallî
‘ilmî) that engraved in him all that Allah wants to create in this entire
cosmos until the Last Day. The other primal Spirits could not know about that.
This initial epiphany caused this Spirit - which is then called the ‘Universal
Intellect’ (al-‘aql al- kullî) or the ‘First Intellect’ (al-‘aql
al-awwal) or also, using a central Qur’anic symbol, the ‘Higher Pen’ (al-qalam
al-a‘alâ) - to become aware both of himself and of the other Spirits, while
they did not know about him.
Through
this epiphany, the First Intellect saw himself composed of himself and of his
further ability to realize or ‘intelligize’. He also saw that he has an ontic
‘shadow’ caused by the Light of that special epiphany, which was realized
through the divine Name ‘the Light’ (al-nûr). This shadow is his ‘soul’,
which is called the ‘Universal Soul’ (al-nafs al-kulliyya) or the ‘First
Soul’ (al-nafs al- ûlâ), or also the ‘Highest/Protected Tablet’ (al-lawh
al-a‘alâ/al-mahfûz), in which he is going to write what he knows is going
to happen until the Last Day. The entire universe, then, is - to use a central
Qur’anic symbolism - the ‘letters’ and ‘words’ of Allah that are produced
through ‘the Breath of the All-Merciful’. We shall see in section 5.8 that the
fundamental ‘blocks’ in the universe are ‘strings’ or vibrations (‘sounds’ or
‘notes’), which is similar to Ibn ‘Arabî’s notion of the hierarchy of the ‘men
of breaths’ (rijâl al-anfâs). Therefore it is not only a symbolism to
say that the entire universe is the ‘letters’ and ‘words’ of Allah,9
and those words are continuously being written by the Highest Pen (the First
Intellect) in the Highest Tablet (the Universal Soul). Figure 1.1 shows this
Cloud and its contents down to the ‘establishing Throne’ (Arsh al-Istiwâ’), which
is different from the usual cosmological meaning of the divine (normal or
usual) ‘Throne’. The ‘establishing throne’ is the throne on which ‘Allah
established His authority’, alluding to the verse ‘ar-Rahmân ‘ala
al-‘arsh istawâ’ (20:5).
According
to this account in chapter 371, the universe appeared in the Universal Soul
through the Universal Intellect as the result of what Ibn ‘Arabî calls an
‘abstract (or ‘spiritual’) marriage’ (nikâh ma‘nawî). This is because
everything that happens as a result of to a particular cause is like a ‘son’
of this cause who is considered its ‘father’, and its ‘mother’ is the object
where this ‘son’ appears or happens. Just as we are all (in our outer bodily
dimension) the ‘children’ of Adam and Eve, all other things in the universe
can be considered the ‘children’ of the Universal Intellect and the Universal
Soul.
The
Universal Soul has two forces mentioned in Figure 1.1: the ‘intellective force’
(quwwa ‘ilmiyya) by which it perceives knowledge, and the ‘active force’
(quwwa ‘amaliyya) by which it preserves its existence through motion.
The first thing the Universal Soul gives rise to, as indicated in the same
figure, is twofold: ‘the level of Nature’10 and the ‘Chaos’ (al-habâ’:
literally ‘the Dust’) or ‘the Prime Matter’ (al-hayûlâ al-ûlâ)
[I.140.14]. From here on, Ibn ‘Arabî uses the symbolic conjugal imagery of the
‘wedding’ of generative elements and of ‘birth’ at each successive level of
creation or manifestation. Thus the Universal Soul first begets Nature and then
Prime Matter or Dust. Then Nature and Dust in
Figure 1.1 ‘The Cloud’ and what it contains, down to the
‘establishing Throne’.
Note
This diagram is translated from Ibn ‘Arabî’s drawing in chapter
371 [III.421].
turn beget their first ‘son’, which is called the
‘Universal Body’ ial-jism al-kull). This symbolic process of cosmic
‘births’ continues in a long and defined series of causes and results until it
reaches the ‘soil’ (turâb) [I.140.17] which refers to physical matter in
general. So the physical world appeared ‘after’ this Universal Body, while
before that all was only spiritual.
As in
Figure 1.3, the Universal Body seems to contain everything beneath it including
the zodiac (with all the stars and galaxies). Alternatively, we can consider
that the physical world is formed by (not ‘in’) the Universal Body because,
like the Universal Intellect and Soul, this Body can be called the First Body
because it was the first body to be created. In addition to that, the world
both as material and spiritual is formed by the Single Monad through the
continuous manifestations of this Monad. If we then consider that the First
Body was the first ‘elementary particle’ to be formed by the Single Monad then
the physical world is formed ‘by’ this First Body. The other possibility is
that the Universal Body is
Cosmology and time 11 some sort of a huge cloud of matter in primary form,
which then developed into stars and galaxies, in which case we could say that
the physical world is formed ‘in’ the Universal Body. The first thing which was
formed in (or by) the Universal Body was the ‘Throne’ (al-‘Arsh) on
which Allah established his authority (istiwd’)11 from His
Name ‘the All-Merciful’ (al-Rahmân), which means that all creatures
beneath the Throne are to be granted the creative Mercy of their existence
from Him. Therefore the first thing that the Highest Pen or First Intellect wrote
in the Higher Tablet (the Universal Soul) was this ‘Throne’ in which the entire
creation (the cosmos) is to appear. All this is shown in Figure 1.2.
Inside
(or ‘beneath’) the divine Throne there appeared the ‘Pedestal’ (al- Kursi),
whose relative dimensions and plenitude, in comparison to the infinitely vast
noetic or spiritual dimension of the ‘Throne’, Ibn ‘Arabî compares here to ‘a
tiny ring in a vast desert’. And within this ‘Pedestal’ is the ‘Isotropic Orb’ (al-falak
al-atlas), which is shown to contain the sphere of the divisions of the
Figure 1.2 The establishing Throne and what it contains
down to the Pedestal.
Note
This
diagram is translated from Ibn ‘Arabî’s drawing in chapter 371 [III.422]. We
give the title as it is in the original text, though the diagram shows the
Prime Matter and the Universal Body, in addition to the Throne down to the
Pedestal.
zodiac (falak al-burûj) and the sphere of the stars (al-falak
al-mukawkab), including beneath them the separate orbs of the five planets,
Sun, Moon, and the Earth. All this is shown in Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4.
The Isotropic Orb or sphere is so called because it
contains no stars nor yet any distinguishing feature; it is homogeneous in all
directions. The sphere of the zodiac was the first orb to be created inside the
Isotropic Orb, and its surface was divided by human convention into the 12
equal parts that are traditionally assigned to the various zodiacal signs.
According to the diagram in Figure 1.3 and Ibn ‘Arabî’s comments on it in
chapter 371 of the Futûhât, it is evident that he was ware of the large
distances between the galaxies because the fixed stars are in our galaxy while
the zodiac signs are other galaxies placed very far away. In this fast space
Allah created the seven paradisiacal ‘Gardens’ (al-jinân, s. janna)
named in the Qur’an, with their different states and levels marking the
symbolic ‘meeting-place’ between the purely spiritual realities of the divine
the Pedestal
Figure 1.3 The (divine) Pedestal and what it
contains down to the constellations.
Note
This diagram is translated from Ibn ‘Arabî’s
drawing in chapter 371 [III.423].
Figure 1.4 The orb of the constellations and what it
contains down to the Earth.
Note
This diagram is translated from Ibn ‘Arabî’s drawing in chapter
371 [III.424].
Throne and the ‘sensible’ realities in the realm of the
Pedestal. The specific names of each of the seven Gardens are taken from
related verses in the Qur’an and Hadith, and they are different from the Seven
Heavens or Skies (samawât) which are, for Ibn ‘Arabi, the same seven
celestial spheres where the five known planets plus the Moon and the Sun are,
as shown in Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.3. The word ‘al-WasHa’ that twice
crosses all the seven Gardens (in Figure 1.3) corresponds to ‘the highest level
in (the highest Garden of) Eden, and it belongs (specifically) to the Messenger
(Muhammad) of Allah’ [1.319.14, also see 1.658.30]. It is also known as ‘al-maqâm
al-mahmûd' (‘the commendable station’), and it was called ‘al-WasHa’
(‘the Intermediary’, or ‘the Way (of Approach to Allah)’) because ‘through It
Allah may be approached’ [II.87.9].
Then beneath the seven Gardens comes the orb of the
(apparently) fixed stars, the constellations, and the ‘houses’ or ‘mansions’ (manâzil)
of the Moon. However, Ibn ‘Arabi maintained that those stars are not fixed at
all, but that our human time-scale is too short to notice their motion
[II.441.33].
The
orb of the fixed stars is (also conventionally) divided into 28 constellations
or ‘houses’ through which the Moon appears to pass. Then inside this sphere of
the stars, Allah created the ‘seven (visible) heavens’ (al-samawât) and
the Earth. And here Ibn ‘Arabî again points out that in relation to the divine
‘Pedestal’ (Kursî), the dimensions of our Earth together with the seven
visible heavens are like a ring in a vast desert - just as the Pedestal stands
in that same relation to the immensity of the divine Throne.
Then
Ibn ‘Arabî speaks at length (chapter 371 of the Futûhât) on the states
and levels of the Gardens and Gehenna and other descriptions of the other world
(al-âkhira). Here, however, we shall restrict ourselves to this very
short summary of a few general relevant cosmological points, because of our
focus on the concept of time.
First,
we should note that Ibn ‘Arabî, following normal Arabic usage, also calls the
Sun and the Moon ‘planets’. But at the same time he clearly distinguishes
between the nature of the planets (including the Moon) and the Sun itself,
observing that the Sun alone ‘is responsible for illuminating all other planets
above and below’ [II.170.22]. As is normal in Arabic writings (including
astronomical ones), he also calls the stars by the same term as ‘planets’ (s. kawkab),
yet he also knows that those stars are like the Sun in that they emit their own
light [I.217.18].
A
first quick reading of Ibn ‘Arabi’s texts about the world might reveal the same
traditional Aristotelian (geocentric) cosmological world-view because, like
most other ancient cosmologies (and apparently the Qur’an and Hadith), he talks
about ‘seven (celestial) heavens’ around or above the Earth, each inhabited by
a planet (including the Sun and the Moon, as shown in Figure 1.4). But Ibn
‘Arabî stresses in many places [III.548.21, 1.123.17, II.441.33] that this is
only the apparent view for a person who is sitting on the Earth, thus
distinguishing between this apparent earthly view and the actual motion of the
planets and stars themselves. So, for Ibn ‘Arabî, Aristotle’s view is a view of
the world ‘as we see it ... while in itself it cannot be described like that’
[III.548.31]. He stresses the central position of the Sun which he considers to
be in the ‘heart’ (centre) of the seven heavens, and he emphasizes the
superiority of the Sun over other planets that are even above it with relation
to the Earth: ‘So the elevation of this place (the Sun’s orb) comes from its
being the heart of orbs, so it is a high place for its status and the orbs that
are above it in distance with relation to our heads, are still below it in
status’ [III.441.33]. His actual view of the (local) world is therefore in
some sense ‘heliocentric’, at least in relation to the unique central status or
‘rank’ (makâna) of the Sun.
As
for those areas of the sphere of the fixed stars and the visible constellations
normally specified by the 12 signs of the zodiac or the 28 houses of the Moon,
Ibn ‘Arabî considers them as a mere convention, which do not necessarily
relate to the actual positions of those particular stars. He says: ‘The zodiac
(constellations) are approximate positions, and they are houses for the moving
planets’ [III.37.27]. And for the Moon he says that ‘those stars are called
“houses” because planets move through them, but otherwise there is no difference
between them and other stars that are not houses.... They are only assumptions
and proportions in this body (of the sky)’ [III.436.30].
On
the other hand, we cannot strictly separate the material world from the
abstract or spiritual world, as they are really overlapped - or rather, all of
the material worlds (of the ‘Pedestal’ and the visible heavens and Earth below)
are effectively contained within the immaterial divine ‘Throne’. This is why
Ibn ‘Arabî sometimes mixes the two views: for example he drew a pillar to refer
to the Perfect Human Being, whom he considers to be the ‘image of the Real’
(i.e. of God) in the cosmos, so that without him the cosmos would collapse. He
also speaks, following scriptural symbolism, about the seven heavens as being
‘supported’ on the seven (levels or regions of the) earths. But Ibn ‘Arabî
does not consider that to be the actual physical picture of things, because he
clearly states that the Earth is spherical and that it rotates around its centre:
‘but the motion of the Earth is not apparent for us, and its motion is around
the middle (centre) because it is a sphere’ [I.123.17]. He even nicely explains
why we do not feel the motion of the Earth and the cosmos in general (stars).
For example he says that people and most other creatures do not feel the motion
of the cosmos because it is all moving so the witnessed dimensions don’t
change, and that is why they imagine that the Earth is stationary around the
centre [II.677.21].
1.5
Time in philosophy and science,
introduction
Everybody feels time, and most people do not question it
because they experience every day and it is so familiar (Fraser 1987: 17-22).
But if we want to understand the nature of time we have to answer many basic
questions such as:
•
Is the flow of time universal or is it related to the
observer?
•
When was the beginning of time, and does it have an end?
•
Does time exist objectively, or is it only a construct of
our imagination?
•
What is the relationship between time and space?
•
What is the structure of time?
•
Is time continuous or discrete?
•
What does the word ‘now’ or ‘moment’ mean?
•
Why does time move into the past?
•
What is the reality of the future?
These and many other similar questions have been the
subject of philosophy, physics and cosmology for many centuries, with little
progress in finding convincing answers. The question: ‘What is time?’ is more
like the question: ‘What is love?’, because it is something that everybody can
feel it, but no one can give an exact definition of it. If you ask this
question to many people, you will certainly get as many answers. St Augustine,
in his Confessions, asks, ‘What is time?’ When no one asks him, he
knows; when someone asks him, however, he doesn’t know (EP, ‘Time’,
VIII, 126).
The
understanding of time was very important for early people both from the
practical view, where they needed to anticipate major events such as floods and
harvest time, and from the philosophical view, which is based on sheer
curiosity and love of knowledge. Many religions and ancient philosophies,
therefore, have tried to answer some questions about time. Some of these
religions and philosophies consider time as circular with no beginning or end,
some consider it as linear with infinite extension in the past and in the
future, and others consider it as imaginary, while real existence is for motion
or moving bodies only.
The
concept of time is necessary when we ask about the chronological order of
things and the duration of events. And because our life is full of events of
all types, so time has its signature in all aspects of life. Some examples are:
the ageing process in biology, timekeeping in mechanics, the arrow of time and
entropy in thermodynamics, and the radically varying psychical time that one
feels when waiting for something or in other circumstances. Therefore, in order
to understand the reality of time, one needs to explore many closely related
fields like physics, biology, psychology and cosmology.
In
recent centuries, with the revolutionary new concepts in physics and cosmology
in addition to modern technology, increasing accuracy of timekeeping became
very important because it is the reference for the extremely complicated
motions - of the different parts of a machine for example - that have to work
together in coherence. The critical importance of timing events both on Earth
and in space was enhanced by precise timekeeping machines like electronic
clocks, atomic clocks, and pulsars which are fast-rotating stars that emit
short radio pulses at regular intervals with extremely high precision. But
despite the new abstract concepts about time like ‘time travel’ and the
‘curvature of time’ brought about by the theory of Relativity, our modern
concept of time has usually remained quite practical because everything has to
be done according to the clock. In fact, the modern theories of physics and
cosmology have added more questions and paradoxes about time than they answered
(Grünbaum 1971: 195-230).
In
general we can detect two major opposing views in the philosophy of time:
1 the rational (realistic)
view based on the physical understanding of the world
2 the idealistic (perhaps
apparently ‘irrational’) view based on metaphysics.
Rationalists believe that the mind is the most powerful
force of humankind and is able to understand everything in the world, while the
irrationalists consider the world, including time, as something beyond the
capabilities of our minds. For the idealist, nothing, including time, exists
independently of the mind. Therefore the idealist believes that time is a
construct of our mind and does not have a separate existence.
Since the age of Homer, the Greek word chronos has
been used to refer to time. Chronos was a Greek god who feared that his sons
would take over his kingdom, so he ate them one after the other - just like
time, which brings things into existence and then overtakes them.
We
can already detect two clearly opposing views about time in the contrast between
Plato’s and Aristotle’s schools of thought. Plato considers time to be created
with the world, while Aristotle believes that the world was created in time,
which is an infinite and continuous extension. Plato says: ‘Be that as it may,
Time came into being together with the Heaven, in order that, as they were
brought into being together, so they may be dissolved together, if ever their
dissolution should come to pass’ (Cornford 1997: 99).
Aristotle,
however, believes that Plato’s proposition requires a point in time that is the
beginning of time and has no time before it. This notion is inconceivable for
Aristotle, who adopts Democritus’ notion of uncreated time and says: ‘If time
is eternal motion must also be eternal, because time is a number of motion.
Everyone except Plato has asserted the eternity of time. Time cannot have a
limit (beginning or end) for such a limit is a moment, and any moment is the
beginning of a future time and the end of past time’ (Lettinck 1994: 562).
Thus
time for Aristotle is a continuum, and it is always associated with motion; as
such, it can not have a beginning (Lettinck 1994: 241-259, 361). Plato, on the
other hand, considers time as the circular motion of the heavens (Cornford
2004: 103), while Aristotle said that it is not motion, but rather the measure
of motion (Lettinck 1994: 351, 382, 390). Aristotle clearly relates rational
time and motion, but the problem that arises here is that time is uniform,
while some motions are fast and some slow. So we measure motion by time because
it is uniform - otherwise it cannot be used as a measure. To overcome this
objection, Aristotle takes the motion of the heavenly spheres as a reference,
and all other motions, as well as time, are measured according to this motion
(Badawî 1965: 90). On the other hand, Aristotle considers time as imaginary
because it is either past or future, and both do not exist, while the present
is not part of time because it has no extension (Lettinck 1994: 348).
We
shall see in Chapter 2 that Ibn ‘Arabî shares with Aristotle the idea of a
circular endless time and that it is a measure of motion, but he does not
consider it as continuum. On the other hand, Ibn ‘Arabî agrees with Plato that
time is created with the world. In fact Plato was right when he considered time
to be created, but Aristotle refused this because he could not conceive of a
starting point to the world nor to time. Only after the theory of General
Relativity in 1915, which introduced the idea of ‘curved time’, could we
envisage a finite but curved time that has a beginning. By this we could
combine Plato’s and Aristotle’s opposing views. However, Ibn ‘Arabî did that
seven centuries before, and he also explicitly spoke about curved time a long
time before Einstein.
1.7
Time in earlier Islamic philosophy
Muslim philosophers were in general greatly influenced by
their Hellenistic predecessors, and therefore tried to apply their theories of
time in relation to the related issues raised by the Qur’an and Prophetic
Hadith. Many Muslim philosophers prior to Ibn ‘Arabi, such as al-Kindî,
al-Fârâbî, al-Râzî, al-Ghazâlî, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Ibn Sînâ (Avicenna),
analysed and criticized or adapted the differing conceptions of time in the
schools of Greek philosophy represented by Aristotle, Plato and Plotinus
(Badawî 1965).
For
example, al-Ghazâlî,12 in his famous Refutation of the
Philosophers (Tahâfut al-Falâsfa),'1 dealt with most of the
standard philosophical and logical arguments regarding time and creation, and
his criticism was also thoroughly discussed in Ibn Rushd’s famous philosophical
rebuttal, the Tahâfut al-Tahâfutf However, one of the most influential Muslim
philosophers who had many original views about time is Ibn Sînâ, who devoted
long chapters in several works to discussing time and related issues according
to the views of kalam theology and of previous philosophical schools.15
Ibn
Sînâ16 started by summarizing the metaphysical positions of all
previous (Islamic and other) philosophers17 and then criticizing
their different ontological views. Although Ibn Sînâ, like Aristotle, closely
relates time and motion, he stressed that motion is not the amount of time. He
based his argument on the fact that different distances can be cut in the same
time, or that the same distance can be done in different times, either owing to
the difference in velocity or owing to stops on the way.18 But
ultimately he does define time by motion, though he adds distance to overcome
Aristotle’s difficulty regarding periodicity (see previous section). He says
that time ‘is the number of motion when it separates into before and after, not
in time but in distance, otherwise it would have to be periodical’ (Nasr 1978:
224-226).
On
the other hand, although Avicenna doubted the existence of physical time,
arguing that time ‘exists’ in the mind only as a result of to memory and
expectation, he also showed that time is also real in the sense that it exists
through motion which relates to physical matter; time is real, but it does not
have a standalone essence, since it exists only through the motion of matter.19
On the issue of the structure of time, Ibn Sînâ affirms that it is a continuous
quantity, since he (like Aristotle) considers time to be the amount of circular
motion which is continuous, and thus time is divided only by our mind’s
illusion into ‘moments’ or ‘instants’ (ânât).20
On
the other hand, the proponents of kalam theology, particularly the Ash‘arites,21
on the basis of their atomist view, consider time to be discrete, and they also
talked about the re-creation of the world in time. Ibn ‘Arabî acknowledges the
positive insights in their position, but he also criticized their view as being
incomplete (SPK: 97). We shall discuss Ibn ‘Arabî’s own view in detail in
sections 2.8 and 5.6 below.
At
the earliest stage of Islamic philosophy, the philosopher and mathematician
al-Kindî22 was generally affected by Aristotle and adopted his view
that
Cosmology and time 19 time is the number of motion.23 However,
arguing from the general Qur’anic principle that Allah is the One Who created
the world, he asserted that the material world cannot exist ad infinitum
because of the impossibility of an actual infinite. Therefore, he argued, the
world requires an initial ‘generator’ (muhdith) who could generate it ex
nihilo.
The
famous Muslim physician and Neoplatonist al-Râzî,24 on the other
hand, seems to have adopted Plato’s notion (in the Timaeus) that time is
‘the moving form of eternity’, as well as Plotinus’ notion that time is
eternal; therefore he refused Aristotle’s view of the unreality of time.
The
influential philosopher al-Fârâbî,25 on his part, focused on the
metaphysical aspects of time. He also adopted Aristotle’s view when he said:
‘only the circular motion is continuous and time is related to this motion’
(‘Abdul-Muta’âl 2003: 113). But similarly to Ibn ‘Arabi, al-Fârâbî apparently
also believed that the world is contingent or ‘possible to exist’ before its
actual existence. Otherwise, if it were ‘impossible’ it would not exist, or if
it were ‘necessary’, it would have always been. Then he stresses that the world
as a whole is in continuous formation (takwîn) and corruption (fasâd)
‘in no time’, while the parts of the world are forming and deforming in time
(‘Abdul-Muta’âl 2003: 115). This outlook is also similar to Ibn ‘Arabî’s view
(see section 2.3). To explain this important point we give the following
illustration. If a young physicist was asked to describe the general state of a
mountain, he or she might end up with some equations without any reference to
time, because the mountain is rigid. But if we ask him or her to include in his
study the fact that the mountain is part of the Earth which is rotating around
its axis and orbiting around the Sun, and also the fact that the atoms in the
rocks never rest, or even the motion of the insects and other animals that
might be living there, as well as the motions of the wind, waters ... etc. -
then in that case the physicist might need to invent some new mathematics in
order to be able to include the time parameter properly in his or her
equations, even after making many approximations. So because we live ‘inside’
the world we feel time, but the entire world itself is out of time.
Many
other schools of Islamic thought have speculated on the issue of time. It is
good to notice, however, that in the Qur’an itself Allah never makes any direct
reference to the usual Arabic word for ‘time’ (zamân or zaman),
although many other time-related terms later explored by Ibn ‘Arabî - such as
the year (sana and ‘âm), month (shahr), day (yawm/nahâr)
and night (layl) - were mentioned very often in the Qur’an, in addition
to some divine Names that are related to time such as the First (al-awwal),
the Last (al-âkhir) and the Age (al- dahr).
As
already noted in our Introduction, with all the hundreds of books and recent
studies that have been written about time in Islamic philosophy, both in Arabic
and in other languages, it is very strange almost none has ever focused on Ibn
‘Arabî. Many scholars have studied and compared the different theological,
philosophical and physical views of time and existence, so briefly summarized
above. However, none of these studies has ever, to the best of our knowledge,
treated Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique concept of time, although - as
we shall discover - it is actually the key to understanding his controversial
theory of the oneness of being. The reason for this strange neglect could be
not only his difficult and symbolic Sufi language but also the fact that his
concepts are intentionally dispersed throughout his many writings and not
plainly stated in one place, as most other authors do. In fact, Ibn ‘Arabî mentions
in the Futûhât [I.141.13] that he wrote a treatise with the title of ‘al-zamân"
(‘time’) where we would expect to read at least an extensive summary of his
view of time. However, apparently this precious work has been lost, although al-Futûhât
al-Makkiyya seems to include most of his doctrine regarding time and other
related cosmological issues.
1.8
Time in Western
philosophy
Aristotle’s notion of circular time, based on an eternal
(uncreated) universe, could not generally be accepted by most theologians of
the three Abrahamic religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - in so far as
they considered time to be linear, with a definite created beginning and end.
St Augustine, and later Thomas Aquinas, objected to Aristotle’s belief that
time is circular, insisting instead that human experience is a one-way journey
from Genesis to Judgement, regardless of any recurring patterns or cycles in
nature. This latter view was later adopted by Newton in 1687, when he
represented time mathematically by using a line rather than a circle.
As we
noted above, there was already an earlier debate in Greek philosophy as to
whether time exists objectively, or is just constructed by our minds. Puzzled
about time, St Augustine concludes that time is nothing in reality, but it
exists only in the mind’s apprehension of that reality (EP, ‘Time’,
VIII: 126). On the other hand, Henry of Ghent and Giles of Rome both said that
time exists in reality as a mind-independent continuum, but is distinguished
into earlier and later parts only by the mind. Isaac Newton considered time
(and space) as an independent quantity that exists and flows regardless of
matter or mind, a view which Leibniz strongly criticized. Leibniz argued that
if space is distinct from everything in it, it would have to be completely
uniform and homogeneous; thus he reached the conclusion that it is unreal and
relative, in anticipation of Einstein’s Relativity, though he never put that
insight into the form of mathematical equations (Ross 1984: 47).
Newton
also rejected Aristotle’s linkage between time and motion, when he said that
time is something which exists independently of motion and which existed even
before God’s creation. He argued that time, and space are an infinitely large
‘container’ for all events, and that the container exists with or without the
events: this is called the ‘absolute’ theory of time. Leibniz, who adopted the
relational view, objected to that and argued that time is not an entity
existing independently of events.
In
the eighteenth century, Kant said that our mind structures our perceptions so
that space always has a Euclidean geometry, and that time has the structure of
Cosmology and time 21 the infinite mathematical line (Kant 1998: 158-176).
This view, however, lost its mathematical support with the discovery of
non-Euclidean geometries in the 1820s.26 In his Critique of Pure
Reason, Kant presented, in the first antinomy, two equally plausible
arguments that at the end lead to opposing conclusions: the first shows that
the world had a beginning in time, while the other shows that the world had no
beginning in time. For the second proposition, if we suppose that the world had
no beginning in time, then this means that, at any particular moment of time,
an infinite number of events have passed - but infinity may never be completed.
On the other hand, if the world had a beginning in time, then all previous
times before that beginning have been blank, and there is no any specific
reason why the world should have begun at this time in particular. (The same
argument was earlier used by Leibniz in support of his relational theory of
time.) We shall see in section 2.3 how Ibn Arabî gets out of these riddles by
criticizing the questions themselves and asserting instead that Allah created
(and is continuously and recurrently creating, see section 5.6) the world and
time together (Kant 1998: 462-463, 470-476, 490-495, 525-528, 536-538). In a
famous article in Mind, McTaggart also argued about the unreality of
time. Events, for McTaggart, are capable of being ordered in two ways: either
as past-present-future, which he calls A-series, or as ‘earlier than’-‘later
than’, which he calls B-series. He then argues that A-series is contradictory,
and that B-series does not give all that is essential to time, because time
also involves change. The A-series view of time is contradictory because, as
McTaggart argues, it will lead to the fact that each event can be described (at
different times) by future, present and past, because events are always flowing
from the future to the past through the present, so at some times an event may
be future then it becomes present and then past; while in the B-series it is
always before other events or after other events, no matter whether those
events are future, present or past (Dyke 2002: 137-152).
On
the other hand, there has also been a great debate as to whether time is
continuous or a discrete quantity. Most Western philosophers think of time as a
continuous quantity, but after the advent of Quantum Mechanics the idea of
quantum time was revived, although Quantum Theory itself does not consider time
to be ‘quantized’ (Mehlberg 1971: 16-71).
Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are the most
well-established modern fundamental theories of physics. According to these
theories, space-time is a collection of points called ‘space-time locations’
where physical events occur. Space-time is a four-dimensional continuum, with
physical time being a distinguished, one-dimensional sub-space of this
continuum, but no longer a separate entity nor space: space and time are
always taken together as one entity.
In
1908, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski, Einstein’s teacher, was the first
person to realize that space-time is more fundamental than time or than space
alone. As he put it:
The views of space and time which I wish to lay
before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies
their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself and time by itself
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two
will preserve an independent reality.
(Pais 1982: 152)
The metaphysical assumption behind Minkowski’s remark is
that what is independently real is what does not vary from one reference frame
to another. It follows that the division of events into the past ones, the
present ones and the future ones is also not independently real.
In
contrary to the classical Newtonian view, time intervals depend greatly on the
observer’s frame of reference. In classical mechanics, and on the basis of
common sense, if the time interval between two lightning flashes is 100 seconds
on someone’s clock, then the interval also is 100 seconds on your clock, even
if you are flying by at an incredible speed. Einstein rejected this piece of
common sense in his 1905 special theory of Relativity when he declared that the
time interval (and the distance) between two events depends on the observer’s
reference frame. He says that every reference-body has its own particular
time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time
refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event (Einstein
1920: ch. 9). Thus each reference frame (or reference-body) divides space-time
differently into its time part and its space part.
1.9.1 Curved time and the
Big Bang
In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann
predicted from General Relativity that the universe should be expanding. In
1929, Hubble’s measurements of the redshift confirmed this prediction.
Eventually astronomers concluded that about 12 to 15 billion years ago the
universe was in a state of infinite density and zero size; this is the Big Bang
theory referred to earlier in this chapter. So we might ask the simple question
‘What was there before the Big Bang?’ Astronomers, however, showed that the
entire universe, including time and space, was created in the Big Bang, and
because of the extremely high density of matter at that instant, the
gravitational force was immense and the space-time was curved, or encapsulated
around the point from which the Big Bang was ignited.
In
physics and modern philosophy, descriptions of the Big Bang often assume that a
first event is also a first instant of time and that space-time did not exist
outside the Big Bang. But it is not clear if it is correct to call the Big Bang
an ‘event’, because events must have space and time co-ordinates, but
space-time started with the Big Bang itself. However, for the first time in
science there is a mathematical description of the ontological relation between
time and the universe. We shall see that this description is in good agreement
with Ibn ‘Arabî’s own views on time (section 2.3).
However,
there are serious difficulties in defending the Big Bang’s implications about
the universe’s beginning. Current theories do not have any claims as to what
might have happened before the Planck era (10 43 seconds after the
Big Bang). It is expected that the theory of Quantum Gravity might provide
information about that, and it may even allow physicists to speculate on what
caused the Big Bang. But until now this area remains solely in the domain of
theological and metaphysical speculation.
Unlike physical space, physical time is inherently
directional: it flows in one direction, from the future to the past; this is a
necessary truth. In thermodynamics the arrow of time for the world is
expressed through what is called the ‘entropy’, which is a description of the degree
of order of a system; a highly ordered system is said to have smaller entropy,
and vice versa. The world’s entropy is always increasing (i.e. its order is
decreasing): this is a free ‘one-way ticket’, and one has to pay dearly for the
return. For example, the process of mixing hot water into cold water to get
warm water is never reversed, though in principle we may think of some
complicated machine that can do the reverse. The arrow of an irreversible
physical process is the way it normally goes, the way it normally unfolds
through time.
The
problem with the arrow of time is that the variable time is symmetric in most
equations of physical laws. This means that, if the variable t is
replaced by its negative -t in those laws, the result is still a law; the
basic equations are unchanged. Some scientists theorize that the cosmological
arrow of time will one day reverse direction when the force of gravity will
halt the further expansion of the universe and start a collapse to its initial
state, just like a movie played backwards (Price 2002: 19-56).
One of the most fascinating consequences of the theory of
Relativity is that it allows travel through time, just as one travels through
distance. This has been employed by science fiction to produce many interesting
films and science fiction stories.
Although
reversing the direction of the ‘arrow of time’ still seems to be experimentally
impossible, this happens quite often in dreams and in remembering past events.
However, philosophers have been more interested in travel in physical time than
in psychological time. On the other hand, we can also ‘really’ look at the past
any time: by looking at the stars, where we actually see how they have been
thousands and millions of years ago when the light that we see now was actually
emitted by them. But this is still not like travel in physical time, which is
conceivable now only in theoretical cosmology.
Although
travel in time is possible and allowed according to the equations of
Relativity, in many cases it violates logic and causes obvious paradoxes. There
are, however, different types of time travel, some of which are trivial. If you
get on a plane on the Earth’s surface and travel west, you will cross a time
zone and instantly go back an hour, but all you have done is to change your
reference frame. Also, if your body were quick-frozen in the year 2000 and
thawed in 2050, then you would travel forward 50 years in clock time but only a
few seconds of your biological time. This is, however, just a case of
biological time travel, not a case of physical time travel.
One
possible, and more genuine, way to travel through time is to fly at enormous
speeds close to the speed of light. Einstein showed that travel forward in
physical time is possible relative to the time of those who move more slowly
than you. With this kind of relativistic time travel, you cannot return to the
old present, but you can conceivably be present at the birth of your
great-grandchildren. Travel backward in physical time is also possible only if
nothing that has happened gets changed. For example, you cannot go back in time
and prevent your parents from having any children (Arntzenius and Maudlin 2002:
169-200).
Another
kind of time travel is caused by the curvature of time due to extreme gravity.
If you fell into a black hole, then you would travel to a time after the end of
the universe, as measured in a reference frame tied to Earth. Unlike the time
travel in science fiction movies, this kind of relativistic time travel to the
future is continuous, not abrupt. That is, as you travel to the future, you
exist at all intervening times according to the stationary Earth clock. You do
not suddenly ‘poof into existence in the year 4500; you existed during their
year 4499, but your spaceship had not yet landed.
Going
back to the past is probably possible, but there are significant difficulties
yet to be overcome before we can be sure. In recent decades, mathematicians and
theoretical physicists have described time machines, or at least universes
containing backward time travel, that are consistent with Einstein’s equations
of general relativity. However, Stephen Hawking believes that all these time
machines are ruled out by the laws of General Relativity.
For
Ibn ‘Arabî, time travel is possible and easily attainable without any paradoxical
consequences. Such time travel, however, has no physical or biological effects
on the traveller - see the discussion in section 2.7 below.
Regarding the question of ‘instants’ of time, time being a
linear continuum implies that there is a non-denumerable infinity of them. This
means that between any two instants there is a third; time is continuous.
However, for times shorter than about 10 43 seconds, the so-called
Planck time, science has no experimental support that time holds its
continuousness. But physicists agree that General Relativity must fail for
durations shorter than the Planck time,27 though they do not know
exactly how and what is the substitute.
The
idea that space or time (space-time) could be discrete has been recurring in
scientific literature recently, but its origins go back to ancient
philosophies. The new concepts brought about by Quantum Mechanics (e.g. the
concept of indeterminacy or the uncertainty principle) suggested that
space-time could be also quantized like energy. This was reinforced by the
discovery of ultraviolet divergences in Quantum Field Theory (Zee 2003:
145-151), though many of the strange quantum concepts soon became acceptable
aspects of continuum physics. In the 1980s, powerful computers inspired some
new discrete thinking in physics. Complicated mathematical simulations
performed on these super-computers paved the way for lattice theories to be
applied to Quantum Mechanics, and included Quantum Gravity. In Quantum Gravity,
Planck’s length is a minimum size beyond which no accurate measurements can be
performed.
Hawking,
however, sees no reason to abandon the continuum theories that have been so
successful. But it may be possible to invent a discrete structure of space-time
without abandoning the continuum theories if the discrete-continuum duality can
be resolved, just as the wave-particle duality has been resolved by Quantum
Mechanics.28
The
practical methods of the quantization of time in modem scientific theories are
based on some complicated mathematics such as lattice theories and cellular
automata that are beyond the scope of this introduction (Wolfram 2002: 771).
But it is good to note here that Ibn ‘Arabî’s quantization of time, as we shall
see in section 2.8, is unique and is based on a broader cosmological view (of
the oneness of being) such that discreteness and continuousness are special
cases of it (see also section 7.5).
1.10
Introducing Ibn ‘Arabî’s
view of time
As we shall see in Chapter 2, Ibn ‘Arabî considers time to
be imaginary and without real existence; it is only a tool used by the mind to
chronologically arrange events and the motion of the heavenly spheres and
physical objects. Ibn ‘Arabî then distinguishes between two kinds of time:
‘natural time’ and ‘paranatural time’. He also explains that the origin of
this ultimately imaginary time is from the two forces of the soul: the active
force and the intellective force.
Despite
time being imaginary, Ibn ‘Arabî considers it as one of the four main
constituents of nature: time, space, the monad (al-jawhar), and
the form (al- ‘arad). Like some modern theories, Ibn ‘Arabî also
considers time to be cyclic, relative and inhomogeneous.
Ibn
‘Arabi then gives a precise definition of the ‘day’, the ‘daytime’ and the
‘night’ and generalizes that, in relation to all (real and imaginary) orbs or
spheres, every orb has its own ‘day’ and those days are measured by our normal
day that we count on the Earth.
On
the other hand, Ibn ‘Arabî gives special importance to the cosmic ‘Week’, and
says that the seven cosmic week-Days are unique and not alike. Saturday (al-sabt)
in particular has a special importance, because he considers it to be the ‘Day
of eternity', so that the observable week days, including Saturday itself,
are therefore happening in Saturday! This initially may look rather confusing,
but it should become easier to understand, especially after we explain Ibn
‘Arabî’s view of the re-creation principle and his theory of the oneness of
being which we discuss in detail in Chapter 5.
Finally,
what is very important and unique about his view of time is that Ibn ‘Arabî
considers time to be discrete: there is a minimum indivisible ‘day’ or ‘time’ -
and thus, surprisingly, this ‘day’ is equal to the normal day itself which we
live and divide into hours, minutes, seconds and much less than that! This
conception at first looks very strange and ambiguous, but, in order to explain
this, Ibn ‘Arabi introduces three kinds of days, depending on the actual flow
of time that is not so uniform and smooth as we ordinarily imagine. The key
point here is that Ibn ‘Arabî stresses that, according to the Qur’an, only
one ‘event should be happening every ‘day’ (of the actual days), and not
many different events as we observe. To achieve his deeper understanding of
this key Qur’anic expression, he reconstructs the underlying reality of the
normal days in a special way from the different days of the actual flow of
time, as we shall discuss further in Chapter 4.
Also
on the basis of a number of key verses in the Qur’an, Ibn ‘Arabî says that the
world ceases to exist instantly and intrinsically the next moment right after
its creation, and then it is re-created again and again. We shall see that Ibn
‘Arabi’s view of time and how it flows is precise and unique; it has never been
suggested or discussed by any other philosopher or scientist. This distinctive
cosmic vision of ‘ever-renewed creation’, when added to the understanding of
the actual flow of time based on the three kinds of days alluded to above, can
be used to build a new unique model of the cosmos which we shall discuss in
Chapter 6 and we shall discuss some of the consequences of this model in
Chapter 7.
2
General
aspects of Ibn ‘Arabî’s concept of time and days
Time,
ifyou investigate what it comes down to, is something verifiable;
Yet
it is known (only) through (human) imaginations (awhâm),
Itspower
is like Nature in its effects,
Though
the essence ofboth is non-existing.1
Through
it all things are determined,
While
it itselfhas no existing essence by which it could bejudged.
[I.291.1-7]
We have seen in the previous chapter that time is one of
the most important perennial problems in physics and cosmological philosophy.
For the same reason, we find that Ibn ‘Arabi considers that a good
understanding of time is the prime key to human spiritual realization. In this
chapter we shall look at the various relevant aspects of Ibn ‘Arabi’s view of
time. We want to give here some general descriptions of his ideas on time, and
we shall focus on the important issues in the following chapters. For this
reason there are many cross-references to following chapters where these ideas
are explained in more detail.
To start with, Ibn ‘Arabi declares that time is an imagined
attribute that does not exist on its own; it has no separate physical or
non-physical entity. He argues that ‘time in relation to us is like eternity in
relation to Allah, and since eternity is a negative attribute2 that
does not exist on its own, so time in relation to the contingent world or the
entire cosmos is (also) an imagined attribute that does not exist’ [1.291.28].
The
concept of time is needed to compare the sequence of events or motion, but real
existence is attributed only to the thing that actually moves, not to the
abstractions of motion, time or space in which motion is observed:
And time and space are also a consequence of
natural bodies, but time is something imagined that does not exist (in itself),
but is introduced by the motion of orbs and localized things when we ask about
them ‘when’. So time and space do not exist in reality, but existence is to the
things that move and still.
[II.458.1]
This is not only to say that ‘motion’, ‘space’ and ‘time’
do not have real physical existence, but they do not even exist separately in
an abstract way: their existence is a mere illusion; it is only a projection
of the human imagination (wahm).
It is
not very easy to deny the existence of time, space and motion, since they are
widely encountered in our experience of everyday life. However, Ibn ‘Arabi is
not the first one to propose this. We shall see below that Aristotle gives a
very simple proof that time is not real. The real existence of motion and
space, however, are far more unusual and intricate to disprove. Perhaps only
Zeno (b. c. 488 bc) was brave enough to
postulate the illusion of motion, and he composed many related riddles that are
still logically unsolvable. The main idea behind Ibn ‘Arabi’s mysterious
conceptions here is his controversial theory of the oneness of being, which we
shall discuss throughout this book, especially in Chapter 5. But, clearly, if
we suppose that the ‘real’ existence in the world is uniquely one, there would
be no meaning to motion, and hence to time and space; or at least they would
have to be redefined. We shall discuss in Chapter 7 that Zeno’s paradoxes can
be easily resolved according to Ibn ‘Arabi’s profound view of time under his
theory of the oneness of being.
Coming
back to time, we can say that it can be very easily shown that it is in fact
imaginary. Aristotle says in his Physics that ‘time consists of two
parts, one of which has existed (and gone, i.e. the past), the other does not
yet exist (i.e. the future), so how can something exists which is composed of
what does not exist?’ (Lettinck 1994: 348)
So if
there is a real existence to time it will be in the present (the
‘now’), not the past or the future. Aristotle then gives another argument that
also the ‘now’ is not time. The present is not time, but it is rather a point
in imaginary time, like a point on the line; although the line is composed of
points, still each point is not a line.3 Likewise time is the sum of
all present moments that exist only one by one, and each one present moment
(alone) is not time. Time therefore is the mind’s projection on the continuous
presence from the future to the past through the present.
Similarly,
Ibn ‘Arabi gives a straightforwardly profound meaning of time. In the title of
chapter 390 of the Futûhât, he says: ‘the time of a thing is its presence’
[III.546.16]. Then he explains that the time of the Lord is the ‘servant’ and
the time of the servant is the Lord (al-rabb) [III.547.31], because the
Lord deserves to be given this name by the servant, since He would not be
called ‘Lord’ if there are no servants to worship Him; likewise the servant
deserves his name by (his relation to) the Lord. In the same way, when we say
for example: “Amr is the son of Zaid’, this means, according to Ibn ‘Arabi,
that the time of the fatherhood of ‘Amr is the sonhood of Zaid, and vice versa.
Or in Ibn ‘Arabi’s own words: ‘the time of the father is the son, and the time
of the son is the father’ [III.547.36]. That is why Ibn ‘Arabi gave this
chapter (390) the title ‘The time of a thing is its presence, but I am out of
time and You are out of time, so I am Your time and You are my time’. This
means: ‘I am Your presence and You are my presence.’
‘Time’
in the usual common sense is actually a tool used by our perception to classify
the events or motion of objects chronologically; it would not have any meaning
without motion or change. This is why we do not feel time while we are asleep;
we have to look for some kind of a standard reference motion (the Sun, the Moon,
the stars or a watch) in order to realize how much of time has elapsed since we
went into deep sleep. Time, therefore, has no real absolute meaning; it is only
used relative to something in order to describe its state of existence. This is
why Ibn ‘Arabi sometimes uses the words ‘time’ and ‘state’ as synonyms, as when
he says: ‘as you like (you can) say from the time of its existence, or the
state (half of its existence’ [11.281.11].
So
the real meaning of time is reduced to the existence of the world in the
‘present moment’, which has no duration or extension, because the future and
the past are mere imagination. If we know that, Ibn ‘Arabi declares, there is
no problem to go along with people and say that ‘time’ is the daytime and
night, or that it is a duration taken by the motion of objects, or it is
comparing an event to another when someone asks about it by ‘when?’, because
these definitions have been widely used and they are correct in relation to
time, in the common sense [III.548.7]. As Ibn ‘Arabi says in chapter 59 of the Futûhât,
which is titled ‘On knowing existing and assumed time’, people have used the
word ‘time’ (zamânf in many different ways: most philosophers, for example,
use it as the duration taken by the motion of orbs. Muslim theological
scholars, on the other hand, use it to order events sequentially. But generally
zamân in Arabic means the nighttime (layl), and the daytime (nahâr).
Also Ibn ‘Arabi himself sometimes uses the word zamân to mean the
daytime and night [1.141.5]. But this is more than just a convention, because,
as we shall see below and in the following chapter, the (divine) ‘day’ (yawm)
is for him the main indivisible unit of time. So if time has any real existence
it exists as the divine ‘days’ (of each real instant), not as the hours or
seconds we conventionally use. It is also worth mentioning here that, unlike
the day (yawm) or daytime (nahâr) and the night (layl),
the word ‘time’ (zamân or zaman) was never used in the Qur’an.
Despite
the fact that he considers time to be imagined and having no real existence,
Ibn ‘Arabi stresses that it is one of the four ‘mothers (fundamental
principles) of existence’: the formable monad (al-jawhar al-suwarif the
accidental form (al-‘arad),6 time (al-zamân) and
space (al-makân).1 Everything else in the manifest world is
combined of these four parameters [III.404.22]. He also argues that those four
parameters - together with another six categories that are derived from them: fâ'il,
munfa'il, idâfa, wad', ‘adad, kayf - are enough to describe the state of
everything in the world. Together these make up the familiar ten Aristotelian
categories: i.e. substance (jawhar), quantity (kamm), quality (kayf),
relation (idâfa), time (matâ), place (ayna), situation or
position (hW). possession (lahu), or state (Jidda), passion (yanfa'il)
and action (yaf'al) - although the meaning of jawhar here is of
course radically different from its usual Aristotelian usage, reflecting in this
case the kalam inspiration of Ibn ‘Arabi’s terminology (EI2,
VI: 203, ‘Al-Makûlât’, and: EP, II: 46, ‘Categories’). Yet those four
‘mothers of existence’, including the formable monad, in Ibn ‘Arabi’s
distinctive conception of the oneness of being, are nothing but imaginary
forms or reflections of the unique ‘Single Monad’ (al-jawhar al-fard)
which is the only thing that can be described as having a real existence: all
other things in the world are different forms of this Single Monad, including
‘vision and the visible, hearing and the heard, imagination and the imaginable,
thinking and the thinkable, ... etc.’ [III.404.12]. This latter concept
reflects Ibn ‘Arabi’s controversial theory of the oneness of being.
The
importance of understanding the reality of time is, therefore, to provide the
link between the actual unity of this Single Monad and the apparent
multiplicity of the witnessed world. That is why Ibn ‘Arabi says that:
the knowing of time is a noble knowing through
which eternity (al-azal) is truly known.... But only the Solitary Sages8
among ‘the True Men’ know it (eternity). This (reality) is known as ‘the First
Age’ (al-dahr al-awwal) or ‘the Age of ages’ (dahr al-duhûr).
From this eternity (al-azal).time comes into existence.
[1.156.34-157.1]
Therefore, we may summarize that time as we ordinarily
experience it is defined by motion, and motion is defined by the different
positions of the formable monads, and those monads are different states (times
or instances) or forms of the Single Monad, which alone has a real existence.
2.2
Physical time and
spiritual time
Ibn ‘Arabi distinguishes between two kinds of time:
physical or ‘natural time’ (zaman tabi'i) and spiritual or ‘para-natural
time’ (zaman fawq-tabî'î). The first is used to compare the motion of
bodies and orbs, while the latter is used to compare the changes in spiritual
states, such as realizing and knowing. He explains that the existence of time
does not necessarily require the existence of matter [IV.337.5], because there
is time that is associated with material motion that is under the effect of
Nature, and time that is associated with immaterial motion that is above the
effect of Nature: i.e. in the spiritual world. Thus he says that ‘you should know
that some of time is above Nature and some of it is below Nature’ [1.377.12],
and he explains further by saying that the time that is under Nature ‘is
defined by the motion of orbs ... and the time that is beyond Nature is defined
by (spiritual) states’ [1.477.12]. So when Ibn ‘Arabi says: ‘and the origin of
the existence of time is Nature, whose state is below the Universal Soul and
above the Universal Dust’ [III.548.19], this actually refers to natural time
which is used to compare the motion of bodies and orbs - while spiritual time
is used to compare the change of spiritual states, and its origin preceded the
existence of the physical world.
We
can fairly say that Ibn ‘Arabi’s conception of natural time is the time known
in physics and cosmology, and that his spiritual time resembles what is called
by many modem philosophers ‘psychological time’. The psychological time is our
feeling of time’s passage even when everything around us is standing still,
including ourselves: we feel this time because our inner state is continuously
being updated through changes in our consciousness, unless we fall into deep
sleep, as happened for example with the ‘people of the cave’ (ahi al-kahf) who
stayed over three hundred years in deep sleep, yet when they awoke they thought
it was like a day or part of a day (Qur’an 18:9-25, see also [II.9.21]).
Physical
time seems to flow uniformly and continuously (at least locally), while
psychological time depends greatly on the mood, as Ibn al-Fârid suggested
nicely in one of his poems:
With her for me a year is like a glimpse,
and an hour of parting for me is like a year.
(Mahmûd 1995: 344)
Also Ibn ‘Arabi says that ‘minutes are years while
sleeping’ [IV.337.1], and we shall discuss this relative aspect of
‘para-natural’, psychic time in section 2.7.
Many people ask questions like ‘what is the age of the
universe?’ or ‘when did the world begin?’ And many cosmologists go along with
these questions and give estimates for the age of the physical universe (today,
usually about 15 billion years). Any answers to such questions will quickly
lead to a modem version of the still-ongoing debate between Plato’s and
Aristotle’s schools already mentioned in Chapter 1: i.e. whether time was
created in or before the world, or vice versa; or whether they are both
eternal. Many riddles and paradoxes quickly emerge out of this debate. For
example, one may ask: if the world started at a certain point of time, why God
chose that time in particular? Could the world have been created ten minutes
before or after that designated time? And what was God doing or what was
happening before the beginning of the world?
Ibn
‘Arabi, however, shows that such questions are meaningless, because the world
is created out of time, and time itself is part of that created world. Allah
did not create the world in time, because nothing existed ‘before’ the world
apart from Him Who is also out of time, and therefore the creation of the world
can not be compared to other events in time. The existence of the Creator
precedes the existence of the world logically, and not chronologically,
so it is like when we say ‘the day starts when the Sun rises’: there is no
duration of time that separates sunrise from the start of the day [1.100.26, Al-Masâ’il,
no. 25], but logically the day would not start if the Sun did not rise. The
existence of Allah, Who is Pre-Existent (Qadîm or Azalt) and
Self-Existent (Qayyum), is a precondition - not a cause - for the
existence of the world. Therefore, because the world was created out of time
(not ‘in’ time), the above questions are invalid. All such questions use time
phrases that have no meaning outside of that time which appeared in or with the
world and not before it.
Ibn ‘Arabi showed this clearly by explaining that:
The fact of the matter is that the existence of
the Real is not determined (temporally or causally) by the existence of the
world: not temporally before, with, or after, because temporal or spatial
precedence with relation to Allah is confronted by the realities confronting
whoever speaks about it factually - unless they say something by the way of
illumination, as had been said by the Messenger, peace be upon him, or it was
expressed in the (divine) Book. For not everyone is able to experience the
unveiling of these realities. We can only say that the Exalted Real exists by
Himself and for Himself; His existence is absolute, is not confined by any
other than Him, and is not caused by something nor is He the cause of anything
- But He is the Creator of causes and results, the King, the Most-Holy One
(59:23), Who always is and has been.
The world exists through Allah, not by itself or for
itself. Therefore the existence of the Real Who exists by Himself is a
determining condition for the existence of the world, which would not exist at
all without the existence of the Real. And since time can not exist without the
existence of the Real and the (divine) Source (mabda’) of the world,
therefore the world comes to exist ‘in other-than-time’. So actually we can not
say, in the true reality of things, that Allah existed before the world -
because it has been established that ‘before’ is a time phrase, and there was
no ‘time’ (before the existence of the world). Nor can we say that the world
existed after the existence of the Real, since there is nothing (other than the
Real) ‘after’ or ‘with’ the existence of the Real, because He caused
(everything else) to exist and is making it and originating it (in the words of
a famous hadith) ‘while there was no thing (with Him)’.
So as we said, the Real exists by Himself and the world
exists through the Real. But if someone governed by his imagination (wahm)
should ask ‘When was the world (created) after the Real?’ we would say that
‘when’ is a time-question. But time belongs to the realm of relations (nisab,
see: SDK: 35) and (as such) is created by Allah, but not like the
creation of existence, because the realm of relations is created by (our human)
‘estimation’ (or consideration: taqdlr), not by the creation of what
exists ... Therefore this question is not valid. So you should be careful how
you ask, and do not be veiled by the tools of (conventional human) expression
from actually realizing and fully comprehending these realities in yourself.
So the only thing left is: (1) a pure and absolute
Existence - not (one coming into existence) after non-existence - and that is
the existence of the Real, may He be exalted! And (2) an existence (that only
comes to be) after the non-existence of the essence of that existent thing
itself - and that is the existence of the world. So there is not any
comparability or (co-extensive) extension between those two existences, apart
from that imagined, presumed one that is removed by (true) knowledge. So
nothing is left of that (falsely supposed comparability of God and the world)
but absolute Existence (of God) and determined existence (of the world), Active
Existence (of God) and passive existence (of the world). This is what is given
by the realities, andpeace (i.e. that’s all!).
[1.90.9, see also Al-Masâ’il, no. 90]
‘The world’ for Ibn ‘Arabi is both
spiritual and material, and as we have seen above there are two corresponding
kinds of time, spiritual and physical. The spiritual world preceded the
creation of the material universe (nature) as we know it (stars and planets),
so there was spiritual time before the creation of the physical world. He
indicates that spiritual time is necessary to describe the relation between
spirits and the divine Names before the creating of the physical world. So in
this respect Ibn ‘Arabi does respond to the above-mentioned questioning about
what was ‘before’ the creation of the physical world,9 but he still
considers such questioning invalid beyond these two created realms of the
world. In fact Ibn ‘Arabi explains that the world has three distinctive ontological
‘levels’: ‘alam al-mulk or ‘alam al-shahâda, which is the visible
world; ‘alam al-malakût, which is the realm of meanings; and ‘alam
al-jabarût, which is the all-encompassing realm of the divine ‘Imagination’
(barzakh) [1.54.15,
11.
129.16]. But here and elsewhere he sometimes adapts the
simplified reference (drawn from the Qur’an) to the two domains as the
‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ (see SPK 14, 93, 129, 218, 223, 342, 360-361,
376, andalso Al-Masâ’il, no. 150).
Actually, Ibn ‘Arabi considers the age of the world (as
spiritual and material together) to be infinite from both directions: i.e. it
has always been and it will always be; it is eternal without beginning and
eternal without end. However, this is not saying that the material (and even
the spiritual) world is eternal, but the world has some sort of pre-existence
in the foreknowledge of Allah, and Allah’s knowledge is eternal in both
directions. In addition, Ibn ‘Arabi also considers those two ends to coincide
with each other, so time as a whole is like a circle that can not be described
to have a beginning or an end, but when we set a point (the present) and a
direction (to the past or future) on this circle we define a beginning and an
end [1.387.32, III.546.30]. We shall discuss the concept of circular and
cyclical time in section 2.10.
Ibn ‘Arabi - following Ibn Sînâ’s familiar theological
categories (Nasr 1964: 173-274) - divides all things, in terms of their type of
existence, into three inclusive categories: necessary, possible (or ‘contingent’:
mumkin), and impossible [II.293.1,
11.575-576]. Only Allah’s existence is described as ‘Necessary’ or
Self-Existent, while absolute non-existence is impossible. The world, on the
other hand, is called ‘possible’ because it is possible to exist, but in
order to actually come into existence it needs a determining cause (murajjih)
who has to be pre-existent and self-existent, or none other than Allah.10
Therefore, the world (the possible) is originally non-existence (but not
absolute non-existence, only a non-existence that is possible to exist) and it
is always in need of Allah in order to bring it into existence. Thus it can be
said - as in the long quotation above - that it exists by or through
Allah, and not through itself. The difference between absolute non-existence
and possible non-existence is that the latter exists (even before it comes into
real existence) in Allah’s Knowledge, and this foreknowledge is eternal
because His knowledge is not other than Himself [1.300.32,
11.
114.15] (see also section 2.7).
So
the world, spatial and temporal, eternally existed or was determined in Allah’s
knowledge, but it is continuously brought into real existence ad infinitum:
So when Allah brought the entities (into
existence), He brought them for them not for Him. But (for Him) they are still
as they were on their spatial and temporal states, with their different time
and space (co-ordinates). So He reveals to them their entities and states
little by little infinitely and successively. So the issue for Allah is one,
as He said: and Our Command is but one, as the twinkling of an eye
(54:50), and multiplicity is (only) for the countables themselves.
[1.162.22]
However, despite this pre-existence, we can not say that
the world is eternal and only developed from one state to another. It is not
exactly clear how Henry Corbin concluded that ‘there is no place in Ibn
‘Arabi’s thinking for creation ex nihilo, an absolute beginning preceded by
nothing’ (Corbin 1969: 200), when Ibn ‘Arabi started the Futûhât by
saying: ‘Praise be to Allah Who created things after (its being) non-existence’
[1.2.3]. In Al-Durrat Al-Bayda’ he also declares that ‘the dependent
existence (the possible) may only be after non-existence, otherwise it would
not be a “possible” whereas it is possible, and it would not be an existence by
the Self-Existent, while it is in fact an existence by the Self- ExistentWho
causeditto exist’ (Al-DurratAl-Bayda’: 133).
If
Corbin means what we explained in the previous paragraph - i.e. that everything
existed in the foreknowledge of Allah even before it really existed in the
world - then we have to stress the difference between the essence or entity ( ‘ayn)
of a thing in God’s Knowledge and its actual existence. William Chittick
devoted a full chapter in his book The Sufi Path of Knowledge to
explaining this important concept in Ibn ‘Arabi’s ontology (SPK: 77-143).
The entities of the world are in Allah’s foreknowledge eternally, but they are
brought into existence - after they were not existing - one after the other.
This is a very important distinction. Ibn ‘Arabi continues by explaining that:
Everything is in need of Allah, the Exalted, for
the existence of its essence (or entity: ‘ayn)„ not for its
essence, because its immutable essence ( ‘aynuhu al-thabita, most widely
translated as ‘permanent archetype’, see SPK. 83) is not determined in
its immutability; it is not determined by a determiner, for there is no
determination in eternity ... so the existence of the possible may only be
after non-existence, which means it was not, and then it is.
(Al-DurratAl-Baydâ’-. 133,seealso Al-Masá’il.no. 143)
Actually we shall see later in section 5.6 that this
intrinsic need by the ‘possible’ - i.e. of all the realms of creation - for
Allah to bring it into existence continues to be necessary at every single
moment, because the world is continuously brought into existence in
ever-renewed forms (i.e. it is constantly 're-created').
However, it is still not easy for the human mind to imagine
the existence of the created world (al-muhdath) and the eternal
existence of Allah, the Eternal or Pre-existent (al-qadim) without a reflection
of some time separation. And even for Ibn ‘Arabi the issue is not yet closed.
As he suggested in the long passage quoted above, somehow understanding this
mysterious point seems to be beyond normal human perception and requires a
divinely inspired knowledge accessible only to rare individuals with the very
highest spiritual attainments. This same difficulty caused many Muslim
philosophers and other theologians to continue to speculate on many theories
that Ibn ‘Arabi disagrees with (Kitâb Al-Azal: 8).
Ibn ‘Arabi explains further the relation between the
existence of God and the existence of the world in chapter 59 of the Futûhât,
which is the same chapter in which he talks specifically about the topic of
time. Ibn ‘Arabi’s argument presented at the beginning of this chapter is
extremely complicated and very difficult to understand, even in its original
language. However, because of its importance, we are obliged to translate it
here, with some necessary explanations in parentheses.
At the beginning of chapter 59, after the opening poem
quoted at the very beginning ofthis chapter, Ibn ‘Arabi says:
You should know first that Allah, the Exalted,
is the First (al-awwal), and there is no firstness (awwaliyya) to
anything before Him nor to anything else - whether that exists through Him or
independent of Him - with Him: but He is the One (i.e. the Unique; al-vráhid).
Glory be to Him, in His Firstness. So there is nothing that is self-existent
apart from Him, because He is the All-Sufficient (al-ghani) in Himself,
absolutely, and Independent of all other beings. He said: and Allah is
Self-Sufficient with respect to all the worlds (3:97), and this is true
according to both the intellect and revelation.
Therefore, the existence of the world came about
by Allah either for Himself or for ‘other’ than Himself. Because if this
‘other’ was Himself it would not be ‘other’, and also if this ‘other’ was
Himself He would be necessarily composed in Himself and the firstness would be
to this ‘other’; therefore this would violate our previous statement that there
is no firstness to anything with or before Allah.
So if this ‘other’ is not Himself, then it would
be either existence or nonexistence. But it is impossible to be non-existence,
because non-existence can not bring the world (from its non-existence) into
existence because there is no any priority to any one of them (i.e. the world
and this ‘other’ that is non-existence) to come into existence, since both of
them are non-existence, and non-existence has no effect because it is null.
On the other hand, this ‘other’ can not be
existence, because then it either exists by itself or not (i.e. through
something else). And it is impossible that this ‘other’ exists by itself, since
it has already been proved that there can not be two self-existent beings.
So it remains that this ‘other’ exists by
something else, and the meaning of the possibility of the world is nothing but
that it exists by something else. Therefore this ‘other’ is the world or (some
part) of the world.
Also, if the existence of the world by Allah is
due to ‘something’ without which the world would not exist - whether this
‘something’ is called ‘will’ (irada), ‘wish’ (mashî’af,
‘knowledge’ film) or anything you want which is required by the
‘possible’ in order to exist - then the Real would not (be able to) do anything
without this ‘something’. But that implies nothing but needfulness, which is
impossible for Allah, because Allah is absolutely SelfSufficient, since He is,
as He said: Self-sufficient (Independent) with respect to all the
worlds (3:97). And if it is claimed that this ‘something’ is the Essence
Himself, then we say that it is impossible for anything to be ‘in need of
itself, and since He is Self-sufficient in Himself, then this (false
supposition) would lead to the same contradiction - i.e. being Selfsufficient
and yet needful in Himself at the same time - and all this is impossible.
Therefore, since we have already disproved the
existence of any ‘other’ (determining cause of the existence of the world), we
conclude that the existence of the world, inasmuch as it exists through
something else, is (causally) related to the Necessarily Self-Existent (wâjib
al-wujûd li-nafsihi: i.e. Allah or the Real), and that the essence fayn)
of the ‘possible’ itself is the locus for the effect of the Necessarily
Self-Existent’s bringing the possible into existence. It can only be properly
comprehended like this.
Hence (such intrinsic distinctions as God’s)
‘Wish’ (mashi’a), ‘Will’ (irada), ‘Knowledge’ film) and
‘Ability’ (qudra) are (all) Himself - may He be exalted far above any
multiplicity within Himself! Indeed His is absolute Unicity, and [in
the words of the famous Sura 112, al-Ikhlâs\ He ‘is the One
(al-Wâhid), the Unique (al-Ahad), Allah the one on Whom all depend (al-Samad);
He did not give birth - for then He would be a preceding (cause); nor is
He born - since He would then be a result; nor is there any “other”
equivalent (kuf) to Him’ - for in that case the existence of the world
would be the result of two preceding causes, the Real and Its ‘equivalent’
- may Allah be exalted (above that)! So this is how He described Himself in His
Book when the Prophet, peace be upon him, was asked to describe his Lord: then
He sent down the Sura al-Ikhlâs (just quoted here) (according to the
circumstances described in a hadith? Kanz, 4734) to get rid of all
(supposed) sharing (shirk) with other than Allah, by those high qualities
and descriptions. So there is nothing Allah negates in this Sura or approves,
but those negations or approbations are some people’s opinions about Allah.
[1.291.8]
The importance of this long paragraph comes from the fact
that it shows the basis of Ibn ‘Arabi’s distinctive view of creation, the
distinctive - and extremely controversial - view that many scholars have
traditionally called ‘the oneness of being (wahdat al-wujûdf, but which
has been widely misunderstood. Ibn ‘Arabi himself could not describe it
plainly, simply because it is a reality whose direct perception depends not on
logic, but - as Ibn ‘Arabi stressed in the passage quoted at the end of section
2.1 - on a rare inspired experiential ‘tasting’ restricted to the spiritual
elite of the ‘Solitary Ones’. As soon as it is spoken, it is likely to be
misunderstood. What Ibn ‘Arabi tries to prove in the passages just quoted, as
in many chapters of the Futûhât and other books, is that the existence
of the world is solely dependent on the existence of the Real, Who is One and
Unique - and that this ultimate dependence of the world on the Real is an essential
property that accompanies everything in the world at all times. On the other
hand, nothing was added to Allah through His creating the world, as for Him (in
His Knowledge) the world is as if it is always there. We shall come back to
this important issue of the oneness of being (especially in Chapter 5) as we
continue our exploration of Ibn ‘Arabi’s view of time, because it is truly the
key to understanding his cosmology and theology.
If we can not speak about the origin of the world in time,
we can still ask about the origin of time in the world. As Ibn ‘Arabi pointed
out, we can not ask when time began, because the word ‘when’ requires time to
be defined beforehand. But we can ask how did time begin?
In
response to this cosmological question, Ibn ‘Arabi argues that both the natural
and para-natural types of time have originated in the Universal Soul which has
two forces: the active and intellective (quwwa ‘amaliyya and quwwa
‘ilmiyya). The active force is in charge of moving bodies and objects,11
while the intellective force is capable of perceiving knowledge, or updating
the soul’s spiritual state. So physical time (i.e. that associated with
physical objects) is that in which bodies keep moving to preserve their
existence, and spiritual time is that in which human beings’ Heart perceive
knowledge from their Lord \Ayyam Al- Sha’n'. 6]. Physical time,
therefore, is originated from the active force ofthe Universal Soul, while
spiritual time originates from its intellective force [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n:
7].
On
the other hand, since natural (or physical) time is a consequence of material
motion in Nature, it is originated with the isotropic orb which is the first
orb in Nature in which the first body was created (see section 1.4). When this
isotropic orb (al-falak al-atlas), was created and started to move, its
motion defined natural time. But because this orb is isotropic - the same in
all directions - it is not possible to measure time in this orb alone, because
there was nothing to compare its motion to it. And when Allah created the
second orb that includes the farthest stars (galaxies) that are appropriately
called fixed stars, the (apparent) motion of those stars in this orb defined
the day as the complete revolution of this orb: ‘When Allah caused the higher
orbs to move and He created days in the first orb (the isotropic orb) and
defined it (the day) in the second orb which is the orb of the apparently fixed
stars’ [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6].
However,
as Ibn ‘Arabi says, the motion of the isotropic orb was actually determined
from above; it started when the first degree of Gemini was matching the divine
‘Foot’ on the ‘Pedestal’ (kursîy- above the isotropic orb, and after one
complete revolution, the first cosmic ‘Day’ of creation was done, and that was
Sunday. Then the process of divine creation continued through Monday, Tuesday,
and so on until its initial completion on Saturday - and then it started over
again [11.437.34]. Because this creative ‘Day’ was determined from above, it
was not possible to know its duration [11.437.27]. It is true that we divide
this day into 24 hours, but this is a mere convention. It is actually not
possible to determine the length of this day because there is nothing else (in
Nature) to compare its motion to, so we use this day to measure other relative
‘days’ of other orbs that are below the orb of fixed stars, and also the ‘days’
of the spiritual (and divine) orbs that are above this physical isotropic orb
too. We shall devote Chapter 3 to explaining in more detail the seven Days of
the cosmic ‘Week’ and how they are caused.
2.5
Space-time and the speed
of light
Although time does not appear to be like space, in the
theory of Relativity it is treated as a real dimension just like any one of the
other three dimensions of space (length, width, depth: x, y, z). In
Relativity, as we explained in the preceding chapter, any point in the
universe can be expressed in terms of its fourdimensional space-time
co-ordinates (x, y, z, t); we do not have time alone or space
alone, but a single field called space-time.13
Likewise,
Ibn ‘Arabi describes the physical universe as something that ‘is confined in
time and space’ [1.121.22]. Furthermore, one of the most important results of
Ibn ‘Arabi’s view of time is that he considers that we are living in ‘Saturday’,
while the other six cosmic ‘Days’ from Sunday to Friday account for the
creation of the world - which is now continuously being re-created by Allah
(see also section 5.6) - in space. Allah creates the three-dimensional world
(actually six-dimensional/directional if we consider the two directions of each
dimension) in six ‘Days’ from Sunday to Friday, but we human beings witness
only Saturday because in the other six days of the week we (along with the rest
of creation) are still being created. Ibn ‘Arabi insists that this divine
creative process is repeated every single moment, as we shall explain in the
following chapters.
However,
the result of what we havejust said is that time (‘Saturday’), though it is
special, is still just like any one of the other six Days that correspond to
the six (or three) spatial dimensions. So indeed the world, for Ibn ‘Arabi, is
confined in those seven ‘dimensions’ of space-time (6 plus 1) that are similar
- since all are ‘days’. This is the ultimate meaning of the many verses in the
Qur’an specifying that Allah created the heavens and the Earth ‘in six
Days’ (corresponding to space) and that ‘then He mounted [i.e. on
Saturday, in time] on the Throne’ (Qur’an 7:45, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4,
50:38 and 57:4). This could also be easily comprehended if we recall that the
actual meaning of time is reduced to the existence of the world in the present
moment, not the past or the future. Thus manifest existence is confined in
space and time, so both space and time refer to existence, and they have no
meaning when taken by themselves, without the things or events that happen in
them. This new concept will add another aspect to the theory of Relativity that
considers time as one dimension of the four dimensions of space-time,
especially since Ibn ‘Arabi gives exciting details about how those seven Days of
the cosmic Week are interconnected, as we shall see in the following two
chapters.
However,
there are still many obvious and hidden differences between space and time. At
the beginning of chapter 59 and in the long chapter 559 (which summarizes the
key contributions of each of the preceding chapters of the Futûhât), Ibn
‘Arabi points out the similarities and differences between space and time.
‘Time’, he says, ‘is just like space, an extension that has no (outer) limit’
[1.291.6]. Thenhe adds:
Space is an attribute of something that exists,
but time is an attribute of something that is confined but does not necessarily
exist. Space is defined by who sits in it, and time is counted by breaths. The
(ontological status of) ‘contingent possibility’ (imkân) affects both
time and space. Time has an (ontological) foundation that it refers back to and
is based upon, which is the divine Name ‘the Age’ (al-dahr). Space
emerged by the ‘establishment’ (istiwâ’) (of the All-Merciful on the
Throne, 20:5), and time emerged by the ‘descending down (of the Lord) to the
(lowest) heaven’ (referring to the hadith: ‘Our Lord, may He be Praised,
descends every night, in the last third of the night, to the lowest sky ...’ [Kanz:
3351, 3355, 3388], see also section 2.14). But there was time in the Dust (‘amâ")
even before the ‘establishment’.... Time is a circumstance for an event just
like meanings for letters, and space is not like a circumstance, so it is not
like the letter. Time is confined through division by ‘now’ and does not
necessarily require the existence of objects, but space can not be comprehended
without objects (that occupy it), so it is a kind of (ontological) ‘home’ (for
what is created in it).
[IV.337.5]
On the other hand, the concept of using time to measure
distance was already used by the ancient Arabs who used to measure distance by
how it took them to travel through it, usually by camel. But Ibn ‘Arabi uses
this concept in a more abstract way that can be compared with the form of
measurement that is now widely used in astronomy: the light year. In many
places he repeatedly says that the distance between this particular celestial
orb and that orb is a particular number of ‘years’, without specifying what
speed or form of motion might be involved. For example, he says that the
distance between the top and bottom of Gehenna is ‘seventy-five hundred years’
[1.297.15]. And in other places he says that Gehenna is (or ‘will be’
[1.297.17]) in the entire space situated from the Earth to just below the orb
of fixed stars (the constellations of the Moon mansions) [1.303.9,
III.440-441],
Now
according to modern astronomy, the distance from the Earth and our solar system
to either extreme of the width of our Milky Way galaxy roughly equals the
distance travelled by light in 7,500 years. So in effect one could argue that
Ibn ‘Arabi actually used the unit of a kind of ‘light year’ to measure distance,
more than seven centuries before modern astronomers, and that he gave a very
accurate value of the width of what is now known as the Milky Way galaxy.
Regarding
the speed of light, Ibn ‘Arabi declares that ‘nothing is faster than sight (basar)
among the (human) senses; the time of opening the sight is the time of its
seeing the fixed planets (stars) or what is above them or between them despite
the large distance that could not be reached for thousands of years by foot’
[IV.431.34; see also 1.702.20,11.402.30],
Furthermore,
in chapter 8 of the Futûhât Ibn ‘Arabi mentions many extraordinary and
mysterious facts about another ‘earth of Reality’ (ard al-haqîqa) -
another world existing in the barzakh or ‘divine Imagination’, and
accessible to spiritual travellers - which is
an earth so spacious that the Throne and what it
includes, the Pedestal, the heavens, the earths, what is beneath the soil, all
the Gardens and Gehenna, would all be just like a ring in (comparison to the
vast extent of) the desert ofthis ‘earth’.
[1.126.30],
He
then talks about his and other Sufis’ (spiritual) visits to this Earth and that
the life there is so extraordinary that many of the logically impossible things
for us would normally exist there. One of the things that he mentioned about
this Earth is that ‘the speed of their (people’s) travel on ground or by sea is
faster than the perception of sight when it sees things’ [1.128.26].
It is
perhaps relevant to mention here that one of the consequences of modem theories
of high-energy elementary particles is that each particle (such as electrons,
protons and neutrons) has an anti-particle which, upon meeting with its
counterpart, would annihilate and convert together into light or
electromagnetic waves (Trefil 1938: 53-67). Likewise matter (atoms) has
anti-matter that may exist somewhere under extreme circumstances, such as in
the core of hot stars and galaxies, though it has also been made in
laboratories (Schewe and Stein 1999). Some scientists say that, like matter and
anti-matter, there should be an anti-universe. In this anti-universe all the
laws of physics would behave strangely. For example the speed of light in our
universe is a maximum terminal as we have seen above (the theory of
Relativity), but in the anti-universe it would be a minimum terminal. Such a
case, therefore, is predictable in Ibn ‘Arabi’s cosmology, as he mentions in
regard to this mysterious ‘earth of Reality’.
Time, therefore, is necessary to describe motion. But the
answer to the question ‘what is motion?’ may not be as obvious as it might at
first appear. Matter is in continuous motion, and objects require a cause to
move; this is undisputable philosophical fact. But the basic issue in the
philosophy of motion is whether the matter-in-motion can be itself the cause of
its motion. The dialectical explanation considers that matter is the most
primary source of the development of completion, and therefore it can be
itself the cause and subject of motion. Metaphysical philosophy, on the other
hand, insists on differentiating between that which moves and the mover. This
is because motion is a gradual development and completion of a deficient
thing, which can not by itself develop and complete gradually - and therefore
can not be the cause of completion.
Osman Yahya listed a book with the name ‘kitâb
al-haraka’ (‘the book of motion’) (OY: no. 223), but as in the case of ‘kitâb
al-zamân' this book is not found. However, Ibn ‘Arabi talks about motion in
some detail in the long chapter 198. There [11.456-458] he affirms that:
‘everything in the world that moves and rests does not move and rest by itself,
but by a mover and a rester’, but he adds that: ‘this mover either moves the
object by itself or by its will to move it; so those who believe the mover
moves the object by itself say that motion is “created” in the object, so
motion by itself - when it is in the object - causes it to move’. And the same
can be said regarding rest. ‘But if the mover moves the object by its will, it
will do that either by an (intermediate) means or without a means.’ Then he
adds that, if the mover is the object itself, then it has to have a will ‘like
the motion of the human being who moves under his will in the (six physical)
directions’.
Ibn ‘Arabi then differentiates between the regular circular
motion of the orb (al-falak, the celestial sphere of each planetary
heaven) and the motion of objects, where ‘the motions of the orb are tidy and
in a sequential manner like the motion of the millstone; so each part does not
depart from its neighbouring (part), while the motion of (the four sub-lunar)
elements is different’. Then he explains that ‘the motion of the elements is
entwined, where the part departs from the neighbouring part and occupies new
places different from the ones it was in’. He also adds that
the motion of the orb - for us (the Sufis) - is
like the motion of the human being in the directions ... the orb moves by (its)
‘will’ in order to give
out what is (inspired) in its heaven by the
divine Command which causes the things (to occur) in the (earthly) elements ( ‘anâsir)
and the generators (of earthly changes, the mu-wallidât)', so as a
result of this (orbs’) motion, time emerges. So time has no effect in its (the
orbs’) appearance, but rather it affects (only) what is below it. Time does not
affect the appearance of the orb, because it is itself the appearance (the
result in the lower elemental realms) - whereas the things that happen and
appear in the orbs, the heavens, and the higher world have causes other than
time.
[11.456-458]
We have to admit that physicists habitually accept a very
naive concept of motion, usually expressed by the formula ‘velocity is distance
per time’ (v = s/t), which is usually used for a simple
uniform motion on a straight line though other complicated motions have more
complicated equations that are all based on this simple concept of distance per
time. Such a simplified concept of motion has been working nicely for many
centuries and, although modern theories slightly corrected these classical
(Newtonian) equations, they did not address the more philosophical question
about the nature of motion itself. To answer this question, one has to verify
whether space and time are discrete or continuous, an issue that (as we saw in
Chapter 1) still persists and is unsettled even in the latest theories.
However, we find some philosophers, like Zeno, who argued that - whether we
consider this way or the other - we shall inevitably end up with some irresolvable
paradoxes (see section 7.4).
Ibn ‘Arabi, on the basis ofhis theory of the oneness
ofbeing and the principle of continual re-creation (see section 5.6), gives a
clear and far more extensive definition of ‘motion’ (Haraka: Ibn
‘Arabi’s wider definition here reflects the fact that this Arabic philosophical
term refers notjust to physical motion but far more extensively to all kinds of
‘change’ in general) which is utterly different from the simple notion of just
a distance in time. In the same chapter (198) that wejust quoted above, he says:
Then you have to know that the truth about
motion and rest is that they are two states of the natural embodied (mutahayyiz)
things ... And that is because the embodied thing will necessarily need a
volume (hayyiz) to occupy by itself in the time of its existence. So it
may either be in the same place (hayyiz) in the next time, or times,
which is called ‘rest’, or it is in the next place in the next time and in the
following place in the third time. So its appearing in and occupying these
places one after another can happen only by ‘changing’ from one place to
another, and this may only be due to a cause. So it would be fine to call this
change ‘motion’, although we know there is nothing but the embodied thing
itself, the place, and the fact that it occupied a place next to that which it
occupied before. But those who claim that there is some (real) thing called
‘motion’, which got into the embodied thing and caused it to change from one
place to another, they have to prove it!
[11.457.27]
With the above definition of motion, Ibn ‘Arabi has in mind his basic principle
of the ‘ever-renewed creation’, which suggests that the entire world is continuously
being re-created every single moment of time, which we shall discuss in detail
in Chapter 5. Therefore there is no real motion like that which we habitually
perceive in the human ‘common sense’ or ‘estimative’ faculty (wahm); in
reality there is only a ‘change of place’: i.e. the thing that is the subject
of motion is being re-created in different places (not moved between them), so
we imagine motion. At the end ofhis short book Al-Durrat Al-Baydâ’ (The
White Pearl) (Al- Durrat Al-Baydâ’-. 142), Ibn ‘Arabi wonders how (the
general) people (not to mention physicists and philosophers) do not so easily
realize the delusion of motion and space. He says that ‘everything that moves
does not move in occupied space (mala’), but it moves in a void (khalâ’f.
Then he explains that the thing may not move into a new place until this new
place is emptied. So by simple logic, this (false) assumption would lead to the
conclusion that the result of an action would occur before the action itself.
For example when you fill a cup with water, the air already in the cup will
have to be gradually evacuated as water pours in. At any instance (the smallest
duration of time), before the water (the cause) can replace the air, the air
has to be displaced (the result). So the result happens before the cause. One
may argue that in this case both the cause and the result could happen at the same
time. This, however, is also prohibited according to Ibn ‘Arabi who asserts
that the entities of the world can be created only in series one after the
other (see sections 5.6 and 7.3). Thus this radically different conception
meticulously challenges Newton’s law of action/reaction - which practically
speaking always holds true, but which seems to be philosophically deceiving.
So the mere concept of motion apparently violates causality, the most
fundamental principle of physics, and common sense. Actually, Ibn ‘Arabi
(following earlier radical theories in kalam theology) even questions causality
itself - as we shall see again in Chapter 7 - where he affirms that Allah says:
‘I create the things next to the causes and not by them’ [11.204.13]. Though this
does not deny causality itself (i.e. the appearances of regular ‘natural’
causes), it does suggest a radically new type of strictly divine
causality.
Ibn
‘Arabi concludes, therefore, that motion is only a new creation in different
neighbouring places; there is no actual ‘path’ of the object between its start
and the destination points when taken on the smallest scale of time (i.e. when
time itself is quantized). On the basis of this novel definition of motion, we
shall be able to resolve Zeno’s famous paradoxes that are discussed in Chapter
7. But this is also what happens, according to modern physics, in the atom
where the electrons ‘jump’ between the energy levels (which have different
distance from the nucleus) without any possible existence in between. The
reason for this is that the energy of the atom is quantized, and when this
energy changes, either by absorbing or emitting photons, the distance of some
of its electrons from the nucleus will change correspondingly. So because the
energy is quantized, this distance has to be quantized too; the electron
therefore may not stay in between the orbits at all, or even smoothly jump
between them; it may exist only in this orb or in the other orbit that is at a
discrete distance from the first (Wehr et al.
1984: 72). In the Qur’an, it is also said that this is what
happened to the throne of the Queen of Sheba when it refers to the unnamed man ‘who
has knowledge from the (divine) Book’ moving her throne from Sheba to
Solomon’s court ‘in a blink ofthe eye’ (see section 7.2).
In the literature of Sufism and Islamic spirituality, we
read a lot of fantastic stories that apparently look ‘imaginary’ even to
physicists who are familiar with the theory of Relativity and the concepts such
as time travel that we have seen in section 1.9. Ibn ‘Arabi refers to the
relativity of time in many direct and indirect ways. He explicitly says:
‘minutes are years while sleeping’ [IV.337.1]. But ‘sleeping’ here does not
necessarily mean usual sleep, it could be any state of imagination or
realization that momentarily isolates Sufis from witnessing the visible world
while their spirit are occupied with other dimensions of being. For example, he
speaks in chapter 73 of the Futûhât about the 300 spiritual knowers (s. ‘ârif
) ‘whose hearts are like the heart of Adam’. There he says that:
If a knower (of those three hundred) is taken
(to witness) one scene of the Lord’s scenes (al-mashahid al-rubûbiyya),
they receive in one of its ‘days’ (i.e. ‘the Lord’s Day’, which equals a
thousand earthly years, 22:47) at that moment (when they are taken to the
Lord’s scene) divine knowledge (equivalent to) what others get in the world of
(normal) senses in one thousand normal years with hard work and preparation.
So this is how the divine knowledge that anyone from among those three hundred
achieves when they are taken out of their own (carnal) soul and is confined in
one Lord’s Day. The person who can appreciate what we have said is only whoever
has tasted that, when (normal) time was folded up (tayy) for them in
that moment, just as distance and other quantities are folded up for the
eyesight whenever someone opens their eye and looks at the orb of fixed stars:
at the same time when he opens their eye, the rays (of his eyesight) are connected
with the bodies of these stars. So look how big is this distance and this
velocity (of our normal eyesight, in that case)!
[II.9.23]
On the other hand, one of the main consequences of the
modem general theory of Relativity is the curvature of space and time, and this
conception is explicitly referred to by Ibn ‘Arabi when he says in poetry: ‘the
age has curved on us and bent (hadaba al-dahr ‘alaynâ wa inhanaf
[1.202.7]. It is important to notice here that he used the word ‘the age’ (or
eternal, ‘divine time’), instead of time, because in modern cosmology the
curvature of time is apparent only at very large scales, and we shall see below
(section 2.19) that for Ibn ‘Arabi ‘the age’ includes not only time but also
space.
Also regarding time travel, which is widely known in
science fiction and theoretically allowable in the theory of Relativity (see
section 1.9), many Sufis
Ibn ‘Arabî’s concept of time 45 and similar figures across many other religious
traditions have of course frequently referred to their experiences of various
forms of ‘travel’ across normal boundaries of time. Ibn ‘Arabi, for example,
mentions the story of al-Jawhari who went to take a bath in the Nile and when
he was in the water he saw, like a vision, that he was in Baghdad and he got
married and lived with his wife for six years and had children. ‘And then he
was returned to himself (from this momentary vision).... And after few months
this woman, whom he saw in the vision that he had married, came looking for his
house (in Egypt), and when he met her he knew her and knew the children’
[11.82.22].
So according to this story, al-Jawhari travelled to another
far-away place and lived there six years, all in a moment of his actual time at
his first location in Egypt. Ibn ‘Arabi’s original readers would of course
immediately connect this experience of the ‘folding of time’ (as the Sufis
called it) with the narratives of the Mi‘râj or ascension of the Prophet
through and beyond all the heavens in a single night-journey (isrâ’).
In addition to this famous Mi‘râj in which the Prophet
Muhammad travelled vast distances in a very short time,14 Ibn ‘Arabi
himself spoke in detail in chapter 367 of the Futûhât about his own
numerous ascensions, although he affirms that his experiences were only
spiritual, while the Prophet’s ascension was both physical and spiritual
[III.342.32].15
According to his accounts of this type of spiritual ascent
in chapter 367, the physical elements of the Sufi’s body dissociate and return
to their corresponding natural place - earth to earth, water to water, air to
air and fire to fire - and after that their spiritual self enters the celestial
spheres to meet the spirits of the prophets inhabiting each sphere and to
learn from them. Then one may even ascend further to the highest spiritual
dimensions, as Ibn ‘Arabi also describes in greater detail in his highly
autobiographical Kitâb Al-Isrâ’ ilâ Al-Maqâm Al-Asrâf
Just as is specified in the theory of Relativity, a person
who undergoes time travel will encounter many more events than those who stay
in their place. The big difference, however, is that Relativity anticipates
that time travellers will encounter much longer (real) times, and that they
will realize after they come back to their starting point that many generations
have passed away. This has led to many strange paradoxes like the ‘twin
paradox’ (D’Invemo 1992: 38). For Ibn ‘Arabi, however, the issue is far more
simple and realistic: the only difference between the spiritual ‘time
traveller’ and others is that travellers will acquire much more knowledge or
spiritual realization, because they encounter more events in a (outwardly)
short period of time. For Ibn ‘Arabi, time, after all, is imaginary, so more
time means more events and more events means more knowledge. The Prophet
Muhammad (and others like Ibn ‘Arabi in their purely spiritual ‘ascensions’)
encountered in the night of the ascension a multitude of events that normally
need many years.17 Likewise, in the illustrative cases of al-
Jawhari and the three hundred spiritual knowers mentioned above, other people
around them did not feel any noticeable change. This subject is very close to
the case of sleep and dreams except that the Sufi in the ascension is the one
who is awake because Ibn ‘Arabi affirmed that the Prophet Muhammad said:
‘people
are asleep, and when they die they wake up’ (this hadith is
not found in standard hadith collections, but is widely quoted by Sufis and
especially Ibn ‘Arabi [1.313.11, 11.379.33, IV.404.16]), which means that our
perception of this world is like a dream and those who are ‘awake’ (the
spiritually realized people) will experience time in a different way. So a
person in deep sleep will not feel the time as those who are awake next to him
or her experience it. Similarly, the student who pays attention to the teacher
will acquire more knowledge than those who are absentminded.18
In
the same way, the ‘Unique (spiritual) Pole’ (al-qutb al-fard) is called sâhib
al-waqt (‘the master of time’, see chapter 336 of the Futûhât
[111.135], and also Al-Mu‘jam Al-Sûfi: 678-683), because he is always in
full attention to what Allah wants of him every single moment. The true master
of time witnesses everything in the world (since all that is a kind of
reflection of his own spirit, or even part of it) all the time: that is to say,
he witnesses the created world throughout space and time. This high state of
attention, however, is only attainable by Al-Qutb (‘the Pole’ or ‘Axis’
of the spiritual universe) who is at the top of the hierarchy of the saints
[II.6.28]. This Qutb, like Ibn ‘Arabi himself, is a man whose heart is like the
heart of the Prophet Muhammad [1.151.6], ‘and the one who is on the heart of
Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him, has the comer of the Black Stone (in
the Kaaba), and that is for us thanks to Allah’ [1.160.24, see also section
6.2].
The
spiritual ‘Pole’ therefore is witnessing ‘out of time’ - which again means that
he is witnessing everything in the world, spatially and temporally. Other
Friends of God (the awliyâ’) may attain this high state of awareness to
a relative extent, ‘though this is very rare amongst the (special) people of
Allah, and it is (only) for a few of them, the people of attention, those who
never overlook Allah’s rule in things’ [11.539.27]. This also explains how some
divinely illuminated people, like the prophets, encountered with Allah things
that would not normally occur to normal people. For example, Allah’s direct
speech to Moses can be explained only, according to Ibn ‘Arabi, when we
consider that Moses was out of time when Allah spoke to him - since otherwise
Allah would be confined to time, and this is not possible. Ibn ‘Arabi
explained this in some details in his short Book of Eternity, that is
one of 29 short treatises published together in the famous book known as Rasâ’ilIbn
‘Arabî.
We
actually always live in a relative time, but, although we encounter a relative
number of events, time itself has no reality. Because we measure time by other
standard events, like the clock’s ticks or the Sun’s motion, we do not feel the
relativity of time. But if we measure it by our own internal activities (or
what is known as psychological time), we shall always be travelling through time.
However,
real travelling to the past is not possible at all, since time itself does not
go back: once a form is created and goes into the past it never comes back
again, although it is possible to remember past events: ‘The past that has gone
never comes back, but the similar (form) may come back; so when it comes back
it causes (someone) through itself to remember that which was like it and has
gone and is past’ [11.186.27].
However,
Ibn ‘Arabi is well aware that it is quite possible to interact with the spirits
of the dead (who are ‘dead’ only to this world, not in their vast spiritual
realm of the barzakh) because they may become visibly embodied in a
spiritual form in this world [1.755.10], as frequently happens in various
spiritual experiences. For example, Ibn ‘Arabi mentions his personal encounter
with Ahmad al- Sabti, the son of the Abbasid caliph Harûn al-Rashid, whom he
met while circumambulating the Kaaba. When Ibn ‘Arabi first saw him he doubted
his case, because he saw him not pushing nor being pushed, and going through
between the two men without separating any space between them. So he realized
he must be a visibly embodied spirit, and he went to him and spoke with him and
asked him why he was called al-Sabti (see his answer in section 3.6)
[1.638.32],
Travelling
to the future and meeting people who are not born yet is also possible, though
it may also be a kind of simulation or personification of their spirits, and
Ibn ‘Arabi also mentioned similar things:
And I have seen all the messengers and the
prophets, witnessing them all by direct vision. And I talked to Hûd,
brother of ‘Âd, in particular from their group (Hirtenstein 1999:
84-86). And I have seen all the people of faith, also by direct eye-witnessing,
all those who have been among them and those who will come to be, until the Day
of the Rising: the Real showed them to me on a single plane on two different
occasions. And I accompanied (for spiritual learning) a group from among the
Messengers, in addition to Muhammad - may God bless him. (For example), I
recited the Qur’an to Abraham al-Khalîb, and I returned (to God) by the
hands of Jesus; and Moses bestowed on me the (inspired) knowing of (spiritual)
unveiling and clarification, and the knowing of (the spiritual meaning of) the
alternation of ‘the daytime and the night (2:164, 3:190, etc.). So when
I had assimilated that knowing, the night-time disappeared and the daytime (nahâr)
remained all the day long, so the Sun never (again) set for me nor did it rise
- and this unveiling was a notification from Allah that I would have no part of
suffering in the hereafter.
[IV.77.27]
2.8
The discrete nature of
time
The most important and distinctive of Ibn ‘Arabi’s ideas
about time is that he considers it to be quantized. Thus Ibn ‘Arabi declared in
the Futûhât and other books that ‘the smallest time is the single time
that does not accept division’ [11.384.31],
There
has been a great deal of debate in the history of philosophy and science as to
whether time (and space) is discrete or continuous, though most philosophers
and scientists deal with time as an infinitely divisible quantity. However, the
Ash‘arite theologians’ distinctive physical theory (of they«w^«r, or ‘indivisible
atom’) is entirely built on the discreteness of space and time, and Ibn ‘Arabi
himself acknowledges his debt to them for this understanding. For example, al-
Bâqillânî, one of the famous Ash’arite theologians, suggested an atomic nature
of time, according to which in each ‘atom’ of time the entire world annihilates
and is re-created in a slightly different form (MacDonald 1927: 326-344). This
perspective is at least verbally and conceptually very much in accord with Ibn
‘Arabi’s fundamental principle of the ongoing re-creation of all things (see
section 5.6) - although the Ash‘arite theologians did not make any reference to
the key experiential basis of this spiritual insight which is so central to Ibn
‘Arabi’s discussion of the ‘ever-renewed creation’. What is also new and
distinctive here about Ibn ‘Arabi’s understanding of this conception of time
is that he argues that the actual ‘quantum’ of time equals our normal earthly
day itself [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6]. It is not easy to bridge the gap between
this metaphysical hypothesis and our everyday familiar experience of
indefinitely divisible time: of the year into months, the month into weeks, the
week into days, the day into hours, hour into minutes, minutes into seconds,
and so on apparently infinitely. Ibn ‘Arabi, however, explains plainly why time
has to be discrete according to his understanding (or ‘according to his Day’),
and we shall devote Chapter 4 to discussing this difficult issue in more
detail. Here we can give only a general preview.
For Ibn ‘Arabi, time itself does not have a separate
existence, but is reduced to motion or, more precisely, to the ongoing creative
acts of God, or cosmic ‘events’ (each discrete divine ‘Task’ or sha’n) of
each ‘Day’. And according to the Qur’anic description of God, each Day He is
upon some (one single) task (sha’n) (55:29). And since, as Ibn ‘Arabi
explains [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 10], Allah specified in this verse that He is
every Day in ‘one’ task, and not many as we perceive in our illusion,
which witnesses a multitude of events every day because of the intertwining
between these Divine Days and our normal days. This means that this ‘Day’ has
to be indivisible, because only one divine action or event should be happening
in it [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6]. As we have seen, Ibn ‘Arabi uses the same
Qur’anic term and therefore calls this fundamental quantum of time ‘the Day of
Task’ or divine event (yawm al-sha’n), or - using an expression taken
from the physical theory of Ash‘arite theology - ‘the singular (unique) time’ (al-zaman
al-fard) [1.292.16, II.82.6]. Therefore the single ‘Day of task’ in reality
equals our normal day; or more precisely, a full revolution of the celestial
sphere as viewed from the Earth. Ibn ‘Arabi helps to clarify this
counter-intuitive understanding of the foundational divine ‘Event’ by
introducing some related new concepts that are also based on certain Qur’anic
verses.
The first related concept is that the world is surely
re-created every singular day over and over again [11.208.26, II.385.4]. So we
(our souls), as part of this world, live or ordinarily experience only our very
limited portion from this singular day; a single instantaneous ‘moment’ of
time that equals the global ‘24 hours’ taking place within the entire world at
that particular instant, but as divided up (in actual perception) by the total
number of perceiving entities and their perceptions in the world. During this
divine creative ‘glance’ (lamha), we
Ibn ‘Arabî’s concept of time 49 perceive a still picture of our limited perception of
the world, after which we intrinsically cease to exist. Then in the second
‘Day’ (actually in the second ‘Week’!), we live another moment to perceive a
different still picture, owing to the ever-new creation created by Allah in
this singular day. Thus, through a succession of these instantaneously
re-created new ‘pictures’ of the whole, we observe what appears to be motion,
just as with the illusion of cinematic projection. We said ‘in the second
Week’ because Ibn ‘Arabi showed that we are indeed only living in ‘Saturday’,
since the other ‘Days’ (of Creation) of the Divine Week, from Sunday to Friday
of the Days of tasks, are for space not for time, because at every moment in
our life the world is re-created in six Days (for space), and it is then
displayed on Saturday, but we do not witness the process of creating the world:
we only witness it as created. So our life as a time is a collection of
Saturdays, and each moment that we live is indeed a Week; six Days for creating
the world in space, and Saturday for displaying it in time. We shall come to
this important and novel concept in section 3.5.
The
other related concept is that the moments that we feel flowing as daytimes and
night-times are actually a collection (of discrete time-space quanta),
and not a straightforward combination of the actual flow of the single divine
‘Days’. The normal days that we encounter are ‘intertwined’ (mutawâlija,
v. yûliju) - another key Qur’anic expression - with the actually
existing cosmic ‘Days of tasks’ in a special way that we shall explore in
Chapter 4. As a result of this intertwining, we see the appearance of a
multitude number of events in our normal days.
In
addition to that, Ibn ‘Arabi also reminds us that at every moment there is a
full day around the globe: evening somewhere, morning somewhere else, and noon
in other places [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6]. Therefore, at every moment
for us, which is a full day when viewed globally, Allah creates a single event
in the world; and then He re-creates the world in ever-new events at each
succeeding moment. The day that we perceive and experience is therefore a
collection of successive ‘snapshots’ of the actual ‘Days of events’ which are
the actual existing basis for our experience of the flow of time.
As we
said above, the idea of discrete time (and space) is not new in the history of
philosophy and physics, though it had been completely discarded after the
advent of classical Newtonian mechanics. However, many philosophers (such as
Kant, Russell and Leibniz) have opposed Newton’s hypothesis that space and time
have a separate linear and continuous entity, as we showed in section 1.8. With
the advent of Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, the Theory of Quantum Gravity
and the Superstrings Theory, the idea of a quantized time (and space) was
revived again, and much work has recently been done in this respect as we
mentioned in section 1.9.
The
human mind naturally thinks of quantities as either discrete or continuous;
there is no other way. A closer examination of Ibn ‘Arabi’s view of time,
however, shows that it is indeed neither discrete nor continuous. We must
remember that he considers time as imaginary after all, as well as most other
quantities such as space and even mass (see section 7.9). As we indicated
previ-
ously, such seemingly strange conclusions result directly
from Ibn ‘Arabi’s fundamental theory of the oneness of being: i.e. that the
apparent ‘parts’ of existence are merely manifestations of a single real
existence that is One and Unique, neither multiple nor divisible. The
notion of either discreteness or continuousness is indispensable when we
imagine multitudes, but with absolute Unity there would be no meaning to such
conceptions. Therefore, Ibn ‘Arabi’s concept of time is that it would be
discrete if we approach it on the (ultimately imaginary) plane of apparent
multiplicity, but in reality there is no such reality as ‘time’ at all. The
same perspective can be applied to space.
Ibn ‘Arabi asserts that
You should know that everything has a ‘chest’ (sadr),
and knowing it in this path (of mysticism) is one of the noble sciences and
knowledge. This is because the world and every kind (in it) is created
according to the image of the Human Being (insân), who is the last
existent, and the Human Being alone is created according to the divine Image,
both its inner and outer dimensions, and Allah created them with a chest. So
between the Real, to Whom is the firstness, and the Human Being, to whom is the
lastness, there are ‘chests’ whose number no one knows other than Allah.
[11.652.23]
The ‘chest’ of a thing is its front, the first thing to
appear, which is why it is so important to know it. Ibn ‘Arabi here applies and
generalizes the verse in the Qur’an that says: "And whomsoever Allah
wants to guide, He expands his chest for “surrender” (islâm), and whomsoever He
wants to leave astray, He makes his chest narrow and constricted as if he were
engaged climbing up into the sky’ (6:125).
But Ibn ‘Arabi adds that ‘the chest is in the second state
of each form’ [11.652.27], since the first state is the essence (the ‘heart’)
of the form itself and the chest is itsfirst appearance or effect. Then
he lists many things and their corresponding ‘chests’, and he says that ‘the
chest of time is the time (instant) of the Dust’s acceptance of the form’ and
‘the chest of days is Monday’ [11.652.27].
Thus Ibn ‘Arabi adds that:
For every ‘chest’ there is a ‘heart’ (qalb),
so as far as the heart remains in the chest, the person will be blind because
the chest is a veil over him. So when Allah wants to make him or her truly
seeing, he goes out of his chest and sees. So the causes are the ‘chests’ of
the existing things, and the existing things are like the hearts; as far as the
existing (thing or person) is looking at the cause that it originated from,
they will be blinded from witnessing Allah Who (actually, ultimately) created
them. Thus when Allah wants to make (the person) truly seeing, they stop (or He
causes them to stop) looking at the cause that Allah created them ‘with’ ( ‘indahu:
i.e. as opposed to ‘through’, bihi) and looks (instead) at the ‘special
Face’ that is (uniquely) between their Lord and them.
[11.652.35]
We are, therefore, normally ‘imprisoned’ in the chest of
time,just as the heart of the person lacking faith is imprisoned in or ‘veiled
by’ his or her chest. To overcome time (and space), we therefore have to break
out and perceive the reality of existence through the ‘heart’, and in
particular the special inner relation or aspect between the ‘heart’ and the
Real.
2.10
Circular time and
cyclical time
Ibn ‘Arabi repeatedly describes time as a
‘circle’ (da’ira), [1.387.33], which does not have a beginning or an
end, but when we specify a point on this circle (the present; the point in time
in which we exist now) and look in one direction, whether to the past or
future, we do set a relative beginning and an end. So the present (now) joins
together the two ends of time in a circle [1.387.32,
It is very difficult to imagine this, as it was very
difficult to convince people that the Earth is spherical when this idea was
first introduced, precisely because most everyday activities show us only a
small portion of the Earth’s surface which appears flat to us. Yet time is not
like space. In the case of the Earth it was relatively easy to prove that it is
round because we can view its curvature - from space, or from a great height -
all at once. But the problem with time is that we can normally witness only the
present moment of it, not the future nor the past; we can only imagine them.
Therefore, in order to understand the meaning of ‘circular’ time, we have to imagine
that the whole of all existence (what we perceive as future, present and past)
exists all at once. This whole existence is then like a circle: i.e. a curve
that does not have a visible beginning or an end when we look at it from
outside. When we sit on the circumference of this circle and look in one
direction, we set a beginning and an end. In the same way: the present moment
in which we exist is a point on the circle of the whole existence, this point
defines the future and the past and it also defines an imaginary beginning and
an imaginary end of time: imaginary because the whole circle of existence (of
‘the Age’, al-dahr) is infinite. The imaginary beginning is the eternity
a parte ante (al-azal) and the imaginary end is the eternity a parte
post (al-abad) [IV.266.3],
Circular time has yet another important meaning which is
not possible to explain fully at this point, because it needs additional
premises that we shall discuss in the following chapters, so we can refer to it
only briefly here. As described above, Ibn ‘Arabi views the world as being
continuously re-created, and time is reduced to the present moment because the
past and the future are only imaginary. Therefore time, or the present moment,
goes in ever repeated circular motion with the re-creation of the world. In
other words, the presence, which is time, goes round the world continuously and
repeatedly to create it and re-create it again; so it is circular (and cyclic)
in this distinctly metaphysical respect.
Moreover, this cosmic notion of ‘circular time’ is quite
different from ‘cyclical time’, and the two ideas should not be confused in Ibn
‘Arabi’s writings. ‘Cyclical’ or periodic (dawn) time, such as the day,
the week, the month and the year, is a duration of time in which the same kind
of events should be happening in the different repeating cycles of time. For
example, the Sun sets every evening to start a new day (because the ‘day’ for
the Arabs was considered to start from sunset, not from sunrise), and the Moon
is bom approximately every four weeks to start a new lunar month. We should
again note, however, that in reality, according to Ibn ‘Arabi, there is never
any repetition at all [11.432.12, III.282.21]. Those cycles of time are
‘similar’ to each other but never identical, as the terms ‘period’ or ‘cycle’
mean in modem physics. For Ibn ‘Arabi, the cycles of time are similar because
they are ruled by the same divine Names, which is why we expect to see similar
events. But the reason why we do not see identical events or true repetition
is because of the interaction between different cycles of different divine
Names [111.201.14]. For example he says that ‘the motion of Sunday appeared
from the (divine) attribute “the All-Hearing” (al-sam') ..., and the
motion of Monday appeared from the (divine) attribute “the Living” (al-hayâtf
[II.438.9].
Therefore the cycle of Sunday is different from the cycle
of Monday, although they are both days in which the Sun rises and sets in the
same way. On the other hand, and on the basis of the same statement above,
Sunday from this week should be identical with Sunday from the previous week,
because they both appeared from the same divine Attribute. But they are not,
because they do not have the same position in the month or the year, or in other
cycles that are ruled by other divine Names and Attributes, so there is never
any repetition. Ibn ‘Arabi nicely refers to this fact in his prayers Al-Salawât
Al-Faydiyya, a short text found at the end of Tawajjuhât Al-Hurûf
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Qâhira, n.d.), when he says: ‘(He, i.e. the Prophet
Muhammad, is) the Dust (hayûlâ) of forms which does not manifest in one
form to any two (persons), nor in any one form to anyone twice’ [also in
1.679.7,11.77.27, II.616.3].
We shall devote Chapter 3 to the significance of the ‘Week’
in Ibn ‘Arabi’s view, where we shall see that the week is the primary cycle
of time, not the day. We shall also see that Ibn ‘Arabi’s fundamental notion of
‘no repetition’ forms the basis of a unique view of time and the cosmos, which will
be discussed in the following chapters. However, if we accept the approximation
that different cycles of time are defined by similar events, we then find that
Ibn ‘Arabi defines many important cycles other than the usual day, week, month,
the seasons and the year. In general, every divine Name of Allah has Its own
‘day’ (cycle), which is a cycle of time that has a corresponding daytime and a
night in the world below it (see Table 2.1 below).
A correlation can also be made here between Ibn ‘Arabi’s
view of cyclic time and astrology. Knowing these cycles and their lengths and
the specific Names that rule them may give us some insight into what kind of
events may happen in
Table 2.1 Days of some orbs and
divine names
|
The day of... |
Its length in terms of normal Earth days |
|
The Moon The Sun Mercury al-rabb (the Lord) al-mithl (the Like) al-ma‘ârij (the ascending ways) Zodiac Longest planet (star) day |
28 days 360 days = 1 year ~30 years 1,000 years 7,000 years 50,000 years 12,000 years 36,000 years |
Note
The
numbers have been collected from different books of Ibn ‘Arabi. We should add
that - as noted in our table here - Ibn ‘Arabi actually considers the year to
be 360 days rather than 365.25 days; see also section 3.2 for more details
the future, but it is not easy to tell exactly what is
going to happen. The issue is more like weather forecasting; by studying all
the parameters we can tell with a good probability how the weather may be in
the near future.
According to the well-known hadith ‘Time has returned the
same as it was when Allah created the heavens and the Earth’ \Kanz\
12357], Ibn ‘Arabi argues that the cosmos has completed one cycle from the
beginning of creation until the point where the spirit of the Prophet Muhammad
is attached to his body, and he notes that this cycle is 78,000 years. As he
explains:
Time started in Libra for spiritual justice by
the name the Hidden (al-bâtin) of Muhammad - may God bless him - as he
said: ‘I was prophet when Adam was still between water and clay’ \Kanz\
2017]. Then it (time) circled around after one (full) time cycle, which is
78,000 years, to start another cycle of time by the name ‘the Manifest’ (al-zâhir)
when the body of Muhammad - may God bless him - appeared.
[1.146.18]
In the beginning of the Futûhât [1.121-124], Ibn
‘Arabi also states clearly the order of creation in time during this
cosmic time cycle, for major events of the kinds created by Allah. The numbers
that he gives clearly do not agree with modern cosmology and geology, and can
not be explained or understood in those terms (as we showed in section 2.3
above).
So we have seen in this chapter that time is in fact
imaginary and exists only as the Creator’s ‘Days’ and indeed indivisible
moments, while all other divisions of
Figure2.1 The Cycle of Life.
Note
The number of years are extracted from chapter 7 of the Futûhât
[1.121-126],
time are conventional. For this reason we find that in the
Qur’an the word ‘time’ is never used, while a great deal of attention is given there
to mentioning different sorts of ‘daytimes’ and ‘nights’ and the relations
between them. Likewise, we find that Ibn ‘Arabi pays considerable attention to
describing the actual meaning of the days and the relation between their
different types.
As usual,
the terms ‘daytime’ (nahâr) and ‘night’ (layl) are used by Ibn
‘Arabi to measure time, where the daytime extends from sunrise to sunset, while
the night (layl) is from sunset to sunrise: both of those together -
always beginning with the night-time - are called a ‘day’ (yawm),
which is conventionally divided into 24 hours. We must notice, however, that
the above conventional definitions are only approximate for our practical use
here on Earth, since considerable differences appear as soon as we begin to
measure the length of the day, for example, with relation to the Sun or to
distant stars.
In
the following passage Ibn ‘Arabi gives a precise definition of various units of
time such as the day, the daytime, the night, the month and the year. Some of these
definitions are, however, simply for practical use for the purpose of determining
prayer times. More accurate variations will be discussed below and in section
3.2. At the very beginning of the extremely long chapter 69, in which Ibn
‘Arabi talks about ‘the secret meanings of prayer (salâtf, he devoted a
full section to detailed explanations about timing. For the purpose of
demonstration and simplification, Ibn ‘Arabi employs a hypothetical observer
who is considered as a frame of reference. He says there:
‘Timing’ (al-waqt) is an expression for
(our approximate) estimation concerning a thing that does not accept the
actual reality ('«yn) of what is estimated. So it is an (approximate)
supposition, just like we suppose and estimate a beginning, middle and an end
in a spherical shape which in itself
Ibn ‘Arabi’s concept of time 55 and in its actual reality does not accept a
beginning, middle or end. So we construe all of this in it (only) by what we
construe through the effect of our supposition and estimation concerning it.
Likewise, timing (hvk//) is an estimated supposition with regard to time
(al-zamân), since time is circular, as Allah created it in its
beginning, so it is like a circle. The Prophet Muhammad, may Allah have peace
and mercy upon him, said: ‘time has circulated [i.e. has come back to
the same point] like its form was on the day when Allah created if [Kanz:
12357]. So he mentioned that Allah created it circular (see section 2.10), and
timings are (only) estimated with regard to it.
So when Allah created the Isotropic Orb and it moved, the
‘day’ was not specifically determined and no (temporally defining) reality had
(yet) appeared in (that Orb). It was like the water of the pitcher when it is
(still) in the river, before it comes into the pitcher. Then when the 12 (equal
zodiacal regions) were supposed in it (i.e. in the Isotropic Orb, and
subsequently appeared in the second orb of the fixed stars, which has in it the
zodiacal constellations), it was given specific timings, and He called them the
‘(zodiacal) constellations’ in that (isotropic) orb - which is Allah’s saying: ‘by
the heaven" - (swearing by it) because of its loftiness above us - ‘that
has the constellations (burûjf (85:1). So they are these suppositions for
timing.
So (when) a person stands (on the Earth) and this orb
rotates around him, and this person has been given sight to look at these
(spatial) suppositions, through the distinguishing signs (of the zodiacal
constellations) that were determined in (the outermost sphere), then (that
person) can distinguish some of its parts from others, by these distinguishing
signs that are made to be references pointing to it. So (this person) fixes
their eye on one supposed (area) of it, I mean on the distinguishing sign (of
this or that constellation), and then the (zodiacal) orb rotates with this
supposed distinguishing sign that this observer has fixed their eye on, until
it disappears (from his sight). This continues, as long as they continues
standing in their place, until (eventually) this sign comes back to them (in
the same position). Then at that point they know that this (zodiacal) orb had
completed one cycle with respect to this observer - not with respect to the orb
itself (because the orbs’ real motion takes much longer time than a day, see
section 1.4). Then we called this cycle a ‘day’ (yawm, defined here
according to the far-away sphere of the zodiacal stars and not according to the
Sun, which is the day known in astronomy as the ‘sidereal day’).
Then after that, Allah created in the fourth Heaven
(celestial sphere) of the seven Heavens a lighted planet that has a huge body,
and it was called in the Arabic tongue ‘Shams" [i.e. the Sun; but
the Arabs used to call both the planets (kawâkib) and the stars (nujûm)
kawâkib, ‘planets’(s. kawkab), but Ibn ‘Arabi clearly distinguishes
between them]. Then it rose in the sight (of this observer) from behind the
veil (or horizon) of the Earth where this observer stands, so they called this
place of rising ‘the shining-place’ (or ‘east/orient’: mashriq), and
they called the rising a ‘shining-forth’
(shurûq), because this bright planet rose up from it and lighted up
the atmosphere where this observer is.
So the sight of this observer kept following the
motion of that planet (the Sun) until it was opposite them (in the middle of
the sky), so he called this (state of) opposition ‘the meridian’ (al-istiwd’).
Then the planet began to descend from its meridian with respect to this
observer, seeking the right side of them - not with respect to the planet
itself. So they called the beginning of this descending from its meridian a
‘decline’ (zawdl) and disposition (dulûk). Then the sight of this
observer kept following it until the body of this planet went down, so they
called its going down ‘setting’ (ghurûb), and they called the place
where their sight saw that it went down its ‘setting-place’ (or ‘west’: maghrib).
Then the atmosphere became dark for him, so he
called the duration of the lightning of the atmosphere, from the rising of this
planet till its setting, a ‘daytime’ (nahâr). (This name is) derived
from 'al-nahr' (the river), because the spreading out of the light in
(that daytime) is like the spreading out of water in the bed of the river.
So this observer remained in the dark until that
planet that is called the Sun (again) rose from the place that they called the
orient, in the sight of this observer - (but) from another (different) place,
close to this place that it rose from yesterday, (by a distance) which is
called a ‘degree’ (daraja). So they called the duration of the darkness
in which they were from the time of the setting of the Sun till its rising a
night (layl). So the day (yawm, the conventional rotational day
and not the sidereal day) is the sum of the daytime (nahâr) and the
night (layl). And he called the positions where this planet rises
everyday ‘degrees’ (darajdt).
Then they saw that this bright planet, which is
called the Sun, moves between those estimated suppositions (marked by the
different zodiacal signs) in the (Isotropic) circumferential orb, one degree
after another, until it cuts through that (first supposed position) through
these risings called days, such that when it completes cutting through one
supposed (position), it starts cutting through another supposition, until it completes
(going through all) the 12 suppositions by cutting (them). Then it starts
another cycle by cutting through these supposed positions (again). So they
called (the time) from the beginning of cutting each supposed position till the
end of cutting that (particular zodiacal) supposed position a ‘month’ (shahr);
and they called (the Sun’s) cutting through all those (12 zodiacal)
suppositions a ‘year’ (sana).
Thus it has become clear to you that the night,
daytime, day, month and year, are called ‘timings’ (aw^dt), and (also) it gets
shorter till what is called hours and less - that all that does not have (real)
existence in its essence, but that they are only relations and relative
connections (nisab/idâfat). But what is (actually) existing is (only)
the essence of the orb and the planet, not the essence of the timing and time,
since they, I mean the times, are only suppositions within it. So thus you see
now that ‘time’ is (only) an expression for something (humanly) imagined, in
which these ‘timings’ are only supposed.
[1.387.30-388]
So the day (yawm) for Ibn ‘Arabi is like our usual
day: i.e. the full revolution of the heavens as we see it from the Earth, which
is conventionally measured according to the motion of the Sun. This definition
of the day works perfectly for practical issues, such as determining prayer
times. But if we want to be more accurate, the day indeed is the full
revolution of the orb of the fixed stars [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6] - which is
in reality (i.e. as we know today), a single full cycle of the motion of the
Earth around itself with relation to far-away stars, not with relation
to the Sun. That is why Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that the ‘day’ (yawm)
actually existed even before the creation of the seven planets including the
Sun and the Earth, while the earthly daytime and night-time (nahâr and lay
I) were defined only after the creation of the Earth and the Sun. He says
that
When Allah caused these higher orbs to rotate,
He created ‘days’ in the first orb (that is the isotropic orb, because it is
the first orb to be created in Nature) and defined it in relation to the second
orb (that is the orb of fixed-stars or the zodiacal constellations) which has
the apparently fixed planets (stars).... Then He created also the Sun, so the
daytime and night are caused by the creation of the Sun (that appears) in the
day. But the ‘day’ [i.e. the sidereal day; defined by the rotation of the highest
sphere(s)] existed before (the Sun’s creation) ... so when the orb of the
zodiac rotates one cycle, it is called the ‘day’ in which 1 Allah
created the heavens and the Earth (in six days)'.
[1.140.30]
As we also showed in the previous chapter, Ibn ‘Arabi
showed on many occasions that all the stars are moving at very high speeds. He
also showed that the stars that form the zodiac signs are, like other stars,
very far away, which is why we do not realize their motion. So practically we
consider these stars as fixed and therefore as a reference, but in fact the
reference should be the Isotropic Orb, because it is the one that encompasses
all other (material) orbs. However, because this orb has no any distinguishing
sign, it can not be used as a reference. Therefore, to be more accurate, we
have to measure the day not relative to the Sun but relative to stars, the
constellations ‘from Nath to Nath, from Butayn to Butayn
or from Thurayya to Thurayya'''9 [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6] -
since it is not possible to measure it relative to the Isotropic Orb which does
not have any distinguishing feature. In astronomy, this is called the
‘sidereal day’, which is about four minutes longer than the normal (rotational)
day. The difference is due to the Earth’s rotation around the Sun at the same
time it spins around its axis, which causes the sidereal day to become slightly
longer. Although Ibn ‘Arabi accepts the usual concept of the day that is our
normal day (from sunrise to sunrise) for daily needs, such as knowing the time
of prayers [1.388.14], he clearly distinguishes between the sidereal day and
the normal day when it comes to critical issues such as the ‘intertwined days’
and the ‘taken-out days’ that we shall explain in Chapter 4.
The
real meaning of ‘day’ comes from the fact that in this day Allah creates the
whole manifest world - i.e. the whole 360 degrees of the orb or the outermost
celestial sphere, the ‘Pedestal’ - in it. This does not at all contradict the
many verses in the Qur’an and other holy Books stating that Allah created the
Heavens and the Earth ‘in six days’ {‘and then’ - on the seventh day - ‘He
mounted on the Throne’) (see the Qur’an: 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4,
50:38 and 57:4) because we only witness the last day (‘Saturday’, al-sabt)
out of these seven days, while the other six days of creation are actually
included in it as space (see section 3.6). Therefore, unlike some other Muslim
theologians, Ibn ‘Arabi does not find any difficulty in explaining those verses
in the Qur’an that talk about Allah’s creating the Heavens and the Earth in six
days. Most religious scholars suggested that Allah meant ‘assumed days’, such
that if days had actually existed then, then the time of this creation would
have been six days, because they could not conceive of days before the creation
of the Sun and the Earth. But Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that the creation of the Sun
only divided the day (yawm) into daytime and night-time. So he gives a
dramatically different cosmological meaning to the process of creation in a
‘Week’ (six days plus Saturday) - as the creation of space-time at every moment
- and not the commonly understood meaning that it took Allah a current earthly
week to finish the creation.
However, as already noted, Ibn ‘Arabi did observe that
there was a difference between the Arabs and some non-Arab ( ‘ajam)
groups in their conventional definitions of the ‘day’, in that the Arabs
considered the day to extend from sunset to sunset, while others considered it
to extend from sunrise to sunrise. So for the Arabs, the night precedes
daytime, while for non-Arabs it is the reverse. This matter has no effect on
the length of the whole day itself, but its implications do have an effect on
the actual unit of day and especially on its spiritual and symbolic meanings,
because
For the Arabs and the Arabic timing, it has been
traditionally agreed that the night precedes daytime, since originally the
Creator of time, Allah the Exalted, says: ‘and a token unto them is night;
We strip the day out of it. . .’ (36:37). So He made the night as the
origin and took the day out of it,just as the skin is stripped off the sheep.
So the (initial) appearance is to the night, and the day was hidden in it, just
as the skin of the sheep appears and covers the sheep until it is stripped off.
So the witnessed world ( ‘âlam al-shahâda) was stripped off the unseen
realm (al-ghayb), and our existence was stripped off the non-existence.
So the knowledge of the Arabs advanced that of the non-Arabs, because the (i.e.
the non-Arab) calculations are solar-based: they consider that the daytime
precedes the night, and they have some right (to maintain that) in this (same
Qur’anic) verse, which continues ... ‘then they are in darkness’, for
‘then’ here refers to the present time or the future time, and the thing will
not be in darkness until the coming of the night, in this verse. So (from their
perspective), the daytime was like a cover on the night and then it was taken
out or removed, so ‘they are in darkness’', so the night appeared which
causes darkness, so the people are in darkness.
[1.716.9, also in AyyâmAl-Sha’n, 7]
2.13
Days of other orbs and
divine names
Ibn ‘Arabi then extends the meaning of the normal ‘day’ as
described above to the spheres of all planets (and stars) and even to symbolic
‘spheres’ (i.e. the orbs of spirits and divine Names), where he calls the
period - i.e. full revolution of each particular orb - the ‘day’ that
corresponds to this specific orb. In this way there are shorter days and longer
days, depending on the relevant orb:
and when Allah caused the isotropic orb to
rotate ... and made its full cycle a complete day (i.e. the normal day) without
daytime and night... So ‘Days’ are different: some Days are a half-cycle, some
Days a full cycle, some Days 28 cycles (days); and some are more than that,
(all the way up) until the ‘Day of ascending ways’ (yawm dhû-al-ma‘ârij,
of 50,000 years, described in the Qur’an, 70:4), or less than that (all
the way down) until the ‘Day of event’; so the degrees of Days change between
these two (extremes of the) Days.
[III.433.35]
There is no maximum limit to the ‘Day’ that one can count
[1.292.17], but there is a minimum limit. The maximum limit is the Age (al-dahr),
which is one unique day that does not repeat and has no daytime and night
[III.202.5]. But this Age is infinite, whereas the smallest Day is the
‘singular day’ (al-yawm al- fard) or the ‘Day of event’ (yawm
al-sha’n) [1.292.16], which is that Day in which Allah is upon
one task (55:29). From the meaning of the ‘singular day’ as the time in
which Allah creates by one single act every entity in the world, we can
generalize to all other days: the ‘Day’ of every orb is the time in which that
orb affects every entity in the world (i.e. by making a full revolution).
But again we should not confuse - as we have seen above -
the revolution of a planet (such as the Earth) around its axis in respect to
its Sun, and in respect to distant stars (which are appropriately considered
fixed). In astronomy, the first revolution is called a ‘rotational’ day, while
the other is called the ‘sidereal’ day. The sidereal day is the time the Earth
takes to rotate 360 degrees, in relation to distant stars. This equals, in
modem calculations, 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09 seconds, while the mean solar
day is 24 hours. The Earth actually rotates 360.98 degrees in 24 hours; the
difference is caused by the Earth’s orbital motion (around the Sun). Similarly
all other planets or orbs have their own respective sidereal and orbital
‘days’. Also, the Moon completes a cycle around the Earth once every 27.3 days,
with reference to distant stars, so this is the sidereal lunar month.
The normal lunar month used in Islamic calendar calculations, though, is the
time interval between new moons as observed from Earth, which equals 29.5 days;
this is called the ‘synodic’ lunar month. Therefore, the Moon’s ‘Day’, if
calculated by Ibn ‘Arabi’s approach to the Earth’s sidereal day, should be the
sidereal lunar month. But we shall see in section 3.2 that Ibn ‘Arabi insists
that the lunar month equals 28 days exactly.
Ibn ‘Arabi made it clear in several places in his Futûhât
[1.141.17, III.549.3] and other books that the fixed stars are not actually
fixed at all, but that we can not notice their motion from Earth owing to the
large distance, because our age is too short to notice their motion despite
their very high speed (an observation well confirmed by modem cosmology).
Therefore when we say ‘the day is the period of motion of fixed stars’, we now
know today that this apparent motion is caused by the motion of the Earth and
not the stars, but since we move with the Earth, we think that the stars are
moving. Indeed the actual motions of the orbs of stars have much longer
periods, as is well known in modem astronomy. Actually, Ibn ‘Arabi, following
the accepted cosmological theories of his day, differentiates between two kinds
of motion of the celestial orbs: natural or intrinsic motion, and forced or
extrinsic motion:
The smallest Day is that which we count as the
motion of the circumferential orb in whose day (yawm) the night (layl)
and daytime (nahâr) appear. So that is the shortest day for the Arabs
(i.e. in their language), and it corresponds to the largest orb, because it
rules everything inside it. The motion of everything inside this orb in the
daytime and night is a forced motion by this orb, through which it forces (a
movement of) all the orbs that it surrounds. And each one of these orbs also
has a natural (inherent) motion. So every orb below the surrounding orb has two
motions at the same time: a natural motion and a forced motion. And each
natural motion in every orb has a specific day which is measured in terms of
the days of the surrounding orb.
[I.121.25]
So, for example - according to modem astronomy - the Moon
naturally rotates around the Earth in about 28 days while at the same time it
is forced to move with the Earth around the Sun. Likewise with most other orbs
of the planets, in terms of the astronomy of Ibn ‘Arabi’s time: the intrinsic
motion of those orbs defines a specific ‘day’ for every one, which equals the
time needed to make full revolution around the Earth. In general, however, the
day is the revolution of the specific orb, so it may have many possible lengths
or measurements depending on the reference point (i.e. whether it is observed
from the Earth or from other orbs or planets), but here we only consider the
days of the orbs with relation to the Earth.
The
relation between Days and orbs is that - in general - the longer Day corresponds
to the larger orb. But this is not true for the isotropic orb, which is the
first and largest (material) orb. The Day of this orb is the smallest Day,
which is the day that we count, i.e. 24 hours. This is because the motion of
this orb is a natural motion, whereas the motions of other orbs are a
combination of this first natural motion (which is a forced motion on those
other orbs) and another natural motion which is intrinsic to every orb. But if
we consider the motion of the isotropic orb as expressing in reality the motion
of the Earth around itself, as in modern astronomy, we can then generalize and
say that the larger the orb, the bigger its Day. However, still another factor
that affects the length of the Day is the speed of motion of the relevant orb.
Therefore, the day that we count - i.e. the 24 hours - is actually the shortest
Day, though Ibn ‘Arabi sometimes mentions that a day could be a half cycle of
the prime cycle of the Isotropic Orb, which is the 24-hour day [III.434.2],
which is equal to the daytime (nahâr), but otherwise the day itself as
the revolution of the Isotropic Orb is the smallest day. Then comes the Day of
the Moon, which is 28 Earth days (which is a little less than the actual day of
the Moon that we call the lunar month; we shall give a more detailed discussion
ofthis point in section 3.2), and so on [11.441.29].
As in the case of the material orbs of stars and planets,
Ibn ‘Arabi adds that every spirit and every divine Name of Allah has its own
‘Day’. That is because every spirit and divine Name has effects on the world
beneath it. So when they complete a full revolution around the world (i.e.
without material motion but with regard to their effects on every entity), this
is their ‘Day’.
On the basis of particular references in the Qur’an and
Hadith, Ibn ‘Arabi assigns Days with specific length to some divine Names. In
addition to ‘the Lord’s day’ which equals "one thousand years of what
you count (32:5), and ‘the day of the ascending ways’ (dhû al-ma‘ârij),
which equals fifty thousand years according to the Qur’an (70:4), Ibn ‘Arabi
also mentions ‘the day of Mitht (‘the Like’, i.e. the cosmic ‘Likeness’
of the divine, referring to the famous Qur’anic verse 42:11 - the ‘Perfect
Human Being’ (al-insân al-kâmil), who is created, according to a famous
hadith, ‘on the Image of the All-Merciful’, see SPK. 27-30: 276) which
equals seven thousand years \Ayyám Al-Sha’n: 18], and another day which
equals 6,454.54545 years, though he does not mention the relevant Name
[1.121.23]. He also mentions yet another day which equals three thousand years,
but says that he does not know the corresponding Name [III.238.13]. All this is
summarized in Table 2.1 which shows the length of some other days, in addition
to those just mentioned above.
2.14
The daytime and
night-time
Ibn ‘Arabi not only extends the concept of the known day to
the orbs and divine Names, as we have seen above, but also he gives a very
broad meaning of daytime and night (nahâr and layl), suggesting
that every orb and divine Name has a corresponding daytime and night like our
normal daytime and night. Just as our daytime and night are caused by the
apparent motion of the Sun, these other infinitely varied daytimes and nights
are all caused through the manifestation of the primary divine Name ‘the
Light [111.201.35], which brings into manifest existence in the world all
the transient images or ‘likenesses’ of the infinite divine Names:
so when the divine Name ‘the Light is
considered (from the perspective of) the existence of the exalted shadow imaged
forth (in the cosmos: i.e. the First Intellect or ‘Perfect Human Being’) and
(from the perspective of) its rising upon those who are in the world, then the
world (i.e. the creatures) which are in this image will call this rising, until
the time it sets for them, a ‘daytime’, and from the time it sets for them,
they call it a ‘night’. But that (divine) Light is still present for this
shadow, just as the Sun is still present in respect to the Earth both in its
rising and in its setting (though it is visible to us only in its rising) . . .
so in reality (that appearance of night) it is (only) a shadow, although
they call it ‘darkness’... .So know this!
Then Allah made these days which we know, that
are caused by the motion of the isotropic orb, and the daytime and night that
are caused by the heart (of the cosmos) - I mean the Sun - in order to
determine through them the effects of the divine Days that belong to the
Names.
[III.202.6]
Thus, as we have just seen, every divine Name has a
specific Day (with its corresponding daytime and night), and, when the Day of
one divine Name appears to be over, a Day of another Name starts, and so on;
and all these are included in the eternal Day of the divine Name ‘the Age’:
And every divine Name, known or unknown, has a
(specific) Day in the Age, and these are the ‘Days of Allah’ - and all, in
reality, are the Days of Allah, but most people do not know that. So if we
descend from the divine Names to the Day of the First Intellect, we find that
its effect in the Universal Soul divided it into daytime and night: its
‘night’ in respect to the Soul is when the Intellect turns away from her when
he approaches his Lord to benefit (by receiving knowledge from Him), and its
daytime in respect to this Soul is when he approaches her to benefit her, so
this is her daytime. And through this effect Allah made in the Soul two forces:
the intellective force, which is her ‘night’ in the world below her; and the
active force, which is her daytime in the world below her - and that (contrast
of these two universal powers) is called unseen and seen, letter and meaning,
abstract and sensed. So this causes in the Soul a Day that has no daytime and
night, while in the world it has (what we perceive as) daytime and night. The
same applies to the Day of the ‘Universal Matter’ (al-hayûlâ al-kuH):
its daytime is its essence, and its night is its form, while it is in itself a
Day with no daytime and night.
[III.202.20]
This (i.e. the relation between the two forces of the Soul
and the two phases of the day, the daytime and the night-time) leads to a very
important conclusion that we (physically) move in the world in the
‘daytime’ (nahâr) of the Soul, and that we (psychically or spiritually) perceive
the world in the ‘night-time’ of the Soul - a key symbolism of the Qur’an and
Hadith that Ibn ‘Arabi develops at length throughout the Futûhât and other
works. This motion-perception that happens in the ‘day’ (yawm) of the
Soul is a cyclic unit action that repeats every day (in fact, every moment
for us). In other words: we either move or perceive, but not at the same time.
Likewise,
the Day in every orb is a Day with no daytime and night for that orb, but with
the appearance of a daytime and night for (some of) the world below it. Ibn
‘Arabi even gives an excellent example, using a detailed scientific explanation
about something that we are familiar with nowadays, the phenomena of daytime
and night on the Earth:
And Allah caused the (normal) daytime and night
by creating the Sun and its (apparent) rising and setting on the Earth -
whereas in the sky it is all light, with no daytime and night. The outlet of
the night from the sphere of the Earth where the Sun sets is cone-shaped.
[III.203.22]
This is exactly what everybody admits now as a fact of
science, shown in Figure 2.2 for more clarification.
So with regard to us, we are necessarily either under the effect
of the daytimes of particular divine Names of Allah or under the effect of
their nights, depending on Allah’s manifestation for each one of us and in
everything else. But these Names in themselves have no daytime and night, but
rather are all light. Ibn ‘Arabi explains this differing influence of the
different divine Names further by saying:
So its night is the ‘unseen’ (ghayb),
which is what is hidden away from us but at the same time affects the high
Spirits which are above Nature and also the roaming Spirits; and its daytime is
the ‘seen’, which is its effect in natural bodies down to the last elementary
body.
[III.201.15]
Ibn ‘Arabi also gives more details about the different
manifestations of God to different kinds of bodies and spirits, by dividing the
daytime and night each into three thirds:
and when Allah divided His Days like that, He
made its night three parts and its daytime three parts; so He, the Exalted,
descends down to His servants in the last third of the night of His Days [Kanz\
3355, 3388], and that is when He is manifested to the natural spirits (al-arwâh
al-tabi‘iyya) that manage the material bodies; and in the middle third He
manifests to the subjected spirits (al-arwâh al-musakhkhara, or the
angels of each heavenly sphere), and in the first third He manifests to the
‘dominating spirits’ (al-arwâh al-muhaymina).
And He divided the day of these days into three
parts, and in every part He is manifested to the world ofbodies - for they are
always praising Allah. So in the first third He is manifested to the subtle
bodies (al-ajsâm al-latifa)
Figure 2.2 The daytime and night in the sky.
Note
Night
is only in some regions below the corresponding orb, whereas in the orb itself
it is all day. And in the case of the normal day on the Earth, the outlet of
the night is extended in space as a cone. which are unseen by sight,
in the middle third He is manifested to the transparent materials (al-ajsâm
al-shaffâfa), and in the last third He is manifested to the dense materials
(al-ajsâm al-kathîfa). Without this manifestation, they would not be
able to know Whom they are praising.
[III.201.24]
As we have seen above, Ibn ‘Arabi declares that there is an
indivisible duration of time [IV.425.8] that is the smallest possible time or
Day. Ibn ‘Arabi calls this Day ‘the single Day or time’ (al-zaman al-fard)
or ‘the Day of task or event’ (yawm al-sha’n). Another translation of sha’n
is possibly ‘concern’, which could also convey the general meaning of the
underlying Qur’anic verse, repeatedly cited by Ibn ‘Arabi and it forms the
basis of his unique view of the discrete nature of time: kulla yawm Huwa fl
sha’n (55:29). But we prefer to use the words ‘event’ or ‘task’ in order to
stress the meaning that in each such momentary ‘Day’, Allah acts in the world
by creating the totality of all events. Ibn ‘Arabi himself stressed this
meaning: ‘(The sha’n) is nothing but the (single universal creative
divine) Act, which is what He creates in each day of the smallest Days, which
is the single time that is indivisible’ [IV.425.11].
In every ‘Day of event’, Allah re-creates the world in a
new image that is similar to the previous one, but with slight changes. Or in
other words, in every ‘Day of event’ Allah causes one unique, singular Act in
the world, because Allah is One and His Command (amr) is one (Al-Masâ’il,
no. 26). However, this same single Act will have different results on the
different entities in the world, depending on the capabilities and
characteristics of each individual creature. For example, when Allah inspires
the Universal Soul (al-nafs al-kulliyya) to move the element of fire ( ‘unsûr
al-nâr) in order to heat the world, the effects of this single Act depend
greatly on the individual creatures, so those who are ready to burn will burn,
and those who accept heat will be heated, and so on [Ayyâm Al- Sha’n'.
11]: Also he says in the Futûhât that ‘the task in relation to the Real
is one from Him - but in relation to the recipients (qawâbil) of the
whole world, it is many tasks (events) that - were it not (all) confined by
existence - we could call infinite (because everything that physically exists
is necessarily finite)’ [II.82.6],
The ‘Day of event’ is a single and indivisible duration of
time that equals the entire earthly global day at each instant, but because the
Universal Intellect scans in this ‘Day’ N number of states (that is N/2 for
bodies in its ‘day’ and N/2 for spirits in its ‘night’), it appears to the
observer, who is one of these states, as infinitely divisible, because it is
extremely small: 24 / 60 / 60/N seconds, and N is surely unimaginably huge.
This is simply because the observer exists only for this infinitesimal amount
of time during every ‘Day of event’. This infinitesimal amount of time is what
we call ‘now’ (al-ân), the ‘moment’ (see the following section)
or the ‘presence’ - and this is the only real part of the
imaginary time (see also section 6.8).
We
must note that the isotropic orb, which is the first orb beneath the divine
‘Pedestal’, is not material. Therefore we can not differentiate between its
‘parts’, since there are no distinguishing features in this orb - which indeed
is why it is called ‘isotropic’ (atlas), or the same in all directions.
Therefore we can not measure the length of our normal day which is actually the
‘day’ of this isotropic orb (as we explained above in the previous section),
and which also equals the Day of event. But rather we use this perceptible
earthly day as a measure of other days, even though in itself it is an unknown
duration of time. Although we divide it into 24 hours, each of which has 60
minutes of 60 seconds, all this is mere convention. We can not measure anything
by its parts, so in order to measure this day, which is the period of the first
orb, we need to compare it to other days ‘before’ it. But since it is the first
day, we can not actually measure it: ‘and when Allah created this first orb, it
rotated a cycle which is unknown to other than Allah, the most Exalted, because
there are no finite bodies above it, since it is the first transparent body’
[1.122.29].
Moreover,
Ibn ‘Arabi also observes that since the isotropic orb has only one cycle, it
can not be described as having an end, although we assume in it a beginning
and an end [III.548.29].
In
many cases Ibn ‘Arabi calls this smallest, singular day 'the day of Breath’
[11.520.33, III.127.335], and he even gives a measure of this day through the
Breath: ‘and the day is the magnitude of the breath of the Breather in the
single time’ [11.171.23]. This is because in this instantaneous ‘Day’ the
divine creative ‘Breath’ emerges and returns to its Source, with its
manifestation being the realm of all the divine ‘letters’, ‘Words’, or ‘sounds’
repeatedly produced by this Breath. As we shall see in section 7.8, Ibn ‘Arabi
visualizes the divine ‘Word’ as essentially composed of vibrations or sounds
that are the ‘letters’ that form all the manifest objects and entities of the
cosmos, just as letters form the words in human language. All words are
composed of letters, and all letters are composed of the letter or initial
out-breathing vowel sound alif the first letter of the Arabic alphabet
[1.78.22]. So in each single Day, this creative divine sound is produced by the
divine Breath, and the manifest world is in reality the succession of these
sounds or breaths. We shall explore this important issue in section 7.8 below.
Also in section 6.8 we shall explain the creation scenario according the Single
Monad model of the cosmos.
In addition to the common Arabic words used for ‘time’ - zaman
and zamân - al-waqt is also widely used, which means the state ‘you are
always described by, so you are always under the rule of the moment’
[11.538.32]. We have already mentioned above the difference between zaman
and zamân, and shown that Ibn ‘Arabi uses them basically in the same
context, although he tends to use zaman for fixed and short times, such
as the Single Time. Al-waqt, however, sometimes has a different meaning
and technical usage for Ibn ‘Arabi. He notes that:
(this technical meaning of al-waqt) is in
fact - by the convention of the Folk (the Sufis) - the state in which you are
in the time being. So it is a thing that exists (now) between two non-existents
(the past and the present; not as time but as things that have passed or are
yet to come). And also it has been said that al-waqt is what comes upon
them from the Real by (the Real’s) managing (tasrîf them, not by what
they choose for themselves.
[11.538.35]
Ibn ‘Arabi elsewhere gives many equivalent meanings of al-waqt.
For example he defines al-waqt in his short dictionary of Sufi terms (Issttilâhât
Al-Sûfiyya'. 8) by saying that: 1 al-waqt is your state
in the time being, without any relation to the past or to the future’. But at
the end he says that
the divine (ontological) basis of al-waqt
is His, the most Exalted, describing Himself as being each day upon one
task (50:29): so al-waqt is what He is in - in the root - but
it appears in the offspring that is the cosmos. So the ‘tasks’ (shu’ûn)
of the Real appear in the entities of the world (the contingent things). So al-waqt
in fact is what you are in, and what you are in is your aptitude itself. So
what appears in you of the tasks of the Real that He is in, is only what your
aptitude demands: so the task is already designated, because the aptitude of
the possible with its possibility led the task of the Real to bring it into
existence. Do not you see that the non-existent does not accept the existence
(or the task of the Real), because it has no aptitude for that. So the
(outward, manifest) origin of al-waqt is from the cosmos, not from the
Real, and it is a kind of supposition (taqdlr) and supposition has no
effect (hukm) on other than the creation (i.e. it has no rule on the
Real).
[II.539.2]
In this way al-waqt is the current moment of time;
it is our portion of the single Day; so the single Day with regard to
the whole world is the global reality encompassing all of manifest existence -
including all on Earth - at any instant. But with regard to each entity in the
world, it is a moment, since the time of each entity in the world is its waqt.
This is why the Sufi was said to be ‘the son of his moment (ibn waqtihif,
as indicated by Gerhard Bdwering in his study of ‘Ibn al-‘Arabi’s Concept of
Time’. In this paper, Bowering also showed that ‘In Ibn al-‘Arabi’s view there
is an infinite cluster of moments, conceived as time atoms without duration,
but they are mere instances of preparedness in which are actualized those
possibilities that God has ordained to be affected in a human being’ (Bdwering
1992: 81).
However,
the issue of whether the moment has a duration or not is extremely delicate. If
we choose to say it has not, then how can the extent of the entire perceived
day be composed of zero-length moments? We must keep in mind that the number of
entities in the world (A), though very big, is finite. Therefore the single Day
equals N multiplied by the duration of the moment. But if we choose to
assert the actual duration of the ‘moment’, it would lead to questions already
Ibn ‘Arabi’s concept of time 67 encountered in earlier philosophers’ paradoxes about
time, such as ‘What exactly happens during the moment?’ and ‘Does the
event that takes a moment pop up at once or gradually?’ For if at once,
then ‘Why does it take a duration?’ and if gradually, then ‘What are the
sub-events, and how many are they?’
Ibn ‘Arabi did not give any direct insight about this
subtle and highly important cosmological issue. However, in his cosmological
treatise ‘Uqlat Al-Mustaw- fiz, he spoke briefly about the Greatest
Element (al-‘unsûr al-a‘zam) whom Allah created at once, and we shall
show in section 6.4 that the Single Monad, though it is an indivisible unit, is
composed of or made by (or from different manifestations of) this Greatest
Element. Therefore, the moment (that corresponds in fact to the creation of the
Single Monad) should also be composed of ‘sub-moments’ (that correspond to the
creation of the Greatest Element). We can now affirm, according to Ibn ‘Arabi,
that those sub-moments are utterly indivisible because he said that Allah
creates the Greatest Element ‘at once’. The questions of ‘Do those submoments
have non-zero durations?’ and ‘How many sub-moments are in the moment?’ remain
open, though a first speculation is that the process is similar to the normal
day where the Sun rises and sets to define the daytime and the night. There is
some support for this in the comparison Ibn ‘Arabi usually makes between the
creation of the Perfect Human Being (that is the Single Monad) and the creation
of the world, and more specifically the motion of the Sun during the day. We
shall talk about this comparison in section 6.7. Therefore, the Day of the
Single Monad (that is the moment) may look smooth and composed of a continuous
flow of time. But it is quite possible that the same sets of questions may be
repeated and similar quantization takes place at smaller scales.
When the Single Monad (that is the Universal Intellect)
faces his Lord, this is the ‘night’ for the Universal Soul; and when the
Intellect Uaql, masculine in Arabic) faces the Universal Soul (nafs,
a feminine noun) this is her daytime [III.202.22], so this is the single Day of
the Single Monad that is the Universal Intellect, and therefore the moments
that are the days of the sub-entities of the world (which are the
sub-intellects) should be also in the same way. But we have not seen any
reference in Ibn ‘Arabi’s writings with any detail about the exact relation
between the Single Monad and the Greatest Element, and hence about the moment and
its possible constituents. On the contrary, Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that this is a
divine secret and that he was sworn not to disclose it ( ‘Uqlat Al-Mus-
tawfiz: 38).
2.17
The future, the present
and the past
We have already said that the future and the past do not
exist; the real time is only the present, the now (al-’an) or the
current state (al-hal). Also, we explained that the Age is an endless
circle that does not have a beginning or an end for itself; it is all an
‘eternally ongoing present’ which is called al-an al- dâ’im or - as Ibn
‘Arabi calls it elsewhere - ‘the continuous existence’ (al-wujûd
al-mustamirr) [11.69.13, IV.362.32]. However, we live in time at the
present now, and we feel the past and the future, so how can they be non-existence?
As we noted earlier, Ibn ‘Arabi often explains that the
essential realities [a'yân: the essences or entities] of the manifest
world have always been existing in the Knowledge of Allah, though not actual
real existence [11.309.25,1.538.32]. When Allah creates the world, it appears
in real existence in the same reality as it is determined in Allah’s knowledge.
Allah does not create all the successive states of the world at once, but in a
series process; so the creations are brought into existence one by one. Of
course this is true in relation to us, but with relation to Allah, Who is out
of time, the word ‘series’ would be meaningless because it is confined to time.
For Allah nothing was changed because the creation existed in His knowledge
eternally. So because we are sub-entities in this whole creation, we encounter
time as past, present and future, but in fact only the present exists. The past
is ‘a relegation of an actualized non-existence’, and the future is ‘a pure
non-existence’ [11.69.13], whereas the present now (al-ân) or state (half
is ‘what makes the distinction between them’ [11.56.11], ‘so without the
(current) state (hâl) there would be no distinction between the past
non-existence and the future non-existence, so the now (al-ân) is like
a partition (barzakhf [III.108.16]. ‘Therefore the present state (al-hâl)
is described by the continuous existence and it is the constant and immutable
rule, and anything other than the present state is non-existence and could not
be a firm (absolute) existence’ [IV.362.33].
As we have already noted, the English word ‘eternity’ has
two different Arabic synonyms: ‘azar and ‘abad'. Azal is eternity
without beginning (a parte ante), and abad is eternity without
end (a parte post). Ibn ‘Arabi showed in his short treatise The Book
of Eternity (Kitâb Al-Azal) that ‘there is nothing called eternity at all’ (Kitâb
Al-Azal: 8-9). Eternity is in fact the negation of a beginning (or
end), not endless extension: that is why Ibn ‘Arabi says that eternity is a
negative attribute. In this way there is no meaning to asking whether there has
been any extension of time between the existence of Allah and the existence of
the world, because Allah creates the world out of time, as discussed in section
2.3 above.
There has been a long debate amongst Islamic philosophers
and theologians about the meaning of eternity and time with relation to Allah.
Some philosophers say, for example, that Allah was talking in eternity in His
eternal Speech, and that therefore He said in eternity ‘take off thy shoes'
(20:12) to Moses, and ‘worship thy Lord until certainty comes unto thee’
(15:99) to Muhammad, peace be upon them, and so on. They say that because
clearly we can not say that Allah uttered these words at the time of Moses or
Muhammad, therefore it must be an eternal speech. Ibn ‘Arabi, however, showed
in his Kitâb Al-Azal that all these interpretations are not proper, and
that they end up confining Allah to time, which is a serious error: ‘It is more
proper to say that Moses heard out of time, because the Speaker spoke out of
time. To let Moses become holy is better than letting al-Bâri’ (the
Creator) be compared to us’ (Kitâb Al-Azal: 5, see also al- Masâ’il,
no. 131).
So if we take the correct meaning of the word ‘eternity’,
which is the negation of any beginning (azal), we may ask: was there
anyone in eternity with the Creator or not? There has also been a long
philosophical and theological debate about that, which Ibn ‘Arabi summarizes by
saying:
One group said: ‘the primordials (qudamâ)
are four: the Creator, the Intellect, the Soul and the Dust (al-haba’f.
Another group said: ‘the primordials are eight
(pre-existents): the Essence and the seven descriptions’ (i.e. the seven
primordial descriptions or attributes of Allah, drawn from earlier kalam
theology: ‘Life, Knowledge, Ability, Will, Hearing, Seeing and Speaking’
[1.525.32]).
Another group said: ‘nothing is primordial but
One, and He is the exalted Real, and He is One in all aspects, but to His
Essence (there is) an aspect by which He is called Able, and so on for whatever
they have made a description’.
Another group took this (last) opinion, but they
added to it a (new) concept. And this concept is called ‘the Reality of
Realities’, which is neither existing nor non-existing, but it is primordial
with the primordial and created with the created; it can be imagined, but it
does not exist by itself, like universality ( ‘âlamiyya) and so on.
(KitâbAl-Azal. 8-9)
Clearly, the Sufis are among the last group, and Ibn ‘Arabi
in particular relates the beginning of creation to ‘the Reality of Realities’ (haqîqat
al-haqâ’iq), and sometimes he calls it ‘the Universal Reality’ (al-haqîqa
al-kulliyya) or ‘the Muhammadan Reality’ (al-haqîqa al-muhammadiyya).
He stated in chapter 6 of the Futûhât that the beginning of the
spiritual creation is the ‘Dust’, and that the first existent within it was the
‘Muhammadan Reality of (divine) Mercy’ (al- haqîqa al-muhammadiyya
al-rahmâniyya) that is not confined to space, and that it is created from
the ‘Known Reality’ (al-haqîqat al-ma‘lûma) that can not be described by
either existence or non-existence [1.118.5]. Ibn ‘Arabi claims that only the
Sufis have introduced the concept of ‘the Reality of Realities’ (haqîqat
al-haqâ’iq), although he admits that the Mu‘tazilites drew attention to
something similar to this notion when they tried to escape the accusation that
their understanding of the divine Attributes postulated the real existence of
additional realities otherthanthe Essence ofthe Real [11.433.14, SPK:
134-139].
So the days are repeated cycles of different ‘orbs’,
whether celestial or divine: every orb has its own day. These days overlap with
each other, so the day of the Sun, for example, takes 360 days of our days that
we count on the Earth; the day of the Moon takes 28 normal Earth days, and so
on. In one Sun day, many Moon days pass; and in one Moon day, many normal Earth
days pass - just as in one ‘Lord-day’, one thousand Sun days (Earth years)
pass. Likewise, all the possible days of all orbs and divine
Names happen and repeat themselves in the ‘Day of the Age’ that ‘is one Day
that never repeats, and it has no daytime (nahâr) or night’ [III.202.5].
The Day ofthe Age is all a ‘daytime’: it does not have a night, because
there is no orb above it; it is the truly all-encompassing orb that includes
all material and spiritual orbs.
Ibn
‘Arabi, like other Sufis, consider that ‘the Age’ (al-dahr) is one of
the divine Names of Allah, according to a hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad
says: ‘Do not damn the Age, for Allah is the Age’ \Kanz\ 8137]. In
another divine saying (Hadith qudsi). Allah says: ‘the son of Adam hurts
Me: he damns the Age, and I am the Age, the command in My Hand, I
circulate the daytime andthenight’ \Kanz\ 8139].
Also
in the Qur’an, Allah says: ‘and they say: What is there but our life in this
world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but the Age can destroy us. But
ofthat they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture’’ (45:24).
In
his comments on this last verse, Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that they (the disbelievers)
are quite right in their claim that nothing but the Age can destroy them,
because Allah is the Age - though they did not mean that, but rather
meant simply time, and not ‘the Age’ as a name of Allah [IV.265.29].
We
have seen above that ‘the time of a thing is its presence’: this is why Allah
is named as ‘the Age’, because the realities of everything exist in Him. So He
is ‘the Age’ because the whole world (hidden and manifest), including all space
and time, from eternity without beginning (al-azal) to eternity without
end (al-abad): all this is a manifestation of Allah’s divine Names - so
the Age is the allencompassing orb of all Names [IV.266.11]. Ibn ‘Arabi
explains this by saying:
Do not you see in Allah’s words (the Qur’an)
when He told us about things in the past, He then used the past tense, and He
used the future tense for things to come, and He used the present tense for the
now-happening things, ... and if we seek for all that something that has a real
existence and these things are occurring in it - which is for them like a
container - we shall find nothing, neither by mind nor by sense, except that we
find it as an imaginary container, which is itself contained by another
imaginary container, and so on, nothing but endless illusion. So if you think
rationally, you will find that there is nothing (i.e. no ‘containing’ reality
of space or time) that can be comprehended by imagination or by the mind, nor
by the senses, nothing but the Real Existence on which our existence is based.
For this reason He named Himself to us as ‘the Age’, so
that the reference can be only to Him, not to ‘time’ as imagined, because
there is no Ruler (hâkim) other than Allah, and in Him appeared the
realities of things and their properties. So He is the everlasting existence,
and the realities of things with their properties appeared from behind the veil
of His existence, but because of His subtleness (latâfa), we see the
realities of things, which are ourselves, from behind the veil of His existence
without seeing Him, just like we see the stars from behind the veil of the
heavens (the orbs) and yet we do not see the heavens.
[III.547.1]
Moreover, given the above definition of the Age, it is not
possible to imagine a plural form of this word in this meaning. Yet Ibn ‘Arabi
himself sometimes uses it as plural, when he speaks about the ‘first age’ or
the ‘age of ages’ from which time appeared: ‘from that (eternity) is the
Prophet’s saying: “Allah is/was, and none with Him” (Kanz: 29850), and
this is a rare knowing known only by the “Solitary Sages” (al-afrâd)
among men. That is what is called “the first age” and “the age of ages”: and
from this eternity (azal), time emerged’ [1.156.35].
This could be slightly confusing, but there are some
references in Ibn ‘Arabi’s writing that seem to parallel what is known in
modern cosmology as the ‘bubbles’ model of the universe, where the universe is
full of black holes that cause a large curvature in space-time in such a way
that each can be considered as a separate space-time similar to - and as large
as - our own; except that each is only a single point in our space-time. Thus
Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that ‘each part of the world can be a cause for another
world similar to it’ [1.259.25]. Also Ibn ‘Arabi considers that the origin of
the world that we live in is the Universal Intellect, who is originally only
one of an unknown number of roaming Spirits whom Allah created directly without
any intermediaries [III.430.5]. Any one of these primordial Spirits is,
therefore, capable of making another universe,just like the Universal Intellect
that made our universe. Also we may recall that Allah in the Qur’an is
repeatedly called the ‘the Lord of the worlds’, in the indefinite plural,
and not only of this world. However, the Arabic word for ‘the age’ has also
been conventionally used sometimes for other related meanings such as eternity
without beginning (azal) and eternity without end (abad)', so Ibn
‘Arabi showed that the plural form ‘ages’ (duhûr) could also be used to
include or refer to all these terms, since they all are essentially the Age
[IV.266.5].
On the other hand, the Age is not only time, but it is also
space. Because the Age is the totally ‘encompassing orb’, it must include
everything inside it, spatial as well as temporal. As we shall show in section
3.6, the world as both space and time is created in the seven days of the
divine Week (six Days for space, plus Saturday for time). And the Age is not
more than those divine seven Days [II.438.5]. Thus in Ibn ‘Arabi’s conception,
space and time have the same meaning as days, and both are unified as
space-time, where the divine Week is its basic unit, and the Age is in fact
this Single Week.
2.20
Other expressions of time
In addition to the common words such as time (zaman,
zamân), moment (w«^t), day (yawm), daytime (nahâr) night (layl),
eternity (azal/abad) and the age (dahr), which we have discussed
above, along with the related terms for week (usbû‘), month (shahr)
and year (sana), which we shall discuss in Chapter 3, there are other
time expressions occasionally used by Ibn ‘Arabi with slightly different and
more specific technical meanings than in their usage by other Muslim scholars
and theologians. We want to end this chapter by looking at some of these other
temporal terms for the purpose of completeness, although we may not need to
refer to these technical terms in the rest of this book. In particular, some of
these expressions became important in later forms of Islamic thought which
tried to elaborate and integrate Ibn ‘Arabi’s ideas, in various ways, with the
conceptual schemas of both kalam theology and Avicennan philosophy.
•
Al-sarmad:
this is another word for eternity, other than al-azal, al-abad and al-dahr.
Unlike kalam theologians, Ibn ‘Arabi does not use this word often. Sarmad
means ‘absolute eternity’, i.e. it includes both eternity without beginning (azal)
and without end (abad). It is most widely used as an adjective, sarmadî,
meaning ‘everlasting’, and this is how it is used in a very pertinent
discussion of time in the Qur’an (28:71-72). Ibn ‘Arabi normally used it
[1.164.2,1.169.26,11.675.14, IV.29.27] in a similar manner.
•
Mata',
literally this word means ‘when?’, and refers to the relation of a thing or
event to time, or to other events. It is used to inquire about the time or
occurrence of an event in relation to others. Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that the
thought of time comes about due to this kind of inquiry: ‘So for example if one
asks: when (matâ) did Zayd come? Then the answer may be “(he came) when (hîna)
the Sun rose” ’ [III.546.28].
•
Al-htn:
this is a (relatively short) duration of time [11.201.36,11.263.25]; it is also
commonly used to refer to a specific future or past time [11.201.36], usually
in answer to ‘when’, as in the previous example: ‘(he came) when (hîna)
the Sun rose’ [III.546.28].
3
The
significance of the divine week and its seven days
The
elements are four mothers,
and
they are the daughters of the world of (the heavenly) orbs.
We
are born out of them, so our (ultimate, spiritual) being
is in
the world of (spiritual) principles (arkân) and (spiritual) rulers.
The
God has made our sustenance from the ears of grain (sanâbil),1
from
the influence ofSunbula (Virgo),2 without sharing.3
And He also multiplied our reward by ‘the seven ears of
grain’, as it was said in a saying (2:261) by One
Who does not lief So our time (zamân) is seven thousands (ofyears), that come
through the recurrence of (moments) of radiance and intense darkness. So see,
withyour intellect, seven in seven, from seven that are not kings.
[I.292.31-293.3]
As Ibn ‘Arabî suggests in this cryptic opening poem of his
key cosmological chapter 60 of the Futûhât (explained at the end of
section 3.1), although we encounter many visible, apparent ‘days’ due to the
rotation of the Earth around its axis, which all appear to be similar to each
other, ultimately we can reduce them to only seven distinctive Days5
depending on the kinds of events that happen in them. Ibn ‘Arabî argues that in
each Day of the seven Days of the (actual, cosmic) ‘Week’, Allah orders
the heavenly orbs to act in a special unique manner that causes unique events
and motions to appear in the entire cosmos. However, the seven Days of these
divine, creative ‘events’ or ‘tasks’ (shu’ûn) are intertwined with our
normal days of the apparent earthly week in a special manner that we shall
explain in the coming chapter - and that is why we see multiple events
appearing every day.
eternity (al-sabt). These distinctive conceptions
can only be fully understood after investigating Ibn ‘Arabi’s view of the
actual flow of time, which we shall explain in the following chapter; but in
this chapter we shall first explain the origin and the meaning of these seven
Days of the divine creative Week, why they have to be seven and not more or
fewer, and what is the significance of each Day.
Also
in this chapter we shall explain Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique understanding of the
process of creation of the world by Allah ‘in six Days', from Sunday to
Friday. He explains that the creation of the world in this Week corresponds to
the creation of the ‘six directions’ of space (in six Days, from Sunday to
Friday) and then the appearance of this creation in time on Saturday
(the Day of eternity). In this way the Week is indeed the unit of the
space-time container of the world - or also ‘the Age’ as we explained in
section 2.19. This distinctive conception of the unification of space and time,
symbolically expressed in Ibn ‘Arabi’s understanding of the seven Days of
creation, adds an essential dimension to Relativity’s concept of space and
time; as a result, for the first time in astronomy, the ‘Week’ will itselfhave
a clear and essential cosmological significance.
3.1
The significance of the
week in theology and astronomy
In most Islamic books that talk about cosmology, we find
many diagrams and tables that associate each day of the seven days of the week
with specific letters of the alphabet and specific divine Names of Allah, in
addition to certain planets and constellations or zodiacal signs. For example,
Ibn ‘Arabî explained in the long chapter 198 of the Futûhât [II.390-478]
the creation of the world by Allah and the role of His divine Names on the different
parts of Heavens and Earth, and then he relates each divine Name and the thing
He creates to a letter from the Arabic alphabet, a mansion from the 28 lunar
mansions (constellations), a day of the seven days of the week, and one of the
seven circulating heavenly bodies (five planets, Sun and Moon). This type of
symbolic association based on the days of the astronomical week is also found
in many other cosmological books of other religions and cultures dealing with
astrology and related mythology.
The
Egyptians once divided their 30-day months into three ten-day weeks, in the
same manner as Greeks of the same period (Goudsmit 1966: 24), but later they
changed it back to seven days.6 More recently, the French (during
the Revolution, in 1792) tried to make their week ten days instead of seven;
and the Russians also tried (in 1929) five-day and (in 1932) six-day weekly
systems, although they all later restored the seven-day week (Goudsmit and
Claiborne 1974: 24).
So
what is the importance of the week, and why does it apparently have to be seven
days in particular, while most other attempted systems making the week three,
five, six or ten days did not persist, with few exceptions such as the Maya who
used weeks/months of 20 days (Aveni 1990: 101, 185-252)? Even some
micro-organisms clearly adopt a seven-day biological cycle (Aveni 1990: 100,
and Coveny and Highfield 1990: 220-259). And yet, unlike the day, the year and
the month, there is no any apparent astronomical significance to the
week; nothing cosmic happens in the heavens in seven days.
The
Babylonians and the ancient Egyptians believed that each hour of the day was
ruled by one of the five then-known planets plus the Sun and the Moon, and they
named the days of the week after the names of these seven circulating planets,
as they are now used in both the Latin and Anglo-Saxon languages and cultures
(Aveni 1990: 102-106). They considered that the planet that ruled the first
hour of the day governed the entire day, so they gave the name of this planet to
the corresponding day. The same doctrine was also part of earlier Persian cosmology
and theology (Bickerman 1968: 59). Ibn ‘Arabî also refers to the same
hypothesis [III.203.31].
It is
interesting to note that these celestial bodies, in the same sequence, were
also used to name the days of the week in ancient India, Tibet and Burma
(Parise 1982: 172). This is also true for the names of Japanese (who used the
Chinese sexagenary cycles) (Parise 1982: 215-218) days of the week, but the
custom there has been traced back only 1,000 years. Adherents of the cult of
Sin at Harran, who were known as Harranians or ‘Sabeans’ by Arabic and Syrian
authors, also named their days after the same solar system members (Langdon
1964: 154). Like Ibn ‘Arabî, the Babylonians, the Chinese, ancient Egyptians
and most ancient civilizations considered the day named after Saturn to be the
seventh day, so they began their week with a day named after the Sun (Sunday),
a practice which was affirmed in the Bible7 and later by the Prophet
Muhammad.8
In
the Arabic linguistic usages followed in Islam, however, the names of the days
of the week do not relate to the names of any pagan gods or celestial bodies.
Before Islam, different names were used in Arabic, which were mostly derived
from certain actions people usually performed on those particular days of the
week, though some of those Arabic names might also have been derived from the
names of the planets (Al-Marzûqî 2002: 238-244). But in the later standardized
Islamic usage, apart from the day-names Jum'a (Friday) which means
‘gathering’ and Sabt (Saturday) which means ‘rest’, the names of the
days are merely numbered from one (al-ahad which means ‘the first’ or
‘the one’, for Sunday) to five (al-khamis which means ‘the fifth’ for
Thursday). These names, however, clearly suggest that Sunday (al-ahad)
is the first day of the week, as was the case with the earlier Babylonians and
Egyptians - a fact which Ibn ‘Arabi and some other Muslim authors normally take
for granted, based on many related prophetic narrations, as we shall see
further below (section 3.5).
Given
their centrality in Qur’anic accounts of the creation, the seven days of the
week (and their standard Arabic names) play an essential role in Ibn ‘Arabî’s
cosmology. His cosmological understanding of the week clearly has its basis in
the scriptural accounts of divine creation, but also assumes throughout that
there must be some kind of corresponding deeper effects of that (i.e. the
divine creation of the seven Days of the Week) in the wider cosmos.
Finally,
although there are many similarities between Ibn ‘Arabî’s doctrine about the
origin of the divine creative Week and its Days, and the cosmological
perspectives and understandings of earlier ancient (mostly pagan) cultures, he
also takes great pains to stress that this cosmological schema should not be
understood as a deviation from the fundamental monotheistic teachings of Islam,
and to indicate the ways that conception is rooted in indications in both the
Qur’an and many hadith. Although Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmology, for example, relates
the seven days of the week and the orbs of the seven moving planets, as in many
ancient cosmologies, he carefully emphasizes that he does not consider these
planets as ‘gods’ at all. Thus he goes on to explain, in his explanation of the
poem (quoted at the beginning of this chapter) opening chapter 60 of the Futûhât,
that the planets and/or the angelic spirits associated with them ‘are servants,
and the servant does not deserve the name “ruler” (or “king”: malik). And
the “seven” mentioned (there) are the seven planets in the seven orbs that
appeared by the seven Days of the Week’ [I.293.4].
Following
repeated indications in the Qur’an and Hadith, Ibn ‘Arabî understands that
those planets, along with other constellations associated with signs of the
zodiac and lunar mansions, are associated with or inhabited by certain spirits (rûhâniyyât)
or angels whom Allah appointed and organized in a specific hierarchy to look
after the whole cosmos beneath them, including the Earth [III.433-434]. This is
different from earlier cosmological doctrines, because the pagan astrologers
believed that these spirits were deities and gods, while Ibn ‘Arabî stresses
that they are nothing but servants created and appointed by Allah.9
Ibn ‘Arabi stresses that ‘everything in the world has to be
based on (specific) divine Attributes’ [1.293.5]. Although some Muslim
scholars, following a famous hadith [Kanz~. 1933, 1937], believe that
the basic divine Names or Attributes of Allah can be limited to 99, Ibn ‘Arabî
considers them to be countless [III.146.35], while the 99 Names that are
referred to in some prophetic narrations are simply the main most Beautiful
Names (al-asmâ’ al-husnâ) of Allah. Of these many divine Names, there
are four fundamental Attributes - Life (hayât), Knowledge ( ‘ilm),
Ability (qudra) and Will (irâda) - that are necessary and
sufficient for Allah to be described as God. Therefore those are considered to
be the ultimate sources or ‘mothers’ (ummahât) of all other divine
Attributes
[1.469.25] . In relation to creation,
however, three more Attributes are also necessary for Allah to be Creator:
Hearing (sam‘), Seeing (basar) and Speaking (kalâm). Together,
that makes the principal divine Attributes of Allah to be ‘seven mother
attributes....: Life, Knowledge, Ability, Will, Hearing, Seeing and Speaking’
[I.525.32].
Because
Allah created (the perfect) Human Being ‘according to His Image’ [I.163.20], these
same divine Attributes are potentially manifest in every fully human person
(such as Adam and the prophets). Also, as Ibn ‘Arabî says, Allah created the
world and everything in it in the image of (the Perfect) Human Being
[11.652.25] , and so the world with the
Human Being is ‘on the Image of the Real’ - but without the Human Being it
would not have this perfection [III.343.25]. So these same attributes should be
available and essential in the world as well. That is why, he explains, the
numbers four and seven play a central role in the world: the four elements in
nature (earth, water, air and fire, already mentioned in his poem opening this
chapter), the four time cycles, the seven heavens, the seven days, and so on.
The two cosmologically fundamental four fold groups that emerged out of the
four ‘mother’ Attributes (Life, Ability, Will and Power) that are the four
aspects of the divine Presence of the Essence (al-Dhât) are the four
earthly elements (earth, water, air and fire) and the primordial cosmological
principles of the Intellect, Soul, Dust and Nature, as in Figure 3.1.
This
quadratic cosmological rule was also reflected in relation to time. Therefore,
Ibn ‘Arabî points out, there are four main time cycles within the domain of
manifest nature: the day, the week, the month and the year. These four natural
time cycles have their origin in the effects of those four elements of
Nature (fire, air, water, earth) that are originally derived from the
above-mentioned four principal divine Names (‘the mothers’). As Ibn ‘Arabi
says:
Figure 3.1 The Divine Quadratic Rule.
Note
This figure is translated from the Futûhât [I.260].
time is restricted to the year, month, week and
day. Time is divided into four divisions because the natural seasons are four,
because the origin of the existence of time is Nature, whose level is below the
(universal) Soul and above the ‘Dust’ ihabâ’) that philosophers call the
Universal Matter (hayûlâ). The influence of this (principal) quatemity (tarbi
) in Nature is from the influence of the (same principle of) quatemity in the
divine influences from (the fundamental Names) Life, Knowledge, Ability and
Will. For by these four (Names), godship is confirmed for the God.
So the quatemity (first) became manifest in Nature. Then
the (divine) Command descended until the (principle of quaternity) appeared in
the ‘biggest time’ (cycle), which is the year, so that it was divided into the
four seasons: spring, summer, autumn and winter. This was brought about by the
motion of the Sun through the stations (of the zodiac), which have been
divided by Nature into their (seasonal) divisions according to the (natural)
elements that are the ‘basic principles’ (of fire, air, water and earth).
[chapter 390, III.548.17]
We have already discussed Ibn ‘Arabî’s concept of the ‘day’
in Chapter 2, where we showed that he defines the ‘day’ as all that is included
within the revolution of the Isotropic Orb, which encompasses all of material
existence. This day is astronomically defined by the rotation of the Earth and
it is conventionally divided into smaller units such as hours, minutes and
seconds (see also section 4.6). The divine Day, however, is the corresponding
effects (manifestations) of each of the seven fundamental divine Names on the
entire cosmos, as we shall see further below (section 3.4). This unique divine
Day is in fact the smallest indivisible unit of time, though it equals in
length the normal day as we discussed in section 2.15.
The second time cycle is the week, which Ibn ‘Arabî -
following the detailed Qur’anic indications - considers to be the main cycle of
Creation. The week (which is seven days) has its origin in the seven main
Attributes of Allah, but until now it does not seem to have any particular
astronomical significance. However, Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique view, as explained
below, gives a profound and essential significance to the Week in terms of
astronomy/cosmology as well as the theology of creation. This will be the main
focus throughout this chapter (see in particular section 3.3 below).
Ibn ‘Arabî distinguishes between the witnessed lunar month,
which is from new moon to another new moon, and the ‘divine Month’ which is the
time needed for the Moon to perform one full revolution in the orb of the
zodiac: that is, as Ibn ‘Arabî says, 28 days [III.548.28]. He also recognizes
the solar ‘month’ as the Sun’s observed motion throughout the zodiac, where the
zodiac is conventionally divided into 12 parts, each corresponding to one
month [I.388.20], though he does not give any details about the length of solar
months in terms of their days.10
The year, for Ibn ‘Arabî, is the time needed for the Sun to
perform one full revolution in the orb of the zodiac [III.548.28], as
witnessed from the Earth. Like the Babylonians,11 Ibn ‘Arabî
considers the year to be 360 days [III.434.9], and not like our calendar year
of 365.25 days.
Ibn
‘Arabî regards our solar year and the solar (and lunar) month as conventions
set up by human observers, while the 360-day year, the 28-day month, the
(seven-day) week/Week, and the (sidereal) day/Day are divine periods of time
set up by Allah when He created the heavenly orbs and made them move
[III.548.27]. It is noteworthy in this regard that the 360-day year does not
equal 12 of the 28-day months. These four time cycles that Ibn ‘Arabî talks
about are not meant for calendar purposes; they are said to be the actual
measures of time set up by Allah when He created the world. Moreover, Ibn
‘Arabi shows that this non-integer ratio is preordained and essential for the
vastness of creation, because the creation is built upon the act of generation (takwîn),
and with complete ratios no generation could happen; so there have to be
integers and fractions [II.440.7].
The
differences between the witnessed lunar month (synodic lunar month = 29.53
days) and the divine lunar month (of 28 days), and between the witnessed year
(365.25 days) and the 360-day year, might be because of the interference of the
different motions of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. As the Earth spins around
its axis it also rotates around the Sun, and as the Moon rotates around the
Earth it also moves with the Earth around the Sun. These interfering motions
may account for the difference. For example, if we measure the period of the
Moon relative to those stars that are apparently fixed (this is called the
sidereal lunar month), we get only 27.32 days (and not the usual 29.53 days,
the observed lunar month). The divine lunar month for Ibn ‘Arabî is 28 days
because he measures that period in relation to the zodiac (far-away galaxies)
or actually the Isotropic Orb, and not the orb of the Sun or the
constellations [I.656.13], because those constellations are not actually fixed
[III.549.3]. Also we have to know that the length of the observed earthly day
varies from one place to another on the Earth and from summer to winter
throughout the year, and that the normal solar year and the normal lunar month
slightly vary from time to time owing to the influence of gravitation of other
planets and stars that change their positions inside and relative to the solar
system, respectively. Thus the mean solar day in the year 2000 is about 1.7
milliseconds longer than it was in 1900, and is slowly getting longer. There is
a possible allusion in the Qur’an to such long-term changes in the length of
the year and the month, where Allah says: ‘The quantity of months with Allah
is 12 months (in a year) by Allah’s ordinance in the day that (when)
He created the Heavens and the Earth’ (9:36): in other words, it could
be that the year started as 12 months each of 28 days, but that this then
changed with time as the motion of the Earth slowed down and as the solar year
became longer, and also as the lunar month became longer than 28 days.
In
this regard, we should also notice that in Arabic there are two names for the
year which do not appear to have identical meanings: sana and ‘âm. Although
both terms are currently used to refer to the year, it seems from the
etymological meaning of those two names and from Ibn ‘Arabî’s and Qur’anic
usage that the word sana means the original 360-day year, while ‘am
- which literally means ‘entire’ or ‘full’ - is the time needed for the Earth
to make a full revolution around the Sun, which is the slowly lengthening
conventional year now observed on Earth. In the Qur’an, Allah distinguishes
between these two Arabic words in one verse that declares the time that Prophet
Noah stayed with his folk: ‘And verily We sent Noah unto his folk, and he
continued with them for a thousand years (sana) save fifty years (‘dm); and the
flood engulfed them, for they were wrong doers’ (29:14).
3.3
The week as the primary
time cycle
While Ibn ‘Arabî considers the Week (of Creation) to be the
primary time cycle, only the week among these four cycles does not seem to have
any apparent astronomical significance. We can say only that the week is
one-quarter of the divine lunar month (28 = 4 X 7). From the observed
astronomical point of view, the day should be the primary time cycle, because
it is the smallest standard period of time as far as the solar system and the
Earth are concerned, and all other three cycles (as defined by Ibn ‘Arabi) are
integer multiples of the day, while the year is not an integer multiple of the
week. However, we shall see that Ibn ‘Arabî does not consider the day to be the
primary cycle because the Days of the divine Week are not similar to each
other, as they might appear to us. Since each Day of the Week is based on one
of the seven fundamental divine Attributes of Allah, so these Days are not
identical because those seven divine Attributes are not identical. Therefore
the Week, rather than the day, is the primary cycle of divine time, and each
day of the seven Days of that Week is ruled by one of the seven fundamental
divine Attributes.
However,
in keeping with Ibn ‘Arabî’s essential understanding of the ‘ever- new
creation’, this does not mean that any particular day of this week is identical
to that of another week. They are only ‘similar’ to each other because they
are originated from the same divine Attribute. Ibn ‘Arabî says:
Nothing is actually repeated, because of divine
vastness (ittisâ); so (everything) is in ever-new, not renewed,
existence. Thus if we call the new (thing) ‘renewed’, that is because it is
extremely similar (but not identical) to its counterpart, so that they can not
be distinguished from each other . . . and the daytime and night are called
‘the two-new’ (al-jadîdân), and not ‘the two-renewed’ (al-mutajaddidân),
because Saturday is not Sunday and it is not Saturday from the other week, or
from another month or from another year.
[III.127.23]
This is clearly evident in modern astronomy, because
whatever periodical motions we see locally in our solar system are actually
part of a more global motion that, in the end, never repeats itself in the same
way, because everything is moving (see sections 1.1 and 1.4). In fact, Ibn
‘Arabî always stresses that there can not be any two identical forms in the
world, and that this is because ‘Allah never manifests in the same form twice,
nor in the same form to any two persons’ [III.127.33].
Therefore
Ibn ‘Arabî maintains that ‘although there are many days, the real order of
events reduces them into seven days’ [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6], which are the
seven days of the week; and then these days iterate in months and years. And as
we showed, this is due to the fact that ‘(the main) divine Attributes are seven,
not more, which made the Age not more than seven (distinctive) Days’
[II.437.30].
However,
the observed, earthly week and its days that we witness and live through do not
seem to be distinctive in any natural way; as noted earlier, they appears to be
purely conventional. The reason for that is the ‘intertwining’ between the
underlying divine seven ‘Days’ of creation and the days that we live. This
intertwining of the two kinds of days is a complicated concept that Ibn ‘Arabî
explained partially in his short book Ayyâm Al-Sha’n, and in a few passages
in the Futûhât. We shall devote Chapter 4 to explaining the real flow of
time as viewed by Ibn ‘Arabi, by defining three different types of days: the
normal days, and the ‘taken-out’ days and the ‘intertwined’ days.
3.4
The divine origin of the
seven days of the week
Therefore, Ibn ‘Arabî concludes, each Day of the seven Days
of the divine Week has to be based on one of these seven basic divine
Attributes:
So because Allah (Who is described by the seven
fundamental Attributes) created the world according to His own Image
[II.395.25], ... the Days had to be seven due to these (seven) Attributes and
their rules, so the world appeared living, knowing, able, willing, hearing,
seeing and speaking.
[II.438.19]
We have already shown in section 2.1 that ‘time’ for Ibn
‘Arabî is an imaginary attribute that is used to compare the chronological
order of moving things. The day is actually a measure of the motion of the orb
of the Sun, or more precisely the Isotropic Orb. And since motion is created by
Allah, by creating events in the world, there are seven fundamental creative
motions, or ‘Days of events’, each of which is originated from or ruled by one
of these seven divine Attributes, and further associated with specific
astronomical or astrological positions and figures apparently involved in the
cosmological manifestations of those divine influences (see also the detailed
outline of these associated symbols in Table 3.1 below):
(the motion of) the Day of Sunday was from the
(divine) Attribute of Hearing,
... and the motion of the Day ofMonday was from
the Attribute ofLiving, ... and the motion of the Day of Tuesday was from the
Attribute of Seeing, . . . and the motion of the Day of Wednesday was from the
Attribute of
Willing,
. . . and the motion of the Day of Thursday was
from the Attribute of Ability,
. . . and the motion of the Day of Friday was
from the Attribute of Knowledge,
... and the motion of the Day of Saturday was
from the Attribute of Speaking.
[II.438.7]
This relation between the seven Days and the seven main
divine Attributes is not arbitrary. We notice that Sunday, which is the first
day of the week (and in the creation, as we shall see in section 3.5), was from
the Attribute of Hearing. This is because Allah started the creation on this
day, and the first thing that is needed for the thing to be created is hearing,
in order to hear Allah’s creative command ‘Be’ [II.401.28]. Ibn ‘Arabî states
that everything can hear before it actually appears in the world, because
everything has some sort of existence or determination in the foreknowledge of
Allah before He actually creates it [II.400.7, see also section 2.3 above and
section 3.6 below]. By hearing the command of Allah, the manifest world or
cosmos starts to gain real existence after it had been existing in the
foreknowledge of Allah. Therefore the world appears in existence as hearing,
living, seeing, willing, able, knowing, and speaking; but it gains these
attributes one by one in a special sequence that starts by hearing and ends by
speaking - but not necessarily in the same order, owing to the ‘intertwining’
of those divine influences that will be explained in the next chapter.
As Ibn ‘Arabi points out, we can also notice a similar
sequence in the first stages of the development of the foetus and child’s life:
s/he acquires the first six attributes before birth, while speaking is acquired
afterwards (see also section 3.6 below for more comparisons between the
macrocosm of the world and microcosm of the true human being). This can be
compared to the creation of the world by Allah ‘ Who created the Heavens and
the Earth and all that is between them in six Days’ [from Sunday to Friday,
per IV.11.30], ‘then He mounted on the Throne’ [on Saturday, per IV.11.31]
(25:59), with Saturday being associated with the divine Speaking. As Ibn ‘Arabî
indicates in this regard [III.108-109], Allah also says: ‘The All-Merciful,
(He) taught the Qur’an, (then He) created the Human Being, (then He) taught him
speaking ouf (59:1-4), which indicates again that speaking came last. On
the other hand, Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that the baby who is born after six lunar
months may live to be quite healthy, and those six months are six lunar ‘days’.
So
for Ibn ‘Arabî, the creation of the world, like that of the foetus, is completed
in six Days: these correspond to the six directions: (up, down, right, left,
front, back), and then on the Seventh Day (Saturday) it - both the world and
the human being - continues living, changing from one state to another. That is
why Ibn ‘Arabî calls Saturday the ‘Day of eternity’ as we shall see further
below (end of section 3.5). So like the genesis of each human being, although
we do not clearly recognize it, the world - with all what it includes - ‘appeared
living, knowing, able, willing, hearing, seeing and speaking’ [II.438.19] in
seven divine Days.
Like the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians, Ibn ‘Arabî also
assigns a specific divine Day to each planet of the seven moving planets in
the seven heavens [I.154-156]. In addition to that, he also assigns to each of
these planets - following the detailed indications in certain hadith - the
spiritual reality (rûhâniyya) of one particular prophet (Chittick 2002:
201-230). Furthermore, each one of these seven prophets always has a
representative on Earth as one of the seven ‘Substitutes’ (abdâl) of
the spiritual hierarchy, each one located in one region (iqlîm) of the
seven basic geographical regions of the Earth.12 Ibn ‘Arabi always
affirms that whatever happens on the Earth is preordained in the heavens day by
day and hour by hour - through these spirits of the prophets and other angels
who reside in the heavens - and received by their agents (nuwwab, s. nâ’ib)
on the Earth, though he also affirms that there are always other unpredictable
actions or events due to the direct relation between Allah and every entity in
the world, which is distinct from those relations mediated through the First
Intellect or the Soul
Thus
he explains that
He (the prophet Idrîs)1 told
his friends that there are seven (spiritually perfect) Men called (the
‘Substitutes’ (al-abdâl, s. badal) by whom Allah keeps the seven
geographical regions (aqâlîm); to each Substitute (is assigned) a
region. They are looked after by the spirits of the seven Heavens, and each
person of those (Substitutes) has power from the spirits of prophets residing
in these Heavens. They (i.e. the prophets in the seven heavens) are Abraham (al-Khalîl,
in the highest, seventh heaven of Saturn) then (in descending order) Moses,
then Aaron, then Idris, then Joseph, then Jesus, then Adam, may Allah’s peace
be upon them all. As for John (the Baptist), he alternates between (the heavens
of) Jesus and Aaron. So (the divine knowledge) descends upon the hearts of
those seven Substitutes from the realities of those prophets - peace be upon
them!; and they are looked after by the seven planets by what Allah, the
Exalted, entrusted (in those planets) through their rolling in their orbs and
by what Allah entrusted in the motions of these seven heavens of secrets,
knowings, and higher and lower effects. Allah said: ‘and He inspired in each
heaven its mandate (41:12). So they have in their hearts in each hour and
in each day what the possessor of this hour and the ruler of this day give away
(to them).
[I.154.34]
Ibn ‘Arabî also shows elsewhere that the seven Days are
‘created’ by the corresponding seven divine Names, and those are not the same
as the fundamental Names or Attributes that initiated their motion [II.442.5].
Each one of those seven creating Names also created the corresponding heaven,
the prophet who is in it, as well as the planet within that orb, a specific
letter from the Arabic alphabet, and one specific constellation where ‘the
specific planet of this orb is first created by Allah and started moving in
this constellation’ [II.445.5]. The relation between each heaven and the
corresponding letter of the alphabet is that ‘this heaven has some (special)
effect in the existence of these letters’ [II.445.3]. All this is summarized in
Table 3.1, which is arranged from the First Day (Sunday) to the Seventh Day
(Saturday).
The
information brought together in this Table 3.1 provides essential keys to Ibn
‘Arabî’s cosmology, astrological symbolism, and understanding of the spiritual
hierarchy. However here we are mainly concerned with the seven Days of the
Week. It is particularly important to notice the ‘irregular’ relationship
between the order of the days as we witness them (Sunday, Monday and so on) and
the corresponding order of the seven heavens and the seven related regions on
the Earth. The week starts with Sunday, from the middle (fourth, solar) orb,
which is the heart of all orbs [11.275.31], then Monday in the orb of the Moon
(the first, lowest heaven), then the fifth heaven, and so on. However, the
corresponding order of Earth regions (‘climes’) goes from the fourth, seventh,
third, and so on as in Table 3.1. Thus we can see that there is always a
difference (separation) of three days between one heaven and the other that is
directly above it. As we shall see in the coming chapter, Ibn ‘Arabî therefore
distinguishes between the witnessed order of the days of the week and their
actual flow in the heavens, and he calls this separation Salkh or
‘taking-out’ [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 7], a rare expression taken from the
Qur’an (36:37). In interpreting that Qur’anic verse, Ibn ‘Arabî explains that
there are three nights’ and three daytimes’ difference between the actual
daytime and its own night that it was taken out of. This process of taking the
daytimes out of the nights and vice versa is, in Ibn ‘Arabî’s view, the
ultimate reason underlying the creation itself: for without it the world would
not appear in existence in six dimensions [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 8-9]. This
will be explained further in the following chapter with diagrams and illustrations.
3.5
The significance of each
day of the divine week
Because of the importance of the Days of the Week of divine
creation in Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmology, he writes about them at length in the Futûhât
and other books. In his mysterious book Al-Tanazzulât Al-Mawsiliyya (The
Spiritual
Table 3.1 The correspondences
between the seven days of the divine week and the seven heavens, seven earthly
regions, divine names, lunar mansions and letters of the Arabic alphabet
|
Day number |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
Arabic Day Names |
al-ahad |
al-ithnayn |
al-thuldthd ’ |
al-arba‘â |
al-khamis |
al-jum‘a |
al-sabt |
|
English Day Names |
Sunday |
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
Saturday |
|
Divine Attributes |
Hearing |
Living |
Seeing |
Willing |
Ability |
Knowing |
Speaking |
|
Prophets’ Names |
Idris |
Adam |
Aaron |
Jesus |
Moses |
Joseph |
Abraham |
|
Arabic ‘Planet’ Names |
al-shams |
al-qamar |
al-marrikh |
al-kâtib |
al-mushtari |
al-zuhara |
kaywdn |
|
English Planet Names |
Sun |
Moon |
Mars |
Mercury |
Jupiter |
Venus |
Saturn |
|
Creating divine Name |
al-Nûr |
al-Mubin |
al-Qdhir |
al-Muhsi |
al-‘Alîm |
al-Musawwir |
al-Rabb |
|
Prayer |
Imam |
Ma ’mûm |
Tshd |
Asr |
Zuhr |
Maghrib |
Subh |
|
C onstellation-Arabic |
Simàk |
Iklil |
Awwa |
Zabana |
Sirfa |
Ghafr |
Khirtan |
|
C oiistellation-English |
Arcturus |
Corona |
Bootes |
Librae |
Virginis |
Cover |
Mane |
|
The Heaven |
fourth |
first |
fifth |
second |
sixth |
third |
seventh |
|
Earthly Region/Level |
fourth |
seventh |
third |
sixth |
second |
fifth |
first |
|
Arabic Letter |
Nùn (j) |
Dàl (J) |
Lâm (J) |
ra’(L) |
Dâd (u>=) |
Rd ’ (j) |
Yd ’ (cs) |
Note
The
information in this table is extracted from chapter 198 of the Futûhât
[11.456—458] and Al-Tanazzulât Al-Mawsiliyya
Inspirations at Mosul, Concerning the Secrets of Prayers
and the Original Days), he
devoted the last ten chapters to these divine Days and their relations with the
heavenly orbs and the seven planets. However, it is not easy at all to extract
a lot of information from this book because he intentionally used a very
difficult language full of signs and secrets. However, some of his sayings there
provide very useful information when we compare them to his statements in other
books. For example, right in the full title of that book, we are led to understand
that there are ‘original’ Days, as opposed to the normal witnessed days on
Earth. We shall discuss in more detail the different types of days that Ibn
‘Arabî introduces and talks about there in the following Chapter 4, but what we
shall now outline in the remainder of this chapter relates mostly to the
‘original’ Days of divine creation, which are ‘the Days of (divine) Events’,
and not our normal witnessed days of the week.
To
begin with, because each Day of the divine Week is ruled by a specific divine
Name, it has to have a special significance related to this Name. This distinctive
significance is not so apparent in the normal, ‘circulated’ days as it is for
the original Days of Events as they were created by Allah. We shall first
outline here the divine significance of each Day of the Week in the process of
creating the macrocosm of the heavens and the Earth - and also the microcosm of
the theomorphic human being (insân).
In
addition to those general verses in Qur’an in which Allah states that He ‘created
the Heavens and Earth in six days and then He mounted on the Throne" (7:54,
10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4, 50:38, 57:4) there are some details about what He
created each Day in the verses at the beginning of the Sura Fussilat
(41:9-12). These verses were explained further in one hadith where the Prophet
Muhammad said:
Allah, the cherished and the glorified, created
the first Day (event) in Sunday; and the earth was created on Sunday and
Monday; and on Tuesday and Wednesday the mountains were created, the rivers
were cleft, fruits were planted and in each earth its food was determined, then
turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the Earth:
Come both of you, willingly or unwillingly. They said: We come, obedient) So He
completed them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its
mandate (41:11-12), on Thursday and Friday; and the last of creation was in
the last hours of Friday, and when it was Saturday there was no creation in it.
[Kanz:
15120]
So here we will briefly outline what Ibn ‘Arabi has to say
about the significance - in the creation of both the world and the human being
- of each Day of the original Days of the divine Week of creation:
3.5.1 ‘Thefirst day’ of
creation (al-ahad, Sunday)
The Arabic name for Sunday, al-ahad,
is also a Qur’anic name of Allah (112:1, etc.) which means ‘the One’, ‘the
Unique’, the indivisible Unit. It is the first Day in which Allah started the
Creation, so it is the first Day in the world [IV.11.31]. As we explained in
section 2.3, the entities of the world were already eternally determined in
Allah’s foreknowledge, and by this state of pre-existence they gained the first
fundamental divine attribute of ‘hearing’. So the motion of ‘Sunday was created
from the Attribute of Hearing; that is why everything in the world hears the
divine Command (Be! Kun) (even) in its state of non-existence’
[II.438.8]
. Allah said in the Qur’an: ‘But His Command, when He
intendeth a thing, is only that He saith unto it: Be, and (then) it is’
(36:82). Therefore Allah creates by saying the command ‘Be’ unto the things
even before their actual existence. Ibn ‘Arabî, however, carefully
distinguishes between the divine ‘Saying’ (qawl) and ‘Speaking’ (kalâm):
‘By “Saying” the non-existent hears. (This is) like His saying “and our Command
when We intend a thing is to say unto it ‘Be’” (16:40). And by “Speaking”
the existent hears, as in His saying “andAllah spoke to Moses, speaking”
(4:164)’ [II.400.7].
As we have already explained in earlier chapters, Ibn
‘Arabi affirms that the motion of the Isotropic Orb determines only one Day,
which is one cycle starting from when the first degree of Gemini is matching
the Foot in the Pedestal (see section 2.4). So because the divine Pedestal is
above the Isotropic Orb, which has no distinguishing signs, the length of the
day cannot be known [II.437.34]. Although we on Earth normally measure the day
by hours and minutes or by the time of the Earth’s motion around itself, this
is a mere convention - while the actual length of the day/Day is known only to
Allah [I.122.28].
Ibn ‘Arabî elsewhere explains that the Sun and its heavenly
orb were created on Sunday [I.155.6, I.466.6, II.445.15]. This is because the
Sun resembles the spirit [I.55.8, I.275.26], and the absolute Spirit (i.e. ‘the
real through whom creation takes place’: SDK. 132-134) is the first
appearance of the divine Real (in the Creation), so with the initial creative
motion of this First Day, the ‘point’ (nukta) or zero-dimension (0-D, as
we shall discuss the dimensions in detail in section 7.10) was defined. The Sun
is in the central, fourth heaven from the Earth, and this heaven was created by
the self-disclosure (SDK: 91, 103, also SDG: 47-57) ofthe divine
Name ‘the Light’ (al-Nûr). Hence:
(the Sun) is the heart of the world and the heart
of the (seven) heavens. Allah created it on Sunday, and He made it a place for
the Pole of human spirits, Idrîs, peace be upon him. And Allah called this
heaven ‘a high place’ (19:57) because it is a heart, although the heaven
that is above it is higher (in physical place). But Allah meant the highness of
status (makâna), so the place (makân) (of the fourth, central
heaven) is high because of its status, and Allah created it in al-simâk
(which is the central, fourteenth station of the 28 stations or ‘mansions’ of
the Moon), and created its planet (the Sun) and its orb, and created the letter
nûn (j) out of it.
Ibn ‘Arabî then explains the relation and correspondence
between the fourth heaven (celestial sphere) of this Day and the particular
geographical clime on the Earth that was appointed to the corresponding figure
from among the seven Substitutes (abdâl), and what are the particular
‘affairs’ that happen on - i.e. through the higher influences associated with -
this Day:
Every affair of knowledge in the First Day is
from the matter of Idrîs, peace be upon him! And every higher (celestial)
effect on that Day in the elements of air and fire is from the orbiting of the
Sun and its supervision which is entrusted to it by Allah, the Exalted. As for
what comes from the effect on the elements of water and earth on that Day, (it)
is from the motion of the fourth orb (containing the Sun). The (earthly) place
of the (spiritual) person (badal) who upholds that influence among the
climes is the fourth clime. So what is acquired, among the (divinely inspired)
knowings, by this particular person among the abdâl (residing) in this
region is the knowing of the secrets of the spiritual entities (rûhâniyyât:
i.e. directing the heavenly spheres), the knowing of light and radiance, the
knowing of the lightning and the rays (of light), and the knowing of every
luminous material body - why it becomes illuminated, what is the (distinctive)
constitution that gave it this receptivity (to luminosity).
[I.155.6]
Also in chapter 46 of Al-Tanazzulât Al-Mawsiliyya,
Ibn ‘Arabî mentioned many mysterious details about this Day and his visit to
the Pole of all spirits, the prophet Idrîs, in the orb of the Sun. This chapter
(46) of the Tanazzulât - together with its following few chapters, and
taken in conjunction with related passages from chapters 15 and 198 of the Futûhât
- deserves a separate specialized study which is beyond the scope of this
book. I have just mentioned some related passages for the ‘First Day’ above as
an illustration of those mysterious allusions in the Tanazzulât, but in
the shorter summaries from the Futûhât below will have to pass over Ibn
‘Arabî’s corresponding remarks for the other Days.
3.5.2 ‘The second day’ of
creation (al-ithnayn, Monday)
Ibn ‘Arabi says that ‘the motion of Monday
was created from the (divine) Attribute of “The Living One” (al-Hayy),
and through it life was in the world, so everything in the world is living
(i.e. starts to become living, on Monday)’
[II.438.9]
. Then he explains that the Moon, which corresponds to the
‘Second Day’ of Creation, is in the first celestial sphere above the Earth:
And the divine Name ‘The Clarifying One'
(al-Mubîn) was intent on bringing into existence this lowest heaven and
its planet (the Moon) on the Second Day, in the (lunar mansion) of Iklîl
(‘the Crown’, which is the seventeenth station of the 28 lunar stations), and
the letter dâl (^) is from the motion of this orb.
The Moon is the fastest moving planet in the heavens,
moving through one lunar mansion every day, so it goes through all 28 lunar
mansions in its day, which equals 28 Earth days (according to Ibn ‘Arabî, as
explained in section 3.2). Ibn ‘Arabî explains that from this motion the 28
letters of the alphabet are created, regardless of how they are written or
spoken in different languages [II.448.4] (i.e. the sounds). Allah made this
first (lowest) heaven the place for the first prophet Adam, since he is the
(first manifestation or exemplar of) the Perfect Human Being.
The
Moon - in keeping with its association with Adam (the emblematic human being) -
resembles the soul [I.499.5], and it is the second state of the appearance of
the Single Monad, after the creation of the spirits (angels), which are purely
spiritual creatures. That is why Adam himself lectured Ibn ‘Arabî about the
directions when he visited him in the orb of the Moon (Al-Tanazzulât
Al-Mawsiliyya: 261) - because through the creation of his Day (Monday) the
space and the six directions started to form.
3.5.3 ‘The third day’ of
creation (al-thulâthâ’, Tuesday)
And for the motion of Tuesday Ibn ‘Arabî says that it was
created from the divine Attribute ‘Seeing’ (basar): so there is no part
of the world but that it is witnessing its Creator - i.e. in relation to its
own individual essence, not the Essence of its Creator [II.438.10], because the
Essence of Allah, the Creator, may not be seen, He may be seen only through the
manifestation of His Attributes (Names) throughout the Creation as we shall
discuss in more detail in section 5.5. Ibn ‘Arabî then adds that
The divine Name ‘the All-Prevailing’ (al-Qâhir)
was intent on bringing into being the third heaven (the fifth from Earth); so
He caused its (distinctive spiritual) reality to appear, along with its planet
(Mars, al-marrîkh) and its sphere, and He made it the dwelling for
Aaron.... The existence of this planet and the motion of its sphere were in the
lunar mansion ‘Awwa (which is the thirteenth station of the 28 Moon
stations) on Tuesday.... And from the motion of this sphere appeared the letter
‘lâm’ (J).
[II.445.8]
3.5.4 ‘Thefourth day’ of
creation (al-arba‘a’, Wednesday)
For Wednesday he says that ‘the motion of the Fourth Day
came into existence from the (divine) Attribute of Willing (al-irâda),
so there is no part of the world but that it is seeking to glorify the One Who
gives it existence [II.438.11].
Mercury
is in the sixth sphere from the Earth, and this heaven was created through the
(self-disclosure of the) divine Name ‘the Enumerator’ (al-Muhsi). Allah
created this heaven, its planet (Mercury), the Fourth Day (Wednesday), and
letter tâ’ (^) in the lunar mansion of the constellation Zabana
(which is the sixteenth station of the 28 Moon stations), and He caused Jesus
to dwell there [paraphrasing II.445.26].
3.5.5 ‘Thefifth day’ of
creation (al-khamis, Thursday)
And the motion of the Fifth Day (Thursday) came into
existence from the (divine) Attribute of Ability (or ‘Power’, al-qudra),
so there is no part of existence but that it has been enabled to praise the
One Who gives it existence [II.438.16].
Jupiter
(al-mushtarî) is in the sixth heaven from the Earth, and it and its
sphere were brought into existence through the self-disclosure of divine Name
‘the All-Knowing’ (al-'Alîm). Allah created this heaven, its planet, the
Fifth Day and the letter dâd (^) in the lunar mansion of the
constellation Sirfa (which is the twelfth station of the 28 Moon
stations), and He made it a dwelling place for the prophet Moses [paraphrasing
11.444.25].
3.5.6 The sixth ‘day
ofgathering’ (al-jum‘a, Friday) and its special hour
Friday holds a special importance for Muslims and
especially for Ibn ‘Arabi, who says that in this Day our Tablet (i.e. the
souls) received its secrets from its Lord, through the pens (i.e. the
intellects). Ibn ‘Arabî then says that ‘the motion of the Day of Gathering
(Friday) came into being through the (divine) Attribute of Knowledge: so there
is no part of the world but that it knows the One Who gives it existence, with
regard to its own essence, not the Essence of the One Who gives it existence’
[II.438.13].
Venus
is in the second sphere of the heavens from the Earth and this heaven was
brought into existence by the self-disclosure of the divine Name ‘the Shaper’ (al-Musawwir,
the One Who gives form). Allah created this heaven, its planet (Venus), the Day
of Gathering (Friday), and the letter râ’ (j) in the lunar mansion of
the constellation Gafr (which is the fifteenth station of the 28
stations of the Moon), and He made it a dwelling place for the prophet Joseph
[II.445.23].
Before
the advent of Islam, the Arabs called Friday ‘Urûba (‘the day of beauty
and adornment’) [I.645.25], because it was a distinguished day in which people
meet. But in Islam Friday is called al-jum‘a (‘the Day of Gathering’)
because that is the day people gather in prayer in one mosque. Ibn ‘Arabî,
however, gives another explanation of the deeper ontological meaning for Jum'a.
On this Day Allah created the Human Being (Adam) in His Image, so on this
Day Allah ‘gathered together’ (Arabic verb jama'a) the form of the Truly
Real (al-Haqq) and the form of all creation in the theomorphic human
being (insân), so that is why this Day is called Jum'a
[I.643.27]. And this special divine ‘gathering’ of the theomorphic human being
has occurred on a specific hour of this Day, which made this whole Day holy,
noble and the best of all Days.
Ibn
‘Arabi affirms that Allah created humanity (Adam) on Friday [1.466.15],
following a well-known hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad said: ‘The best Day
the Sun rises on is Friday: Adam was created in it, he entered into Paradise in
it, he was taken out of Paradise in it, and the Hour (of the Resurrection) will
only come on Friday’ [Kanz: 21050].
Ibn
‘Arabî goes on to explain, on the basis of another hadith [Kanz: 21063],
that some people argued about the best day of the week to celebrate or commemorate
God in, and that the people of the three major religions each followed a
different way, especially since Allah did not specify which day is best, but
left it for them to discover:
So the Christians said the best of days - and
Allah knows best - is the First Day (Sunday), because it is the day of the Sun
and it is the First Day in which Allah created the heavens and the Earth and
what is between them. He started the Creation in it due to its pride over the
rest of the days. So they took it as a festival.... And the Jews said: ‘But it
is Saturday, because Allah completed the Creation on Friday and He rested on
Saturday.’ ....
Then for this community (of Islam) Gabriel came
to Muhammad, may Allah have peace and mercy on him, with the Day of Jum'a
in the form of a polished mirror in which there is a spot (nukta), and
he said unto him: ‘this is the Day of Jum'a and this spot is an hour in
which no Muslim servant happens to be praying (when it comes to pass), but
Allah shall forgive him’ [Kanz~. 21063]. So the Prophet Muhammad, may
Allah’s peace and mercy be upon him, said: ‘So Allah guided us to what the
people of the Book disagree about, which is the divine explanation with the
mirror’ - and he assigned the guidance to Allah. And the reason behind its
superiority is that it is the Day in which Allah created this human kind, for
whom He created the creatures from Sunday to Thursday, so it has to be the best
of times. And the creation (of human kind) was in this Hour which appeared as a
spot in the mirror.... And this Hour in the Day of Jum'a is like the
night of destiny [laylat al-qadr, which according to Qur’an, is
better than a thousand months (97:3)] in the year.
[I.466.6]
So, he concludes, that is why Allah chose this Day over the
other Days:
As He, the Exalted, did with all the existents,
He has chosen as the best one thing from each kind. He has chosen as the best
from the Beautiful Names the Name ‘’Allah’; He has chosen as the best
from the people the prophets; He has chosen as the best from His servants the
angels; He has chosen as the best from the heavenly spheres the (divine)
Throne; He has chosen as the best from the elements water; He has chosen as the
best from the months Ramadan; He has chosen as the best from worshipping
fasting; He has chosen as the best from the centuries the century of the
Prophet Muhammad, may Allah have peace and mercy upon him; He has chosen as
best from the Days the Day of Gathering (al-jum‘a); He has chosen as
best from the nights the Night ofDestiny; He has chosen as best from (good)
deeds the prescribed deeds (al-farâ’id); He has chosen as best from the
numbers the number 99 (in the hadith on the 99 ‘Most Beautiful Names’ as
mentioned above).
Then Ibn ‘Arabî goes on to explain why Allah has chosen as
best these particular things in each kind. With regard to the Day of Gathering,
he says:
As for (the reason) for His choosing Friday as
best from the Days (of the divine creative Week), that is because in it the Two
Forms appeared [i.e. of the cosmos and of the theomorphic human being, in their
final perfected state]. Allah made that Day (of the Gathering) for the form
..., and it is (uniquely) a feminine Day, for which is the beautiful adornment
and the completion of the creation (through Adam).
And [alluding to the hadith just cited above]
Allah has chosen an Hour of its hours that is like a spot in the mirror. That
is the place (of manifestation for) the form of the one [i.e. Adam, as the
emblematic fully human being and divine vice-gerent] who is disclosed in the
mirror of this Day. Thus He/ he sees in it/him H/himself.14 And through that Form [of all human being] that
appears between the mirror (of creation) and the One Who looks in it,
there takes place the (divine) Addressing (of each human soul) and the
imposition of responsibility (taklîf: on each human being).
[II.173.15]
So this Hour is the most precious hour, because in it the
divine Form of the Real (al-Haqq) and the form of the theomorphic human
being meet together (yajtami'ân from the same Arabic root as al-jum'a),
and by this ‘gathering’ the Real is manifested - and at last perceived - in the
Creation in the most perfect form, which is the form of the perfect human
being. In another passage, Ibn ‘Arabî explains this further:
And there is no Day among the Days (of Creation)
more perfect than the Day of Jum'a, because in it there is made manifest
the Wisdom of (God’s) Capability, through His creating on that Day the human
being whom Allah created on His Image. So there remained no (more) perfection
for the divine Capability to create, since nothing is more perfect than the
Image of the Real (sûrat al-Haqq).. . .
Now since God specially distinguished (this Day)
by that ‘Hour’ which does not belong to any other Day - and time (zamân)
is nothing but those Days - therefore this Hour does not pertain to any other
times but to the Day of Jum'a. It is one part of the 24 parts of the
Day, and it is in the half of the Day which is called daytime (nahâr).
So it is in the manifest dimension (zâhir) of that Day, and in the inner
dimension (bâtin) of human being, because the outer dimension of human
being corresponds to the inner dimension (night-time) of the Day, while the
inner dimension of human being corresponds to the outer dimension (daytime) of
the Day.
[I.645.26]
Ibn ‘Arabî also comments on the imperative question of
whether this Hour is fixed, or is floating all over the Day, so that each Week
it comes at a different time, since the original hadith above [Kanz:
21063] did not give any explicit indication of its exact location ‘in’ the Day
of Gathering. Ibn ‘Arabî, in any case, does not rule either possibility. He
suggests that, if we have to take the strict sensational meaning of the
analogy between the Day and the mirror and the forms that appear in them, then
that specially chosen Hour would be fixed. But, if we want to take it as an
abstract meaning in the imagination, without moving it into the world of senses
- which is quite plausible in this context - then we could say that it may be
floating all over the Day of Gathering. So he affirms that both possibilities
are plausible and that the issue may not be resolved without a further divine
specification [1.466.17]. However, because it denotes the creation of the Human
Being as the Image of the Real, this Hour must be fixed (on the Day of
Gathering) among the original (divine) Days that are the ‘Days of events’,
although it might be floating in the normal ‘circulated days’ that we actually
experience, because they are ‘intertwined’ with the ‘Days of events’.
3.5.7 The seventh ‘day of
rest’ (al-sabt, Saturday) as the ‘day of eternity’
As for the last day, Ibn ‘Arabî says that ‘the motion of
Saturday was created from the (divine) Attribute of Speaking (kalâm), so
everything in the existence glorifies in thanks of its Creator, but we do not
understand their glorification’ [11.438.16]. Obviously Ibn ‘Arabî is referring
here to the verse ‘the seven heavens and the Earth, and all beings therein,
declare His glory: there is not a thing but celebrates His praise; and yet ye
understand not how they declare His glory! Verily He is Oft-Forbearing, Most
Forgiving!’ (17:44). We shall also see in section 7.8 that the world
essentially is the ‘words’ (i.e. the vibrations) generated by its entities on
the smallest scale. This is true for whatever we hear, see, smell, taste and
everything physical - all are the ‘words’ spoken by the entities of the world.
This seems to cope very well in accordance with the recent theory of
Superstrings.
Elsewhere
Ibn ‘Arabî says:
Saturn (Kaywân) is in the seventh sphere
from the Earth, and this heaven was created by the (self-disclosure of the)
divine Name ‘the Lord’ (al- Rabb). Allah created this heaven, its planet
and the ‘Day of Rest’ (al-sabt, Saturday) in the lunar mansion of the
constellation Khirtân (also called al- Zabra, and it is the
eleventh mansion of the 28 Moon mansions), and He made it a dwelling place for
the prophet Abraham.
[paraphrasing II.442.21]
Saturday bears a very important and unique meaning for Ibn
‘Arabî, since he considers it to be the Day of eternity. This concept is
initially mysterious, but extremely important, since Ibn ‘Arabî mentions it
many times in the Futûhât and other books and considers it as an
undisputable fact.
In
his Al-Tanazzulât Al-Mawsiliyya, he asserts that: ‘Saturday passes
through the existent things like number does in the countable things,
permanence in the permanent things, and standing in the standing things; it is
not non-existing nor existing, and not present nor absent’ (Al-TanazzulâtAl-Mawsiliyya:
339).
This
description is also like the strange properties of the ‘Universal Reality’ (haqîqat
al-haqâ’iq, ‘the Reality of Realities’) that he introduces to connect the
divine properties of the Real with the properties of the Creation. By way of
clarification, he then goes on to explain that
The whole world (as kinds and species, including
metals, elements, plants, animals, angels, jinn and humans) from its beginning to
its end was formed in six Days, from the beginning of (the night) of the First
Day until the end of the Day of Gathering (Friday), and there only remains
Saturday for changing from one state to another and from one rank to another,
and for transmutation from one being to another, constantly.... That is why the
‘rulers’ (in terms of higher astrological or cosmological influences) on this
Day are cold and dryness (so that they will be able to hold the picture in
imagination in order to feel the continuous presence, as will be discussed in
section 5.6), and among the planets: Saturn. So this Day alone was a circumferential
orb whoever moves in it will know the Identity, the Attributes, the Actions and
the Effects.
[I.61.13]
This alludes to the three types of divine Names: the Names
of Essence (asmâ’ al-dhât), the Names of Descriptions or the Attributes (asmâ’
al-sifât) and the Names of Actions (asmâ’ al-af‘âl) [I.423.20,
I.67.28; K. al-Masâ’il: 97] and the ‘Effects’ here are the entire
Creation. So Ibn ‘Arabî says that the one who moves with the orb of Saturday
will know the Real and the Creation. This is in fact the description of the
spiritual ‘Pole’ - like Ibn ‘Arabî himself - who is therefore ‘out of time’
(see also section 2.7), because he already knows that he witnesses the real Day
of Saturday.
Ibn
‘Arabî even explicitly calls Saturday the ‘Day of Eternity’ (yawm alabad:
al-abad being eternity considered as extending eternally ‘into the future’,
as opposed to al-azal or ‘beginningless eternity’) quite often in his
writing. For example, in the Futûhât he says:
And so the Day of Eternity starts which is
Saturday (al-sabt), and al-sabt means ‘rest’; it is the seventh
Day, and it has no end. No sense of weariness touched the Creator in creating
what He did. So Saturday was the Day of being finished with the creation of the
levels of the world, but there still remains for Allah the creation of what
this world requires of the states (for every individual creature), which are
eternally endless and without limit.
[III.192.20]
He also named chapter 53 of Al-Tanazzulât Al-Mawsiliyya
‘On the Inner (Spiritual) Knowing that Saturday is the Day of Eternity, and it
is the Day of Transmutations’. Saturday, therefore is the ‘Day of Rest’ (as
its name in Arabic, al-sabt, also indicates), because Allah has finished
the creation (of all the cosmos and human being) on Friday, so that there
remained nothing new to be created - except for the endlessly changing states
of all the creatures in time.
Thus Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that
Allah created the world in six Days; He started
on Sunday and finished by Friday, and no sense of any exhaustion touched Him;
nor did He get weary from creating the creatures. So when it was the seventh
Day of the week and He had finished creating the world, He looked like someone
who is taking a rest from weariness. So He reclined and put one leg over the
other and said: ‘I am the King’, as narrated in the prophetic sayings, so this
Day is called al-sabt, which means ‘the Day of Rest’. It is the Day of
Eternity, because in this Day the individuals of every species are formed in
the world and in the hereafter.
There are only seven Days, and each Day has a ruler (wâli)
designated by Allah. So when the matter/Command ended up on Saturday, Allah
assigned it to a ruler with the ability to stabilize and fix, so he can
stabilize the forms (of all the creatures) in the ‘Dust (al-habâ’, of
the barzakh or divine Imagination). So the daytime (nahâr) of
this Day - i.e. the Day of Eternity - is for the people of the Gardens, and its
night-time is for the people of the Fire: so there is no evening (end) for its
daytime, and its night-time has no morning.
[IV.11.30]
Then Ibn ‘Arabî mentions the story of his encounter with
the (spirit of) al-Sabtí (lit.: ‘the Saturday man’) who is Muhammad, son
of the famous Abbasid caliph Harûn al-Rashid, whom he met in Mecca one Friday
while circumambulating the Kaaba, and asked him: ‘I knew that you were called al-Sabtí
because you worked every Saturday for what you ate during the rest of the week
... so why did you choose Saturday from the rest of the days of the week?’
Al-Sabtî replied:
This is a very good question. I knew that Allah
started creating the world on Sunday and finished on Friday, and on Saturday He
reclined and put one leg over the other and said: ‘I am the King’; that is what
I heard in narrations when I was in this world. So I swore to work like that.
[IV.11.35, see also Al-TanazzulâtAl-Mawsiliyya:
340]
So he worked on Saturday and rested (to devote himself to
worship Allah) in the other six days. So Allah’s work of the creation was done
in the six Days from Sunday to Friday, and the ‘Day of Eternity’ is for us to
work and develop through the path leading to our ultimate destination.
On
the other hand, the fact that the seventh Day was created through the divine
Attribute of Speaking reminds us that the very First Day was created through
the divine Attribute of Hearing. Ibn ‘Arabî typically points out that this all
together is like a circle: since the world is created through divine Speaking
(the Command ‘Be’), so the creatures first needed hearing in order to hear that
existentiating Command. Because human beings are - at least potentially -
uniquely created in the fully theomorphic Image of Allah, He granted them
something of the Attribute by which He creates things, so they in turn can
create through ‘speaking’: these are, for example, the meanings one creates in
the soul of the hearer when one speaks. And because creation is in the end a
divine act, the Prophet Muhammad says that ‘Allah is by the tongue of every
speaker’ [Kanz: 7842; see also IV.187.19, IV.292.32]. So this brings us
back to the initial receptive state of ‘Hearing’, because everything in the
world is at the end perceived through vibrations, even the visible and other
things. Therefore, the creation takes place always, at every moment in time
and in every point of space. In terms of the same divine creative cycle of the
seven Days explained above, the world is re-created every moment in six Days
(from Sunday to Friday) and displayed on the seventh Day (Saturday). Indeed in
terms of Ibn ‘Arabî’s famous theory of the oneness of being, the speaker is in
fact Allah, and the hearer is also nothing other than Allah [II.367.16]. Ibn
‘Arabî frequently expresses this paradoxical reality in language referring to
the forms of the ritual prayer, as when he says: ‘Thus Allah says by the tongue
of his servant (as he says during the prayer) ‘Allah hears who praised Him’;
and then the servant says ‘Our Lord, to Thee is the Praise!’, not to me’
[II.367.14]. Also he concludes: ‘You praise Yourself (on the tongue of every
speaker), and You hear Your words. Because the Praise is only for
Allah and by Allah [I.112.32, alluding to Qur’an 1:1].
One
final aspect of Saturday is that Ibn ‘Arabi also describes it as ‘the fruitless
Day’ (al-yawm al-‘aqîm; 22:55), which is a result of its being the Day
of Eternity:
Now the fruitless is that from which nothing is
bom, so it does not have a birth of its kind. So (Saturday) is called
‘fruitless’ because at the end there is no Day after it, and this refers to
Saturday from the (divine creative) Week, which is the Day of eternity. Its
daytime is all light for the people of the Gardens eternally, and its night-time
is all darkness for the people of Gehenna, also eternally.
[III.564.22]
3.6
Space-time and creation
in six days
So this means that we - along with all of manifest
creation, at all times - are now living in this ‘Seventh Day’, but the riddle
is how we can at the same time still be viewing the other Days of the week,
including Saturday itself. Ibn ‘Arabî himself remarks that ‘it is rather
amazing that the Days, among which is Saturday, are (all) happening in
Saturday; because it is one of these Days and they are appearing in it’
[II.444.7]. But he says that this is ultimately plausible, and he gives the
striking example from the famous divine saying describing Adam when Allah
showed him his progeny, including himself, in His Hand - while at the same time
he was outside looking on at that [II.444.14; Kanz: 15123].
The fact that Saturday is the ‘Day of eternity’ suggests
that the time that we live is only Saturday, so that the other six Days
(of events) of the (original) Week could account for space, and not time; this
is also supported by the observation that the usual word for ‘day’ in Arabic (yawm)
also bears the meaning of ‘direction’.15 If we add this to what we
have just said above about the oneness of being, and that the act of creation
‘in one Week’ actually takes place at every moment of time, then we can easily
come to a very important conclusion that the actual Week and its seven
distinctive Days make up a unit of space-time, and not time alone. In the first
six Days, space is created with its six directions (three dimensions) and then
it is displayed (‘in time’) on Saturday. We do not feel the creation in the six
Days because we are being created but not yet, and we only feel ourselves
created on Saturday, which is why it is the Day of eternity. As Allah said in
the Qur’an: ‘I called them not to witness the creation of Heavens and the
Earth’ (18:51), which He created in six Days, from Sunday to Friday. But
when this initial stage of creation is over and Allah the All-Merciful ‘mounted
on the Throne', changing the creation from one state into another, then and
only then, on Saturday, do we realize ourselves and also realize the world (of
space) that was created in those preceding six Days.
Ibn
‘Arabî declares in many passages that the world is constantly being recreated
on every single ‘Day of event’ (see section 5.6). And the Days of events are
seven, based on the central divine Attributes of Allah. So the creation of the
world by Allah is a seven-step process: in each Day of those seven Days of
events the world gains the qualities and manifestations of the corresponding
divine Attribute. Thus on the First Day, the world (which had already been
determined eternally in the foreknowledge of Allah) hears Allah’s command:
‘Be’, so it moves from the ‘absolute Unseen’ into the first step of existence
which has no dimension yet (0-D), like the geometrical point (nuqta); it
is the first real Image of the Real (al-Haqq), Allah, the Exalted, and
thus it is called ‘the real through whom creation takes place’ (SDK:
132), and this is the ‘Greatest Element’ (see sections V6.2 and 6.5). So ‘the
Real’ is a name of Allah and this Greatest Element. Then, on the Second Day,
the world becomes living, and by that the creation of angels from the divine
Light takes place (1-D), as will be discussed in more detail in section 7.10.
Then on the Third Day it can witness its Creator (with respect to its being His
creation), while on the Fourth Day it becomes willing to magnify16
its Creator (and by that the creation of the jinn takes place), and on the
Fifth Day it is able to do so. Finally, on Friday - or by the ‘last three
hours’ of Friday, when the Human Being is created17 - the world will
actually know its Creator (again with respect to His act of creation, not in
Himself): and this happens only by creating the Human Being (Adam), who is in
respect to the world the Spirit is for the true Human Being [I.118.8,
III.363.3].
By
these six Days the world is completely created as a Single Monad who is also
the ‘Complete Human Being’, including heavens and Earth, mind and soul, spirit
and body. Then on the seventh Day this picture of the complete world will be
held in the imagination of the human being, because it is an imaginal form that
will intrinsically cease to exist right in the second moment (‘Day’) after its
creation, to be instantly re-created in a new form. That is why, Ibn ‘Arabî
explains, Allah appointed as the ‘rulers’ on Saturday the essential qualities
of coldness and dryness, so that this cosmic image may appear to be continuous
[1.61.15]. So our imagination holds a new picture of the world, every ‘Day’
(moment), and by comparing between those succeeding pictures, the imagination
perceives the motion or change in space and time, since Allah never manifests
in the same form twice or to two perceivers [I.679.7, II.77.27, II.616.3]. This
is also the meaning of the verse: ‘each Day He is in a (different) task'
(55:29), which Ibn ‘Arabî uses more frequently than any others from the Qur’an
to corroborate this particular ontological view.
It
has to be noticed however, that, in every Week of Creation, only one ‘point’ of
space-time is created, and that is the point where the observer is - or rather,
the observer himself is also created at that point in space-time. The observer
perceives other points of space and time because they have been held somehow
within the ‘Dust’ (habâ’) of the divine cosmic Imagination (barzakh,
khayâl, etc.).
Therefore,
Ibn ‘Arabî explains the verse in Qur’an: ‘Your Lord is Allah Who created the
heavens and the Earth in six Days, then He mounted on the Throne; He draweth
the night as a veil over the Day, (7:54, see also other similar verses in
Qur’an: 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4, 50:38 and 57:4) as indicating that the
creation has been completed in six Days, from Sunday to Friday, by creating
Adam (the cosmic Human Being) on Friday; and then ‘He established Himself on
the Throne’ on Saturday when nothing new is to be created, but only
changing the states of the creatures - until the Day of Judgement, and after
that either in the Gardens or in Gehenna - so this is the Day of eternity. Yet
the heavens and the Earth are constantly being re-created every moment:
therefore the same Week and Days of creation, including Saturday, are
continually reiterating throughout Saturday, at every moment.
So if
we think of the whole of manifest creation (the cosmos or ‘world’) throughout
all places and times, throughout ‘the Age’ (al-Dahr), it is only seven
Days: six Days for the creation, and the seventh Day (Saturday) for the realization.
But if we think of ourselves as points in this space-time of the Age, because
of the eternally renewed re-creation we observe succeeding Days and Weeks (as
moments); yet all those Days (including Saturday) are happening in the Saturday
of the single, unique Week of ‘the Age’.
Ibn
‘Arabî draws interesting symbolic parallels and extrapolations from this
concept of creation just explained. Just like this momentary creation in the
Week, our own human age (life) is also seven days (or periods): six in this
world and Saturday for the hereafter, which we have either as all-day in
Paradise or as all-night in Gehenna. Similarly also, the age of human
civilization on Earth is seven days and we are now living in Friday, indeed in
the last few hours of it. This is because, as Ibn ‘Arabî observes:
We (the true followers of the Prophet) are,
thanks to Allah, the Day of Jum'a, and Muhammad - may Allah have peace
and mercy upon him - is this very ‘Hour’ itself, by which the Day of Jum'a
takes precedence over all other Days.
[I.646.15]
This is because Muhammad is the Perfect Human Being who is the most perfect
Image of the Real. Ibn ‘Arabî explains this well-known central conception in
his thought in more detail in chapter 346 of the Futûhât, where he
observes that Muhammad, in relation to the whole world (cosmos), like the
spirit (al-nafs al- nâtiqa) for each human being, while other prophets
are like other spiritual faculties [III.186.31] (see also Table 3.1). Then he
indicates that the world before the appearance of the Prophet Muhammad was like
a foetus in the womb of the mother [III.187.6], and that after the passing away
of Muhammad the world is like a sleeping - not dead - person [III.187.1],
until, in the next world, all the world shall ‘live’ (have real life and
awakening) through the full appearance of Muhammad in his complete composition
[III.187.8]. Thus he goes on to note that people in the Gardens and Gehenna are
like the different (spiritual and material) parts of the earthly human being,
where the people of Gehenna are like the relatively lifeless (yet not
completely dead) hair and nails [III.187.10]. So in this way the world is a
like an ‘immense human being’ (insân kabîr), while the fully human being
is like a microcosm (âlam saghîr).18
Many
earlier Muslim theologians have tried to explain that Allah did not mean by the
Qur’anic references to the ‘Days’ of creation those same earthly days that we
live in, because they claimed that the sort of days that we know could not be
existing yet, prior to the completion of creation. In contrast, Ibn ‘Arabî
stresses that those ‘Days’ of creation in reality coincide with these same
observed and experienced days. At the same time, he also acknowledged that this
(cosmic) ‘Day’ existed before the creation of the heavens and the Earth, while
the (earthly, observed alternation of) daytime and night-time were only
determined afterwards by the creation of the Sun.
On
another level, Ibn ‘Arabî’s complex, unique interpretation of those many verses
in the Qur’an (and the Bible) that talk about the creation in six Days is
promising in terms of modern astronomy and cosmology, because it suggests the
first real unification between space and time, as well as a sense in which the
‘Week’ may have a very important, and not simply conventional, real significance.
However,
there are still some further issues that need to be settled in order to
understand the meaning of the Week, its movement through the signs of the
zodiac and its detailed role in the process or stages of creation. We shall
devote Chapter 4 to explaining Ibn ‘Arabî’s complicated theory of the ‘Actual
Flow of Time’ and Chapter 6 to outlining a complete model of the cosmos based
on Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique view of time and his theory of the oneness of being,
which will be discussed in Chapter 5.
As we already explained, Ibn ‘Arabî showed that the
creation of the world by Allah is a ‘series’ process. That is, He creates only
one event at a time (or indeed in each Day), as Allah says: each Day He is
upon some (one) task (55:29). Yet we observe multitudes of different
events happening apparently at once. According to Ibn ‘Arabî, the way to
understand this apparent paradox is to correct our view of the flow of time.
Ibn
‘Arabi shows that the actual flow of time (the divine creative ‘Week’ as the
basic unit of space-time) is not the witnessed flow from Sunday to Monday and
so on to Saturday. These normal days of the week that we witness are the ‘circulated’
days, and not the actual divine Days (the ‘Days of Event’) in which only one
single event should be happening each and every single Day. In order to define
or construct the actual cosmic ‘Days of events’, we need first to attach each
night-time to its own daytime, for again the underlying metaphysical connection
is not as we observe: i.e. the (‘real’) night-time of each daytime is not the
observed night-time that precedes or follows this daytime, but rather it is ‘taken
out’ and separated from its own daytime by three daytimes and three
night-times. This extraordinary connection, Ibn ‘Arabî explains, is
symbolically related to our three-dimensional structure as human beings.
Finally, he also affirms (according to Qur’anic indications), that the actual
Days of events are ‘intertwined with the observable, ‘circulated’ days
in a specific manner that he details in his book Kitâb Ayyâm Al-Sha’n (The
Book of the Days of Task).
4.1
The original days of event
We have explained in sections 2.15-16 that there is a
minimum ‘Day’ which is that indivisible duration of time called ‘the Single
Day’ (al-yawm al-fard). And we showed that this Day - when taken
globally, or indeed universally (since it encompasses all of manifest creation)
- actually includes our normal day, though we encounter it in fact just as a
moment. In each one of these moments/Days there is only one global cosmic
‘event’ happening in each part of the entire cosmos. These Single Days are the
original cosmic Days which are called the divine ‘Days of event’ (ayyâm-ul-sha’n),
as discussed in the preceding chapter and Chapter 2. For in each Day of event
(or divine ‘task’) Allah creates a single event actually encompassing every
entity and phenomenon of the whole manifest world. As He said in the Qur’an: ‘each
Day He is upon a (single) task (55:29).
Ibn
‘Arabî points out that ‘in each day of our normal days, that is from sunset to
sunset or from sunrise to sunrise, there is the end of 360 days’ \Ayyâm Al-
Sha’n. 6] (assuming the circle is 360 degrees).1 That is because
in every moment of the normal day that there is the end (or the beginning) of a
day in one place, there is a corresponding beginning (or end) of another day in
another place.
To
explain this further, let us divide the circumference of the Earth into 360
longitudinal lines and the day into 360 degrees of longitude. Therefore, any
whole day that we encounter in any specific place is a combination or the sum
of the ends (last degrees) of360 days from other places on the Earth; or in the
same way, it is the sum of the first degrees of 360 days around the Earth. For
example let us suppose that we are on the first longitudinal line at the first
degree of the day, then the second degree of this day on this first
longitudinal line is the first degree of the day beginning on the second line,
and so on. In another way we can also say that the 360 degrees of the ‘day’ on
the first line are the collection of the last degrees of the lines 360, 359, 358
and so on up to line number 1. Therefore in every moment there is one full day
around the Earth: now, for example, it is morning somewhere, noon somewhere
else and evening and midnight in other places; but all in total is a single
full day (see also section 2.15 above).
So
the flow of these original Days marks the actual sequence of events that spans
space and time. But, because we live in and can only observe a tiny point of
the whole space of the globe, we encounter linear time as our normal observed
days of the week (i.e. the ‘circulated days’ described in the next section).
Therefore, these original ‘Days of event’ are intertwined with our normal
observed days.
4.2
The ‘circulated’ days (ayyâm
al-takwîr)
Then if we stick to one place and watch the flow of time,
we see that the Sun sets, for example, at the beginning of ‘Sunday night’ (i.e.
the night that begins before Sunday daytime);2 and then it rises on
Sunday morning, and so on until it completes a full week on the following
Sunday night. This is the witnessed week, and its days are the normal days, or
the witnessed days. Ibn ‘Arabi calls them the ‘circulated days’ (ayyâm-ul-takwîr),3
because they (daytimes and nights), seem to run after each other in a circle,
as Allah says in the Qur’an:
He created the Heavens and the Earth through the
real. He causes the nighttime to encircle (v. yukawwiru) the daytime,
and the daytime to encircle the night-time. He has subjected the Sun and the
Moon: each one follows a (designated) course for a time appointed. Is He not
the All-Mighty, the AllForgiving?
(39:5)
So we can also say that the daytimes are circulated around
the nights, and the nights are circulated around the daytimes, because the
daytime and the night are like hemispheres surrounding the Earth all the time,
but running after each other as if they were seeking each other, as Allah said
in THE Qur’an: ‘Lo! Your Lord is Allah Who created the Heavens and the Earth
in six Days then mounted He on the Throne. He covers (yugshî) the night-time
with the daytime, which is in haste to seek if (7:54).
The
Arabic word yugshî in this verse not only means ‘to cover’ but also ‘to
embrace’ [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 7], and it is particularly used for marriage.
Thus Ibn ‘Arabi suggests that it is as if the daytime and the night are seeking
each other because they want to ‘marry’ each other, to produce children - since
we and everything else in the world are all the ‘progeny’ of the daytimes and
nights [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 7]. This ‘abstract marriage’, is a basic concept
in Ibn ‘Arabi’s cosmological teachings, and we shall come back to it shortly.
We
conclude that in every normal day (i.e. circulated day) as we observe it in one
specific place on the Earth, a vast number of ‘Days of events’ happen, as many
as there are indivisible moments in this day. In other words, in every moment
that we encounter on the Earth, there is a Day of event happening that
encompasses the whole world or cosmos (all of creation). Yet each Day of event
is also composed of the seven distinctive Days of creation, the divine creative
‘Week’ described in detail in the previous chapter.
Allah said in the Qur’an: ‘A token unto them is the
night-time: We take the daytime out of it, and lo, they are in darkness'
(36:37). Ibn ‘Arabi points out that this seems to indicate that night is the
origin, and that daytime was somehow ‘hidden’ in it and then was taken out of
it [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 9, 11.647.20]. In other words, as Ibn ‘Arabi
explains [1.716.15], the night is like a dress or a skin over the daytime, and
then Allah takes the daytime out of the night so that the world - which was in
the absolute darkness of the divine ‘Unseen’ (al-ghayb) - is created
(i.e. so that it appears in the light of actual existence).
Ibn
‘Arabî, however, argues that Allah did not specify in this verse which daytime
was taken out of which night, and so this has to be clarified. For it is
Theactualflowoftime 103 not, as we might think, that each daytime (that we
witness) was taken out of its own night. We have to seek the true
relation between each daytime and its night, and this relation, Ibn ‘Arabi says
[11.445.32, 111.203.30], is based on the first hour of the daytime and the
night-time, because each hour of the daytime and the night-time has a ruler;
one of the five planets, the Sun, or the Moon (corresponding to one of the
seven principal divine Attributes: see section 3.4); so each day is named after
the planet that rules the first hour of it. For example: the first hour of
Sunday is ruled by the Sun, and that is why it is so named (in English and many
other languages); likewise Monday is the day of the Moon, and so on. In Arabic,
however, the names of the days of the week do not have direct relations with
the names of the planets that rule these days, but this connection still forms
a basic principle in Ibn ‘Arabî’s view of time.
But before we discuss this further and assign each night to
its actual daytime, we should understand the exact meaning of ‘taking out’ the
daytime from the night, or the night from the daytime. Ibn ‘Arabî regards the
different daytimes and night-times as ‘parents’ to what Allah creates in them:
so everything that happens in the daytime is like a ‘son’ whose father is the
night and whose mother is the daytime; and everything that happens in the night
is like a son whose father is the daytime and whose mother is the night [Ayyâm
Al-Sha’n: 7;
11.
445.18]. As Allah said in the Qur’an: ‘He merges
(yûliju) the night into the daytime, and He merges the daytime into the night
(57:6). So there is a kind of abstract, generative ‘marriage’ between daytimes
and nights, but where nights and daytimes exchange their parental roles from
being fathers to being mothers, and vice versa. That is why they are
‘intertwined’, as we shall see further below. Now Ibn ‘Arabî explains that when
the daytime turns from being father into being mother or vice versa, this is
what is meant by the Qur’anic reference to its respective ‘stripping-out’ or
‘taking-out’ (salkh). So when we say that this daytime (nahâr) is
taken out of that night-time (layl), it means that this daytime and
night exchange their generative ‘parental’ roles, although together they are
always like a couple, i.e. a single ‘day’ (yawm).
Ibn
‘Arabi adds that Allah did not explicitly mention that night is also taken out
of the daytime, since it is readily understood from the same Qur’anic verse [Ayyâm
Al-Sha’n: 8; 1.141.6,1.716.11]. On the other hand, Ibn ‘Arabi indicates
that the first hour of the daytime and that of its own night (which was taken
out of it) should be ruled by the same planet [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 10]. For
in order to consider the daytime and the night-time as one unitary day, they
have to be ruled by the same (cosmological, planetary) ‘ruler’. This applies
only to the first hour of the daytime and the night, because each of the other
hours (of the observable, earthly days) is coming from other cosmic ‘Days’ as a
result of their overall ‘intertwining’:
Now when these planets moved in their orbs,
Allah made for each planet a (specific) Day among the Days of the zodiac-orb
motion.... So He defined for each Day (yawm) a daytime (nahâr)
and a night-time (layl), and He distinguished between each night and its
daytime by the rule of the (particular) planet for that Day in which the
daytime and night appeared.
So when you look to which planet the first hour
of the daytime belongs, then this planet is the ruler of that daytime. And when
you look in the nights for the night whose first hour belongs to this same planet
which ruled the first hour of the daytime, then this night belongs to this
daytime.
[III.203.26]
Now that we have understood the meaning of the ‘taken-out’
days, let us see which daytime was taken out of which night. As we pointed out
above, Ibn ‘Arabî argues that there are three other daytimes and three other
nights between the daytime and the night from which it was taken out. That is
because - as he explains - the structure of the world is six-directional: three
nights corresponding to the directions down, left and back; and three daytimes
corresponding to up, right and front [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 7]. Table 4.1
shows the resulting daytimes of the week and the nights from which those
respective daytimes were taken out.
Therefore,
as we can see, there are three days between each daytime and its partner night.
Of course normally the observable earthly week will run starting from the
beginning of Sunday night, then Sunday daytime, then Monday night, then Monday
daytime, and so on. These are the normal ‘circulated’ days. The ‘taken-out’
days, however, as we see from this table above and in Figure 4.1, run also
starting from the beginning of Sunday night but leaving out three daytimes and
three nightsjumping to Wednesday daytime (of the circulated days) and so on.
Therefore
the flow of time for the taken-out days is different from the normal circulated
days. In order to understand the flow of the taken-out days let us show the
above relation graphically as in Figure 4.1. It is better to imagine this graph
in three dimensions because, as Ibn ‘Arabî indicated, the reason behind this
interference between the taken-out days and the circulated days is the threedimensional
structure of the world that we live in [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 7].
But
what is the significance of conceiving the ‘taking-out’ daytimes and nights in
this way? In his book Ayyâm Al-Sha’n Ibn ‘Arabî explains that the reason
why there are three daytimes and three nights in the taken-out days is the
three-dimensional (or six-directional) structure of the space in which we
exist. In other books he (or rather, his later interpreter al-Qâshânî)4
points out that the
Table 4.1 The taken-out days
|
|
The daytime of... |
was taken out of the night of... |
|
|
4 |
Wednesday |
Sunday |
1 |
|
5 |
Thursday |
Monday |
2 |
|
6 |
Friday |
Tuesday |
3 |
|
7 |
Saturday |
Wednesday |
4 |
|
1 |
Sunday |
Thursday |
5 |
|
2 |
Monday |
Friday |
6 |
|
3 |
Tuesday |
Saturday |
7 |
Note
There are three daytimes
and three nights between the daytime and the night that is taken out of it.
This table is summarized
from Ayyâm Al-Sha’n, pages 6-7
Figure 4.1 Thetaken-outdays.
Note
It helps to imagine the resulting loop in three dimensions (x, y, z) as indicated graphically below.
word ‘day’ also means direction. So it appears to us as if
our three-dimensional world is built up as a unit in seven Days (a Week).
Therefore the Week with its seven Days is the unit of space-time, and not only
time.
In
chapter 302 of the Futûhât, Ibn ‘Arabi explains how the process of
taking the daytime out of the night is identical to taking the world out of
non-existence into the ‘light’ of existence:
Now we have mentioned that the world was hidden
in the (absolute) Unseen (ghayb) of Allah, and that this Unseen was like
the shadow of a person. So if something were taken out from the entirety of
that shadow, it would come out in the image of that shade - just as that shadow
is itself in the image of that of which it is a shadow. So the result of what
is taken out of that shadow is in the image of the person. Do not you see that
light is what appears when the daytime is taken out of the night-time?
So those things which were hidden in the night (of the
divine ‘Unseen’) appear by the light of the daytime. Therefore the daytime does
not resemble the night, but rather resembles the light, by the appearance of
those things through it. So the night was the shadow of the (divine
existentiating) Light, and the daytime, when it is taken out of the night,
comes out on the image
of the Light. Likewise, the world, in its coming
out of the Unseen, comes out in the image of the world (already present in) the
Unseen, as we said.
[III.12.1]
So the process of creating the world out of non-existence
is exactly like the Qur’anic image of ‘taking the daytime out of the night’,
because time in the end is reduced to the instantaneous presence (or the events
that happen in it). As summarized in the passage just quoted, Ibn ‘Arabî says
that the world already exists in the all-encompassing foreknowledge of Allah,
in the absolute Unseen (al-ghayb al-mutlaq). Thus its emergence into
manifest existence is like the daytime: both of its states are ‘Light’, first
hidden in the ‘shadow’ of the absolute Unseen, and then when Allah takes the
world out of that non-existence, just as He ‘takes the daytime out of the
night’. And because Allah had determined that the manifest world would be
three-dimensional, He created it ‘in six Days’ (or directions). He could have
created it in many ways, but Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that the divine Ability does
not overrule His Determination or destiny (qadar\, it only accomplishes
what He has already determined (the maqdûr) [Ayyâm Al- Sha’n: 6].
Therefore, in order for the daytime (of the manifest world) to appear in
existence, there have to be three daytimes and three nights between this
daytime and the night that it was ‘taken out’ of[1.716; Ayyâm Al-Sha’n:
7]. Thus in each Day Allah creates a direction, and in the six Days of creation
(from Sunday to Friday) Allah creates the world in (three-dimensional) space,
while Saturday accounts for the ‘Day of event’ or time wherein this world is displayed.
As we have mentioned before (section 2.15), Allah said in
the Holy Qur’an: ‘each Day He is upon some (one) task’ (55:29). Since
Allah did not say ‘tasks’ but rather a single task or event, Ibn ‘Arabi
argues that the whole Day should be under the effect of one single divine task.
This, however, is not the case for our normal, ‘circulated’ days and is clearly
not the case for the ‘taken-out’ days we have just described above, because we
know that many different events are happening in each observable ‘circulated’
day.
Ibn
‘Arabî argues that the original Days of events in which Allah described Himself
as being ‘each Day upon some task’ are intertwined (or ‘entered
into each other’: mutawâlija, from the verb yûliju: ‘to enter into’)
with the circulated days in a specific manner, which he explains by dividing
the day into 24 hours. However, Ibn ‘Arabî emphasizes that this example is only
for approximation, since one could also explain this ‘intertwining’ on a
smaller scale than hours (e.g. minutes and seconds, or even smaller). The
matter as he describes it is already very complicated for 24 hours, although
this may be possible to calculate now using sophisticated computer programs.
Starting
with the night of Sunday - because its name al-ahad (‘the First’, ‘the
Unique’) is a Name of Allah, it is the first day, and also it is the day of the
Sun that is the heart or centre of the manifest world [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n:
11] - Ibn ‘Arabî reconstructs the Days of events from the hours of the circulated
days, starting with the first hour of the night of Thursday, then the eighth
hour, and so on with seven-hour intervals until the full 12 hours of the night
of Sunday are completed. Then he moves on to ‘deconstruct’ the daytime of
Sunday in the same way, as illustrated in the Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2.
Then he moves on to analyse the night of (the circulated
day of) Monday in the same way, but starting from the daytime of Friday, and so
on for the full seven Days, as indicated in the following Table 4.3 and Figure
4.2.
4.4.1 Demonstrating the
intertwined days
As can be readily seen from Tables 4.2 and 4.3, the flow of
time for the ‘intertwined’ days is even more complicated than that of the
taken-out days. This
Table 4.2 The intertwined days (example of Sunday alone).
Normal week days
|
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
|
Hours of night |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 - |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
— |
|
2 - |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
|
3 - |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
— |
|
4 - |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
— |
|
5 - |
- |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
|
6 SUN |
- |
— |
— |
— |
— |
- |
|
7 - |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
— |
|
8 - |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
— |
|
9 - |
— |
— |
— |
— |
- |
SUN |
|
10 - |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
— |
|
11 - |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
— |
|
12 - |
- |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
Hours of daytime
|
1 |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
3 |
- |
— |
— |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
|
4 |
- |
— |
— |
— |
— |
- |
SUN |
|
5 |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
6 |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
|
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
|
8 |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
9 |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
10 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
|
11 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
SUN |
|
12 |
- |
SUN |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Note
The
shaded background indicates the nights of the normal days, and bold font
indicates the nighttime hours of the intertwined days. The data in this table
are extracted from Kitâb Ayyâm Al-Sha’n, pp. 11-12.
Figure 4.2 The intertwined days, and their relation with
the circulated days.
Note
The information in this figure is extracted from Kitâb Ayyâm
Al-Sha’n, pp. 11-16.
complex relationship is shown graphically in Figure 4.2.
Again, it would be more accurate to imagine this graph in three dimensions, but
the graphic depiction is already very complicated in two dimensions. (A more
accurate approach to what Ibn ‘Arabî is actually describing would be to
simulate this on the computer, taking into account smaller time-scales than
hours.)
Figure
4.2 demonstrates how the 24 hours of each day of the normal circulated days
are distributed over the seven Days of events. The 24 hours of the Day of
Sunday for example (the 24-fold zigzag circle in the front) are distributed
over the normal week days, starting from the first hour of Thursday night and
moving with the seven-hour intervals already described.
Table 4.3 The intertwined days (all days)
Normal week days
|
|
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
|
Hours of nights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
|
2 |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
|
3 |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
|
4 |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
|
5 |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
|
6 |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
|
7 |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
|
8 |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
|
9 |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
|
10 |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
|
11 |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
|
12 |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
Hours of daytimes
|
1 |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
|
2 |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
|
3 |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
|
4 |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
|
5 |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
|
6 |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
|
7 |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
|
8 |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
|
9 |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
|
10 |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
|
11 |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
SUN |
|
12 |
SAT |
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
Note
The shaded background
indicates the nights of the normal days, and bold font indicates night hours of
the intertwined days. The data in this table are extracted from Kitâb Ayyâm
Al-Sha’n, pp. 11-16
4.4.2 The significance of
the intertwined days
The flow of time according to the intertwined days is the
real flow, because it indicates the manifest, outward order of events. The
reason why there is a constant seven-hour step, as in the Tables 4.2 and 4.3
and Figure 4.3, is that the order of creation proceeds according to the seven
main divine Names (and divine ‘Days’ of creation). For example, on Sunday (of
the original Days of creation) the world starts ‘hearing’ the divine Command,
which initiates the first dimension in creation. Then once the Sunday cycle
(i.e. of the divine Attribute ‘the All-Hearing’) is over, the Monday cycle
starts granting the world the attribute of ‘the Living’, and so on (see Table
3.1). Thus the manifest world gains the qualities of these fundamental divine
Attributes one after the other.
4.5
The motion of the seven
days in the zodiac
The orb of the ‘fixed stars’, including the constellations
of the zodiac and the lunar mansions, is the second orb after the outermost
Isotropic Orb, but it is the first material orb, because the Isotropic Orb does
not have any distinguishing features (no stars or planets). We have already
noted that Ibn ‘Arabi shows that ‘Allah created the Day in the first orb, and
then defined it in the second orb, which is the orb of the fixed stars (the
zodiac)’ [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6]. That is because the motion of the
Isotropic Orb can not be defined for the world beneath it, because there is no
reference point to assign a beginning or an end to this motion. However, in the
zodiac orb there is such a reference point: the 12 Signs or constellations. So
we can say that the days were first defined in the zodiac orb, and each day
represents a full cycle of this orb as observed from the Earth [III.548.31; see
also section 2.12 above]. Ibn ‘Arabi clearly showed that this orb does not
actually move as we observe it [11.441.33, 1.141.17, III.549.3], but that we
see it as moving because of the motion of the Earth around its centre
[1.123.17,11.677.21, III.548.31] (see also section 1.4).
Ibn ‘Arabi takes the first degree in Gemini as the
reference point to start counting the cosmic ‘Days’ of creation, and he claims
that this initial motion of time in creation started when this point was
matching the divine ‘Foot’ in the ‘Pedestal’ above the Isotropic Orb. It is
very interesting to note that the first degree of Gemini coincides with the
galactic equator.5 Moreover, recent studies and some historical or
archaeological records (Sitchin 1976: 197) show that this point was used by
ancient Sumerians as early as 11000 bc
as a starting point for the zodiacal calendar. He says:
And let it be known to you that this Name (‘the
All-Sufficient’, al-ghanî) made this orb isotropic with no planets in
it: all its parts are the same, and it has a circular shape where you can not
distinguish a beginning or an end to its motion, and it has no edge. By the
existence of this orb the seven days came into being, and so months and years;
but these (particular durations of) times were not determined in it until Allah
created, inside this orb, other signs (galaxies, stars and planets) which
determined these times.
This orb determined only one Day, which is a single cycle
(of this orb) beginning at the place of the (divine) ‘Foot’ in the Pedestal. So
it was determined from above. The duration of this cycle is called a Day. But
nobody except Allah knows (the actual length of) this Day, because of the fact
that all the parts of this orb are the same, so (nobody knows) the beginning of
its motion. And the beginning of its motion was when the first degree of Gemini,
which is an orb (whose influence is associated with the lower material
element) of air, was matching this Foot.
Hence the first Day that appeared in the world was by the
first degree of Gemini, and this Day is called al-ahad (Sunday). So when
this specific point of this orb, which is known only to Allah, returned to
match this Foot of the Pedestal, a full cycle - that is, of the total orb (and
its contents) - was completed and all the parts of this (isotropic) orb
matched with the (initial) place of the Foot from the Pedestal. So this motion
came over every degree, minute, second, and less than that of this orb. So the
places came into being and the existence of the single indivisible localized
monad (of all manifest creation) was determined from the motion of this orb.
[11.437.29]
That was the motion of the initial Day of the Sun (Sunday).
Then, at the end (of this initial Day), there
began another motion, also from the middle,6 until that (second
motion) reached its end/aim (ghâya), like the first motion - together
with the entirety of what (that sphere) contains of the (smallest) parts (ajzâ’)
and the individual entities that are composed of those parts, because (that
sphere) is quantitative. This second motion is called Monday. And so on till it
completed seven periodical motions everyone is determined by a divine
Attribute. And the (main) divine Attributes are seven, not more, which made the
Age not more than seven (distinctive) Days.
[II.438.3]
This is shown better in Figure 4.3.
Thus
the orb of the zodiac (fixed starts) executes only seven distinctive cycles,
which are then repeated that over and over again. Each Day of these seven Days
of the divine creative Week is called a ‘Day of event’, in which only one
single event happens, because it is ruled by one primary divine Name of Allah.
So there are seven Days of events, each related to one particular divine Name
from the seven fundamental Names mentioned in section 3.4.
Now in each ‘Day of event’ that is intertwined with the outwardly
observable (normal earthly) ‘circulated days’ as described above, Ibn ‘Arabî
explains that Allah constantly inspires the Universal Soul to act upon the orbs
below it - encompassing and giving rise to all the manifest, material cosmos -
so that they move in a specific manner that will cause one particular kind of
event in the cosmos. But the effects of this complex composite motion of
the orbs will be different, depending on the capabilities and characteristics
of individual creatures [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 11-12]. For example, when Allah
inspires the Soul to move the element of fire in order to heat the world, the
effects of this single event depends greatly on the individual creatures: those
which are ready to burn will bum, and those which accept heat will be heated,
and so on [Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 6], and he explains further in the Futûhât
that:
the (divine creative) “Event”, in relation to
the Real (i.e., God/al-haqq), is one from Him; but with relation to the
acceptors of the world it is many events that we would call infinite, were they
not confined by (their shared quality of) existence.
[II.82.6]
Figure
4.3 The Zodiac and the motion
of the days in it.
Note
Notice that this refers to the apparent rotation
of the sphere of the fixed stars, while the actual astronomical motion is due
to the revolution of the Earth. The 12 zodiacal signs are divided into four
groups whose influences are related to the four material elements (earth,
water, air and fire), as described in the preceding chapter; each group contains
three signs of the same nature. The motion of each cosmic Day starts at the
first degree of Gemini.
Ibn
‘Arabî describes in his Kitâb Ayyâm Al-Sha’n the different kinds of
events that are particularly associated with each Day of the seven Days of the
original divine ‘Week’ of event. There he also gives a ratio of ‘contribution’
by each one of the seven heavens. These mysterious symbolic data and concepts
are not very easy to understand. However, we will summarize his remarks in
Table 4.4 for reference, although any attempt to interpret them would require a
separate extensive study.
The
data in Table 4.4 are extracted from Kitâb Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 11-16. The
contributions are stated to be increments of one-fourth, probably alluding to
the equal role of the four basic elements of material Nature (fire, air, water
and earth). The —/— sign means that the corresponding data are not given in the
text. For Wednesday, Ibn ‘Arabi does not give detailed numbers, but simply says
(p. 14) that ‘God ordered the spiritual realities to help the Soul according to
their corresponding strength’. The ‘|’ indicates that the contribution is done
only by way of descent. Some of the data in this table are incomplete or not
certain, as the meaning of the original text is often unclear.7
Table 4.4 The action of the soul
(on the world) in each day of the seven days of events and the ratio of
contribution by the seven heavens
|
SUN |
MON |
TUE |
WED |
THU |
FRI |
SAT |
|
The actions of the Universal Soul in each Day
of event |
|
|
|
|
||
|
moving the fire |
giving the |
showing the |
mixing wet |
liquefying and |
distilling the wet |
holding the forms |
|
element to heat |
element of liquids |
absurd passions |
vapour with dry |
decomposing |
vapour |
of the world and |
|
the world |
to the generators |
|
vapour |
|
|
forming them |
The ratio of contribution by the seven celestial
spheres (orbs)s
|
7 |
2/4 |
2/4| |
2/4 |
-/- |
0/4 |
2/4 |
4/4 |
|
6 |
2/4 |
2/4| |
2/4 |
-/- |
4/4 |
2/4 |
0/4 |
|
5 |
4/4 |
0/4 |
-/- |
-/- |
2/4 |
0/4 |
2/4 |
|
4 |
4/4 |
0/4 |
4/4 |
-/- |
2/4 |
0/4 |
2/4 |
|
3 |
0/4 |
4/4 |
0/4 |
-/- |
2/4 |
4/4 |
2/4 |
|
2 |
1/4 |
1/4+1/4 |
-/- |
-/- |
2/4 |
2/4 |
2/4 |
|
1 |
0/4 |
4/4 |
0/4 |
-/- |
2/4 |
4/4 |
2/4 |
The Results
|
the spirits flow in |
bodies grow; |
anger and |
-/- |
good for lovers |
the events result -/- |
|
spiritual beings. |
rainy winds |
conflicts amongst |
|
|
through the |
|
and motion in the |
blow; motions |
people |
|
|
divine Command, |
|
tilings that move |
are weak |
|
|
|
not as the result |
of trying and direct action
4.7
Hours, minutes and
seconds
According to what we have now discussed in this and
preceding chapters, the day as we normally experience or observe it is the
minimum period of time defined by the apparent full revolution of the Heavens
around the Earth (see sections 2.12 and 3.2). The original divine creative
Days are single indivisible divine ‘Acts’, but in the observed time that we
experience, we live only one moment out of each original Day (see section
2.15). Therefore, the normal day as we know it is a collection of the moments
from the different divine Days of the creative Week, after the processes of
‘intertwining’ and ‘taking-out’ detailed above. For this reason, the normal day
can be conventionally subdivided apparently infinitely, and smaller units of
time can be conceived and measured.
Thus,
the day is conventionally divided into 24 hours, and the hour is conventionally
divided into 60 minutes, which are also conventionally divided into 60 seconds
each. This conventional hexadecimal system can be traced back to the time of
the Babylonians; it was used by many ancient civilizations and then transferred
by the Arabs to the West. In recent centuries, some more scientifically
measurable definitions of these conventional units of time have been introduced,
specifically for the second.8 So this hexadecimal system is now
internationally used, but after the second, smaller units of time are decimally
subdivided into 0.1, 0.01 etc., or 10 x seconds, where x could be in
principle any number no matter how large (for infinitely shorter times).9
Ibn
‘Arabî referred to these further conventional subdivisions of observed time in
chapter 59 of the Futûhât, which is entitled ‘On the Inner Knowing of
the (actually) Existent and Conventional Time’. Here the original divine cosmic
‘Days of event’ are the actually Existent Time (al-zamân al-mawjûd)
while the other time-distinctions days, years, months, hours, minutes and
seconds are only conventional or ‘estimated’ (muqaddar). There he
explains:
The (observable) ‘days’ are many: some are long,
and some are short. The shortest day is the ‘monad of time’ (al-zaman
al-fard) in which ‘He is in a task (55:29), so that (indivisible
shortest) monad of time is called a ‘day’ because the (divine) ‘task’ happens
in it: it is the shortest and tiniest time, and there is no maximum term to the
longest. Between them there are intermediate ‘days’, the first of which is the
conventional ‘day’ familiar in customary usage, which is divided into hours,
the hours into degrees, the degrees into minutes, and so on. That goes on
indefinitely, for those people who also divide the minutes into seconds. Since
it is ruled by (the principle of) countability, (for them time) is like
numbers; and numbers are infinite, so this division is also infinite.
But some people say that (time) is finite, and
they take this matter from the perspective of what can (actually) be counted or
‘numbered’: those are (the people) who advocate that time is an existing
essence (because it is countable), and all that exists must undoubtedly be
finite. But the opposing (group) say that the countable, simply by the fact
that it can be counted, does not (therefore necessarily) enter into existence,
so it is not described as finite, because number is not describable as being
finite. This is how those who argue against the ‘single monad’ (or ‘indivisible
atom’: al-jawhar al-fardproposed by the kalam theologians) contend, (maintaining
instead) that according to the intellect body is divisible indefinitely. This
topic of controversy among the people of intellectual inquiry (i.e. kalam
theologians and the philosophers) happened as a result of their lack of good
judgement and their inquiring (only) about the meanings of words (instead of
what is actually real).
[1.292.3]
However, for Ibn ‘Arabî this conventional division of time
also has its divine origin. He first affirms that the celestial orbs were
divided into 360 degrees due to the fact that the Universal Intellect (or the
‘Higher Pen’) was taught by the ‘Greatest Element’ (see sections 6.2 and 6.5)
exactly 360 kinds of comprehensive divisions of knowledge Culûm al-ijmâl),
under each of which there are 360 further divisions of detailed knowledge Culûm
al-tafsil), that is 360 times 360:
So each degree (of the 360 total degrees of the
outermost, all-encompassing celestial sphere) includes all that it comprises of
the details of minutes, seconds, tertiary divisions, and so on, as Allah - the
Exalted - wills to make manifest (of that detailed Knowledge) in His Creation
till the day of the Rising.
[1.295.12]
After that, in the same passage, Ibn ‘Arabî shows that
Allah appointed 12 ‘rulers’ (wulât, s. wâli), one in each of the
12 zodiac signs, which correspond to the 12 months in the conventional year.
Also there are 28 ‘chamberlains’ (hujjâb, s. hâjib) in the orb of
the constellations (i.e. the 28 houses of the Moon) which correspond to the 28
days in the (divine) month (see section 3.2). Finally, in the same passage he
also says that Allah ordered those rulers to appoint seven ‘chiefs’ (nuqabâ’,
s. naqib) in the seven Heavens, one ‘chief in each celestial sphere -
i.e. the seven orbs which correspond to the seven Days of the cosmic Week. Ibn
‘Arabi then adds that each one of those groups of spirits that are associated
with the celestial spheres has a living human ‘deputy’ or ‘agent’ among us on
Earth[I.296.27],
Ibn
‘Arabî even suggests a certain divine importance for the conventional division
of the day into 24 hours, in the following passage discussing the different
groups of the spiritual hierarchy of the ‘Friends of God’ (awliyâ’) in
chapter 73 of the Futûhât [II.2.39]:
And among them (the awliyâ’), may Allah
be pleased with them, (are a group of) 24 souls at any time, no more and no
less. They are called the ‘Men of (Spiritual) Opening’ (rijâl al-fateh):
through them Allah opens for the people of Allah whatever He opens of (divine)
knowledge and secrets. And Allah made them according to the number of hours,
one of them for each hour.
[II.13.7]
Regarding the hours of the day and the two parts of it (the
daytime and the night), and their observable variations across the year and
from one place to another, Ibn ‘Arabî says:
Then Allah caused the (observable, earthly)
daytime (nahâr) and the nighttime by the existence of the Sun - not the
(true divine) Days (ayyâm). And as for what happens of (the observable)
increase and decrease in the (length of the) daytime and night - not in the
hours, for they are (always) 24 hours - that is because of the motion of the
Sun in the zodiac region which is tilted with regard to us, so the day becomes
longer where it is in the high houses, and when it comes to the low houses the
day becomes shorter where it (i.e. the Sun) is. We said ‘where it is’, because
when the night becomes longer for us the day becomes longer for others, so the
Sun is in the high houses for them and in the low houses for us. So when the
day becomes shorter for us, the night becomes longer for them as we said. But
the day (al-yawm) itself is 24 hours: it does not increase or decrease,
nor does it become longer nor shorter in the equinox place.
[1.140.33]
Examine
the origin of existence, and think it through:
you
will see the same (divine) Generosity, both eternal and created.
And
the (created) thing is like the (eternal) thing,
except
that He made it appear in the actual reality of the worlds as created.
So if the viewer swears that his existence is
eternal (in the
Unity), he is honest and truthful,
not lying;
But if the viewer swears that its existence
(emerges) after its non-existence, (that is) more appropriate - and then its
[existence] is threefold.
[I.5.31]
In order to understand these novel concepts of time that we
have explained in previous chapters, we need to shed more light on Ibn ‘Arabî’s
controversial understanding of the oneness of being (wahdat al-wujûd),
because it is the key to understanding his various views of time. Although he
had never employed this famous term directly, it is quite evident that this
characteristic understanding of the oneness of being strongly dominates Ibn
Arabî’s many writings: he explains almost everything on the basis of the
concept of ultimate unicity and oneness. More specifically, the metaphysical
structure of the world, how it comes into existence, how it is maintained and
its ontological relation with the Creator can be explained only on the basis of
the oneness of being.
5.1
The contrasting
approaches of Sufism and philosophy
We want to start this chapter by quoting Ibn ‘Arabi’s
famous story of his first encounter with the great Aristotelian philosopher Ibn
Rushd (Averroes, already mentioned in section 1.7) when Ibn ‘Arabî was still
relatively young, but already famous for his immense knowledge and unique
views. According to that account, Ibn Rushd arranged with his friend - Ibn
‘Arabî’s father - to meet the young mystic in order to hear what he had to say
about (his Aristotelian) philosophy. As Ibn ‘Arabî recounts this story in the Futûhât:
And I entered one day in Cordoba into (the house
of) the judge Abû al- Walîd Ibn Rushd, as he wished to meet me after he had
heard about what Allah opened up for me in my spiritual retreat, for he had
been expressing his admiration of (or ‘amazement at’) what he had heard. Then
my father - because he was one of (Averroes’) friends - sent me to him for
something on purpose in order (for him) to meet me. I was still young; my face
had not yet put forth a beard, and my moustache had not yet grown.1
When I entered to see him he stood up for me out of love
and respect, embraced me and said (exclaiming): ‘Yes’! I replied: ‘Yes’. So his
joy was magnified because I understood him. Then I realized what made him feel
happy, and I said: ‘For Allah’s sake, No!’ Then he turned sad, his colour
changed and he doubted his philosophy.
Then he asked: ‘So how did you find it in unveiling (kashf)
and divine effusion (fayd ilâhî)? Is it the same as what thought had led
us (philosophers) to?’ I replied: ‘Yes ... No, and between the “yes” and the
“no”, spirits fly away from their (bodily) matter and necks from their bodies.’
So his (face) colour turned pale, he began to tremble and
sat down reciting the hawqala [that is to say: lâ hawla wa lâ
quwwata illâ bi Allah (‘there is no power and no strength but in Allah’)],
and he knew what I alluded to (in responding) to him.
[I.153.33]
This mysterious exchange of these few words and gestures
between these two pillars of Islamic thought, a Sufi and a philosopher, is an
attempt to express in symbolic language what is very difficult to explain in
more explicit language. Ibn ‘Arabî alludes here to an essential realization
that is beyond normal human comprehension, something that is apparently against
our everyday experience or otherwise very difficult to believe. Yet on the
other hand, it is something that can be ultimately summarized in only two
words: ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, or even ‘Yes’ alone, because ‘No’ is ‘not Yes’.2
In fact, Ibn ‘Arabî’s ‘digital’ answer here: ‘Yes/No’ (or ‘1/0’, ‘True/False’,
which ultimately amounts to existence/non- existence) is the best and shortest
expression of the creation - summarizing the essence of the paradoxical
metaphysical insights alluded to in the initial poem of the Futûhât
translated at the beginning of this chapter.
The difficulty of expressing this universal Reality in
simple words comes
Unicity and multiplicity 119 from the fact that we live in a diverse world of
infinite multiplicity, while at the same time the truth or reality behind this
world is literally too simple to be believed [Al-Masâ’il: 163]. The
ultimate Real is Allah, and Allah is uniquely One, while the world is
apparently many - so the metaphysical challenge is how to link the (imaginary)
multiplicity of the world to the Real One, through some unseen intermediaries.
Philosophers and scientists in general try to understand the
world through observations, while the methods of Ibn ‘Arabi and other Sufis
rely upon modes of perception that jump directly into the unseen in order to
approach the Real directly. As Ibn ‘Arabî often points out, observations are
subject to many mistakes, owing to the inaccuracy of the tools employed,
whether human senses or technical equipment, while true visions - as
opposed to our sometimes problematic interpretations of them - are always
correct [I.307.12,
III.
7.21].3 On the other hand, philosophers and
scientists use logic and experiments to deduce their theories and explain their
observations, while Sufis in general often describe their visions without
paying too much attention to explaining them in a logical manner, especially
when some of their visions, though real and true, may be outwardly or
apparently illogical.4 As a result, certain Sufis like Ibn ‘Arabi
may attain a very high state of knowledge of reality more quickly and more
accurately than philosophers (as Ibn ‘Arabî certainly implies in his account of
his meeting with Ibn Rushd), but they find it very difficult to explain their
views to others who have not 'tasted'’ it their way. So when they try to
explain their insights, not many people will understand what they say.
The
problem with the current laws and theories of physics and cosmology is that so
far, although they have proved to be quite accurate and powerful in application,
they have admittedly failed to unveil the ultimate reality behind the world.
All scientific theories are descriptive rather than determinative. We have seen
in section 1.3 that the reason why science was not able to determine the
reality of the world is that all cosmological models need a boundary condition:
i.e. an exact description of what was the initial state when the world started,
something which seems to be impossible to achieve by the intellect alone. That
is why scientists work backwards: i.e. they try to find out the initial state
of the cosmos by extrapolating in various ways from the current observations.
As a result, all physics theories and known cosmological models, though they
have achieved higher levels of understanding, have also brought new
contradictions and paradoxes. They have succeeded in providing approximate
possible creation scenarios, but failed to describe the reality itself.
Although Ibn ‘Arabî considers the intellect unbounded or unlimited as a receptive
tool, it is quite limited as a ratiocinative thinking tool because it relies on
limited senses [I.288.27]. Therefore, the intellect alone - as a thinking tool
- cannot describe the origin of the world because it is necessarily a part of
it. Ibn ‘Arabi affirmed this when he said that the limit of the observations of
the philosophers (or astronomers) is up to the Isotropic Orb which is the first
(outermost, and first created) material orb [II.677.1]; they can not see or
detect anything beyond that. That is why the Sufis
rely on the ‘heart’ (the locus of spiritual ‘tasting’ and
inspiration, in the language of the Qur’an) rather than the discursive
intellect.
On
the other hand, Sufis have sometimes claimed to have achieved a high state of
realization and even to have visualized the metaphysical structure and origin
of the world (i.e. what physicists call the initial/boundary condition). Most
of them, however, did not give proper attention to explaining the observable
universe and relating it to that initial cosmological state. Even Ibn ‘Arabî
himself did not care too much about that: instead he declared that his aims
were not to explain the world, but rather to acquire more knowledge of the
world as a structure created according to the Image of Allah, so that he might
acquire more knowledge of Allah Himself. All the same, however, throughout the Futûhât
and other shorter books Ibn ‘Arabî often gives a great many cosmological
explanations and sometimes logical analyses of his metaphysical visions. This
is why it is very important to study Ibn ‘Arabî’s writings, since they may
provide a real link between philosophy and science, on the one hand, and
mysticism and theology.
5.2
Unicity versus
multiplicity
Ibn ‘Arabî cited the story of his meeting with Ibn Rushd in
the context of explaining the words of the central spiritual Pole Idrîs (mudâwi
al-kulûm) who - as Ibn ‘Arabî said - knows very well about the natural
world and the effects of the higher world on it. Thus this Pole explained that
‘the world exists between the circumference and the point’ [I.154.22]. The
‘point’ here refers to the Real (the ‘Necessary Being’) whose existence is
self-existence, while the ‘circumference’ is the circle of creations (the
‘possible’ or contingent entities) whose existence depends on the Real. Beyond
this circumference is the ‘sea’ of nonexistence (the impossible of existence).
This relationship is illustrated in Figure 5.1.
With
regard to this image, Ibn ‘Arabî explained in chapter 47 of the Futûhât [I.260.1]
that the (divine creative Source-) point in the centre of a circle meets any
point in its circumference with its whole entity, without division or multiplicity.
Similarly, multiplicity (i.e. all of creation) appears or emerges out of the
Unicity of the Real; the manyness of the world appears out of the One Creator,
without affecting His unique Oneness or Unicity. Ibn ‘Arabî was well aware that
this paradoxical relation between the Creator and all manifestation is in clear
apparent contradiction with the widely accepted philosophical maxim - a central
assumption in the prevailing contemporary philosophical cosmology of Ibn Sina
and his followers - that ‘from the One only one may emerge (or proceed)’ (la
yasdur ‘an al-wâhid illâ wâhidp"
Given
the assumption of this maxim, an obvious problem encountered by philosophers
and theologians when they want to explain how Allah created the world is that
Allah is One while the world is many. So logically it is not possible to
imagine a relation between the One and the many without affecting the unique
Oneness (ahadiyya) of the One.
Figure 5.1 The Real, the ‘Possible’ existents, and the
‘Impossible’
Note
This figure is taken from chapter 360 of the Futûhât
[III.275].
However,
Ibn ‘Arabî’s analogy between the pure mathematical symbol of the circle and its
centre and the cosmological process of creation by the One Creator is not fully
justifiable without further explanations. Among other problems, mathematics and
geometry work with infinitely small (or dimensionless) points, while our
contemporary science of physics and cosmology deals with corporeal worlds that
have dimensions. But we shall see below that Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique understanding
of time provides here the essential link between physics and mathematics, or
between reality and imagination, in the same way as it does provide the
necessary link between unicity and multiplicity.
Ibn
‘Arabî quotes the above-mentioned emanationist philosophical maxim quite often
[I.42.14, I.260.5, II.31.14]. Although he disagrees with this general
proposition [1.260.5, I.715.12, II.434.20, and see also Al-Durratu
Al-Baydâ’: 140], he sometimes explains further that this notion can be held
true for physical beings but not for Allah Himself, because Allah, the unique
One, can obviously create multiple creations as we can clearly see:
So without their dependence (for actual
existence) on the existing-entity ( ‘ayn) of the servant, there would be
no rulership for those two Names (‘the First’ and ‘the Last’). Because there
(in eternity), the (divine) Essentialentity (al-‘ayn) is (uniquely)
One, not united (from different parts: mutta- hida). But in the servant,
(the existing-entity) is united (of different parts) and not (uniquely) one,
because Oneness (al-ahadiyya) is for Allah (alone), and unification (ittihâd,
the unification of the servant’s parts, senses, faculties etc., and not the
unification of the servant with his Lord because this is not possible in Ibn
‘Arabî’s doctrine) - and not the (divine) Oneness - is for the servant. This is
because the servant can only be understood in relation to another (Who is his
‘Lord’ or his Creator), and not by himself: so he has no trace of (the absolute
divine) Oneness at all. But as for the Real, Oneness may be understood (as
applying) to Him (taken by Himself), or it may be understood (as applying to
Him) with relation (to others), since everything belongs to Him, and indeed He
is actually the Essence of everything. (This unique divine Oneness refers) not
to the wholeness uniting a collection (of different entities: kulliyyat jam'
), but rather to the (unique) Reality of Unicity (haqîqat ahadiyya) on
which (all) multiplicity depends - and this (unique Oneness) can only apply
specifically to the (divine) Real.
So according to the determination of the (human)
intellect, only one thing can ever emerge from the One. But the Unicity of the
Real does not fall under that rule. How could He, Who created that rule, fall
under it?! And the (true) Ruler - there is no god but Him, the Almighty, the
All-Wise (3:6, 3:18).
[II.31.11]
So now we can see how multiplicity may come out of the
Oneness of the Real. Yet we need to explain how this multiplicity of the
creation appears from the One Creator. We need to explain how the pure
geometrical analogy of the circle and its centre could be applied to the
creation of the worlds by Allah.
Ibn
‘Arabî solves this riddle in part by inserting ‘time’, a true understanding of
time. Hence he says:
and He (the Real) has a special face (wajh
khâss) towards everything that exists, because He is the cause of
everything. Now every (single) thing is one, it cannot be two; and He is One.
So from Him there appeared only one, because He is in the oneness (ahadiyya)
of every one (existing thing).
So if multiplicity exists, it would (only) be
with regard to the oneness of time that is the container (of that apparent
multiplicity). For the existence of the Real in this multiplicity is in the
oneness of every one (existent). So there appeared from Him only one. Therefore
this is the real meaning of ‘from the One only one may emerge’: even if the
entirety of the world appeared from Him, there would only appear from Him one
(created reality), because He is ‘with’6 every one (of the
creatures) with respect to its oneness.
Now this is something that can be perceived only
by the (truly enlightened) ‘people of Allah’,7 whereas the
philosophers mean this [i.e. that from one (cause) only one (effect) can
emerge] in an entirely different sense, and this is something about which they
were mistaken.
[II.434.18]
Because of the rarity of the underlying spiritual
perception of this reality restricted, as Ibn ‘Arabî stresses, to the fully
enlightened ‘people of Allah’, this passage just quoted above is not readily
understood. Perhaps it is because of its great importance and central role in
Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmology that the famous ‘Abd-al-Qâdir al-Jazâ’irî,8
the editor of the original Bulaq edition of the Futûhât that is the
basis for all modern versions, added a rare long footnote comment at this point
in the Futûhât [II.434—435] to explain it in terms of the oneness of
being. Because his comments here are very helpful in this regard, we shall
analyse them at length in what follows.
Here
he explains that this passage refers to two related issues: ‘the one-ness of
every being’ (wahdat kull mawjûd) and ‘the unicity of Being (ahadiyyat
al- wujûd)’. He begins by pointing out that everyone and every thing has a
unique ‘face’ or individual reality that makes it distinctive; thus there are
no two persons or entities with the same reality, since otherwise they would be
one (the same), and not two. So this means that there appears from the One
Creator only one (reality) because this unique ‘special face’ is never repeated
(see also section 2.8).
This
explanation, however, is not entirely satisfactory (for our purposes, at
least), because the negation of repetition does not imply the negation of multiplicity,
which is clearly witnessed in the world.
‘Abd
al-Qâdir then goes on to explain that we can reconcile the apparent multiplicity
with the actual oneness of creation by correcting our view of time and space.
He says that our imagination pictures time as a container which contains the
things in the existence (as Newton later imagined time, but the theory of Relativity
superseded his view, as we mentioned in section 1.3) so we see things arranged
in time (and space), and then we imagine multiplicity. But if we imagine
ourselves ‘out of time’, and look at the whole existence in time and space, we
shall see a single existence without a beginning and without an end, and
without any relation to a self-subsistent distinct time and space as we usually
imagine them. For example, every person is one despite having arms and legs and
many visible and invisible parts.
But
again this explanation is not entirely satisfactory, since it shows the unity
of all being (wâhidiyya), but not its unique metaphysical ‘unicity’ (ahadiyya).
It shows that the whole of existence is ‘one’ when we look at it as a single
whole, or from outside space and time. But still, since we actually perceive
(or imagine) ourselves as existing inside this space-time whole as partial
entities, we also see many other entities - or in other words, manifest
multiplicity. So we still need to explain how this multiplicity appears from
the unique Oneness of the Real.
‘Abd
al-Qâdir then goes on to explain that if the philosophers meant by saying ‘from
the one there only emerges one’ that Allah created only the First Intellect
(which is the way this maxim was understood by Ibn Sina and most Islamic
philosophers), then this Intellect (alone) gave rise to the world. In one sense
this may be true for Ibn ‘Arabî, but he adds - as we have just seen at the
beginning of this section - that Allah has a unique Face specifically turned to
every single entity in the world, through Which its existence is preserved
[II.434.18]. But in that case the philosophers are contradicting - or at least
failing to illustrate the relevance of - their own proposition (Ibn ‘Arabî also
discussed these views in al-Durrat Al-Baydâ: 142-143), because again
the world is many and the First Intellect is one; so we still need then to
explain how this multiplicity of the world appeared out of the First
Intellect.
In
Ibn ‘Arabî’s view, however, every individual entity in the world always has a
direct creative relation with Allah, and that is how its existence exists and
is maintained. If Allah did not maintain this creative ‘special face’ between
Himself and each entity, it would cease to exist instantly (Al-Durrat
Al-Baydâ’: 133). In order to solve the problem of unicity-multiplicity
relation, Ibn ‘Arabî actually asserts that this interface between the One and
all the many existent things does not happen all at once. Rather, at any
instant, as we have just seen, there is in reality a single relation or
interface - a unique divine ‘with-ness’, as he calls it (following the Qur’an)
- between the One and each ‘one’ of the entities of the world. But what
happens at this particular instant with the other entities in the world, since
their existence is also preserved only through this unique creative relation
between them and their Creator, the unique One? The answer is: they do cease to
exist, and then they are (immediately) re-created again and again
[II.385.4]. We shall discuss this central metaphysical principle of the
‘ever-renewed creation’ in section 5.6.
Therefore,
in order to understand the relation between the unique Oneness of the Real and
the multiplicity of the creatures, Ibn ‘Arabî adds time to the previous
philosophical statement, which can be then reformulated as: ‘from the One there
can emerge only one at a time’ This re-statement is indeed the key to
understanding Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique views of time and the oneness of being and to
solving the mystery of the relation between the Real and His creation. In this
way the world is created by Allah ‘in series’ (Al-Durrat Al-Baydâ’:
139), and not just one single time, just as the repeated images of a movie are
displayed on the television or computer screen.
Ibn
‘Arabî, moreover, affirms that this particular mode of creation was chosen by
Allah to be like that, although in fact He might have done it in any other way,
so it is not an (external) restriction over Him:
So this is not necessarily implied by the
Existence of the Real: i.e. that for example only one can emerge out from Him,
and that this is impossible (otherwise). But He willed that and He wished it,
and if He had wished that the world should exist all at once, and that nothing
were dependent on anything (else), it would not be difficult for Allah [to make
it like that, and in this case - if Allah had wished that the world should
exist all at once - then we would be living in a different logic, but because
Allah created it in this way as it is now (ruled by the laws of causality: see
also section 7.7), we observe that from the one nothing might emerge except one
at a time, since otherwise this would violate the oneness of the Real according
to our current logic].
(Al-Durrat Al-Baydâ’: 139)
The meaning of this principle is in fact derived directly
from the well-known verse in the Qur’an that we have already discussed in many
earlier contexts: each Day He is upon some (one, single) task (55:29).
Ibn ‘Arabî quotes this verse most frequently in his discussion on time, and it
is the basis of his unique ‘quantization’ of time. So since Allah is One, He
does only one single creative task each ‘Day’ - of course not this normal
observable day that we encounter, in which an almost infinite number of tasks
or events are happening.
5.3
The unicity of God and
His names
According to Ibn ‘Arabî and to Islam, and also some other
religions, Allah is both One (Wâhid) and ‘Unique’ (al-Ahad, ‘the
Unit’).9 The first attribute means that He is one God (not many) and
the second attribute means that He is not divisible into other entities.
Moreover, as is indicated by the more metaphysically problematic second
attribute of ‘Unicity’ (ahadiyya), we can not describe Him as a single
entity (like other entities) with specific dimensions that are placed somewhere
in space or began at a point of time. Allah is simply uniquely different from
whatever we may know or imagine. We can not achieve full knowledge or awareness
of the Essence (Dhât) of Allah because this is beyond our perception. It
is, however, possible to describe Him and speak about His Attributes and divine
Names, for example as they are mentioned in the Qur’an and the Sunna. We may
attain knowledge about the divine Names and descriptions of Allah, but not
about His Essence (Dhât) Himself. As Chittick has pointed out, for Ibn
‘Arabî: ‘God is known through the relations, attributions and correlations
between Him and the cosmos. But the Essence is unknown, since nothing is
related to It’ (SDK: 62). Whatever the human being may know about Allah is
therefore in the end partial and incomplete. No one can ever achieve full
knowledge or awareness of Him; the maximum knowledge one might achieve of the
Essence of Allah is to know that He is different from anything [IV.301.17]. Ibn
‘Arabî expressed this nicely in his prayers: ‘it is enough for me that You know
my ignorance. You are as I know, and beyond what I know to a degree that I do
not know’ (Beneito and Hirtenstein 2000: 131-132)10 This is because
we may know Him only through His manifestations in us and in the world, but His
manifestations are never exactly repeated.
Human
Being, however, is the creature most capable of knowing Allah, the Exalted,
because when He created Adam (the Perfect Human Being), He taught him all
the Names (2:31)11 and ordered the angels to prostrate before
Adam out of respect and acknowledgement (2:34, 7:11, 17:61, 18:50, 20:116,
II.46.33). But knowing Allah is an infinite process for us, because Allah
Himself is not finite, in the sense that He never manifests in the same form
twice [1.266.10], and also because His manifestations reveal some of his
attributes and descriptions, but do not fully reveal His ultimate Essence or
Identity. Ibn ‘Arabî summarizes this by saying, in one of his many
elaborations of the famous Divine Saying of the ‘Hidden Treasure’, that:
Allah, the Exalted, ‘loved to be known’ in order
to grant the world the privilege of knowing Him, the most Exalted. But He knew
that His Identity (Essence) can not be (completely) known and nobody can ever know
Him as He knows Himself. The best knowledge that can be achieved about Him, His
Highness, in the world is that the knowers know that they do not know. And this
(human inability to know the Essence) is (also) called knowledge, as the
Righteous (Abû Bakr al-Siddîq) said: ‘The incapacity to attain realization is
a realization.’12
[III.429.7]
As Ibn ‘Arabî notes elsewhere, the Prophet Muhammad has
also clearly expressed this same recognition by saying: ‘I can not enumerate
the ways of praising Thee: Thou art as Thou has praised Thyself [Kanz:
2131, 3652, I.126.15, I.271.5, etc.], and Allah also said: ‘but they do not
encompass Him with knowledge" (20:110).
Of
course the Prophet Muhammad also said: ‘Allah has 99 Names, one hundred less
one: whoever enumerates them is going to enter the Garden’ [Kanz: 1933,
1934 and 1938]. However, this does not restrict the divine Names to 99,
as some Muslims misunderstand it. In fact Ibn ‘Arabî says that the divine Names
of Allah are countless and that everything in the cosmos is a divine Name. But
the 99 enumerated Names are the principal Names [IV.288.2] that have been
mentioned in Qur’an and Sunna. Moreover, although each Name of the divine Names
is different from others, Ibn ‘Arabî repeatedly cautions his readers that all
that Names are intrinsically implicit in each one of them, which is to say that
each Name can be described by all the other Names [I.101.5]. However, despite
the multiplicity of these Names, they all refer to the same One Absolute
Essence of Allah, while conveying different Attributes of Him due to His
manifestations and relations [I.48.23]. Multiplicity is not an intrinsic
property of Allah Himself, since Allah has many different Names only when
considered with relation to His creations:
The Names of the Real do not become plural and
multiple except in manifestation. But with respect to Him, the property of
number does not rule over them, not even its (the number’s) root, which is (the
number) one. So His Names, in respect to Him, may not be (exclusively or
restrictively) described by unity or multiplicity.
[II.122.19, see also Al-Masâ’il: 109]
So in fact even the Names ‘the One’, ‘the Unique’ and the
like are not descriptions of Allah with respect to Himself, but with respect
to his creation. If we suppose that there is no creation, there would be no
need to describe Him by the One or any other Name. Ibn ‘Arabî frequently points
out that this is just like the fact that the meaning of the number one is only
introduced with regard to its relation to the other numbers.
So
Allah may be known only through His divine Names. And because these Names are
countless, our knowledge of Allah may never be complete. It is these knowable
divine Names that are actively engaged and manifested in the creation. That is
why we see multiplicity and diversity in the cosmos.13 In fact Ibn
‘Arabî maintains that everything in the world is in essence a divine Name,
simply because everything is a cause that we need, and Allah says: ‘you are
in need of Allah (35:15) (III.208.7; see also section 7.7). Also He said
that ‘He is the First and the Last and the Manifest and the Hidden"
(57:3). He manifests in all things, so the things are not other than Him; but
also the things are not (identical with) Him, as we shall explain shortly.
However,
we should take all these descriptions and names as mere approximations,
because they are words spoken in our own language: the names (words) that we
know are actually the names of the Names, and not the Names themselves
[II.56.33]. Although we may know about Allah by knowing His Attributes and
Names, those outward verbal Names are words in our language so that we may, for
example, look up their meanings in the dictionary, or even use them to name and
describe people and things. So although those same familiar words are Names of
Allah, their actual meanings are quite distinct when Allah is called by them.
For this reason Allah is named as al-fard (‘the Singular’), because He
is distinct (or ‘singled-out’: mutafarrid) from the creation
[IV.276.33]. Also, all His Names are described by their ‘singular uniqueness’ (al-tafarrud).
As Chittick has pointed out, those words that are revealed to us (through the
Qur’an and Sunna) are the outward forms (sûra), while Allah’s own
knowledge of Himself is the reality or inner meaning (ma'nâ) (SDK: 34).
Similarly the Names that are revealed to us in everything in the cosmos are the
outward forms, while the inner meaning of those forms is Allah’s own knowledge
of Himself. Ibn ‘Arabî showed that:
Allah says: ‘Call upon Allah or call upon the
All-Merciful: whoever you call upon, to Him belong the most beautiful Names’
(17:110). So here He made the most beautiful Names belong to Allah as they
(also) belong to the All-Merciful.
But here there is a subtle point: since every Name
has a meaning (ma'nâ) and a form (sûra), ‘Allah’ is called by the
Name’s meaning, while the ‘AllMerciful’ is called by the Name’s form.
This is because the (divine) Breath is ascribed to the All-Merciful,14
and through this (creative) Breath the divine words become manifest within the
levels of the Void (khalâ’) where the cosmos becomes manifest. So we
call Him only by the form of the Names (and only He Himself knows the real
meaning of these names).
[II.396.30]
Therefore whatever knowledge we may acquire about Allah
actually belongs to His Name ‘the All-Merciful’, and the difference between the
two Names is like the difference between the form and the meaning. According to
Ibn ‘Arabî, this relation is a direct implication of the verse in Qur’an: ‘the
All-Merciful mounted on the Throne" (20:5). In the first chapter of Al-Tadbîrât
Al-Ilâhiyya (p. 89), which talks about the Universal Spirit (al-Rûh
al-Kullî) - which is the ‘Greatest Element/Single Monad’, as we shall see
in sections 6.2-6 - Ibn ‘Arabî makes a comparison between the Names Allah and
the All-Merciful. Under a section called: ‘a secret for the special (people of
Allah)’, Ibn ‘Arabî says that the difference between those two Names is like
the difference between this Universal Spirit on which Allah mounted (or
established His authority) and the Throne on which the All-Merciful mounted (or
established His authority). We shall see in section 6.6 that the same
comparison can be made between the Single Monad and the Greatest Element. Just
as the divine Throne encompasses all the cosmos, everything in the cosmos is
related to the Name ‘the All-Merciful’ [II.467.21].
5.4
The metaphysical
triplicity (‘trinity’) of the cosmos
According to Ibn ‘Arabî, as we have already mentioned in
section 3.6, the divine Names can be grouped into three categories: the Names
of Essence (asmâ’ al- dhât), Names of Descriptions or Attributes (asmâ’
al-sifât) and Names of Actions (asmâ’ al-af‘âl) [1.423.20, 1.67.28,
see also Inshâ’ al-Dawâ’ir: 22]. Therefore the Universal Intellect or
Adamic ‘Perfect Human Being’, who is created ‘according to the Image of the
All-Merciful’ [Kanz: 1146, 1148, 1149], came out with three faces
because he is based on these three unique divine dimensions [I.446.19,
II.434.16], although he is in essence one indivisible entity.
That
is why Ibn ‘Arabî asserts that (everything in) the cosmos is built on a kind of
metaphysical triplicity [III.126.21], and he later explains this further by
saying:
So the body is (composed of at least) eight
points, just as the knowable (aspects) of the Real are the Essence and the
seven Attributes: They are not Him, and They are not other than Him. (Likewise)
the body is not other than the points, and the points are not other than the
body. Now we only said that eight points are the minimum (required to compose)
bodies because the name ‘line’ is for two points or more. And the origin of the
plane is from two lines or more, so the plane is from (at least) four points. And
the origin of the body is from two planes or more, so the body is from eight
points.
Therefore the name (attribute) of ‘length’ is applicable to
the body from the line (included in it); the name ‘width’ is applicable to it
from the plane; and the name ‘depth’ is applicable to it from the combination
of two planes. Thus the body is built on a triplicity (of dimensions: tathlîth),
just as the formation of proofs (in syllogistic logic) is based on a threefold
structure, and just as the Source of existence - that is, the Real - only
becomes manifest through the bestowing of existence through three realities:
His Entity, His willing intention (tawajjuh) and His Speaking (the
Command ‘Be’). Thus the world became manifest ‘according to the Form’ of the
One Who gives it existence, both in sensation (i.e. the visible world) and in
(its spiritual dimensions of) meaning.
[III.276.1]
For this reason - i.e. the threefold structures underlying
all generative processes - Ibn ‘Arabî emphasizes that we need two elements (subject
and object) in order to produce a result (act) [I.278.14], because ‘from the
one alone nothing may be produced’ [III.126.1].
In
fact the metaphysical triplicity of subject, object and resulting act is fundamental
throughout Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmology. Thus he summarizes the process of creation
by saying that the Universal Intellect (subject or symbolic ‘father’) is
writing down in the Universal Soul (the object or ‘mother’) all that Allah
wants to create till the Last Day (i.e. the result or ‘son’) [Ayyâm
Al-Sha’n: 7-8] (see section 4.3). Indeed Ibn ‘Arabî even wrote a separate
treatise dedicated to explaining certain threefold structures of expression and
meaning in the Qur’an.15 It is noteworthy in this regard that the
metaphysical concept of triplicity is also fundamental in many other ancient
religions and philosophies, including the Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian,
Roman, Japanese and Indian.16
For
this reason, Ibn ‘Arabi regards the number three as the first ‘single’ (or odd:
fardî) number, because he consistently considers that one is not a
number (since the Arabic word for ‘number’, ‘adad, implies
multiplicity), while two is the first number. But since the number two is even,
nothing may be formed without a third, intermediate principle to link or interface
between the one and the two:
So no contingent entity (mumkin) has come
to exist through one (alone), but only through a plurality (or ‘conjunction’ of
elements: jam' ), and the least of plurals is three.17 So
since the (divine) Name ‘the Singular’ (al-fard) is threefold in its
effects, He gives to the contingent entity that He brings into existence those
three things (i.e. Essence, Will and the creative Command) that He must
unavoidably consider, and (only then) He brings (the contingent thing) into
existence.
... Therefore this (metaphysical principle of)
triplicity runs inwardly through the totality of all things, because it exists
in the (divine creative) Source.
[III.126.5]
Now the Universal Intellect is the intermediary reality
(also called barzakh or ‘connector’) between Allah and the world, and
therefore It has two interfaces: It faces Allah from the side of His unity, and
It faces the world from the side of His threefold creative dimensions. When It
faces Allah (in order to perceive knowledge), It turns away from us (the
world), and this is our ‘night’; and when It faces the world, this is our
‘daytime’ or manifest existence. The Perfect Human Being or First Intellect is
- according to the famous hadith already discussed above - the ‘Image’ or
‘Form’ of the Real, and likewise the world is the subsequent image of this
Perfect Human Being. Hence the manifest world, like the Perfect Human Being, is
‘according to the Image’ of the Real Himself - although without the Perfect
Human Being it could not participate in this perfection (see section 3.1). So
if we consider the manifest images of the world, we can potentially discover
the face of the Perfect Human Being reflected in it, and if we come to know the
Perfect Human Being, then we also come to know Allah. So this is the
fundamental ontological triplicity of ‘Allah-Human Being-world’ or
‘Allah-Intellect-world’ [I.125-126].
According
to Ibn ‘Arabî, this fundamental triplicity of Allah-Human Beingworld is
manifested again within each human being as in our threefold nature as
spirit-heart-body. The spirit is the single immaterial and mysterious divine
reality that is the principle underlying life and creation, while the body is
the place where this creation occurs in many different ways, so it is composed
of many different material parts (multiplicity). And the heart is the link
between the body and the spirit through which the spirit exerts its effects on
the multiplicity of the body. On the other hand, the sensations collected by
the body are eventually raised up to the spirit as spiritual (immaterial)
meanings and realities.
Another
favourite symbolic triplicity for Ibn ‘Arabî, deeply rooted in the symbolism of
the Qur’an and certain key hadith, is the astronomical triplicity of the Sun-Moon-Earth.18
The Earth gains its life from the Sun, and when the Sun does not face the Earth
from a specific direction, the Moon takes part and reflects the light of the
Sun with a degree that is small or large according to its relative place in
space. In fact, if one wants to look at the Sun, one is instead obliged to look
at the Moon when it is full, because the Sun can not be seen unveiled at all,
since it will burn up everything that its direct light falls on. This symbolism
is directly connected, for Ibn ‘Arabî, with the famous ‘hadith of the veils’,
according to which Allah has 70,000 veils of light and darkness, such that if
He removed those veils His light would burn everyone who tried to see Him
directly [Kanz: 29846, 39210].
Indeed
the trinity of Sun-Moon-Earth particularly well illustrates Ibn ‘Arabî’s view
of the creation and its relation to the Creator. Although the creation by
Allah is done ‘through’ the Universal Intellect, Ibn ‘Arabî also emphasizes
that Allah also has a direct, ‘individual face’ turned toward every
single entity in the world. Similarly the Sun does not only give its light
indirectly through the Moon, but also much more directly to the Earth, so
everything on Earth is connected with the Sun in the course of the day with
different degrees and at different times.
The ‘oneness of being’ (wahdata al-wujûd) is one of
Ibn ‘Arabî’s most controversial doctrines which many later Muslim scholars
attributed to him, usually with very different (and often more polemic than
philosophical) meanings and interpretations. Although Ibn ‘Arabî himself never
mentioned the precise term ‘wahdata al-wujûd'’ in his writings,19
it is quite evident that Ibn ‘Arabî’s books are full of statements that develop
notions related to the oneness of being in one way or another, in many places
quite explicitly and rigorously. This is especially the case in his most
controversial book, Fusûs al-Hikam, for which he was widely criticized,
but related discussions are also to be found throughout the Futûhât and
his other shorter works. Indeed the possible misunderstandings of this
conception clearly underpin Ibn ‘Arabî’s distinctive multi-layered,
Unicity and multiplicity 131 intentionally ‘scattered’ rhetoric and writing style
throughout the Futûhât and other works, as he explained quite clearly in
the key Introduction to the Futûhât itself.
The
basic ontological issue for Ibn ‘Arabî is very clear and simple: in many places
throughout his writings, such as the long chapter 198 of the Futûhât [II.390-478]
he follows the established Avicennan distinction, familiar to all students of
Islamic theology and philosophy by his time, in dividing all conceivable
things, in terms of existence, into three basic categories (see also section
2.3). There he says:
Know that the matter (of the nature of the
reality) is the Real (al-haqq) and the creation (al-khalq): that
is the absolute Existence that has always been and always is (existing); and
absolute (contingent) possibility (imkân) that has always been and
always is (possible to exist); and absolute nonexistence that has always been
and always is (non-existing). Now the absolute Existence does not accept
non-existence, (and that applies) eternally and perpetually. The absolute
non-existence does not accept existence, (and likewise that applies) eternally
and perpetually. But the absolutely possible does accept existence through an
(ontologically determining) cause, and it also accepts non-existence through a
cause - and (that contingent ontological status also applies) eternally and
perpetually.
So the absolute Existence is Allah, nothing
other than Him. The absolute non-existence is the impossible-to-exist, nothing
other than it. And the absolutely possible (of existence) is the world,
nothing other than it: its (ontological) level is between the absolute
Existence and absolute non-existence. So in so far as some of it faces
non-existence, it accepts non-existence; and in so far as some of it faces
Existence, it accepts existence. So some of it is darkness, and that is the
Nature. And some of it is light, and that is the ‘Breath of the All-Merciful’
[that is the ‘real-through-whom-creation-takes- place’ (al-haqq al-makhlûq
bihi), see sections 6.3 and 6.5] which bestows existence upon this possible
(realm of created beings).20
[II.426.26]
After that Ibn ‘Arabî explains the different types of
Creation according to this creative Spirit - or the divine Name ‘Light’, which
he often uses as synonymous with the divine creative and existentiating power -
is attached to the ‘dark’, contingent form of the creatures. Then he goes on
to gives the crucial analysis which clearly explains his profound view of the
oneness of being in the most explicit and direct way, based on evident verses
in the Qur’an. He says:
So the possible (contingent) existence became
manifest between light and darkness, nature and spirit, the unseen and the visible,
and the ‘veiled’ and unveiled. Therefore that which is close to (waliya)
absolute Existence, from among all that (contingent realm) we have mentioned is
light and spirit, and all of what we have mentioned which is close to absolute
non-existence is
‘shadow’ and body - and from the totality (of
those different kinds of contingent existent) form (sûra: of the whole
of creation) comes to be. So when you consider the world from the side of the
Breath of the All-Merciful, you say: ‘It is nothing but Allah’. But when you
consider the world with regard to its being equally balanced and
well-proportioned (i.e. between existence and non-existence), then you say
these are creations (makhlûqât). So [in the famous Qur’anic expression
of this fundamental ontological reality, addressed to the Prophet]: ‘you
(Muhammad) did not throw’, inasmuch as you are a creation [so that it is
God who was really acting], ‘when you did throw’, inasmuch as you are
real (haqqan), ‘but Allah threw’ (8:17), because He is the
Real (al-Haqq).
For it is through the (divine creative) Breath
that the whole world is ‘breathing’ (animated with life), and the Breath made
it appear. So (this creative divine Breath) is inner dimension (bâtin)
for the Real, and the manifest dimension (zâhir) for creation: thus the
inner dimension of the Real is the manifest dimension for creation, and the
inner dimension of creation is the manifest aspect of the Real - and through
their combination the generated existence (al-kawn) is actualized, since
without that combination it would (only) be said to be Real and creation. Thus
the Real is for the absolute Existence, and creation is for the absolutely
possible. So what becomes nonexistent of the world and its form that
disappears is through what is close to the side of non-existence; and what
remains of it and does not allow for non-existence is through what is close to
the side of Existence. Hence these two things (Existence and non-existence) are
continually ruling over the world, so the creation is always new with every
Breath, both in this world and in the hereafter.
Therefore the Breath of the All-Merciful is
continually directed (toward the Act of creation), and Nature is continually
taking on existence as the forms for this Breath, so that the divine Command
does not become inactive, because inactivity is not appropriate (for It). So
constantly forms are newly appearing and becoming manifest, according to their
states of readiness to accept the (divine creative) Breath. And this is the
clearest possible (description) of the (divine) origination (ibdâ) of
the world. And Allah says the truth and He shows the way (33:4).
[II.427.17]
To summarize, therefore, this expression implies that the
world can be conceived symbolically as a mixture of light and ‘darkness’. For
Ibn ‘Arabî, this darkness is quite literally nothing: it is simply the absence
of light.21 Light, on the other hand, is ultimately the Real (via
the divine Name ‘The Light’, al-nûr), and the Real is One. So all
existence is in essence one. Multiplicity appears through creation as a result
of mixing the oneness of light with the darkness of non-existence. In other
words, we can say - since darkness is nothing - that the creation is the
constantly repeating relative appearance (manifestation) of the Real. The Real
manifests most perfectly in the Perfect Human Being, and relatively in other
creatures, and these manifestations happen through the Universal Intellect. So
in real existence there is only the Real Who is Allah and this Universal Intellect
who is the Messenger of Allah. So there is in fact no ontologically self-subsistent
‘evil’, since the creation is all good - an aspect of this cosmological
conception which, taken out of context, could easily give rise to obvious religious
and ethical objections. Hence what we perceive as evil is in reality the
absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light.22
Thus
this is the basic principle, but in order to understand it we need to explain
how the mixing between light and darkness is done, which is again to say: ‘how
is the world created?’ - which raises the question of time yet again. Ibn
‘Arabî’s understanding of this process of creation or cosmogony will be
developed further below and in sections 9.7-8.
Given
the possible confusions and misunderstandings surrounding this understanding
of creation, it is clear why Ibn ‘Arabî never declared these ideas in overly
simplistic terms in his books, but rather scattered them throughout his
writings - as he explains quite explicitly at the very beginning of his Futûhât
[I.38.25] - so that the common people would not misunderstand them (as
indeed happened in later times) and so that only those properly ‘prepared’
would be able to discover their profound intended meanings.
Moreover,
we have to admit that Ibn ‘Arabî takes it a courageous step further: although
the Universal Intellect, and hence the entire manifest world, is created by
Allah, Ibn ‘Arabî emphasizes that it also is not ‘other than Allah’ (SDK:
113), because ultimately only Allah has real absolute and necessary
(independent) existence [I.194.8], and the world exists by and through Him not
by itself. As Chittick has summarized this perspective (SDK: 81), if Ibn
‘Arabî was asked the question: ‘Are the things the same as God?’, his answer
would be: ‘Yes and No’. That is to say, they are, in his own words,
‘He/not He’ (Huwa lâ huwa);2 or equally, one could say: ‘they
are not Him, and they are not other than Him’ (Lâ hiya huwa wa lâ hiya
ghayruh).-^ For if we say ‘Yes’ (alone), then this would require us
confining Allah, the most Exalted, in objects, which is an obvious
misconception. And if we say ‘No’ (alone), then this would require the
assertion of other separate and self-subsistent) existents, and this - for Ibn
‘Arabî - is also wrong. So the ultimate truth requires combining both
ontological views and saying that the things are in essence ‘not other than
Allah’ - although in the forms that we see, they also are not (identical with)
Allah. These forms do not have real independent existence, since otherwise
Allah would not be ‘the One (alone)’ (al-wâhid) - but He is the One
(alone), and the created things exist by and through Him, not by themselves.
For Ibn ‘Arabî, this is in fact ‘the secret of sincerity’ (sirr al-ikhlâs),
which is also ‘the secret of destiny’ (sirr al-qadar) that makes clear
the fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creation, the Eternal
and the created - and this secret, he explains, has been hidden from most
people [III.182.11].
Chittick
goes on to show that, for Ibn ‘Arabî, everything in the world is a divine name
of Allah (SDK: 94); or rather, the things are the manifestations of the
Names. From the general Qur’anic verse O people, you are truly in need of
Allah (35:15), Ibn ‘Arabî easily concludes that everything (that is a
cause, and everything is a cause) is a divine Name, because we are in need of
these causes, so they may not be other than Him [I.288.16]. Again we can not
say that these secondary and intermediate causes (asbâb) are Him -
though in their most ultimate essence and Source they are all one, and this
one is not other than Him. But of course someone simply hearing such an expression
will initially think that they mean that the particular shape or body of the
created objects that are the causes: that is why we can not simply stop at
saying (as many later Sufi poets sometimes did) that ‘all things are Allah’.
Ibn ‘Arabî explained these key ontological distinctions most clearly and
extensively in his Fusûs al-Hikam, especially in chapter 3 ‘on the
wisdom of transcendence (al-hikma al-subûhiyya) in the word of Noah’;25
but he also took up this same subject at many places throughout the Futûhât
[I.90.17, and the extensive references cited in the previous paragraph].
In a
similar manner, Ibn ‘Arabî often describes the world of all creation as a kind
of ‘mirror’ on which Allah’s Image is reflected [IV.430.1]. If someone looks at
the world from the real side of actual existence, then he will see the Image of
the Real, Allah the most Glorious; but if he considers the world only from the
side of its non-existence (if we suppose this is possible), then he will see an
image of the unreal:
Therefore the reason why this (ontological)
‘isthmus’ (al-barzakh) - which is the possible (realm of contingent
existence) between (pure) non-existence and Existence - is the occasion (sabab)
for its being attributed both permanence and non-existence, is because it
corresponds to both those things by its essence. That is because the absolute
non-existence stood up like a mirror for the Absolute Existence, so the
(divine) Existence saw His Image in it, so that this Image is the essential
reality ( ‘ayn) of the possible. That is why this ‘possible’ (as the
Perfect Human Being or First Intellect) had a permanent individual-essence ( ‘ayn
thâbita) and state of (definable) ‘thingness’ already in the state of its
non-existence. And that is why it emerged (in its contingent, created
existence) according to the Image of the Absolute Existence. This is also that
is why it was also describable as non-finite, so it is referred to as infinite.
But the Absolute Existence is also like a mirror
for the absolute nonexistence. So the absolute non-existence saw itself in the
mirror of the Real, but the image that it saw was itself the essential reality
(‘ayn) of nonexistence by which this possible (existence) is described.
Therefore it is also described as infinite, just as the absolute non-existence
is infinite - hence the possible is described as (inherently) non-existing (ma'dûm).
So it is like the image that appears between the mirror and the person looking
in the mirror: that image is not that very person himself, but it is not other
than him. Likewise the possible, with respect to as its (very limited kind of)
permanence, is not the very essence of the Real Himself; yet it is not other
than Him. Similarly, with respect to its (only relative) non-existence, it is
not the same thing as of the (absolutely) impossible, yet it is not entirely
other than it. So it is as though it is something relative (depending on how it
is viewed).
[III.47.32]
He also says:
If the unreal (non-existence) had a tongue (to
speak), it would tell you: ‘you are according to my image’, because it sees in
you nothing but its own shadow, just as the Existence has speech and has said:
‘you are (created) according to My Image’ [Kanz: 1141-1150, and 15129],
because He saw in you His own Image.
[IV.154.23]
So the world may not have a constant real (self-subsistent)
existence, because only Allah may be described by that; and at the same time
the world is not in constant non-existence, or it would not be there at all.
Instead it is perpetually fluctuating, at every instant of creation, between
existence and non-existence. And in fact, Ibn ‘Arabî points out [II.303-304],
this is the real meaning of the Qur’anic symbols of the ‘daytime’ and the
‘night’: when the Universal Intellect (Allah’s Messenger) faces the Real, this
would be a kind of ‘night’ for us, but when the Intellect/Messenger faces us -
in each divine Act of creation - this is our manifest day (shahâda: what
is ‘seen’ or manifest - see also the related discussions in sections 2.14 and
6.8 [Spreading the Shadows]). What makes sense of this distinction, of course,
is Ibn ‘Arabî’s assertion of the central cosmogonic principle of perpetual
re-creation, which we shall discuss next. From that perspective, the world is
actually continually created ‘in series’, bit by bit, one entity at a time; so
no two entities may gain real existence at the same time, because they gain
their existence only through their constant re-creation by the Real who is One.
For
Ibn ‘Arabî, this rule or principle of serial creation and re-creation is in
fact a direct implication of the verse ‘each day He is upon some task
(55:29); at the same time, it is for him the actual underlying meaning of the
familiar philosophical maxim ‘from the one there might proceed only’, which we
discussed in section 5.2. We have seen, however, that for Ibn ‘Arabî this
creative procedure is not therefore imposed on the Real; rather, it remains His
choice which He makes when He creates the world.
We
also must remember that this divine oneness manifest in the Act of creation
that we can know and observe - which grounds our own experience of reality and
the cosmos - is clearly rooted in the Single Monad. Yet this Single Monad (the
First Intellect, ‘Muhammadan Reality’, etc.) is itself but one of an unknown
number of divinely ‘originated’ (ibdâ ) ‘Roaming Spirits’ (see section
1.4), so there is indeed some kind of (for us) further unknowable multiplicity
on this higher ontological level. However, it would appear that again we can
apply the same judgement to those Roaming Spirits, according to our own human
logic, that they may not be ‘other than’ Allah, nor the same as Him (since He
originated them): so they also are in this ontological status of ‘He/not He’,
which again indicates an ultimate Oneness on the highest divine level.
We
have actually already summarized the basic themes of this section right at the
end of section 2.1, when we recalled Ibn ‘Arabî’s conclusion that ‘time is
defined by motion, and motion is defined by the different positions of the
formable monads, and those monads are different states (times or instances) or
forms of the Single Monad, that alone has a real existence’. Therefore, ‘there
is no god but Allah’ and this highest created entity (i.e. ‘the Single Monad’)
is the (allencompassing) Messenger of Allah. Allah sent this Messenger ‘to
take us (and the whole created world) from the darkness" of
non-existence ‘into the light" of existence (Qur’an 57:9). But
although this Single Monad is not Allah, he is not other than Allah: he is some
sort of fundamental manifestation of Allah, and it is through this primordial
manifestation that Allah can accurately and meaningfully be described, in the
famous Qur’anic expression, as ‘the First and the Last, the Manifest and the
Hidden" (57:3).
5.6
The principle of
ever-renewed creation
Ibn ‘Arabî’s conception of time is profoundly rooted in one
of the most famous and distinctive - and uniquely and problematically
experiential - features of his world-view, the principle of the ‘ever-renewed
creation’ of all the manifest worlds at every instant. Thus he affirms, in a
more abstract statement of this perception:
There is no doubt that the ‘accidents’ [i.e. the
particular forms taken by creation in all the different levels of existence at
each moment] become nonexistent in the second instant-of-time after the
instant of their coming into existence. So the Real is continuously watching
over the world of bodies and the higher and lower (spiritual and imaginal)
substances, such that whenever a (particular) form through which they exist
becomes nonexistent, He creates at that same instant another form like it or
opposed to it, which (new creation) preserves it from non-existence at every
instant. So He is continuously creating, and the world is continuously in need
of Him.
[11.208.27]
He also makes it clear that this continuously renewed
‘return to non-existence’ is an intrinsic condition of all the created forms,
and not due to any external force [II.385.4]. Typically Ibn ‘Arabî relates this
fundamental insight to the Qur’anic verse: ‘but they are unaware of the new
creation (khalq jadîd)" (50:15), which he frequently quotes26
- along with the famous verse concerning the ‘Day of the divine Task’ (55:29)
that he cites in relation to his intimately related concept of the quantization
of time.
Therefore
the existence of things in the world is not continuous, as we imagine and
observe, because Allah is continuously and perpetually creating
Unicity and multiplicity 137 every thing whatsoever - at every level and domain of
existence - at every instant, or in every single ‘Day of event’ [II.454.21,
II.384.30]. This means that, just as time (for Ibn ‘Arabî) may exist only at
one atomic instant at a time, so also space (and whatever it may contain) also
exists only one instant at a time. In fact there is no difference between space
and time: they are both containers for events (see section 2.1 and 3.6).
We have already seen in previous chapters that, according
to this principle of ever-renewed creation, Ibn ‘Arabî explains motion (section
2.6) in a new unique and unprecedented manner, and he also explains the
‘intertwining’ of days (section 4.4) as well as some other related
philosophical and theological concepts. Indeed this hypothetical (though Ibn
‘Arabi affirmed it through unveiling) principle forms the basis of Ibn ‘Arabî’s
overall view of the world, and we shall use it as one of three key hypotheses
in the following chapter in which we explain his Single Monad model of the
cosmos.
Of course this re-creation must be happening at
extraordinarily high ‘rates of refreshment’, but Ibn ‘Arabi has no difficulty
in finding scriptural allusions and theological and other arguments supporting
this distinctive conception, in addition to the direct experiential evidence
of the spiritual ‘knowers’ (‘urafâ’). He says:
The form becomes non-existent in the next
instant-of-time after the time of its coming into existence, so the Real is
always Creator, and the monad (substance, jawhar) is always in need (of
the Creator for its existence). For if the form would remain (for two instants
of time or longer), those two principles would not hold. But this is
impossible [at least theologically speaking, since otherwise the creatures
would be independent of Allah, whereas only Allah maybe described as
(completely) Self-sufficient (al-Ghani), while everything created has
the essential intrinsic quality of ontological ‘poverty’ faqr) or need
of the Creator for its very existence], so it is impossible for the (created)
form to remain for two instants of time (or longer).
(Al-Tanazzulât Al-Layliyya: 55)
So from the theological point of view, neither the forms
nor the essences of the created world may remain (constant) for more than one
moment because if they do they would be independent of the Creator - whereas
both the essence and the ‘accidents’ or form of the creatures are always in
need of their Creator. The essence needs ever-renewed forms because it exists
only when it wears a form; and the form does not stay the same, because, if it
did so, the Real would not be Perpetually-Creating (Khallâq), and the
individual form would be at least partly independent of the Real.
In addition, Ibn ‘Arabî argues in similar theological terms
that there are never any two truly identical forms, since otherwise Allah will
not be described as ‘the Infinitely Vast’ (al-Wâsi‘). But because of
this unique divine Vastness (al-ittisâ al-ilâhî) [I.266.8], the monad will
never wear two identical forms: i.e. it never wears exactly the same form for
more than one instant; nothing is ever truly
repeated [I.721.22]. The new forms, he admits, are often
‘similar’ to the previous ones but they are not the ‘same’ [II.372.21,
III.127.24]. Ibn ‘Arabî summarized this argument as follows:
The world at every instant of time (zamân
fard) is re-formed (takawwun) and disintegrated. So the individual
entity of the substance of the world ( ‘ayn jawhar al-‘âlam) has no
persistence (in existence) except through its receiving of this formation (takwîn)
within it. Therefore the world is in a state of needfulness perpetually: either
the forms are in need (of a creator) to bring them forth from non-existence
into existence; or else the substance [jawhar: i.e. the substrate for
the created ‘forms’ or ‘accidents’] is in need to preserve its existence,
because unavoidably a condition for its existence is the existence of the
formation of those (newly re-created forms) for which it is a substrate.
[II.454.19]
Elsewhere Ibn ‘Arabî gives a very short statement of this
general ontological argument which is rather difficult to follow. There he
says:
The doer (al-fail) may not do nothing
(although we use this expression widely in our daily language, but it is
logical nonsense to say ‘do nothing’), and the thing may not become
non-existent (simply) by its opposite, because (the thing and its opposite) may
not meet, and (also) because the opposite does not exist (at that same time) .
. . So that is why we said that (the form) becomes non-existent by itself (not
through an external force or action) and is impossible to remain (in existence
for two moments or longer).
(Al-Tanazzulat Al-Layliyya: 55, see also I.39.8)
Ibn ‘Arabî also made the same basic arguments near the
beginning of the Futûhat, through the tongue of a mysterious ‘western
Imâm’ who summarizes in an extremely condensed form - usually using rhymed
prose and the language and terminology of kalam theology - a series of challenging
ontological premises subscribed to by those who have moved beyond the simple
creed of the common believers, which forms the second of the four levels of
faith that Ibn ‘Arabî explained at the beginning of the Futûhat, and the
mysterious speaker’s remarks in this section are roughly based on al-Ghazâlî’s
intentionally popular kalam treatise Al-Iqtisâd fî Al-I‘tiqâd:
(4) Then he said: ‘Whatever individual entity
(is said to) appear, but which does not give rise to any (distinctive) quality,
then its existence is obviously impossible, since it does not give rise to any
knowledge (as would be the case with anything that actually exists).’
(5) Then he said: ‘And it is impossible for it
to fill different places, because its travelling (from one place to another)
would be in the second instant of time of the time of its existence in itself,
but it does not continue
Unicity and multiplicity 139 to reside (over two instants). And if it
were possible for it to move by itself, then it would be self-subsistent and
would have no need of place. Nor does (the advent of) its opposite make it
cease to exist, because it (the opposite) does not exist (at the same time in
the same place). Nor does (another) doer (‘make it into nothing’), because although
people do use the expression ‘doing nothing’, no intelligent person maintains
that (is possible).
[I.39.7]
These statements are based on two issues: (1) the forms in
the worlds of manifestation may not remain longer than a single instant of
time, since otherwise they would be independent and self-subsistent; and (2)
the created forms intrinsically return to non-existence after every instant.
Otherwise they would either be brought into non-existence by the existence of
their opposite (which can not exist at the same time and place, and therefore
itself has to be newly created), or by another doer who ‘makes them
non-existent’, which is also not logical, because it is nonsense to take
literally the expression ‘do nothing’, where the result of an action is pure
non-existence.
Something verbally resembling this notion of the
‘re-creation’ or the perpetual ‘recurrence of creation’ had earlier been
employed by the kalam scholars (MacEy 1994: 47, MacDonald 1927: 326-344) and
particularly the Ash‘arites who, like Ibn ‘Arabî, maintained that the world is
composed of substances and accidents (Corbin 1969: 203, Wolfson 1976: 466-517),
or monads (substances: jawhar) and their forms or ‘accidents’ (‘arad).
Ibn ‘Arabî acknowledged their contribution - and certainly borrowed much of
their theological language, giving it his own distinctive meanings - but he
also took it a very important step further by saying that even those existing
monads are only copies or reflections of the Single Monad or Substance that
alone has a real existence [III.404.25, Al- Masâ’il: 32]. Therefore, all
the forms and monads in all the worlds are continuously and perpetually
created and re-created by this Single Monad. Understanding the world therefore
requires us to explain and understand how this Single Monad creates the monads
and the forms, or in other words how to link the unique oneness of the Creator
and the observable multiplicity of the world.
We shall also see in section 7.6 that with the re-creation
principle one can easily resolve the standard EPR criticism of the (apparent)
inconsistency between Quantum Theory and the theory of Relativity, which arises
from our inadequate understanding of the nature of time.
6
The Single Monad model of the cosmos
The
cosmos is only imagined, though it is - in reality - real.
And the only one who understands this fact has
surely accomplished all the secrets of the path.
(Fusûs: 157)
The knowings of the Real are not hidden from anyone, except
for someone who does not know the One/one.1 [IV.181.31]
For Ibn ‘Arabî, a true understanding of time is the key to
realizing and understanding the origin and structure of the world, by
providing the link between its ultimate unity and apparent multiplicity. In
this chapter we shall outline an integrated cosmological model based on Ibn
‘Arabî’s view of the oneness of being explained in Chapter 5, together with his
understanding of the flow of time as explained in Chapter 4 and his unique view
of creation in the Week as explained in Chapter 3. We shall call this model the
‘Single Monad model’. Under this model, Ibn ‘Arabî views the entire created
world, both spiritual and manifest, as imaginal forms perpetually re-created by
the Single Monad (al-jawhar al-fard) (Al-Mu'jam Al-Sûfi: 297), which
alone has real existence. This Monad continuously and perpetually appears in
different forms creating the phenomena of the visible and invisible worlds.
The Single Monad model can be summarized in the following
three hypotheses - although, to be sure, Ibn ‘Arabî himself presents these
concepts primarily not as the subjects of philosophical or theological
arguments, but rather as the symbolic expression of the actual metaphysical
realities directly perceived by himself and many other realized ‘Knowers’ (‘urafâ’,
muhaqqiqûn, ahl Allah and so on) through the processes of inspired
‘unveiling’
There is only one Single Monad that can be said to
have a real existence at any given time. This Monad creates other monads by
manifesting different forms (‘imaging Itself) to make a comprehensive ‘still
picture’ of the entire cosmos. This still picture is created in one full Week
of the original creative Days (of events), but this creative process is
equivalent only to one single moment (the ‘atom of time’) for an observer
inside the cosmos. Thus the observed cosmos is the eternally renewed succession
of these still pictures made up by the Single Monad. The Monad - discussed in
detail in the following sections - is an indivisible reality, but it is still
itself a compound made up by the ‘Greatest Element’ that is the only real
ultimate substance in existence.
6.1.2 The re-creation
principle
The forms of manifestation cease to exist intrinsically
right after the instant of their creation, and then they are re-created again
by the Single Monad in every original creative ‘Week’ (i.e. at every moment).
As discussed in sections 3.6 and 5.6, this perpetual re-creation happens in the
‘six Days’ of creation from Sunday to Friday, which accounts for the three
dimensions of space. But we do not witness this creation process as such;
instead we witness only the created world on the ‘last Day’ of Saturday. So the
seven Days of the divine Week are in all one point of space-time (Days 6 to 1)
which then - by repeating manifestations - manifests the space-time container
(i.e. ‘the Age’, as discussed in section 2.19) which encompasses the world both
spatially and temporally.
Since the world takes seven Days to be created by the
Single Monad, which manifests the forms of the monads one by one in specific
order, any observer would have to wait - somehow out of existence - six Days
(from Sunday to Friday) in order to witness the next moment of creation (i.e.
the next ‘still picture’) on the following Saturday. But of course we do not
perceive all this, but rather experience it as a single infinitesimal moment.
In each Day of these Days of creation, a corresponding dimension of the world
is created. Therefore, the real flow of the actual created time does not go linearly,
but rather is intertwined with the observable, normal earthly days in the
special - and admittedly rather mystifying - manner that we have summarized in
section 4.4, along with Ibn ‘Arabî’s account of the way in which the observable
earthly daytimes and nights are ‘taken out’ of each other and separated by
three daytimes and three nights in order to form the three-dimensional space
that we experience.
Borrowing his language from the atomist physical theories
of earlier kalam theology, Ibn ‘Arabî sometimes refers to the created world as
being made up of monads and forms, or in his technical language,
of ‘substances’ (jawâhir, s. jawhar) and various changing
‘accidents’ (a'râd, s. ‘arad) that inhere in and qualify those
substances. In the process of manifestation, the substances appear to remain
relatively constant, while the accidents do not stay for more than one moment.
In this terminology, the ‘monad’ or substance (al-jawhar) is - as will
be discussed shortly - a physical or metaphysical entity that exists by itself,
whereas the ‘form’ or accident (al-‘arad) exists only through or by some
particular monad. The monad, however, may appear in existence only by ‘wearing’
some form or another [II.179.26], so we do not see the monads but rather only
the forms. Also Ibn ‘Arabî asserts that the monad exists by itself and its
existence is constant and invariable, while the form exists only in the monad
and its existence is temporal; it exists only at the time and then it vanishes
instantly and intrinsically, and the same never comes back to existence again
[II.677.30, III.452.24].
Generally jawhar signifies everything that exists in
reality. Literally it originally meant ‘jewel’, but, in this technical sense
borrowed from the physical theory of kalam theology, it means ‘substance’. In a
very different philosophical context, the same Arabic word was used to
translate the first of the ten Aristotelian categories already discussed in
section 2.1. In English, the word ‘monad’ - which we will regularly use here
for jawhar - is derived from the Greek monados, and it means
‘ultimate, indivisible unit’. It was used very early by the Greek philosophers
of the doctrines of Pythagoras, and it was also used later, in a very different
way, by the Neoplatonists to signify the One: thus God is described as the
‘Monad of monads’.2
Like the Neoplatonists, Ibn ‘Arabi sometimes uses the term al-jawhar
(monad) in this higher theological sense to refer to ‘the one’, ‘the
essence’, ‘the real’ (not ‘the Real’ as a divine Name of God, but ‘the
real-through-whom- creation-takes-place’, as discussed further below) and the
origin of everything in the world. However, in such cases he does not seem to
refer directly to the highest, transcendent dimension of ‘God’, but rather to
the ‘Universal/First Intellect’ or the ‘Pen’ [II.675.6], who is also the
‘Perfect Human Being’.
On the other hand, although in this theological or
cosmological sense the term al-jawhar ordinarily refers to the one real
essence of the world (of all creation), Ibn ‘Arabî also sometimes uses the same
term in the plural form (jawâhir) to refer to the essences or
souls/spirits (al-nufûs al-nâtiqa) - or more precisely, to the ‘partial
intellects’ (al-‘uqûl al-juz’îyya, in contrast with the Universal Intellect,
al-‘aql al-kullî, that is their origin) - of human beings who are the
perceiv- ers of the world. Even more generally, he sometimes uses it to refer
to any entity (even inanimate ones) in the creation, whether angels, jinn,
humans, animals, plants or metals. In this latter more generic sense he
considers that everything in creation has a substance which is its monad (jawhar)
and a particular form (‘arad) which is its appearance.
These very different dimensions and usages of the term
‘monad’/jawhar, however, are also intrinsically linked in Ibn ‘Arabî’s
cosmology, since he argues that all the monads of the world are created by, and
are therefore the ‘images’ (reflections, shadows etc.) of the one Single Monad.
Thus in that larger perspective of creation, they are nothing but different
images of this one Single Monad that in reality may alone be described as
having real existence [III.452.24].
6.3
The different names of
the Single Monad
As we mentioned above, this Single Monad (al-jawhar
al-fard) is the Universal Intellect itself and also the Pen. It also has
different names or descriptions as Ibn ‘Arabî summarized in his book Al-Durrat
Al-Baydâ (The White Pearl) in which he discussed many names and
descriptions of the First Intellect and the title of the book itself is one
interesting variant. Also Ibn ‘Arabi spent much of the first chapter in his
book Al-Tadbîrât Al-Ilâhiyya on explaining the different names and
properties of this Universal Intellect that is the true Caliph (Khalîfa).
There is, however, some confusion between the Greatest Element that we shall
talk about shortly and the Single Monad; sometimes it is not very clear for
some of these many variant names whether they are really for the Single Monad
or the Greatest Element.
One
of these names is ‘the real through whom creation takes place’ and William
Chittick devoted a full section in SPK to talk about it (SPK:
132). This real-through-whom-creation-takes-place is the most perfect image of
the Real Allah, the Creator of the world. That is why he is also called ‘the
Perfect Human Being’. We do not want to repeat here what Chittick said in SPK,
but we just want to stress that we should not mix the Real and the
real-through-whom- creation-takes-place because they may be confused in Ibn
‘Arabî’s writings. In this book ‘the Real’, with capital, is used for the
divine Name of Allah (al-haqq), while ‘the real’, with small letter, is
used for the real-through-whom-creation- takes-place. But this name actually
describes the Greatest Element rather than the Single Monad, because the latter
is compound while the Greatest Element is the most elementary ‘block’ in the
world as we shall see shortly. Everything in the Creation at the end is rooted
in the real, just as the leaves (and the fruits etc.) of a tree are rooted in
the stalk. The leaves were also ‘determined’ in the seed that gave this tree
even before it was planted. So the Single Monad is like the seed for the
tree of the cosmos,3 while the real-through-whom-creation-takes-
place (i.e. the Greatest Element) is what makes up the seed down to the cells,
atoms and subatomic particles inside it.
In
chapter 364 of the Futûhât Ibn ‘Arabî talks about how the entities heard
the divine Command in their state of pre-existence and he affirms again what we
have mentioned in section 2.3 that for Allah nothing was introduced after His
creating the world; only the world moved from determination into existence and
from immutable hearing (sam' thubûtî) into actual hearing (sam'
wujûdi). But most importantly, he shows in the following passage that there
is in fact only one single entity that has a necessary immutable essence and
that is the Perfect Human Being:
For Allah everything of His servants is still
with Him in effect (bil-fi'l), nothing is with Him in reality (bil-quwwa).
So the divine designation came to him (the servant) with regard to the acts and
the states that Allah has with him so that he shall remember with his
intelligence what he has already witnessed of his Lord when he was still
non-existing - since he had the immutability which made him accept the divine
disposition in him, and this state of immutability made him obey the Real’s
Command regarding the existence because the Command may come only on that who
is described by hearing.
So the divine Saying (Command) is still (as It is) and the
immutable hearing is still (as it was), but what occurred is only the actual
hearing that is like a branch of the immutable hearing. So the state changed on
the essence of hearing but the (essence of) hearing did not change, because the
essences do not change from one state to another, but the states give them
rules so they wear them. But that who has no knowledge imagines that the
essence changed. But (the fact is that) the states seek the divine Names and
not that the essences are described by seeking. And the essences gain names and
descriptions according to the rules of (those) states that change over them.
And without the states, the essences would not be distinguished because (in
reality) there is only one essence that was distinguished with its entity from
the Necessarily Existent (wâjib al-wujûd) just as it was described like
Him with necessary immutability. So He, the Exalted, has the Necessary
Existence and Immutability, and to this essence (only) the necessary
immutability. So the states for this essence are like the divine Names for the
Real. So just as the Names of the Essence do not multiply the Named nor make
Him many, so the states for this essence do not make him multiple or many,
despite the rationality of the multiplicity and manyness of the Names and the
states. And by this (similarity) it was true for this essence to be described
as being on the (divine) Image.
[111.313.35-314.10]
Therefore, in reality, there is only this entity that is
the essence of the Perfect Human Being, and the world is the different states
of this single entity. As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter (and
also in section 2.1 when we introduced Ibn ‘Arabî’s view of time, and also at
the end of section 5.5 when we discussed the oneness of being), this single
entity is the Single Monad, and the essences (i.e. the monads) of the world are
different reflections of this Single Monad.
Another
important name of the Single Monad is the Universal Spirit (al-rûh al-kullî),
and Ibn ‘Arabî shows that he deserves this name because he goes (v. râha,
yarûh) in the states of the world:
And this name is to him from two aspects: the
first is for his being a spirit, i.e. in ease, happiness and rest (râha
p.p. of yastarîh; to rest or to relieve) owing to his knowledge ofhis
Lord and his witnessing Him. And the second is that he went (râha past
tense of yarûh; to go) through the capacious orbs of the knowledge of
his Creator, by a special force. And he went through the states of the cosmos
to give out to them what Allah entrusted him. And he went through his knowing
himselfby his need to his Lord and his Creator.
So he has three goings (rawahât)* so he may be
called ‘Universal (kullî)’ Spirit because there is no fourth state other
than those to go through. So it is like the imperative (tense) of ‘râha"
( j: went), ‘yarûhiT (fjj the past participle, to go) and the
imperative is ‘ruh’ (¿j: go!); and when it was transformed from the
imperative to the noun, the ‘wâw’ was returned to it as also the ‘alif
and ‘lâm’ (the definitive article) was added, because the omitting of ‘wâw’
from it was due to the meeting of the two consonants.5 So it is like:
he was sought from one direction then it is said that he has gone (râha), as
we said.
(Al-Durrat Al-Baydâ’: 135)
Yet another interesting name of this Single Monad is
‘Everything (kulla shay’f\6 This name is interesting because
Ibn ‘Arabî says in Al-Masâ’il that ‘in everything there is everything (kulla
shay’in fhi kullu shay’), even if you do not recognize that’ [Al-Masâ’il:
58]. This is on the one hand another expression of his Single Monad theory
because it renders into: ‘the Single Monad is in everything’. But also it
might mean that the internal structure of the Single Monad is as complicated as
the world itself because it means: ‘in everything (even the Single Monad) there
is everything (even the world)!’ This last statement is plausible since both
the Single Monad (i.e. the Perfect Human Being) and the world are on the divine
Image as we have seen before (section 3.2). This reminds us in mathematics with
fractals such as the Mandelbrot set, Julia set and Sierpinski triangle, where
the structure keeps repeating itself on any larger or smaller scale (Mandelbrot
and Frame 2002: 37, Stewart et al. 2004: 60). This deserves a separate
study, but we just want to mention here that this might answer the question we
put forward in section 2.16 about the structure of the moment and whether it is
divided into sub-moments. We said there that the moment could be indeed
identical to the day where the Sun rises, moves gradually in the sky and then
sets to rise again on the next day; as the Single Monad might be identical with
the world, the moment might be identical with the day. It just depends on the
scale we are using; if we were inside the Single Monad we might see creations
such as the Sun, planets and the stars, but because we are outside we see it as
a point. Also if we suppose we go outside the world, we shall see it as a
point; that is - as the Single Monad - indivisible but compound. This also has
its example in modern cosmology as the black hole which occupies a single point
in our space but itself is considered a complete world.7
6.4
The structure of the
monad
At the beginning of the first chapter of Al-Tadbîrât
Al-Ilâhiyya, Ibn ‘Arabî says: ‘The first existent originated by Allah is a
simple spiritual Single Monad, embodied according to some doctrines and
not-embodied according to others’ (Tadbîrât: 87).
As
this remark indicates, Ibn ‘Arabî was well aware that there has long been a
debate amongst philosophers whether the monad is a physical or metaphysical
entity, or whether it is embodied or not [see also I.47.22]. Although he mostly
prefers the second choice (Al-Durrat Al-Baydâ’: 134), Ibn ‘Arabî
sometimes does not rule out either case, perhaps because the argument should be
meaningless - i.e. the reality must necessarily encompass all manifestations
of creation, both spiritual and manifest - if we recall that there is in
reality only one Single Monad. Many times, though, he affirms that the Single
Monad is embodied and indivisible, especially when the manifest world is
concerned [II.438.2]. On the other hand, the essences of the spirits and souls
are not likely to be embodied [11.309.25], though both (the manifest and
spiritual) are only reflections of the Single Monad that itself can be
described neither as (solely) physical nor as metaphysical, because it is
necessarily the whole of creation. In the very long chapter 198 of the Futûhât,
in which Ibn ‘Arabî talks in detail about the various aspects of divine
creation, he summarizes the various divisions or types of physical and
metaphysical entities. He also states the difference between the essences
(monads) and their accidents (forms). This is shown in the following long
passage in which Ibn ‘Arabî also shows the basis of the Single Monad model,
while pointing out the difference between the approaches of the Sufis and of
the philosophers that we discussed at the beginning of Chapter 5. There he
says:
Now you must know that every knowable thing that
may be classified must unavoidably enter into (the category of) what exists in
thought (wujûd dhihnî). But this thing that exists in thought may belong
either to what can receive real existence (wujûd ‘aynî); or to what may
not receive real existence, like the things that are impossible (al-muhâl).
And that which can receive real existence either subsists by itself, which is
called ‘not-in- a-substrate’ (lâ-fi-mawdû) or else it does not (subsist
by itself). And that which subsists by itself is either embodied (or more
strictly speaking, ‘localized in a place’, mutahayyiz), or not
embodied.
As for that (self-subsistent reality) which is
classified as not-in-a- substrate and not embodied, it must necessarily be
either what necessarily exists by its own essence (wâjib al-wujûd
li-dhâtihi), and He is Allah the Exalted; or what necessarily exists
through (the determination by) something other than itself, and that is what is
contingent (al-mumkin: i.e. the whole created world). And this (category
of what is) contingent is either embodied (in-a-place), or not embodied. As for
the division among the contingent things of what is self-subsistent, that is
either not embodied - like the rational souls (al-nufûs al-nâtiqa
al-mudabbira) that govern the substance of the (spiritual) world of Light,
the natural world, and the elemental world, or else (the self-subsistent
contingent things) that are embodied are either compound with parts, or without
parts. So if it has no parts, it is the (simplest) ‘Single Monad’;8
and, if it has parts, it is a (natural, elemental) body (jism).
As for the category (of knowable things) that
are in a substrate which are not self-subsistent and embodied - except by way
of being dependent (on
The Single Monad model of the cosmos 147 their substrate), members of this category
are either necessary concomitants of their substrate, or they are not
(necessary concomitants). Or rather, that is how it seems to ordinary vision,
since in the fact of the matter nothing that does not subsist by itself (i.e.
everything but the Creator) actually continues (in existence) for more than the
instant of its existence; it may either be followed by (new creations that
are) similar (amthâl), or by that which is not similar to it. As for
what is followed by (new creations that are) similar, that is what are imagined
to be the ‘necessary concomitants’ of a thing, like the yellowness of gold or
the blackness of ebony. As for (those characteristics) which are not followed
by similars, they are called ‘accidents’ (al-‘arâd), while the necessary
concomitant is called an (inherent) attribute (sifa).
So the knowable things that have actual existence are not
more than those we have mentioned.
Now you must know that the world is one in substance and
many in form (appearance). So since it is one in substance, it does not
transmute (from one thing into another entirely different one: lâ yastahîl).
And also the form itself is not transmuted, since otherwise this would lead to
‘reversing the realities’ (qalb al-haqâ’iq) - for heat may not (at the
same time) be coldness, dryness may not be wetness, whiteness may not be
blackness, and the triangle may not be square. But something that is hot can
come to exist as cold, though not at the same time when it is hot; and
also what is cold can come to exist as hot, but not in the same time when it is
cold. Likewise what is white may become black, and the triangle may become a
square.
So there is no transmutation (lâ istihâla), but the
earth, water, air, the (celestial) orbs (al-aflâk) and all the generated
existents (of the sublunar world: al-muwalladât) are (only) forms in the
(Single) Monad. So (certain) forms are bestowed upon it and that (process of
bestowing forms) is called, with respect to their specific shape (hay’a)
‘generation’ (kawn). Or (certain) forms are taken off of so that a
(particular) name (i.e. attribute or property) is removed, and that is (called)
‘corruption’ fasâd). So in fact there is no transmutation, in the sense
that the actual entity of a thing changes into another (entirely different)
actual entity, but it is only (by an entirely new re-creation) as we have
explained.
So the world is continually being generated and corrupted
(destroyed) at every single instant of time (zamân fard). And there
would be no persistence for the actual entity of the substance (Monad) of the
world, were it not for its receptivity to this ‘creative formation’ (takwîn)
in itself. So the world is always continually in need (faqr: of the
divine creative force). As for the forms, they are in need (of Allah’s
creation) in order to come out from nonexistence into existence. And as for
the Monad, it (is in need) of preserving its existence through that (creative Act),
because its existence is unavoidably conditioned upon the existence of the
creative formation of that (i.e. the infinite forms) for which it is a
substrate.
Likewise (with the dependency on the Creator) of the
(purely spiritual) self-subsistent contingent (existent) that is not embodied:
it is (still) the
substrate for the spiritual attributes and
perceptions that it supports, so that its own individual reality may not
continue without them. But those spiritual attributes and perceptions are
continually renewed in that (spiritual existent) just like the accidents
(forms) are continually renewed in the bodies.
In the same way the contingent that exists by itself and is
not embodied is the substrate of what it carries of spiritual descriptions and
perceptions (that is the bearer of meanings) that its essence may not remain
without them. And they are renewed on it just like the renewal (i.e.
re-creation) of the forms in the bodies; the image of the body is a form in the
monad but the terms (hudûd: by which the object is described) are
related to the images (of the body, not to the body itself). So the images are
the ones which are termed (mahdûda), and one of these terms is the monad
in which these images appear. That is why they (the philosophers) call the
images monad(s) because they take the monad in the term of the image.
This is possibly the main barrier that prevents us from
witnessing the reality of the world; we always try to assign an image to every
concept, and then we discuss the terms of this image such as its shape, colour,
size . . . etc. The Single Monad, however, may not be captured into image, not
to mention the Real Himself. Therefore, approaching these matters in any way
other than the path of (experiential) divine unveiling will not lead one to the
truth of the matter as it really is. No wonder that they (those who rely on
their own unaided theorizing) never cease to be in disagreement (about this).
That is why the group of the blessed, who are supported by the Holy Spirit,
turned to purifying themselves from their own thinking, and to liberating
themselves from the bonds of their (natural, animal) forces, so that they
became connected with the Greatest Light and saw for themselves (the reality
of) the matter as it really is in itself! Because the Real - may He be
cherished and glorified - is their vision [Kanz: 21327], so all
what they see is the Real (Chittick 2002: 116-124). As the righteous one (Abû
Bakr al-Siddîq) said: ‘I have seen nothing but I have seen Allah before it.’ So
he sees the Real, then he sees His effect in the world; that is to witness how
the world emerged as if he witnessed the possible things in their determination
state when (Allah) threw what He has thrown on them from His greatest light so
they became described by existence after they were described by non-existence [Kanz:
548, 1314]. So this (person), who has got this state, the veil of blindness and
misleading has been removed for him: ‘now We removed thy veil, and sharp is
thy sight this day!’ (50:22), ‘Lo! therein verily is a reminder for him
who hath a heart (not only an intellect, see also section 5.1), ‘or
gives an ear and he is witnessing (the truth) (50:37). So (Allah) made
knowledge available in witnessing, because the judge judges based on his best
guess while the witness witnesses with knowledge not by guessing.
[II.454.1]
According to this passage, Figure 6.1 summarizes the
different types of things in existence.
Figure 6.1 Summary of the different types of knowable
things.
Also in his Inshâ’ al-Dawâ’ir (Constructing the
Circles), Ibn ‘Arabî explains the different categories or types of
existence in the same way, which he represents schematically in Figure 6.2.
As we have seen above, although for Ibn ‘Arabî the monad or
atom (jawhar fard) is an indivisible physical unit, it is understood to
be composed of even more elementary constituents. This means that there are
smaller - but not necessarily physical - ‘constituents’ that somehow underlie
and help manifest the atoms or monads, even though the monad itself is not
physically divisible into those metaphysical constituents, but can only exist
in manifestation as a substance created through those underlying constituents.
So what are these ultimate constituents of the Single Monad?
In his book ‘Uqlat al-Mustawfiz (The Bolt for the
Restless), Ibn ‘Arabî speaks about the ‘Greatest Element’ (al-‘unsûr
al-a‘zam) from which Allah has created the ‘Absolute Unseen’ which may not
be disclosed to any creature, and he indicates there that the creation or
‘origination’ of this Greatest Element is all at once, without any intermediate
or associated causes, as we have seen in section 2.16 (see also ‘Uqlat
al-Mustawfiz: 38). So this original, metaphysical ‘Greatest Element’ that
is in some mysterious way the substrate of all subsequent manifest creation -
whether purely spiritual, imaginal or physical - is the only thing that in some
way underlies, constitutes, or gives rise to the physical monads. The
individual monad or atom, however, remains the basic indivisible structure in
the physically manifest world.
Figure 6.2 The Different Divisions of Existence (source:
from Inshâ’ al-Dawâ’ir, page 19).
Note
The
numbers 0 and 1 in the inside circle describe whether the corresponding
division is localized (1) or not localized (0); and (second number) whether it
is self-subsistent (1) or not self-subsistent (0). The spirit is self-subsistent
but not localized, while colour is localized and not self-subsistent.
In
the ‘Uqlat al-Mustawfiz, Ibn ‘Arabî also mentions that there are
46,656,000 subtle luminous links (raqâ’iq nûraniyya) between the First
Intellect and the Greatest Element that is their origin ( ‘Uqlat
al-Mustawfiz: 40). That number is in fact the cubic power of 360 (3603 = 46,656,000), which is no doubt symbolically
associated with the traditional division of the circle (and the divine year,
see section 3.2) into 360 degrees and the historical sexagenary system
attributed to the Babylonians (see also section 4.7).
Now
the resulting relation between the manifest world, the Single Monad (First
Intellect) and the Greatest Element can be conceived by analogy to the relation
between a building, the bricks and the clay: i.e. the building is made up of
similar unit bricks, but the brick itself is made from fine clay. Ibn ‘Arabi
also says: the noble Greatest Element is in relation to the sphere of the world
like the (indivisible) point, and the Pen is like its circumference, while the
Tablet (i.e. the world-Soul) is what is in between (the point and the
circumference). So just as the point meets the circumference with its (whole)
entity, so does this Greatest Element meet with its (whole) entity all the
aspects of the Intellect, which are the subtle links (the 46,665,000 raqâ’iq)
that we mentioned before. They are unique ‘one’ in the Greatest Element, but in
the Intellect they become multiple and manifold, because of the manifold receptivity
(of the Intellect for knowledge) from the Greatest Element. So there is (only)
one ‘close attention’ (iltifâta) for the (Greatest) Element, but there
are many faces of receptivity for the Intellect, that is why this (Greatest)
Element is more realized in the unity of Its Creator.9
Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that this Greatest Element is the most
perfect thing in existence and that everything other than Allah (including, as
we can see, the First Intellect) is somehow derived from it. However, he does
not give much information about It, and he even says that he would explain the
reality of this Element if he was not sworn not to disclose it. However, does
explain, as we have just seen, that this Greatest Element has a special
attention (iltifâta, like the divine ‘special Face’ discussed in section
5.2) to the metaphysical ‘world of writing and recording’ ( ‘âlam al-tadwîn
wal-tastîr), when the (manifest, including physical) world was still not
yet existing in reality (but only in Allah’s foreknowledge), and that Allah
created the First Intellect (that is the Single Monad) through this special
attention ( ‘Uqlat al-Mustawfiz: 39).
In
the summary cosmological chapter 60 of the Futûhât, Ibn ‘Arabî alludes
more symbolically, in a metaphysical exegesis of Qur’an 68:1 (‘Nûn and the
Pen, and what they are recording ...’), to the ‘Greatest Element’ when he
speaks of the mysterious figure of "Nûn’ whom Allah appointed as
the divine ‘chamberlain’ (al-hâjib) and gave all His Knowledge of His
creation, so that Allah - with regard to His Name ‘the All-Knower’ - never
hides from the Nûn. And Allah appointed another angel, the Pen - who is
the Single Monad/First Intellect/Perfect Human Being - as the ‘scribe’ for the Nûn,
‘writing out’ all of the divine Knowledge of His creation [I.294.33].
6.6
Analogies in the
macrocosms
For Ibn ‘Arabî, of course, the mysterious metaphysical
relations between the ultimate macrocosmic constituents of creation are
repeatedly mirrored in many different ‘microcosmic’ dimensions of our own life.
In each of these different symbolic domains, the initial creation of this
higher world and the relation between its elements, such as the First Intellect
and the Greatest Element, is subsequently reflected on many different lower
planes of existence.
6.6.1 The Black Stone and
the Kaaba
The most visible example of Ibn ‘Arabî’s development of
this cosmological symbolism in the Futûhât involves the Kaaba, the
‘house of Allah’ to which millions of Muslims now go on pilgrimage every year.
For Ibn ‘Arabî, those circumambulating the Kaaba are mirroring the circles of
higher angels surrounding the divine Throne [I.50.30]. In that symbolic
context, the angels also represent the determining forces of the universal
Nature (Al-Durratu Al-Baydâ’: 138; we shall come back to this later in
section 7.10) and the four Archangels who carry the Throne of Allah are the
four main sustaining forces of that Nature.
This
centrality of the symbolism of the Kaaba is of course rooted in the fact that
Ibn ‘Arabi started the first chapter of his Futûhât by mentioning his
encounter with the Spirit from whom he took all that he wrote in this book, a
Spirit whom he met while circumambulating the Kaaba. There Ibn ‘Arabî
establishes a symbolic correlation the seven circles of tawâf that the
pilgrim is obliged to perform around the Kaaba during the pilgrimage and the
seven main divine Names, in the manner already mentioned in Chapter 3: i.e.
each one of these seven Names is responsible for one specific Day of the divine
Week of creation. Then he says that his Lord told him: ‘the Kaaba, in relation
to the all-encompassing (divine) Throne, is like your heart with relation to
your body’ [I.50.29]. So in fact the Kaaba on the Earth is symbolically like
the Single Monad in the cosmos. This analogy also applies to many related
details, because the cubic shape of the Kaaba is in fact the simplest structure
which constitutes a body that occupies the three spatial dimensions. As Ibn
‘Arabî mentioned [III.276.4; see explanations in section 5.4 above], the body
is composed of at least eight points, corresponding to the corners of the cube.
But
more importantly for Ibn ‘Arabî, one corner of the Kaaba holds the mysterious
‘Black Stone’ (al-hajar al-aswad) which, according to tradition, the
angel Gabriel brought down from Paradise and gave to Abraham to put it in that
corner of the Kaaba. For Ibn ‘Arabî, this Black Stone symbolically represents
the foundational role in the process of creation or manifestation of the
‘Greatest Element’. In other words, circumambulating the Kaaba starts from the
southeastern corner in which this Black Stone resides, and the pilgrim is
supposed to make seven rounds (counterclockwise) around the Kaaba: this
corresponds symbolically to the way the Greatest Element first gives rise to
or communicates to the Single Monad or First Intellect, after which the
Intellect brings forth the world of manifest creation in the seven divine Days.
According to tradition, the Prophet Muhammad said that this Black Stone
resembles ‘Allah’s right hand on Earth’ [Kanz: 34729]. As is well known,
Ibn ‘Arabî holds that the ‘Universal Reality’ - which is also another name for
the Greatest Element, because it is the origin of the Single Monad [I.119.10] -
is identical to the Spirit of Muhammad himself, as that Spirit is also,
according to a number of widely known hadith, ‘the first thing to be created’ [Kanz:
31917].10
Thus,
at the very beginning of the opening chapter of the Futûhât, when Ibn
‘Arabî begins to speak about the underlying metaphysical reality - i.e. the
‘Greatest Element’ and first creation - symbolized by the Black Stone that
resembles Allah’s right hand, he says in poetry:
People are ignorant of its Essence, so some say
it is dense, while others say it is subtle.
He (the Spirit) said to me, when I asked why
they do not know It:
‘Only the noble may truly know (recognize) the noble!’
[I.47.22]
Ibn ‘Arabî then proceeds in these opening pages to give
many mysterious symbolic details about what Allah creates in the Human Being
(i.e. the Single Monad or First Intellect) and in the world with each round of
the seven circumambulations around the Kaaba, and he relates that metaphysical
teaching to the seven main Attributes of Allah which are responsible for the
seven Days of the divine creative Week [I.49.32].
As
shown in Figure 6.4, just the Greatest Element makes the Single Monad which
scans the states of the world in seven Days, the pilgrim in Hajj has to make
seven rounds around the Kaaba anti-clockwise. This circumambulation starts from
the eastern corner where the Black Stone resides and moves towards the Shami
corner. This clearly supports the analogy between the Greatest
Figure 6.3 The Kaaba, with people on the Hajj
circumambulating it. The Black Stone appears in the front corner, near the
door.
Figure
6.4 How circumambulating the
Kaaba is similar to the Greatest Element’s creation of the Single Monad.
Circumabulation starts - anticlockwise - from the eastern corner where the
Black Stone is, and that corner is for the Pole.
Element and the mysterious Black Stone, especially, since
we have said above that the Black Stone resembles ‘Allah’s right Hand on Earth’
[Kanz: 34729].
Another important example of the symbolic analogy between
the metaphysical process and figures of the ‘macrocosm’ and more human
realities is the hierarchy of the spirits of the prophets and saints (awliya)
- a central theme that runs throughout the Futûhât. To summarize the
cosmological aspect of that theme, Ibn ‘Arabî presents the lower realms of the
cosmos as being ruled by a complex spiritual hierarchy - largely ‘invisible’ to
most human beings, though not to the spiritual ‘knowers’ - consisting, among
others, of the spiritual ‘Pole’ (al-qutb), the two Imams, the four
Pillars (awtâd), the seven Substitutes (abdâl), the eight Nobles (nujabâ’),
the 12 Chiefs (nuqabâ’), in addition to other lesser-known groups.11
Each of these groups and figures has a special corresponding spiritual
responsibility, some of which are have to do with maintaining the wider cosmic
order. Those pure spirits have also have an ongoing series of living human ‘representatives’
or ‘agents’ (s. nâ’ib) amongst us [II.6.6].
Some
of these members of the celestial spiritual hierarchy, as Ibn ‘Arabî presents
them in scattered passages of the Futûhât, are assigned cosmological
functions symbolically related, for example, to the 12 zodiacal signs, the
seven heavens, and the seven ‘climes’ or geographical regions, the four
cardinal points, or even the four corners of the Kaaba [II.13]. In particular,
the highest level of the ‘Pole’, in this hierarchy, is the figure who
apparently corresponds to the lofty metaphysical position of the Single Monad -
which Ibn ‘Arabî often pointedly refers to simply as ‘the Reality of Muhammad’ (Al-Mu’jam
Al-Sûfi: 158).
Also yet another important symbolic analogy between the
metaphysical macrocosm and more familiar human realities, which again runs
throughout the Futûhât, is the ‘world of letters’. Ibn ‘Arabî
considers the letters of the Arabic alphabet - given their central place in the
culminating divine revelation of the Qur’an - to constitute in themselves ‘a
real world like us’, since they are servants of Allah just like ourselves
[I.58.13]. He begins his detailed explanation of their symbolic metaphysical
and cosmological functions in a long section in the opening chapter of the Futûhât.
As he explains there, the Arabic letters also have symbolic hierarchy similar
to the spiritual hierarchy of the prophets and the saints. Thus they also have
Pole, which is the letter alif ('). the first letter of Arabic alphabet;
two imâms (Leaders), which are the two other vowel letters wâw
(j) and yâ’; four awtâd (Pillars), which are the letters alif
('). wâw (j), yâ’ (</) and nûn (j), that together provide
the essential Arabic grammatical indications (‘alâmat
al-i‘râb); and seven abdâl (Substitutes), which are the
letters alif ('). wâw (j),yâ’ (</), nûn (ú), and the three key
pronoun markers tâ’ (^), kâf (^) and hâ’ (-»)] [1.78.18]. But the
important facts about the metaphysical relations between the world, the Single
Monad and the Greatest Element are particularly clearly developed in Ibn
‘Arabî’s teaching here regarding the metaphysical dimension of this world of
letters. Thus he clearly states that:
For the totality of the letters (like the world)
may be deconstructed into the alif (corresponding to the Pole and the
Single Monad) and put together from it (the letter or sound) alif, but
it can not be deconstructed into (any of) them. However it too can be
deconstructed - in our symbolic estimation - into its spiritual principle (rûhâniyya),
which is the (primordial) ‘Point’ (of Greatest Element) - although (in fact)
the one can not be (further) deconstructed.12
[I.78.23]
Here again the ‘Greatest Element’ is assumed to be the
underlying principle or substrate of all creation and manifestation.
As we
have mentioned on several earlier occasions, Ibn ‘Arabî often attributes his
source for some of the most important metaphysical knowledge about the world to
the spiritual Pole Idrîs (‘mudâwi al-kulûm’). In
describing the relation between the originary ‘Point’ of the ‘Greatest Element’
and all the manifest cosmos, in chapter 15 of the Futûhât, this
Pole tells him:
The world (physical cosmos) exists between the
circumference and the point (of the Earth at its centre), arranged according to
the levels (of its orbs) and the smallness and greatness of the orbs. And (he
said) that the sphere that is closer to the circumference is wider than that
which is inside, so its day is longer, its space is larger, its tongue is more
fluent and it is closer to realizing strength and purity. And what goes down
to the (material, earthly) elements is less than this (high) level, on down to
the sphere of the Earth. But each part in every circumference matches what is
below it and what is above it with its (whole) entity: no one is greater than
the other, despite the fact that one is larger and one is smaller! ... And all
match the point with their entities - and that Point, despite its smallness,
matches the parts of the circumference with its (whole) essential reality ( ‘ayn).
[I.154.22]
It is worth mentioning here, as a modern analogy to this
earlier symbolism, that one of the most compelling consequences of Quantum
Mechanics is that everything in the physical world of ‘particles’ can also be
expressed as waves that have different wavelengths. Electrons for example -
though they are particles - have a wavelength. Even the Earth has a distinctive
wavelength. When the mass of the body or particle becomes larger its wavelength
becomes smaller. So the wavelength becomes even larger for massless particles such
as photons (light).
6.6.4 The hierarchy of
divine names
We have already discussed the unique Unity of Allah and the
diversity of His divine Names in section 5.3. In Ibn ‘Arabî’s wider
metaphysical perspective, the divine Names - just like the spiritual world of
the angels, prophets and saints - are also arranged in a corresponding specific
metaphysical hierarchy. In section 3.1, we have already encountered the four
and seven fundamental divine Names - which correspond to the four awtâd
and the seven abdâl respectively. But Ibn ‘Arabî talks about this
hierarchy of the divine Names in more detail early on in chapter 4 of the Futûhât.
Here we want only to draw the attention to his explanation there of the
difference between the two key divine Names ‘Allah’ and ‘the All-Merciful’ (al-Rahmân).
Already
in his Al-Tadbîrât Al-Ilâhiyya, Ibn ‘Arabî compares the relation between
those two Names with the cosmological or metaphysical relation between the
Throne and the Single Monad, as we explained in section 4.6 above (see also Tadbîrât:
89). Because the Single Monad is itself also called ‘the Throne’, Ibn ‘Arabî
says that - in cosmological language - Allah mounted on the Throne of the
Single Monad, while ‘the All-Merciful mounted on the Throne’ (following
the literal Qur’anic verses that we discussed earlier in section 1.4. So the
relation between these two Names is like the relation between the two divine
‘Thrones’. It is to be noted here that the Name ‘the All-Merciful’ is more
specifically described by all the multiplicity of the divine Names, just like
the Name Allah. For as Allah said in the Qur’an: ‘Call upon Allah or call
upon the AllMerciful, Whoever you call upon, to Him belong the most beautiful
Names’ (17:110). So the Name Allah is also described by all the divine
Names, but the Name ‘the All-Merciful’ is closer to the multiplicity of the world
through those diverse divine Names. Likewise, the Throne that encompasses the
heavens and Earth is a place of manifest multiplicity, whereas the Single
Monad, in its mysterious intrinsic ‘hiddenness’, is more described by the
transcendent divine qualities of unity and oneness.
In discussing the divine Name ‘the Subtle’ (al-latif )f Ibn ‘Arabî says that there is great subtle
knowledge in ‘the withdrawing of the shadow and its spreading’ (alluding to
25:45-46), and that is why Allah made that symbolic image a guide to Him
[IV.238.2]. As we pointed out before, Ibn ‘Arabî views the world as a structure
made ‘according to the image or form’ of the Real (see section 3.1). In the
same way, he considers the manifest world as the ‘shadow’ of the Real, or of
the Universal Intellect (and ultimately the ‘Greatest Element’). He bases these
arguments on the following two verses from the Qur’an: ‘Hast thou not seen
how thy Lord hath spread the shadow — and if He wished, He could have made it
still? Then We have made the Sun a guide unto it. Then We withdrew it into Us,
with a diminutive withdrawal (25:45-46), and we have already drawn attention
to this basic relation between the divine Image and its ‘shadow’ in section
3.1. In many places [III. 12.3, III. 106.7, III.281.32] Ibn ‘Arabî emphasizes
that the shadow of anything is on its own image; therefore:
Know that the Human Being (Insân),14
since he is the ‘likeness’ of the divine Form, is like the shadow of a person,
which does not ever leave him, although sometimes it appears to the senses and
sometimes it is hidden. So when the shadow is hidden, it is still implicit (ma'qûl:
‘present-to-the-intel- lect’) in that person; but when it is manifest, then it
is visible to the eyesight - (at least) for whoever (actually) sees it. So
(likewise) the Perfect Human Being (al-insân al-kâmil) is implicit in
the Real (al-Haqq), like the shadow when it is hidden by direct sunlight
so that it does not appear. For (the Perfect) Human Being always continues to
be, eternally and perpetually. That is why (the Perfect Human Being) is always
witnessed by the Real, since He is described (in the Qur’an) as having Sight (al-basir:
17:1, 40:20, etc.).
Therefore when ‘He spread His shadow’,
it appeared according to His Form: ‘Hast thou not seen how thy Lord hath
spread the shadow - and if He wished, He could have made it still?’ (25:45)
- i.e. stably remaining with Whom is His shadow. But if He does not spread His
Shadow, no individual reality ( ‘ayn) of It will be manifest in sensible
existence, except to Allah alone (in His Foreknowledge). So His ‘Shadow’ (i.e.
the Perfect Human Being/Single Monad) has always been with Allah and will
always be with Allah, for he continues Allah’s continuing, while everything
other than the Perfect Human Being (Single Monad) only continues (in existence)
through Allah’s causing them to continue.
[III.187.15;
see also I.458.33 and II.607.14] Therefore, the Single Monad or Perfect Human
Being is the primordial Shadow of the Real, and the manifest world is in turn
the shadow(s) of the Single Monad. The world appears in existence, after being
hidden in the ‘Unseen’ (of the divine Foreknowledge), through Allah’s
‘spreading the shadow’ of the Single Monad in the eternally renewed act of
Creation. For if God so wished, He could have left His Shadow unmanifest, which
means that the created world would have stayed as it was in Allah’s eternal Knowledge,
instead of coming out into real existence spread over space and time.
However,
the ‘shadow’ of the Single Monad is one like him: that is why Allah withdrew
his shadow ‘with a diminutive withdrawal’ - like the withdrawal of the shadow
that normally occurs at sunset (see I.459.5) - so that it disappears in order
to appear again in a different outward form, just as the sunlight disappears
in order to eventually make another day. So at every ‘Day’ (instant) the Single
Monad makes a new shadow in all creation. So the world is the ongoing
collection of those instantaneous shadows, as explained in sections 3.6 and
4.3.
When
the shadow is spread (before and after noon) it is itself a guide to the
Sun,just as the Sun was an actual guide to it by its effect which caused the
shadow itself [1.459.9 and also IV 238.29]. Likewise our shadow-like existence
(our actual individual entity) should guide us to realize the Real manifested
in ourselves - being His shadows - by looking at His shadow (i.e. the Single
Monad or Perfect Human Being) who makes manifest the shadow of our creation -
and by proceeding then from the Perfect Human Being to the Real Himself, the
divine ‘Light’ or Sun Who ultimately caused this shadow (that is our
existence). The seeker of the Real (murîd), therefore, keeps seeking the
Real in these shadows and in the Shadow (of the Perfect Human Being) that is
their Source, until he comes to realize that Source more fully and directly. So
when he achieves that high state of realization, he himself - being one of
these shadows - will be extinguished or ‘drowned’ (n. fanâ’) or united
(n. ittihâd) with the Real - because the shadow can not see itself and
the Real at the same time - except perhaps for an instant of time, comparable
to the case of noontime at the equator, where the shadow of the object
disappears for a single moment.
But
Ibn ‘Arabî always clearly points out that after the ‘enlightened’ shadowsubject
witnesses the Real, and continues to watch Him, then he will realize that he is
as he was before and after his direct witnessing - except that before that
witnessing he did not realize that what he was witnessing was the Real - just
as the Sun is the Sun before and after the noontime disappearance of the
shadow.15 However, in fact the shadow at noon hides in the object
and not in the Sun, so in fact the realized knower indeed does not witness the
Real Himself (the Essence), but witnesses only the
‘real-through-whom-creation-takes-place’ (al-haqq al- makhlûq bihi),
which is the Perfect Human Being (the Single Monad, or at most the Greatest
Element). So the Knower may at most realize his or her essential unity with this
reality, which is only the higher ‘Shadow’ of the Real.
It is
here, Ibn ‘Arabi implies, that many of the Sufis’ ecstatic expressions (or
poetic metaphors) have sometimes been misunderstood. For example, Ibn al- Fârid
in his famous poem, the Tâ’iyya. speaks about ‘unification’ (ittihâd)
in
The Single Monad model of the cosmos 159 various forms (Mahmûd 1995: 241, 248, 252
and 276). Of course Ibn ‘Arabî himself has sometimes been accused of believing
in ittihâd and hulûl, but he was always very careful not to
mention these words and directly denied such doctrines [III.298.30, IV.81.23].16
That is why in his prayers Ibn ‘Arabî asks to unite with the Prophet Muhammad’s
spiritual essence (dhât), who is the Perfect Human Being. For example he
says in his book of prayers, Al-Salawât Al-Faydiyya:
O God, pray for him (Prophet Muhammad) a prayer
by which my branch may connect with my root, and my part with my whole, until
my essence is unified with his essence and my attributes with his attributes,
and the eye is satisfied with the eye, and disunity flees away from disunity.17
In yet another of his prayers, he very clearly expresses
what we have just observed in his remarks about the divine ‘shadow’:
Oh God, no god but You, it is You Whom we
worship and You Whom we witness; ever returning to You, nothing but You. I ask
of You, by You, You Yourself, Yourself, Yourself, You Who (have) no ‘he’ other
than ‘Hû’ (the divine Essence), (I ask of you) to withdraw from me the shadow
of (my natural bodily) formation, so that I may witness my (true) self bare
from any description that is a veil which prevents me from witnessing You as
‘I’,18 and purify me from any attribute or influence that makes me
see any (purely personal) share (in existence): ‘for everything is
perishable but its [or ‘His"] face’19 (28:88), ‘but
to Allah all things are returned’ (42:53). Oh my God, pray for Your
messenger, our master Muhammad, who is apportioned with this perfect
abolishment (mahw), and complete integration (jam') that is
beyond perfect wisdom.20
For Ibn ‘Arabî, these symbolic analogies between the
shadows and creation are indeed very important existentially because Allah made
them as guides for us, in all the ways we have just reviewed. But what is
particularly important here, in terms of Ibn ‘Arabî’s actual cosmology and
understanding of time, is that the created entities of the world that are the
evanescent ‘shadows’ of the Single Monad are continuously re-created, by one
instantaneous act of creation after another, in a process similar to the
spreading of the shadows by the Sun in the course of the day. In the following
section, we turn to some further illustrations and implications of that cosmic
process of creation.
6.8
Creation scenario: the
world as a movie
Later Muslim writers, especially the great masters of
mystical poetry in Persian and other eastern Islamic languages, developed a
great range of familiar symbolic forms intended to elaborate and communicate
the basic Qur’anic imagery for the cosmological processes and their symbolic
expression that we have discovered in the writings of Ibn ‘Arabî. One of the
most powerful and
multi-faceted of those images was Ibn ‘Arabî’s famous
account - reminiscent of the Sun-Line-Cave section of Plato’s Republic -
of the universe as a vast ‘shadow-theatre’, a true ‘divine Comedy’ (Morris
1993: 50-69). Thus in contemporary terms, based on the concept of perpetual
cosmic re-creation that we have explained above, we may envisage the world as
like a movie being displayed on a computer monitor. It is quite fascinating to
discover that this analogy is quite accurate in most of the details, even
regarding what happens inside the computer, since the Universal
Intellect/Perfect Human Being/Pen can be considered as a kind of ‘supercomputer’
which creates, organizes the world and displays it in the ‘Universal Tablet’
(of the world-Soul). Ibn ‘Arabî has already asserted that the world appears as
‘living, hearing, seeing, knowing, willing, able and speaking’ with the same
seven fundamental Attributes of the Real. This is because the world is His
divine work, and as Allah said: ‘Say: “everyone works according to his own
type”’ (17:84) [II.438.19]. This is also equivalent to what we have
repeatedly noted: that the Perfect Human Being and the world (including its
human beings) are all created ‘according to the Form or Image’ of the Real, and
that they are also the second-level shadows of the Real (see for example
[I.163.20, II.652.25, III.343.25], and also [Kanz: 1142, 1148]).
Likewise
the computer today is certainly created as a certain kind of ‘image’ of some
specific aspects of the human mind, and certainly the way the computer works
resembles the human mind in many respects. However the shadow or the image in
the mirror (or photocopier) resembles at best only one facet of the original.
Likewise human beings, for example, do not fully resemble the Readjust as
computers do not (and cannot) fully resemble humans in many other respects.
As we
have seen, Ibn ‘Arabî repeatedly showed that in many respects both the world
and the essential (spiritual) human being work in the same way. That is why he
generally considers the world as a great human being (al-insân al- kabîr)
and the human being as microcosm ( ‘âlam saghîr) [III.11.18]. Just as our
own world is essentially constituted by the meanings, images and states that
are reflected in our spirit, soul and intellect, so the world also reflects the
divine ‘meanings’ brought into creation by the Universal Intellect, so that the
phenomena that we perceive are the doubly reflected forms of these original
meanings. However, Ibn ‘Arabî also repeatedly asserts that the world would not
exist if the observing ‘eye’ or ‘I’ of the viewer was not also always there.21
So because of the underlying reality of the created world as essentially
‘imaginal’ forms or multiple ‘reflections’ or shadows, we can only understand
the cosmos if we understand how we perceive it, since for Ibn ‘Arabî it is all
ultimately, and quite literally ‘in the mind’ - albeit a different kind of
‘Mind’ at each level of manifestation.
It is
known that the movie which is displayed on the cinema screen is composed of a
large number of succeeding still pictures that pass rapidly before the eye at
very short intervals, so that the human mind observes only smooth changes
between those rapidly successive pictures. By running this movie at the proper
speed we feel (by illusion) as if a normal motion of objects and images is
happening on the screen. So if we suppose that the screen has no visible edges,
and especially with the new technology of three-dimensional (laser holography)
movies, it would be very hard initially to distinguish this illusion from
reality.
Now
if we examine how the picture is displayed on the screen of the computer monitor,
we realize that it is even more closely similar to Ibn ‘Arabî’s view of
creation. In this way the whole cosmos is a combination and rapid succession of
imaginai forms (images, reflections or ‘shadows’) that are created by or
through the Single Monad in a similar manner to the single electron beam which
is creating the picture on the computer screen one pixel at a time.
As
Ibn ‘Arabî has pointed out, the Single Monad is continuously and perpetually
‘wearing’ new forms which make us see and otherwise experience motion. When we
open our eyes we see a picture of many things around us, and if we keep on
watching we see things moving. Each mental picture is also created in series
and not all at once, as we have noted before (sections 5.5 and 5.6). In every single
instance and at each single point of space there exists a monad with a specific
unique form, and we have explained before (sections 3.15 and 4.1) that it takes
the Monad a full divine ‘Week’ of creation to appear in this form, but this
divine Week for us is like a single instant. This same monad, still in the same
instant of time - for us, but a full divine ‘Week’ for the Monad itself, since
we only exist for one moment in this Week: see section 3.6 - takes another form
but in another point of space, and so on. So in one single instant the picture
that we see is a combination of a huge number of reflected forms of the same
Single Monad. He or It scans the whole of space at no time (for us) and without
real motion (on the part of the Single Monad), because space itself is what we
subjectively experience as a consequence of the succession of forms within
this monad, and motion is meaningless when we talk about one single
all-encompassing entity. It takes the monad a full ‘Week’ of creation (i.e.
seven ‘Days of event’: one for each direction of space - up, down, right, left,
front and back, and one for the observer - time) to scan all the states in the
cosmos, but since each one of us is one single state - as observers, not as
bodies - we live a single moment in each full ‘Week of event’, in which we
observe the other states around and within us as the traces or memory of the
forms left over by the Monad after it has created those states. Ibn ‘Arabî
succinctly referred to this cosmological fact, in a favourite image of the
later mystical poets, right in his Forward (khutba) to the Futûhât,
when he said:
Then He released the Breath, so the water waved
because of its vibration and foamed ... Then the water diffidently withdrew and
returned back heading for the middle, and it left over its foam on the shore
that it produced. So it (the world) is the churning of this water that contains
most things.
[I.4.7]
The ‘water’ here refers to the Single Monad itself (or the
Greatest Element: Al- Mu'jam Al-Sûfi: 812-817, 826-828) because (in the
famous expression of the Qur’an) ‘every thing was created from the Water’, and
the ‘foam’ is the created forms (or their images) left over by the Single Monad
after it has ‘scanned’ into existence the created world (in six divine Days)
and then returned back to the middle to start over a new picture [II.438.3] on
Saturday. That is why Ibn ‘Arabî also affirms that the cosmological ‘ruler’ of
the last Day of time (Saturday) has the ability of holding and fixing (i.e.
memory), in order to hold the cosmic picture and integrate it with what follows
(see also section 3.5, Saturday as the Day of Eternity).
When
this perpetual creative process is conceptually ‘stopped’ and taken in
isolation, all this will form a kind of ‘still picture’ of things around us,
including ourselves both as bodies (matter) and as spirits or states of
realization (meanings). Within this conception, the dynamic manifest world,
then, is the instantaneous, continuously renewed succession of these slightly
changing still pictures. As we showed in section 2.6, motion is observed
because things successively appear in different places, but indeed there is no
actual motion: for the observed objects are always at rest in the different
positions that they appear in. Allah is constantly re-creating the cosmos in
ever-renewed forms.
Now
what we have just mentioned is exactly like what happens on the screen of the
computer monitor: when we look at the screen at any instant of time, we see a
still picture that is composed of an array of dots (pixels) in the two dimensions
of the plane of the screen (for example 800 horizontal by 600 vertical pixels).
This still picture is made by a single electron beam that scans the screen over
and over again, one pixel at a time. It starts from the bottom left corner of
the screen and scans horizontally all the 800 pixels (one line), then it
switches back to the left to make the second line, and so on till all the
screen is scanned, ending up by the upper right corner; then it switches back
to start a new picture from the bottom left corner again in the same way.
Because this process is performed at very high speed or refresh rate (around
100 million times per second), we only see a continuous picture in the two
dimensions; we never see the pixels being drawn one by one. By watching the
succession of pictures, we observe motion. While the beam creates them, each
pixel on the screen wears a specific form of a different colour and intensity
that (slightly) changes from one still picture and instant to the other. This
momentary form that the pixels wear every time they are scanned lasts only
during the very short time that the beam is in its place. Once the beam leaves
the pixel for the next one, the form vanishes intrinsically; we only see the
traces of these forms for a short time till they are scanned again to wear a
new form.
In
terms of Ibn ‘Arabî’s understanding of the cosmogonic process, the electron
beam here is like the Single Monad/Pen/Intellect; the screen is like both our
imagination and, outwardly or objectively, the effective ‘substrate’ of
creation that Ibn ‘Arabî calls ‘the Dust’: al-‘amâ’); while the cosmos
is like the series of pictures on the screen, which are printed on our
imagination and in the Universal Tablet. Ibn ‘Arabî’s description of the world
is identical to this example of the computer monitor, even the names that he
gives to the Single Monad as the ‘Higher Pen’ and to the cosmic Soul as the
‘Higher Tablet’, indicate that the process of creation is similar to the
process of a pen’s writing on a tablet, which is also similar to the
electron-beam writing on the screen. To take yet another of Ibn ‘Arabî’s most
favoured cosmological images, we creatures are the ‘letters’ and the ‘words’
that are spoken by the Creator (through the creative, existentiat- ing ‘Breath
of the All-Merciful’), after having been written down by the Higher Pen on the
Higher Tablet (see section 7.8).
With a closer examination of this example, we can now
realize the meaning of the intertwined days and the taken-out days, and also
the significance of the (normal) week and Saturday - as the Day of Eternity -
that we explained in Chapters 3 and 4. If an observer was in one point of the
computer screen (as we are individually in one specific place in the world), a
week for him or her would be a combination of 800 by 600 instances of 800 by
600 ‘Weeks of events’, because each point will be present (created) only while
the electron beam is on it, so it stays only one part of the 800 by 600 pixels
‘created’ during each run (original Week/Day). Similarly, each entity in the
world lives only one ‘instant’ (which equals an outwardly observable day over
the entirety of entities in the world) in each ‘Week’ of creation: i.e. only
the time when the Single Monad creates it or appears in its form. Therefore, a
week for this point would be a combination of different instants of many other
Weeks of the original Weeks of events. Also, because Saturday is the divine Day
of manifest creation when each entity realizes itself - and it does not realize
itself (or the world) while being created in the other six Days (see section
3.6) - we, as entities living in the world, realize only the Saturdays’
instances, those that are manifest in time. Therefore, all our life (as time)
is Saturday, while the world as space is the other six Days. In other words:
the motion of the electron beam horizontally and vertically on the screen
creates the space in which the picture is viewed. This is identical to the
cosmic Week-Days of creation from Sunday to Friday, while the motion when the
electron beam returns from the right-top to the lower-left corner is identical
to Saturday or the manifest instant of time, because time is the motion by
which we observe the succession of the pictures.
In section 7.10, we shall talk about dimensions in more
detail, but it is good to remember here what we have already said in section
2.11 about the two cycles of life (see in particular Figure 2.1). The screen of
the computer monitor is of course two-dimensional (2-D). So the starting of the
scanning of the screen from the lower-left corner resembles the starting of the
world by creating the Real (0-D) as the pixel itself, and then the angels in
1-D. This in the real world, according to Ibn ‘Arabî’s account of the astrological
cycle of life, takes 11,000 years; but for the case of the computer monitor it
takes a very short but also fixed time, in which a fixed number of motions
orjumps happen - 800 pixels for example. Then after finishing the first line
and by starting the second one, this scanning or creating process moves us into
two dimensions, to start the world of jinn, while the 1-D world of angels
continues. The scanning of the 2-D screen continues until it is finished after
a short but fixed time. There is no third dimension in normal computer
monitors, but there is in the outside world: there, according to Ibn ‘Arabî,
when this manifest stage of creation starts after 54,000 years, it marks the
creation of dunyâ (‘this lower world’). Then the after-world starts in
yet another dimension (4-D) - according to Ibn ‘Arabî after 9,000 more years,
although we have not moved yet into it (see section 7.10).
It is fascinating to notice that this analogy between the
world and the computer applies to many of the details - not only with regard
to the visible manifest world, but also to the spiritual world that is
analogous to the processor, the memory, the hard disk and the software running
inside the computer. It is enough to notice that the processor of the computer
- no matter how fast it may be and how many jobs it may do very quickly - can
do only one elementary job at a time. So from outside we see multiple jobs and
multiple images, running and interacting, but from inside only one thing is
manipulating all that, one by one, in series, one single bit at a time. For
example when we say that the speed of the computer central processing unit is
3.4 GHz, this means that it can manipulate
3.4 billion bits every second,
and the bit is the smallest piece of information, which is the digital state of
either 1 or 0, yes or no. This is indeed a huge speed, yet surely the speed of
the Single Monad creating the world is much larger, as Allah plainly said: ‘and
He is the fastest of all calculators' (6:62) - although this is normally
interpreted with regard to the Judgement Day.
7
The
Single Monad model and its implications for modern physics
This
existence that we know in practice,
is
not like the existence that we know by unveiling.
The mind does not know it, and thinking does not recognize
it, but remembrance (dhikr) will show it, while the secret will hide it from
the minds that are veiled by habits:
that
is why they do not recognize what the secrets1 understand.
(Dîwân: 229)
As with most cosmological hypotheses, past and present,
testing Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmological model and his understanding of time is not
easy. Although a preliminary test is simply its ability to resolve some of the
standard paradoxes surrounding time, as we shall shortly see below, more
credible tests may not be very easy to perform, and incontrovertible tests may
be inaccessible - since Ibn ‘Arabî frequently reiterates, beginning with the
very Introduction to the Futûhât, that his most distinctive cosmological
insights are ultimately based on forms of inspiration, ‘unveiling’, and divine
knowledge that are beyond the level of the ordinary human intelligence.
7.1 Testing possibilities
One of the main consequences - and principles - of this
model of cosmogony and creation, as we have seen in the previous chapter, is
that the creation is being continuously refreshed, like a kind of computer
screen. A first possibility could be, therefore, to measure the ‘refresh rate’
of creation, which is also the smallest quantum of time, or the length of the
moment (al-zaman al-fard). As we have noted, this could be expected to
be equal to 24 hours (or 24 x 60 x 60 seconds) divided by the whole number of
states or entities in the world. With such an extremely small quantity of time,
there is no possible device that could measure it.2 If we think, for
example, of using high-speed cameras and then replaying their images in slow
motion in order to see the flickering,3 we shall find that this is
not possible even in theory, no matter how fast the camera might be. Since the
camera, no matter how fast, is itself part of the world whose re-creation it is
supposed to observe, it will not be able to see its state of non-existence
because then it will not be existing itself. Similarly, we ordinarily do not
notice the re-creation of the world because we are part of it. However, a
specially detailed study of the memory and other human internal and external
senses would be necessary to judge how the actual process of perception of the
world is happening with the re-creation principle in mind, both in our ‘normal’
state and in those specially enlightened perceptions of the ‘knowers’ which Ibn
‘Arabî points to as the ultimate root of his cosmological thesis of ‘perpetual
re-creation’.
On the other hand, other promising domains for testing and
examining this model would involve the properties of light particles (photons)
and other elementary particles. The peculiar properties of photons that are
normally treated as electromagnetic waves can be a starting point to test the
model above. The photon, being a wave, has a probability of existence anywhere
in space and at any time as long as it is still undetected; it takes fixed
space-time co-ordinates only after it is detected either by the eye or by a
device. We can therefore say that the photon of light, being the fastest in
nature, does not undergo any recreation, and that is why it is the fastest,
because creation or re-creation is a process that takes the smallest quantum of
time. Therefore one key to test the Single Monad model experimentally could be
in the emission and absorption of light by different known processes, or in the
process of converting light into mass (and vice versa) through
electron-positron annihilation and pair production (see further below).
The best and easiest potential domain of investigation in
this regard is to look at the electron orbits around the nucleus, where it is
known that the electron jumps between the orbits when it absorbs or emits a
photon of light. Because this process is quantized, the electron may not exist
between the orbits; it is therefore re-created in the new orbit (see also the
following section). We can therefore say that the re-creation time (i.e. the
moment) equals the time the electron takes to move between the orbits (i.e.
actually re-appears in the new orbit). This time-gap, however, is different
from one atom to another, or even from one orbit to another inside the atom,
because it depends on the kind of atoms and on
The Single Monad model and its implications 167 temperature, etc. It is not possible here
to discuss this subject in detail, but it is certainly a good point which may
constitute a new subject of research.
We
may also look in the annihilation of particles and anti-particles into light
and vice versa (‘pair production’). For example, when an electron meets with a
positron (each has a mass of 9.1 x 10 31 kg) they are both
annihilated into a massless photon (energy) according to the famous equation E
= mc2. One electron alone can not annihilate, and one
positron alone can not annihilate. But it is possible to convert energy into
particles, as when two sufficiently strong photons meet; they convert into an
electron (negative charge e ) and a positron (positive charge e+).
It is worth mentioning here that Ibn ‘Arabî has apparently referred to
phenomena that have only been known scientifically after the discovery of elementary
particles at the beginning of last century. For example, he says:
When two monads or atoms (jawharân) [like
two photons] are joined, it is as though they are two bodies. That is to say,
when they are joined with each other, each one of them can be called a body (jism)
so that in this respect they are two bodies, as He said: ‘and of every
thing, We created two pairs' (51:49). He actually created one pair -
masculine and feminine, for example. But He called it ‘two pairs’ for this
reason that we just mentioned, because each one of them alone without the other
is not a pair, but when another is added to it then each one of them may be
called pair (zawj), so they are two pairs.
[I.721.18]
In other places he says that the body is composed of at
least eight points, like a unit cube which is similar in shape to the Kaaba
[III.276.6] (see also section 6.6). We have already seen in Chapter 6 that, in
Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmological symbolism, the Kaaba represents the Single Monad.
Therefore, we may look at the possibilities of how mass emerges out of
massless photons in annihilation and pair production and see if this phenomenon
can be related to the cosmogonic conceptions of the ‘Week’ of creation
explained in Chapter 3 and the ‘intertwining of days’ explained in Chapter 4.
Yet
another related and handier possibility of investigation involves the
refraction of light in transparent materials. As is well known, light slows
down when moving in transparent materials such as air, water and glass; usually
the denser the material, the more slowing light suffers, which is indicated as
a higher refraction index. The reason why this is the case is because light is
absorbed by atoms along the path and then is emitted again by almost every atom
along its path. Any absorption and emission of light can be related to the
phenomenon of re-creation, so the re-creation hypothesis can be investigated via
the phenomena underlying different refraction indexes. The refraction indexes
of hundreds of minerals and their density and other properties are already
widely available.4 So it may be possible, by comparing these data,
to find some correlation between the refraction indexes and the underlying
refresh rate of re-creation.
Testing
this model could also be done by computer simulation, especially
since Ibn ‘Arabî himself (in Kitâb Ayyâm Al-Sha’n:
11-16) invited people who can do more accurate calculations to calculate the
intertwining of Days on a smaller scale than hours (for example, minutes and
seconds), as we pointed out in section 4.4. This simulation would have to take
into account that, as we mentioned in section 3.6, Ibn ‘Arabî’s theory means
that the world is created in six comic ‘Days’ as space and then displayed on
the last Day of creation (Saturday) as time.
In
general, the possibilities of testing these hypotheses in physics are diverse
and worth trying, but here we are more interested in the theological and philosophical
consequences developed in the following sections.
7.2 Timeless motion
To start investigating some of the consequences of the
cosmological principle of continual re-creation, we can consider the case of the
throne of Bilqîs, which Ibn ‘Arabî (and his later commentators) have discussed
in his Fusûs Al-Hikam and elsewhere. In most accepted understandings,
motion is always associated with time, because, no matter how fast objects
move, they need a time greater than zero to reach any point other than their
original place. For example, it is well known in physics that the photon of
light is the fastest particle in the physical world and that it travels at
300,000 km per second, so it can circle around the Earth seven times in one
second. However, this huge velocity is limited and not instantaneous, so
apparently physical motions always need time.
In
the Qur’an, however, we read the story of the Prophet Solomon and Bilqîs, the
Queen of Sheba, when Solomon said to his men:
‘Which of you can bring me her throne before
they come to me in submission?” [Then] a stalwart of the jinn said: “I
will bring it to you before you can rise from your place, and I verily am
strong and trusty for such work’
(27:39)
But
even this really quick action takes time, though very little, so
said the one who has knowledge of the Book:5
‘I will bring it to you before your gaze returns unto you!’ [i.e. in less than the blink of the eye,
actually immediately]. Then when he (Solomon) saw it placed steadily before
him, he said: ‘This is by the Grace of my Lord to test me whether I am grateful
or ungrateful!’
(27:38-40)
In
this mysterious story it is clear that al-Khidr brought the throne of Bilqîs from
Yemen to al-Quds in no time. Because of its great importance in his view of
time and the cosmos, Ibn ‘Arabî devotes much of chapter 16 in his famous book the
Bezels of Wisdom to talk about this distinctive phenomenon of timeless
motion often associated with the extraordinary actions and manifestations of
the
The Single Monad model and its implications 169 saints (awliyâ’) (Corbin 1969:
224-226). Ibn ‘Arabî, however, declares that in reality this is not motion,
but, rather, the throne was annihilated or extincted from its original place
and instantly re-created in front of Solomon, in no time, based on the
affirmation in those verses that Solomon saw the throne placed ‘steadily’
before him before ‘he returns his gaze' (i.e. her throne was not
shaking, as one would expect when an object moves quickly and then stops suddenly,
owing to the deceleration). So indeed there was no motion, but rather - as
al-Qâshânî and Bâlî Effendî mentioned in their commentaries on this chapter -
all al-Khidr did was to switch the throne from its original location to the new
place in front of Solomon.6
From
this perspective this kind of phenomenon is easily explained, on the basis of
the re-creation principle, since, as Ibn ‘Arabi frequently affirms, such
apparent ‘miracles’ do not break the divine laws underlying the phenomena of
nature, but only break our ‘habits’ of perception and expectation [II.374.27].
In fact everything that happens in Nature must be explainable under some divine
laws, and is in principle possible to be repeated [II.374.11].
In
terms of modern physics, this story actually corresponds to the pervasive
phenomena that happen in the atom whenever an electron moves from one orbit to
another, when it emits or absorbs a photon of light. It is well known in physics
that when the electron absorbs or emits a photon its distance from the nucleus
in the centre of the atom changes. This change of the distance, however, is
abrupt: i.e. it does not travel through between the two places, but rather it
disappears from its original orbit and reappears in the new orbit. Usually such
kind of instantaneous motion is scarcely explained according to the novel
equations of Quantum Mechanics, and it is not explainable at all with the
classical Newton’s equations (see section 1.3). Indeed such inexplicable
electron behaviour was the driving force behind the discovery of the successful
theory of Quantum Mechanics.
If we
recall Ibn ‘Arabi’s definition of motion discussed in section 2.6, we can
easily account for this type of timeless motion. Such motion, according to Ibn
‘Arabi, is not an infinitely gradual change of positions from the start to the
destination, but rather a new creation in the second place. However, if we
want to be very accurate, the motion of the throne of Bilqîs, like the motion
of electrons between orbits and indeed any elementary motion, takes a single
‘Day of event’ which is equivalent to a single ‘atom of time’ of what we may
count. Measuring the time that the electron needs to switch between two
successive orbs might be the key to testing Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmological model and
developing it in terms of modem scientific theory. This smallest instant of
time is the quantum (al-zaman al-fard) of the quantized time that we
have discussed in sections 2.8, 4.1 and 6.5.
In
normal cases, of course the distance travelled in this smallest moment is also
very short, which causes us to see gradual changes; but in principle the distance
involved could be anything; as Allah wills, since, whether the change in
positions is small or large, the same process of re-creation is taking place.
Therefore, what we call the laws of physics or mechanics, are - in terms of
Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmological conceptions - just a qualitative ‘description’ of the
normally observed order of re-creation, not a real description of the actual
process of perpetual re-creation. We shall see further
below that this conception has a great impact on our understanding of causality
the most fundamental principle in physics.
We have seen in section 1.3 that many classical theories
considered time as an absolute quantity. This coped very well with the common
concept of simultaneity, where events which occur simultaneously in one frame
of reference were considered to have occurred simultaneously also in all other
frames. With the advent of the Special Theory of Relativity, the idea that
light travels at a finite speed in all directions and in all frames of
reference changed this piece of common sense. According to this new theory,
simultaneous events in one frame of reference are not necessarily considered
simultaneous with regard to another frame of reference moving at a relatively
high speed with regard to the first.
According
to Ibn ‘Arabî’s view of time and his model of the cosmos that we have described
above, the concept of simultaneity will have an even more relative aspect.
With regard to us - i.e. considered as partial monads present on the level of
multiplicity - it is possible to have simultaneous events. The reason is simply
because normally we exist only for at one single location of the whole
momentary ‘Day of event’ (as we explained in section 2.16). For us, at every
single moment of re-creation there is a still picture (which contains
infinitely many events) displayed in the world. So from this perspective the
concept of simultaneity appears like the classical definition.
But
according to the re-creation principle and the oneness of being discussed in
Chapters 5 and 6 - in addition to the concept of the single Day of event discussed
in section 2.8 - there can be no two cosmic ‘events’ (englobing all of creation)
actually happening at the same time, because ‘each Day He is upon some (one,
single) task (55:29). Therefore, in reality there is no such thing as
‘simultaneity’ - with regard to the Single Monad who is creating the real flow
of time (see also Chapter 4) - because It wears only one created form at each
instant of time. Simultaneity, and therefore multiplicity, thus appear to occur
only because of the re-creation. But in reality there are not any two separate
(all-encompassing) ‘events’ happening at the same created instant of time. We
shall see the importance of this conclusion more clearly when we discuss the
EPR paradox below.
Motion, as a manifestation of causality, is the main
concern behind all the theories of physics, from the pre-Socratics through
Newton’s theory of gravity to the most recent theories of Quantum Mechanics and
Quantum Gravity. Yet there are a number of famous philosophers who have doubted
that there could be any motion at all, despite our daily experience. As is well
known, those philosophers expressed perspectives similar to Ibn ‘Arabî’s. Most
notably, Parmenides of Elea (b. 510bc) affirmed
cosmological conceptions remarkably similar to Ibn ‘Arabî’s doctrine of the
oneness of being: he held ‘the One’ unchanging existence to be alone true,
while multitude and change were said to be an appearance without reality. This
doctrine was defended by his pupil Zeno (b. c. 488bc), whose philosophy of
monism claimed that the many things which appear to exist are merely a single
eternal reality which he called Being (a term Ibn ‘Arabî also applies to the
Single Monad). The complex and rigorous adaptation of Parmenides’ hypotheses in
Plato’s Parmenides - constantly elaborated by the later Neoplatonists -
offers even closer analogies to Ibn ‘Arabî’s overall ontological system. Zeno
wrote a book containing forty paradoxes, and, although his book was lost, four
of those paradoxes were discussed by Aristotle in his Physics: the
Dichotomy, the Achilles, the Arrow and the Stadium. Each of those four
paradoxes challenges all claims that there is real motion (Heath 1981: 273-283;
Sorensen 2003: 44-57; Darling 2004: 351; Leiber 1993: 77; Erickson 1998:
218-220).
The
Dichotomy paradox concludes that there is no motion because that which is moved
must arrive at the middle of its course before it arrives at the end. In order
to traverse a line segment it is necessary to reach its midpoint. To do this,
one must reach the one-fourth point; to do this, one must reach the one-eighth
point, and so on ad infinitum. Hence motion can never begin, because the
sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... equals one, but only after an infinite number of
additions, and therefore it actually approaches one but never reaches it. Even
more perplexing to the human mind is the attempt to sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
backwards: for we can never get started, since we are trying to build up this
infinite sum from the wrong end!
The
paradox of Achilles attempts to show that, even though Achilles runs faster
than the tortoise, he will never catch her! Let us suppose that Achilles runs
at ten metres per second and the tortoise at only one metre per second, and
that when the race started the tortoise was ten metres ahead. After one second
Achilles would arrive at the point where the tortoise was when the race
started, but the tortoise would have moved one metre further - so that by the
time Achilles covers this one metre, the tortoise would have advanced again 0.1
metre, and so on. Thus Achilles can never catch the tortoise.
Zeno
bases the above two arguments on the fact that once a thing is divisible, then
it is infinitely divisible. One could counter the above two paradoxes by postulating
an atomic theory in which matter (or space) is composed of many small
indivisible elements. However the remaining two paradoxes cause problems only
if we consider that space is made up of indivisible elements that may be cut in
indivisible durations of time.
Turning
to the third paradox of the Arrow: if we consider the path of an arrow in
flight, at each instant of its path the arrow occupies some position in space;
this is what it means to say that space is discrete. But to occupy some
position in space is to be at rest in this position. So throughout the entire
path of the arrow through space, it is in fact at rest! Or if in an indivisible
instant of time the arrow moved, then indeed this instant of time would be
divisible (for example, in a smaller instant of time the arrow would have moved
half that distance).
The
fourth paradox of the Stadium is a little more complicated, but it leads to the
same result as the above - i.e. that time and space can not be discrete -
while, on the contrary, we have seen that the first two paradoxes may be
resolved only if we assume that time and space are not continuous
The above four paradoxes challenge not only all scientific
theories of motion but also our everyday experience. For this reason they have
often been dismissed as logical nonsense. Many attempts, however, have also
been made to dispose of them by means of mathematical theorems, such as the
theory of convergent series or the theory of sets. Aristotle did not fully
appreciate the significance of Zeno’s arguments, since he called them
‘fallacies’, without actually being able to refUte them. Many modern scientists
like to believe that axiomatic mathematics has dispelled Zeno’s paradoxes,
where now it is possible to talk about limits and infinity without reaching any
mathematical contradiction and it can be proved that the sum of an infinite
number of halving intervals is finite. But some recent philosophers such as
Bertrand Russell persisted with such arguments, and recently similar puzzling
phenomena (called the ‘quantum Zeno effect’) have been observed in radioactive
atoms (Misra and Sudarshan 1977: 756; Grossing and Zeilinger 1991: 321-326).
With Ibn ‘Arabi’s re-creation principle, we would have no
difficulty at all in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes and reconciling his conclusion
that there is no motion with our daily perceptions. So although there is no
real motion in the sense that the object gradually leaves its position to a new
one, but rather it is re-created in ever new positions so that we imagine it
moving between these places. For example, when we watch a ‘movie’ on the
television, we have no doubt that nothing really moves on the screen, but it is
only a succession of different frames. According to Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmological
perspective, the whole world is exactly like that (see section 6.8). As we
noted in section 2.6, Ibn ‘Arabî plainly stated that the object that we see
moving actually is re-created in the distinct places between its start and
destination one after another and does not really ‘move’ between them
[II.457.31], so there is never any real motion in such a way that the object
‘gradually moves’ along its path. Thus Ibn ‘Arabî, like Zeno and Parmenides,
believes that the whole world is a manifestation of a single entity which alone
can be described to have a real existence. But Ibn ‘Arabî’s distinctive
contribution is to show how the multiplicity of the world emerges from or
within the Single Monad.
7.5
Discreteness and
continuousness
There is no doubt that Zeno has presented a deep problem
which, despite centuries of efforts to resolve it, still seems to lack a truly
satisfactory solution. As Frankel wrote:
The human mind, when trying to give itself an
accurate account of motion, finds itself confronted with two aspects of the
phenomenon. Both are inevitable but at the same time they are mutually
exclusive. Either we look at the continuous flow of motion; then it will be
impossible for us to think of the object in any particular position. Or we
think of the object as occupying any of the positions through which its course
is leading it; and while fixing our thought on that particular position we can
not help fixing the object itself and putting it at rest for one short instant.
(Frankel 1942: 1-25, 193-206)
This basic dilemma of discreteness and continuousness has
kept coming up in various guises, but most clearly in the long historical
debate on the nature of light: whether it is particles or waves. With the
success of the wave theory in the nineteenth century, the continuum seemed to
have won. But in 1899, when Max Planck solved the ‘black body problem’7
by postulating that atoms could absorb or emit energy only in discrete amounts,
the age of Quantum Theory began. Soon after that, Bohr used the concept of
quantization to construct the first successful atomic model, and Einstein was
able to analyse the photoelectric effect only by adopting the quantum nature of
light. However, Quantum Theory was not able to solve the question of motion and
change, where the continuous theory of Relativity was more successful.
So
the human mind is accustomed to classifying quantities as either countable or
uncountable, or either discrete or continuous; there is no other way. This is
inevitable on the level of multiplicity. But on the level of oneness (i.e. of
all- inclusive ahadiyya or ‘unicity’) there would be no meaning for such
terms. A first look at Ibn ‘Arabi’s model could conclude that, on the level of
multiplicity, the world should be certainly discrete, and therefore that Ibn
‘Arabî might easily adopt the atomist view. But the issue this raises is quite
similar to what we have discussed earlier in Chapter 2 about the length of the
moment and whether it is composed of discrete sub-moments, or whether it has a
length at all. We have seen that it is not easy to decide for either case.
Similarly, it is not easy to judge - even on the multiplicity level - whether
the world is ultimately continuous or discrete. Although there are discrete
events happening in discrete times, still the change from one event to another
looks continuous, just like the flow of normal days; there is no abrupt change.
Although we can easily divide events over days and classify them according to
the date, actually the relation between any two consecutive events that happened
during the day is not different from those which happened also consecutively
but on different days - for example, right before and after morning or evening.
In other words, the motion of the Earth around its axis, though generating the
appearance of different distinct days, it is itself a continuous process.
Likewise, the all-creative ‘motion’ of the Single Monad is also a continuous
process in everlasting alteration between ‘daytimes’ and ‘night-times’,
manifestation and being hidden, material and spiritual - yet there is no point
of separation or abrupt transformation between any two periods or states. That
is why Ibn ‘Arabî calls the terms of discreteness and continuousness
‘disconnected’ (munfasil) and ‘connected’ (muttasil), because for
him the actual process of change (re-creation) is like a one-dimensional flow
of divine manifestation. So if there is an apparent continuity or
discontinuity, that would only be in our imagination or abstract consideration,
but not in reality [III.324.35-325.18].
Physics theories, which are mainly based on explaining
motion and its relation to time, have worked fine for centuries, so that people
have been able to send spaceships to the Moon and other planets with great
timing accuracy. Dismissing Zeno’s paradoxes, therefore, had no negative
consequences for applied physics. However, no single theory up to now has been
able to explain all observations, especially when it comes to the microcosms of
subatomic particles, where new paradoxes are still arising.
One
of the most pertinent tests of Ibn ‘Arabî’s cosmological model is that through
its principles the prominent Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox could be so
easily and readily understood. The EPR paradox demonstrates the discrepancy
between the two principal theories of physics: Quantum Theory and Relativity.
Quantum Theory is one of the most successful theories of science. It explained
the structure of atoms, the properties of materials, elementary particles and
stars. Although it was generally consistent with the results of many decades of
experimenting, the basic conceptual foundations of Quantum Mechanics can lead
to some puzzling paradoxes and strange unacceptable features. The EPR paradox
is possibly one of the most compelling of these apparently peculiarly
unacceptable features.
In
1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - in their famous article titled: ‘Can
Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?’
(Einstein et al. 1935: 777) - developed a thought experiment to
demonstrate what they felt was a lack of completeness in Quantum Mechanics.
This so-called ‘EPR paradox’ has led to much subsequent and still ongoing
research. The purpose of the EPR thought experiment was to expose the profound
peculiarities of the quantum description of a physical system extended over a
large region of space. It seemed that, under certain conditions, a quantum
system of two entangled particles could in theory exchange information
instantaneously or, at least, faster than the speed of light. This clearly
contradicts the principle of ‘locality’ in Einstein’s theory of Relativity,
which supposes that the speed of light is a maximum terminal velocity. The
phenomena of entanglement also lead to the violation of Heisenberg’s sacred
‘uncertainty principle’, which declares that not all the classical physical
observables (e.g. position and momentum) of a system can be simultaneously
known with unlimited precision, even in principle.
On
the basis of these contradictions, EPR refused this deterministic nature of
Quantum Mechanics and postulated that the existence of ‘hidden variables’, some
thus far unknown properties of the system, should account for the paradoxical
discrepancy. Niels Bohr, on the other hand, favoured the view put together in
the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of Quantum Theory and refused the idea of
hidden variables (Bohr 1935: 696).
In
1964 John Bell proposed a mechanism to test for the existence of these hidden
variables, and he developed his ‘inequality principle’ as the basis for such a
test (Bell 1966: 447). This was followed by many experiments to verify this
principle. The most successful of these experiments was performed by Alain
Aspect and his colleagues in 1982 (Aspect 1982a: 1804; Aspect 1982b: 91). Their
experiment consisted of light polarization measurements made on pairs of
photons, moving in opposite directions, emitted simultaneously in single transitions
by calcium atoms, then measured by sensitive detectors on each side. The
results of the experiment clearly violate Bell’s inequalities, eliminating the
need for the existence of hidden variables and thus supporting the predictions
of nonlocal Quantum Mechanics (which violate Einstein’s locality principle and
even common sense). The results showed that apparently the left-hand detecting
apparatus was sending some kind of message to the right-hand photon informing
it as to how the left-hand one was set up, so that the right-hand photon could
interact in the appropriate way with the right-hand apparatus. But as a matter
of fact there is no communication at all between the left and the right
photons, and, if we suppose there is, then the signal would have to travel
faster than the speed of light.
Many
even more accurate experiments have been performed after that, and all show
that it is as if time ‘stops’ between the pair of entangled particles and they
interact instantaneously despite the large distance between them. Although this
experimental outcome supports the fundamental concepts of the theory of Quantum
Mechanics and contradicts Einstein’s locality principle, but there is no
adequate theoretical explanation for it, so far.
Now
one of the striking consequences of Ibn ‘Arabî’s principle of re-creation by
the Single Monad is that such strange instantaneous behaviour between the two
entangled particles would be natural and very easily explained. According to
his cosmological theories the constant creation of the manifest world proceeds
like a movie composed of succeeding still pictures. Each momentary ‘picture’ of
the world is like a closed system, where any change in one part of this picture
would require another synchronizing change or changes in other part(s), so that
the whole does not change because there is no external interaction, only ‘internal’
changes. We have also explained that all ‘parts’ of the world are created in
series by the Single Monad that constantly creates (‘puts on’) ever new forms,
one total individual form at each instant of time - such that each created form
then ceases to exist (intrinsically, not through any other force) the next
moment after its existence.
Now
if we take that theory of cosmic re-creation into account, we can simply say
that the two entangled particles in these experiments, like any two entities in
the world, never existed together at the same. Rather, the Single Monad first
wears the form of the first particle - i.e. causes this particle to exist
(under special conditions); then this unique Single Monad itself wears other
forms in a specific sequence (see section 5.6), until it comes to wear or
create the form of the second particle - regardless of where it is in space.
But by the moment of this second state of creation, the first particle is out
of existence, and therefore it encountered no time. Now, because the two particles
are ‘entangled’ (in a closed system), any change on the first form that
corresponds to the first particle will be kept in the ‘memory’ of the Single
Monad, so that when it comes to wear the form of the second particle it does so
in a way that keeps the total state of the system of the two particles
unchanged (according to the Quantum Mechanical laws, because it is a closed
system). This process is instantaneous; no matter how far apart the two
particles are, because only one particle really exists at a time, and during
the interval between creating the two particles they were both out of
existence, encountering no time. This hypothesis corresponds to Ibn ‘Arabi’s
account of ‘the real flow of time’ that we explained in Chapter 4.
In
fact what we have just said applies to any (large or small) system and not
simply the system of those two entangled particles, but in normal cases the
effect of the ongoing process of cosmic re-creation is not noticeable because
of the many possible changes that could happen in any part of the complex
system and the corresponding distraction of our limited means of attention and
perception. In other words: any change in any part of the world will cause
synchronization changes in all other parts, because the world as a whole is a
closed system. This last statement is in fact another and more precise
depiction of the whole cosmic process of existentiating causality. This
conception also provides a hypothetical explanation for certain
‘para-psychological’ phenomena.
As Ibn ‘Arabî often pointed out in his analyses of our
unconscious reliance on our ‘habitual’ forms of perception (Jâda), the
main obstacle that prevents us from discovering the reality of creation is our
deep trust in causality and induction. It is true that we live by causes and
results, but indeed this is only a limited and superficial perspective with
regard to the underlying realities. The fact of the matter is that what we
refer to as ‘cause’ and ‘result’ - i.e. what Ibn ‘Arabî normally calls the asbâb
(s. sabab), or intermediate or ‘apparent’ causes - are chronologically
arranged, but ontologically unrelated. This is quite evident in terms of the
re-creation principle discussed above, but Ibn ‘Arabî also clearly declares
that ‘Allah creates things “next to” ( ‘inda) the causes and not
“through” (bi) them’ [II.204.13, Tadbîrât: 312]. As we’ve already
seen above and in section 2.6 that motion is only a new creation in a different
place, so there is no deeper, inherent ontological relation between the two
created states before and after motion.
Also
- as a result of the readily observed systematic causes and effects - we
normally rely upon induction in drawing most of our conclusions about causality.
But in chapter 56 of the Futûhât, Ibn ‘Arabî argues that ‘in reality
induction (al-istiqrâ’) does not give any (true divine) knowledge’
[I.285.3]. The reason why he concludes that is simply because nothing is ever
truly repeated [I.285.28], as we have also shown above in discussing the
re-creation principle. Induction ultimately means that we expect something to
occur in a specific definitive way, based on previous observations of similar
circumstances and regularities.
For
these reasons, according to Ibn ‘Arabî, the basic observational and logical
principles that the scientists and philosophers of his time relied upon in
seeking the truth are indeed not firm, so that their practical success deceives
us with
The Single Monad model and its implications 177 regard to their limitations and restricted
spheres of application. For this reason Ibn ‘Arabi’s answer to Ibn Rushd (see
section 5.1) was first ‘yes’, but then he immediately added again ‘no’, to
highlight the limitations of the philosophers’ methods, in comparison to his own
reliance on divine inspiration and ‘unveiling’.
Ibn
‘Arabî, however, does not deny the phenomenological relevance of the apparent,
intermediate ‘causes’ (asbâby. on the contrary he affirms that they are
intentionally established by Allah, so they are unavoidable [II.653.11], and we
must rely on such causes to reach our goals. So those observable secondary or
apparent causes may not be removed:
And we already informed you that apparent-causes
(asbâb) are divine veils, so that removing them is not possible except
through them (i.e. by other secondary causes). So the very removing of causes
is in fact fixing them; and the reality of abolishing them is (actually)
affirming them.
[II.553.31; see also I.382.26, III.340.9,
IV.275.23 and III.235.28]
So since they are veils, we have to look through
them to see the Real, Who continually creates the causes and the results and
arranges them in this specific ‘habitual’ dependency. As Ibn ‘Arabî explains,
Allah creates simply by the Command ‘Be’, and therefore He does not need the
secondary causes; but He establishes these apparent causes for us to unveil
them [II.413.35], though we would never be able to unveil the causes completely
and permanently, especially since our own unenlightened mentality itself is the
main veil [II.553.6].
In
the short chapter 252 of the Futûhât Ibn ‘Arabî analyses the known
spiritual state of ‘abolishment’ (al-mahw), in which the spiritually
realized person is freed from the unconscious limitations of habitual
perception ( ‘âda), so that the rule of apparent ‘causality’ is removed
for him and he can directly perceive the universal reality of ever-renewed
creation. There he says:
For the person in the state of ‘abolishment’ (of
the ‘habitual’ perception of causality), relying on causes is removed, but not
the causes. For Allah never deactivates the rule of (divine) wisdom with regard
to the (created) things, and the apparent-causes are (like all other creations)
divine ‘veils’ established.
The greatest of those veils may not be removed, which is
your own individual self ( ‘ayn: also, ‘eye’). For your individual self
is also the cause (still sabab) behind the existence of (the possibility
of our) knowing and recognizing Allah - since knowing Allah may not come to
exist except through your individual self!
So it is not possible for you (i.e. the veil of your
ego-self) to be ‘removed’ with Allah’s wanting to be known (by you). So He
abolishes you from (witnessing) yourself, so you no longer stop with
(witnessing) yourself, even though your individual self still exists, since the
manifestation (of His transforming) influence is from Him. This is just as (in
the famous incident at Badr alluded to in verse 8:17) He ‘abolished’ (the
normal causal role of) the Messenger of Allah, may Allah have peace and mercy
upon him, with
regard to his throwing, despite the (actual)
existence of throwing by Him: so He said ‘and you threw not', so he
abolished him; ‘when you threw’, so He affirmedthe apparent-cause; ‘but
Allah threw' (8:17), and He only threw by the hand of the Messenger of
Allah, may Allah have peace and mercy upon him.
[II.553.5]
The apparent-causes are indeed manifestations of the
influences of His Names, which is why we see the effects following from those
causes, but indeed the effect - like all of creation - is also only
(ultimately) caused by Allah Himself. This means, as Ibn ‘Arabi affirms, that
the names of causes are in fact Names of God:
Then you have to know that the contingent things
(creatures) are by essence in need (of being given existence), so that need
always accompanies them because their essence (as contingent, ‘needy’ things)
is forever. So He established for them the apparent-causes (asbâb)
through the presence of which they receive what they need. So they are in need
of the apparent-causes, therefore Allah made the individual-reality ( ‘ayn)
of those apparent-causes Names for Him. So the names of the causes are from
(the influence of) His Names, may He be Exalted, so that (the contingent thing)
should only need Him, because this is the correct knowledge (of the nature of
things).
So there is no difference, for the people of unveiling,
between the names that are said to be the Names of Allah according to
(religious) custom and the revelation, and the names of the apparent-causes, so
far as their (all) being Names of Allah, because He said: ‘you all are in
need of Allah’ (35:15). For we see in reality the need for the
apparent-causes, so the names of the apparent-causes must be Names of Allah,
the Exalted. So we call out in prayer to those names (of the apparent-causes)
by (the needfulness of our actual) state, not through outward words (of
prayer).
Thus when we are touched by hunger we rush to seek the food
that may remove the pain of hunger. So we are in need of it, and it has no need
of us - although we (in fact) are only in need of Allah. So that (food) is one
of His Names: I mean the form of this food descends to take the place of the
spoken or written word of the (corresponding) divine Name. That is why He
ordered to be thankful to the apparent-causes (31:14), because He ordered us to
be thankful to Him - that is, to thank Him through them.
[III.208.7]
But seeing through the apparent causes (to the One real
Cause or Creator) is not easy, and ultimately the meditations and path of
ascension of the spiritual seeker are all directed toward that. At the end of
this path, the seeker will see only the Image of the Real (rather than his
ego-self), and that is why ‘whoever knows himself knows his Lord’.
However
it is very important to notice that at the highest steps of this ascension, as
the seeker advances, he gradually loses the awareness of his limited
The Single Monad model and its implications 179 physical composition, so that what remains
at the end is the pure receptivity of ‘hearing’, just as ‘hearing’ (sama,
or sam‘ ) was the first condition of all things created. Thus Ibn ‘Arabî
says:
He said: ‘and Our word unto a thing, when We
intend it, is only that We say unto it “Be!”, and it is’ (16:40), but He
deafened us from perceiving this word except by the way of faith, and He
blinded us from seeing His intention (tawajjuh) on creating the things,
by the apparent-causes that He established. thus He sends the rain down, and it
falls; and He makes fertile the land, the seeds sprout; then He sends out the
sunlight, so the plants rise, and (the seeds) harvested, ground up, kneaded,
baked and chewed by the teeth; then they were swallowed, ripened in the
stomach, taken by the liver and made into blood, sent into the vessels and
distributed over the body until the (life-giving) vapour rises out of them, so
the life of this body is for the sake of that breath (that we breathe).
So these are the primary apparent-causes (for life), along
with (His) moving the celestial spheres and the motions of their planets,
casting the rays on the places (illuminated by) the (celestial) lights - (all
that) under the supervision of the Universal Soul, with Allah’s permission, and
the support of the (First) Intellect for (the Universal Soul). All these are
veils, established as the fundamental (apparent-causes), in addition to the
other, lesser apparent-causes. So the (human receptivity or) ‘hearing’ needs to
break through all those veils until it hears the (creative divine) word ‘Be!’.
Therefore He created in the person of faith the power of faith, so that it
flows into his hearing until he realizes the word ‘Be’, and it flows into his
sight until he witnesses the One Who gives existence to the apparent-causes.
And He has done all that through the ‘Breath of the All-Merciful’.
[II.413.35]
So - despite their ultimately being ontologically unrelated
- one cannot deny the effect of the apparent-causes. Therefore, we have to look
at other prospects for redefining the principle of causality. We have seen
before (section 3.5) that Ibn ‘Arabi affirmed that after all the forms in the
world have been created in the six Days from Sunday to Friday (which is space),
nothing remained to be created on Saturday, that is the ‘Day of eternity’ or
the instant of time that we live in at each now. What remains is only continual
creative changing the states of things ‘from (one) state to (another) state and
from (one) station to (another) station’ [1.61.14]. Therefore the system of the
world, as a still picture created in the Week, is a ‘closed system’ in the
meaning that all changes in it are necessarily internal changes.
Therefore,
whatever change happens in one part of this world will require another change
in other part(s), so that the total state does not change. This last statement
seems to articulate a new, more adequate form of the causality principle, and
indeed this is exactly one of the principles of Quantum Mechanics which has
proved to be successful over the last century (see section 1.3). This is
in fact a very important conclusion and it could be the key
to a new understanding of the reality of motion. This also might explain the
types of what science tends to view as inexplicable ‘para psychological’
phenomena, such as the telekinetic effects and telepathy which are widely
known as karâmât (acts of grace). The world in all its directions of
space and time, past and future, here and there, is already encoded (via the
divine Foreknowledge) in the Single Monad, so whoever has any access to that
Source should be able to predict what is in or affects other parts of the
world. If we want to study this issue further we have to look at the divine
Attributes of Power and Will, and their image in the human being and the world,
and relate them to time and space, as Ibn ‘Arabî discussed at the end of his
short treatise Al-Durrat Al-Baydâ.
7.8
Superstrings and the
science of letters
In the standard model of elementary particle physics,
particles are considered to be points (or spheres) moving through the four
dimensions of space-time. Extra abstract dimensions are needed to take into
account the different properties such as mass, charge and spin.8
This standard model eventually led to obvious discrepancies between Einstein’s
theory of General Relativity and the Quantum Field Theory that is essentially
based on the wave properties of matter (see section 1.3, and also section 7.6).
Around
1985, the new String Theory suggested that all elementary particles can be
represented by fundamental building blocks called ‘strings’ that can be closed,
like loops, or open, like a hair. The different vibrational modes (or ‘notes’)
of the string represent the different particle types, since different modes are
seen as different masses or spins. One mode of vibration makes the string
appear as an electron, another as a photon. But one of the most remarkable predictions
of String Theory is that space-time has ten dimensions rather than four.
However, six of these dimensions are curled up very tightly, which is why we
may never be normally aware of their existence. Other subsequent extensions of
the String Theory anticipate even higher dimensions.
There
are deep and exciting similarities between the principles of the String Theory
and Ibn ‘Arabî’s views. We have already mentioned in section 2.1 that he says
that there are four ‘fundamental principles of existence’ that are - in
addition to ‘another six derived from them’ - enough to describe the state of
everything in the world [III.404.22]. But what is most exciting in this regard
is Ibn ‘Arabî’s concept of the mysterious ‘science of letters’ ( ‘ilm
al-hurûf) or what he calls the ‘world of Breaths’ ( ‘âlam al-anfâs).
We’ve
already mentioned above (section 6.6) the complex symbolic cosmological
analogies that Ibn ‘Arabî elaborates, beginning in the long second chapter of
the Futûhât, between the cosmos, the Single Monad and the Greatest
Element on the one hand, and the world of letters on the other hand. Ibn ‘Arabî
adds that ‘the world of letters is a nation like other nations ... and those
who know that are only the people of unveiling in our path, . . . and they (the
nation of letters) are grouped into groups like the normal world that we know’
[I.58.12].
These
‘groups’ refer to the groups of the spiritual hierarchy that we have mentioned
above, which Ibn ‘Arabî explained in detail in chapter 73 of the Futûhât.
Ibn
‘Arabî also mentioned at the end of chapter 1 of the Futûhât that ‘the
first line that I read (from the hidden knowledge of the Spirit from whom he
took everything that he wrote in the Futûhât), and the first secret of
this line that I knew, is what I am going to mention in this second chapter’
[I.51.30]. Then he wrote about 40 extremely dense pages on the cosmological
dimensions and significance of the science of letters in chapter 2.9 In this
chapter and other parts of the Futûhât, Ibn ‘Arabî mentioned many
mysterious facts about the letters and their world and cosmological meaning.
For example, Ibn ‘Arabî explained there the relation between the characters of
the word azal, as written in Arabic, and the meaning of time (zamân)
by tracing the mysterious relation between the letters in both words, as he
mentioned in his Kitâb Al-Azal.
This
is in fact a very broad and complicated subject, and we cannot go into details
here. What we do want to summarize is that Ibn ‘Arabî considers the entire
cosmos as the words of the Real spoken through the ‘Breath of the AllMerciful’
[I.366.1, II.403.21, 459.6; see also Al-Masâ’il 105], just like the meanings
that we create through the words that we speak which are also composed of
letters (or sounds) that are essentially the vibrations of our vocal strings
under the influence of our breath. In chapter 2 of the Futûhât, Ibn
‘Arabî gives details about the cosmological significance of each letter, how it
is produced, what kind of vibrations it carries, and also the different orbs
that contribute to produce it. Then in the long chapter 198 [II.390-478], which
is titled ‘On Knowing the Breath’, Ibn ‘Arabî mentioned remarkable facts about
these cosmic meanings of the letters and sounds, and he explained the role of
each divine Name of Allah in creating the different parts of the world and the
different letters of the alphabet.
As
one small illustration, we refer here to the letter (and sound) alif
('). the first letter in the Arabic alphabet (and many other languages), which
Ibn ‘Arabî treats as symbolically identical to the Single Monad we have
mentioned above (section 6.6) - not only because it is first but because it
represents the closest thing to the pure creative, foundational divine ‘Breath’
itself. First Ibn ‘Arabî asserts that ‘alif is not from (other) letters’
[1.65.23], but he stresses that ‘all letters (like the world) may be broken
down into and built up from it, while it does not break down into them’
[I.78.22], so this letter alif is present in every letter or word, just
like the Single Monad that is also present in everything in the world. Indeed
any sound that we produce starts by the sound of letter alif because it
is simply the beginning of the blowing of the breath through the larynx.
So
since the cosmos is the words of the Real and those words are composed of
letters or sounds produced through the Breath of the All-Merciful;, these
letters are the strings that constitute everything in the cosmos, just as the
meanings that we create when we speak are also composed of the letters of the
alphabet. Even the written shape and curvature of the Arabic characters, for
Ibn ‘Arabî, have deep hidden meanings that relate to the cosmos in many
mysterious ways: in that sense, those shapes, just like the strings in the
Strings Theory, are essentially either open like letter alif ('). or
closed like letters mîm (p) and wâw (j).
The
science of letters and of their equivalent numbers ( ‘ilm al-jafr) was
not Ibn ‘Arabî’s own invention, but was widely known in various ‘esoteric
sciences’, for example those that deal with magic and talismans, where they
replace each letter by its equivalent numbers and make certain calculations and
tables that are said to have secret magical effects, or may tell hidden facts.
In her famous book Mystical Dimensions of Islâm, Annemarie Schimmel
devoted a separate appendix to the wider theme of letter symbolism in Sufi
literature (Schimmel 1975: 411-425). In fact this kind of mythology dates back
to the time of Pythagoras of Samos (582-504 bc), who visualized the
world as perfect harmony, like musical notes, which depends on the system of
numbers (which were written with the same letters of the alphabet in both Greek
and later in Arabic).
As we
said, these letters are arranged in a symbolic cosmological hierarchy parallel
to the spiritual hierarchy of the saints that Ibn ‘Arabî explained in chapter
73 of the Futûhât. In fact it is noteworthy that Ibn ‘Arabî calls the
members (awliyâ) of the spiritual hierarchy ‘the world of Breaths’
[II.6.21], or ‘the Men of the world of Breaths’ [II. 11.9]. Also that is why
sometimes Ibn ‘Arabî calls the single Days of each singular instant ‘the Days
of Breaths’ [III.127.34], because in this Day the creative divine Breath is
taken which is the string or the vibration that appears in existence. Hence in
each single Day the string (or the Single Monad, or the
‘real-through-whom-creation-takes-place’) is vibrating to produce the letter
(or sound) alif, and the world therefore is the words that are composed
of these alifs that are produced in the succeeding Days. The Single
Monad is the ultimate elementary String, but there are also other elementary
strings: just as letter alif forms other letters (both in writing and
speaking) the Single Monad also forms other monads that are the entities of
everything in the world.
For
Ibn ‘Arabî, this cosmological analogy applies both to speaking (sounds) and to
writing (characters), because the ‘Higher Pen’ (that is the Single Monad) is
creating the cosmos by literally writing the words of the Real in the
‘Higher Tablet’ of the Universal Soul. This process of writing produces the
‘Pen-sounds’ (sarîf al-aqlâm), which are the vibrations that are
referred to in the hadith recounting the ascension of the Prophet Muhammad
[III.61.9].
So we say that the First Intellect that is the
first-created (or first-originated: awwal mubda'), and he is the Higher
Pen. There was nothing else originated before (muhdath) him, but he was
influenced by what Allah newly originated in him by raising up through him the
‘Protected Tablet’ (of the World-Soul), like the raising up of Eve from Adam in
the world of material-bodies, so that this Tablet is going to be the substrate
and place for what this divine Higher Pen writes (through the ‘words’ of
creation). Now the delineation of the letters is designed to indicate what the
Real made as signs pointing to Him.
So the Protected Tablet was the first existent
raised up (from another: mawjûd inbi‘âthî). And it is reported in the
revelation (of the Prophet) that ‘the first of what Allah created was the Pen;
then He created the Tablet and said unto the Pen: “write!”, so the Pen said:
“what to write?” Then Allah said unto him: “you write and I shall dictate you”’
[Kanz: 15116]. So the Pen writes in the Tablet what Allah dictates to
him, which is His Knowledge regarding His creation that He shall create till
the resurrection Day.
[I.139.23]
Ibn ‘Arabî also divides the letters of the alphabet between
four existents: the real (through whom creation takes place), the angels, the
jinn and the Humans [I.53.1], which we may render into vibrations in 0-D, 1-D,
2-D and 3-D as we shall explain in the following section. This, he explains, is
because hearing (sam‘ ) is based on four realities [II.367.24], and that
is why in the science of music and notes there are four main notes: the Bum
(the thick string), the Zîr (the highest string), Muthannâ (duo),
and Muthallath (trio): each moves the soul in a special way, causing the
emotions of happiness and sadness [II.367.26].
But
as Ibn ‘Arabî explains in a chapter (182) entirely devoted to ‘hearing’ - i.e.
metaphysical ‘receptivity’ in all its forms:
So ‘Hearing’, in this sense, is divided into
three kinds: divine hearing, spiritual hearing and natural hearing. The divine
hearing is that of the (divine) secrets (asrâr) and it is hearing from
everything, in everything and through everything, because all of the world, for
them (the true divine ‘knowers’), is the words of Allah, and His
words are never exhausted’ (18:109, 31:27). Therefore they have,
corresponding to those (divine creative) words, ‘hearings’ that never end . .
.
And the spiritual hearing is connected to the
sounds (sarîf) of the divine pens on the Tablet of what exists, (which
is) ‘Protected’ from changes and substitutions because the whole of existence
is ‘a spread parchment’ (riqq manshûr, 52:3) and the world in
relation to it is an ‘inscribed book (kitâb mastûr, 52:2): so the Pens
speak out, and the ears of the minds hear, and the words are engraved (in
manifest existence) so they are witnessed.
[II.367.7-9, 18-19]
So these words are the spiritual and material world
that we live in, which is therefore the succession of the vibrations (letters)
produced by the divine creative Breath through the Single Monad that is the
Universal Intellect, and displayed in the Universal Tablet. This subject is
indeed very diverse and important, and it is worth a separate study. Ibn ‘Arabî
himself spent a good part of the Futûhât on this subject, as illustrated
in the long chapters 2 [I.51-91] and 198 [II.390-478].
In apparent disagreement with physics, and also with common
sense, Ibn ‘Arabî paradoxically declares that most common properties of matter
like weight, density, transparency and softness are related to the perceiver
and not to the objects themselves [II.458.14]. There are only two exceptions,
the colour and the shape, where Ibn ‘Arabî accepts that they can be related to something
in the object itself, though they may also be dependent on the perceiver like
other properties.
At a
first glance this might be difficult to accept, especially since it clearly
contradicts our daily experience. However, we have already seen in section 2.6
that Ibn ‘Arabî’s unique understanding of motion may be understood only on the
basis of the oneness of being and the re-creation principle that we explained
in section 5.6. Similarly, if we accept that objects and the whole world are
continuously created and re-created by the Single Monad, then we have to
revise our view about the structure of matter: for there actually exist (in
this view) only the individual substances or monads and their forms, so that
other properties are consequences and not intrinsic.
Regarding
the structure of the cosmos, Ibn ‘Arabî also mentions that the structure of the
higher world (i.e. the planets, spheres and stars) ‘is different from what the
cosmologists say, although what they say is based on (observational) proof(s);
and it would have been possible for Allah to have it arranged that way (as they
say) - but He did not’ [II.670.7].
This
statement - which might allude to such prevalent current astronomical theories
as the model of ‘epicycles’, or the assertion of a unique distinctive ‘element’
(‘quintessence’) constituting the higher spheres and planets - means that he
regards the models of the Cosmos devised by scientists and philosophers as
logically possible, but not true, solutions to the results given by astronomical
observations.
7.10
Dimensions of the unseen
world
One of the most obvious differences between science and
theology is that the first speaks only about physical phenomena (including
energy), while the latter assumes the existence of spiritual or non-material
beings, such as the jinn and angels, and of various spiritual worlds, including
those dimensions associated with the Hereafter. Therefore one of the
possibilities in order to bridge that gap is to extrapolate modern laws of
physics and cosmology to those unseen worlds. Some recent scientific attempts
have been made in this regard, and most postulate that the reason why we do
not normally see those supra-natural worlds is that they have higher dimensions
(e.g. nine or ten dimensions).10 However, there are indications that
Ibn ‘Arabî sometimes suggests that angels and jinn are ‘physical’ or ‘natural’
creatures less advanced than humans. In that case, angels and jinn have lower
dimensions - one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) respectively - while
we humans, are three-dimensional (3-D) creatures, who in the Hereafter (or
perhaps even before) may be developed into four dimensions. Here we are
speaking about spatial dimensions alone.
Since
we are now ordinarily 3-D creatures, we can not in general see jinn and angels
because our ordinary sensory tools are used to detect only 3-D phenom-
The Single Monad model and its
implications
185 ena. In contrary to that, jinn and angels can see us - not because their
senses are capable of perceiving 3-D phenomena but because they rather perceive
and interact with our souls and intellects which are of their own nature (of
2-D and 1-D respectively). Likewise jinn and humans can not in general see the
angels. However, it is possible for humans to cross over to the jinn and angel
worlds by transforming into 2-D and 1-D [I.168.20] and this is what happens to
the seeker at the beginning of his or her path and in the spiritual ascension,
which is why advanced human beings are able to speak and interact with spirits
easily [III.332.11], until they ultimately witnesses the Real Himself. But in
order to reach this final stage, the spiritual seeker must be ‘annihilated’
into 0-D, because the Real can only be witnessed by His secret (‘the real
through whom creation takes place’) which He has implemented in everything
[1.168.22, see also
Dimensions
play a very important role in modern cosmology and mathematics. There are real
dimensions and abstract dimensions. In principle, we can - mathematically -
assign a dimension to any parameter of a specific function. For example the
weather at any point on the Earth is a function of many parameters such as
time, place, the nuclear reactions on the Sun, the amount of cloud in the area,
the direction of winds etc. Each one of these parameters can be considered as
an abstract dimension for the sake of simplifying the mathematical study of the
dependency of weather on these parameters or dimensions. Real dimensions, on
the other hand, are only those three dimensions of space (i.e. length, width,
depth; or x, y, z), and no more. Although time is considered as a real
dimension in Relativity, it is not a spatial dimension and so we shall not
consider it as real in this regard (see also section 2.5).
So
here we shall speak only about the three real dimensions of space. In fact
those three dimensions make six (as Ibn ‘Arabî often points out), if we take
into account that each dimension has two directions. Those six dimensions or
directions are: (up, down), (right, left), (front, back); or (-x, +x),
(-y, +y), (-z, +z).
I
have to mention, however, that Ibn ‘Arabî never arranged the creations in terms
of dimensions as we are suggesting in this section; but this possibility is
quite evident from his various texts, and many of his ideas can be easily understood
on this basis, as we shall see shortly.
With
regard to dimensions, existence can be divided into five categories, as we
shall explain in the remainder of this chapter:
He is the Being of ‘zero dimension’ (0-D): i.e. of no
dimensions, which means He is independent of space and time. That is why Ibn
‘Arabî sometimes symbolically indicates God as a dot or a point [III.275], for
example as the centre of the circle of creation as we have seen in the
cosmogonic diagram in Figure 7.1; also, the dot that is used in many characters
of the Arabic alphabet, especially the letters bâ’ (<^>) and nûn
(j). However, ‘the Real’ here may refer to Allah Himself or also to the
Greatest Element who is the Image of Real, or the ‘real through
Figure 7.1 0-D, a point. It actually has no length,
width or breadth. This is what is called a geometrical point.
whom creation takes place’ (al-haqq al-makhlûq bihi),
and he is the true ‘Image of God’, as we have discussed in the two preceding
chapters. So when we speak about the Real with regard to the creation and
spatial dimensions, we usually mean the Greatest Element rather than Allah,
since Allah Himself, His Essence, is beyond all descriptions including
dimensions.
As we have seen in an earlier diagram in Figure 5.1, Ibn
‘Arabî symbolically represents the world as a ‘circle’ whose centre is always
the Real or real. The abstract point in the centre is one unit: i.e. it can not
be divided or fragmented, nor can it be even described because it has no
dimensions. However, this point faces the infinite multiplicity of the points
in the circumference of the circle. Moreover, each point of the circle is
similar to or an image of the central point. This is identical to the meaning
of the hadith that Allah created the Human Being (and the world, according to
Ibn ‘Arabî) ‘on His own Image’ (see section 3.1). Also each point in the
circumference can be a centre to a new circle [III.275], just as everyone or
everything has his or her own world, in his or her imagination. Also, any point
of the circumference can be considered the beginning of it and also the end
[I.259.24], so ‘He is the First and the Last and Hidden (centre point) and
Manifest (circumference)’. And each line that goes out of the central point
reaches a point on the circumference. This means that everything originated
from the Real (in the centre) and it returns to Him (on the circumference)
[II.538.26], which can be understood as the cosmogonic meaning of the verse: ‘to
Him you return" (2:28) and to ‘Him everything returns"
(11:123). Finally, because all the points are in essence a manifestation of the
Real, therefore ‘the worm and the First Intellect are equal with respect to the
essence, but the difference appeared in the form’ [III.452.33]. Similarly, as
Ibn ‘Arabî points out:
Since the lines (the radii) that go out from the
Point in the centre of the circle to the circumference that comes to exist
through that Point are equal to all parts of the circumference, so
likewise the (creative, existentiating) relation of the Real, the Exalted, to
the totality of all existents is the same: there is no change in that relation
at all. So all things are looking to Him and accepting from Him that
(existence) which He bestows on them, just as the parts of the circumference
are facing the Point (in the centre).
[I.125.23]
Moreover, any object is composed of a number of points
which are similar but have different attributes; the object is the sum of those
points. But we can not say that the object is (nothing but) the (particular)
point, nor we can say that it is not the point. Similarly, the world is the sum
of the manifestations of all the divine Names of Allah, the Real, but we can
not say that the world is the Real, nor can we say that the world is not Him
[III.275.32].
For
Ibn ‘Arabî, the Real is creating the world by continuously and endlessly
manifesting Himself in different forms and forming the cosmos point by point
(in series as we explained above), including the perceived, perception and the
perceiver [II.484.22]. Therefore at any single instant of time (the ‘now’, or
the real existence, hâl) there exists only Him. This is not like saying
that the things are Allah, ‘because He is He, and the things are the
things’ [II.484.28], but they are the manifestations of the Names of Allah. In
this sense, as we have just seen, ‘every name in the world is His Name, not a
name of other than Him; for it is the Name of the Manifest in the locus of
manifestation’ [II.122.14].
The
identity or essence of each one of us (i.e. the individual soul) is a point in
the circle of Creation, and so is the identity of everything in the world. So
we can here clearly see the meaning of the verse: ‘ We shall show them Our
signs on the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that
it/He is the ReaF (41:53),11 which can be then considered the
most obvious Qur’anic basis of Ibn ‘Arabî’s understanding of the ‘oneness of
being’. Also, since each point of the circle is similar to the central point,
‘whoever knows himself knows his Lord’ [I.328.31, II.298.30].
The angels are beings of one dimension (1-D) and they are
made of light (Inshâ’ al-Dawâ’ir: 27). Angels are the first creatures:
the Pen himself is an angel, and he is the first creature and everything else
is ‘written’ by him in the Soul (the Protected Tablet), which is
two-dimensional as we shall see further below: so their relationship is just
like a normal pen and writing-board, in that they are one- and two-dimensional
respectively. Angels occur by the repeated manifestations of the Real (at
least two subsequent manifestations); just as the line is composed of at least
two points [III.276.3]. Ibn ‘Arabî says:
The reality of the angel does not accept
deviation, because he is the origin of the straight line connecting the two
nines (of the divine Source and its human receptacles).12 For
bending (from that straight connection) is deviation, and he (the angel) does
not have any bending, but he goes back and forth between the straight
(creative) motion and the reverse motion (returning from the creature to God).
So he is precisely the subtle thread (raqîqa: connecting the Source and
the creatures) itself.
[I.54.21]
On the other hand, there is strong evidence in Ibn ‘Arabî’s
texts that some angels indeed function as, among other things, forces of
Nature: ‘They are called angels (malâ’ika) because they are links,
conductors that link the godly rules and divine effects by material worlds
because “al-malak” (the angel) in (Arabic) language means the “force”
and the “intensity” ’ (Inshâ’ al-Dawâ’ir: 27).
And
he also says: ‘There is no place in heaven or Earth but that there is an angel
in it. And the Real continues to create angels from the (creative divine)
Breaths of the worlds, as long as they are still breathing’ [I.123.2].
It is
also known in physics that there are four fundamental forces in nature, which
are: the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force,
and the strong nuclear force. Nature is built upon these four forces. Those
four forces can be conceived as manifestations of the four prime Archangels - Mâlik,
Jibrâ’îl (Gabriel), Mîkhâ’îl (Michael) and Isrâfîl
(Seraphiel) - because Ibn ‘Arabi affirms that those four angels are the ones
who bear the Throne (al- ‘arsh). Although it is mentioned in Qur’an that
‘eight shall, in that Day (of resurrection), bear above them the Throne of
thy Lord’ (69:17), he asserts that when this verse was recited before
Muhammad, he said ‘and they are today (in this world) four’ [I.148.2,
III.184.28, and also ‘UqlatAl-Mustawfiz: 43-44], ‘and tomorrow (in the
Hereafter) they are going to be eight’ [I.149.29]. Ibn ‘Arabî also explains
that al-‘arsh (usually translated as ‘the throne’) in the Arabic tongue
refers to ‘the Kingdom’ in addition to ‘the Throne’ [I.147.33], so, if this
verse refers to the divine Kingdom, then its bearers or holders are those who
are in charge of its affairs, and these are like the four supports (awtâd)
who hold up the house. For this reason we find that Ibn ‘Arabi also affirms
that the four awtâd (spiritual Pillars) by whom Allah sustains the Earth
get their power from the spirituality of these four angels [1.160.25, II.7.1],
though he mentions here ‘Azrâ’îl (the angel of death) instead of Mâlik
(the master of Gehenna). In the Hereafter, he explains elsewhere, the three
prophets Adam, Muhammad and Ibrahim (Abraham) in addition to angel Ridwân
(the Warehouser of Paradise) shall also contribute, so those eight will be the
holders or bearers of the Throne or Kingdom in the Hereafter [1.148.11]. We
shall see further below that this helps explain why the Hereafter could be
considered as four-dimensional (4-D).
Here
Ibn ‘Arabî also shows that the Throne is the Kingdom, and that it is confined
in four things: body, spirit, food and state. So those eight sustainers of the
Throne are assigned the various duties as follows: ‘Adam and Seraphiel for
forms (for bodies), Gabriel and Muhammad for spirits, Michael and Abraham for
subsistence, and Mâlik and Ridwân are for threat and promise
(i.e. the states in Gehenna or Paradise)’ [I.148.3].
Therefore,
if we want to compare those four angels who hold up the divine Kingdom and the
four elementary forces which operate in Nature, we can clearly see, for
example, a correspondence between gravity and Seraphiel, since both operate
upon the forms, the bodies. We can also see clear relations between the
electromagnetic force and Michael, because both are responsible for subsistence
and food, when we remember that all the food that we eat is in the end produced
by light and heat which are electromagnetic waves (forces) emitted by the Sun.
It is, however, not easy to establish the relation between Gabriel and Mâlik on
the one hand and the weak and strong nuclear forces on the other hand, but we
The Single Monad model and its implications 189 can mention that Gehenna is said in the
Qur’an to be ‘fuelled by stones’ (2:24, 66:6), and this could mean the
nuclear energy that is available inside the atoms for which those two nuclear
forces are responsible.
On
the other hand there are so many types of angels who also have different states
or levels (37:164) and different structures. Some of those various types are
mentioned in the Qur’an (37:1-3, 51:1-4, 77:1-5, 79:1-5 etc.), and Ibn ‘Arabî
talks about them in some detail very often in his writings [III.445.35-446.6,
and also Inshâ’ Al-Dawâ’ir: 27]. And it is quite clear by studying these
types that they are assigned specific duties, just like the different forces in
Nature (including the elementary and other forces).
Therefore,
our suggestion that angels are beings of 1-D appears justified because such
natural forces always operate in one dimension (they are also represented as
vectors in physics and mathematics), though their effects might appear in two
or three dimensions as well.
Notice
also that, just as the real (the Greatest Element) is 0-D and can be represented
by a dot, the Single Monad is 1-D and can be represented by a line. In letters,
the letter alifis made by the flow (sayalân) of the dot. So also
the Single Monad is made by the flow (the repeated creative manifestation) of
the Greatest Element (see Figure 7.2).
The jinn are beings of two dimensions (2-D) or four
directions, and according to traditional sources they are made of fire. Ibn
‘Arabi affirms that
The fire jinn got the four (of letters) because
of the facts they are based on that caused them to say as the Real, the
Exalted, told: ‘then I will approach them from between their hands, from
behind them, from their right side and from their left side'’ (7:17), and
then their facts are over, they have no further fifth fact to seek through it
further level, and you should be aware not to think that this is possible for
them that to have the height (up) and its counterpart (down) by which the six
directions are complete, because the (their) reality does not permit that as we
affirmed in the book Al-Mabâdî wal-Ghâyât.
[I.53.8]
It is evident, therefore, that jinn can move only in four
directions: the plane or the surface. They have no sense of height, so their
space is a sub-space of ours,
Figure 7.2 1-D, a line segment. It has a length, and it is created by
moving a point.
Figure 7.3 2-D, a unit square. It has length and
width, and it is created by moving the line segment in a direction
perpendicular to the line on which the segment lies.
and that is why we do not see them, they are too thin and
tenuous, just like the surface of a heat wave or flame. It is also noteworthy
in this regard here that Allah said in the Qur’an that the angels say: ‘to
Him (to Allah) belongs what is between our hands and what is behind us and what
is between that’ (19:64); so He did not mention the sides as in the case of
jinn. This therefore supports what we said above about the angels being only
1-D.
In fact, just as the structure of angels is like our
spirits, the jinn’s structure is similar to the structure of our souls, as Ibn
‘Arabi affirms: ‘the inner (bâtin) of the human being is in fact jinn’
[I.85.6], and also it is possible that the inner of jinn is angels and the
inner of angels is the real, which is again another form to express the oneness
of being.
Humans of course are beings of three dimensions (3-D) and they
are made of earth or clay. As we said above, humans can decompose into 2-D and
1-D so that they may interact with jinn and angels, and they may also decompose
into 0-D so that they may witness the Real, but they may not of course become
like the Real as God though they may become like the ‘real through whom
creation takes place’ who is the perfect Image of God, or the Perfect Human
Being. And as we’ve said that this is the aim of the Sufi; to decompose into
0-D, which means to purify one’s self and get rid of all the earthly (3-D)
attachments.
Figure 7.4 3-D, a unit cube. It has length, width
and depth. It is created by moving the square in a direction perpendicular to
the plane. Notice that seven motions are needed to make up the cube.
We can not talk too much about the Hereafter, because it
has been mentioned that it is different from what we may imagine [Kanz:
39236, 39241], but as we have mentioned above that the holders of the Throne or
Kingdom are now four and in the Hereafter they shall be eight. So it is
possible that the Hereafter will be four dimensional (4-D) because doubling the
number of forces requires new dimensions for the new forces to operate.
Moreover, we notice that our major senses relate to
dimensions in the following manner. Hearing requires only 1-D, because the
propagation of sound waves is received by the ear one bit at a time. Seeing, on
the other hand, requires 2-D because at any instance we may perceive a picture
that occupies a surface. To conceive 3-D, however, we need imagination because
the 3-D space that we conceive is built up as a result of the integration of
2-D pictures that we perceive through the flow of time. We perceive 1-D only by
hearing, and 2-D by seeing, and we conceive 3-D, by imagination. So our
thoughts, or imaginations, that we have in our memory are indeed mostly 2-D
pictures (but also 1-D sounds) but by integrating them over time we conceive
the volume. Thus, it is possible, and plausible, that in the Hereafter we shall
gain new faculty, more advanced than imagination, that allow us to conceive of
4-D. In this case our thoughts will be 3-D as confirmed by Ibn ‘Arabi and many
hadith that describe the Paradise. For example Ibn ‘Arabi confirms that people
in Paradise shall have the power of creating through the command ‘be’,just as
Allah does in this world [Al-Masâ’il: 126, 1.84.21,11.157.26, 11.440.35,
11.441.26, III.295.17], and he also affirms that this is also attainable (by
some people) in this world [Al-Masâ’il: 126,
III.
295.14]. This is also called al-fî‘l bil-himma
(doing by intention or determination) [I.259.33].
On
the other hand, and since we have seen that the Real is 0-D and that the angels
are the first repeated manifestation of the Real and so on, the jinn are manifestations
of the second order (in 2-D). Thus humans are more advanced and complex that
jinn because they are created by the manifestations of the Real in the third
order. Likewise, it is expected that the Hereafter will be the fourthorder
manifestation.
The
Creation is done through the Pen who is writing the words of the AllMerciful.
This Pen started by writing the dot (absolute Spirits, including the real; 0-D)
and then the angels by making a line (1-D), and he continued until a certain
term where he started another line, thus making a plane (2-D) and that is the
creation of jinn. After that and at the certain term also, he started making
new planes, thus forming the volume (3-D) that we are in now. And eventually
the Pen will start, at a certain term (ajal), a new dimension to open
the life in the Hereafter (4-D). This ‘term’ is either the time of our death (al-ajal)
or possibly the time of spiritual realization (al-fateh) which is also a
kind of voluntary death [IV.354.19] (Chittick 2002: 105-107). We have already
seen in section 2.11 that Ibn ‘Arabi specified the starting times between those
different terms (see Figure 2.1).
It is
also possible in Paradise that the Creation will continue, endlessly, into
higher dimensions (n-D, where n is any integer number), more than
four. Maybe that is what it means when Ibn ‘Arabî says: ‘seeking (al-sulûk;
into Allah) is always requested in this life and also in the Hereafter. For if
there was a destiny, it would have been possible to achieve (but there is no
destiny)’ [Al-Masâ’il: 203]. It is probably here where abstract
mathematics - which can deal with any number of dimensions and different types
of topological spaces - has anticipated this hypothetical structure of the
world, whereas physicists up till now can not conceive of more than three
dimensions.
Finally,
we must add that conceiving the world in this way according to the dimensions
will greatly help in any possible future computer simulations to test the
Single Monad model, because in this way we should be able to see whether the
current structure of stars and galaxies could have happened starting from the
initial conditions and rules that we described above and in Chapter 4 when we
discussed the actual flow of time.
1 The
geocentric view considers the Earth to be in the centre of the universe, while
the heliocentric view considers the Sun to be in the centre. Modern cosmology,
however, asserts that the universe, being a closed space-time arena, does not
have a centre; any point may be considered a centre, just as any point on the
surface of the Earth may be considered a centre (with regard to the surface,
not to the volume). So whether the Earth or the Sun is in the centre of the
universe is a valid question only with regard to the solar system which was the
known universe in early cosmology, but it is no longer valid after discovering
the galaxies and the huge distances between stars outside the solar system. It
is worth mentioning here that Ibn ‘Arabî clearly asserted that the universe
does not have a centre [II.677.19].
2 For more
information about this subject see: Bienkowski (1972).
3 The
redshift is the displacement (towards the red side) of the spectral lines of
the light emitted by stars when it is received on the Earth, and this is due to
the high speed of the motion of stars away from us. The amount of the shift
towards the red is directly proportional to the distance of the star away from
us, and this is how distances to far away stars and galaxies are calculated
with a high degree of accuracy.
4 For more
information about the principles of Quantum Cosmology see Linde (1990), chapter
3.
5 For more
information about Ibn ‘Arabî’s life and intellectual background see Addas
(1993) and Hirtenstein (1999).
6 For a
full list of books and manuscripts attributed to Ibn ‘Arabî’ see: Yahya (1964).
In this book Othman Yahya mentions over nine hundred books (with about 1,395
titles) attributed to Ibn ‘Arabî. Most of them however, as Yahya shows, are not
really by him, and also many of his genuine books are lost or not available.
For a list of Ibn ‘Arabî’s printed works see appendix 1 in Hirtenstein (1999).
See also the list of his Arabic and translated works in the Bibliography.
7 In this hadith Allah says: ‘I was a hidden Treasure, so I loved to be
known; so I created the creatures/creation so that I might be known.’ This
famous hadith qudsî (‘divine saying’) is not found in standard hadith
collections, but is widely quoted by Sufis and especially Ibn ‘Arabî
[11.112.20, 11.232.11, 11.310.20, 11.322.29,
II.
330.21, II.339.30, III.267.10, IV.428.7].
Some scholars of hadith therefore consider it a fabrication, but, as William
Chittick pointed out, Ibn ‘Arabî believes that this hadith ‘is sound on the
basis of unveiling, but not established by way of transmission (naql)’ [II.399.28]. See also SPK: 391: 250-252, and SDG: 21, 22, 70, 211, 329.
8 In this hadith the Prophet Muhammad was
asked: ‘Where was our Lord before He created the creatures?’ He answered: ‘He
was in a Cloud (‘amâ’)’ [Kanz: 1185, 29851]. See also SPK: 125, and SDG: 118, 153, 360. Ibn ‘Arabî
discusses this hadith very often in the Futûhât: [I.148.17, I.215.33,
II.62.36, II.150.21, II.310.3, II.391.28,
See: ‘The Language of the
angels’, by Pierre Lory, from ‘The Breath of the AllMerciful’ symposium held
at Berkeley, 1998 (available as audio tape from the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabî
Society, Oxford).
Nature here actually means
‘the level of Nature’ (martabat
al-tabî‘a) (i.e.
the four foundational elements) and not nature in the physical sense, which is
the material world. Ibn ‘Arabî explains that the level of Nature does not have
a separate physical existence: ‘So (God) the Exalted estimated the level of
nature that if it has (real) existence it would be below the Soul, so even
though it does not really exist, it is witnessed by the Real there. That is
why He distinguished it and determined its level. It is with regard to natural
beings just like in regard to the divine Names: they can be known and imagined,
and their effects can appear and cannot be ignored, while in general they do
not have any (separate) essence. Likewise, (the level of) Nature gives what is
in its potential of sensible forms that are assigned to it and that have real
existence, while it does not have real separate existence. So how strange is
its state and how high its effect!’ [II.430.8].
From the Qur’anic verse ‘the All-Merciful mounted (established His authority) on the Throne’ (20:5) and other similar verses such as ‘He created the Heavens and the Earth in six
days and then He mounted on the Throne’ (7:54, and the same meaning in other
verses: 2:29, 10:3, 25:59, 32:4, 57:4). We shall see in Chapter 3 that, according
to Ibn ‘Arabî, the six directions of space were created by the process of God’s
‘mounting’ (istiwâ’) on the Throne in six days
from Sunday to Friday.
Abû Hâmid Muhammad B. Muhammad
al-Tûsî Al-Ghazâlî (ah450-505/ ad 1058-1111) outstanding Muslim theologian, jurist, thinker, mystic and
religious reformer who later pursued and systematically defended the path of
Sufism. See also EI2, ‘Al-Ghazâlî’, II: 1038.
Ibn Rushd, Tahâfut Al-falâsifa (The Incoherence of the
Philosophers)
(1927), ed. M. Bouyges with a summary in Latin, Beirut: n.p.. This is a
controversial work of theological refutation where al-Ghazâlî enumerated twenty
maxims of the philosophers that he found that they could not incontrovertibly
demonstrate, as they had claimed.
Abû al-Walîd Ibn Rushd (ah 520-595/ad 1126-1198) was the chief judge of Seville and a great philosopher
known in the West as Averroes. There was no one higher than him in the matter
of legal ruling (fatwa) for crucial issues. He was a
top figure in the history of both Islamic and Western philosophy and theology.
He defended philosophy against the Ash‘arite theologians (Mutakallimûn) led by al-Ghazâlî, against whom he wrote
his Tahâfut Al-Tahâfut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence), translated from the Arabic with
introduction and notes by Simon van den Bergh (Gibb Memorial Trust, 1978). See
also EI2, ‘Ibn Rushd’, III: 909.
Muslim theology is the
theology that is derived from the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions. Kalam
(lit.: speaking) is the Islamic tradition of seeking theological principles
through dialectic. The original scholars of kalam were recruited by the House
of Wisdom under the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad in the ninth century ad, but soon many opposing kalam schools
emerged such as Ash‘arites and Mu‘tazilites.
Abû ‘Alî al-Husayn ibn
Abdullâh Ibn Sînâ (ah369-428/ad980-1037), known in the West as Avicenna, was an
important Muslim physician, scientist, mathematician and philosopher. See also EI2, ‘Ibn Sînâ’, III: 941.
Ibn Sînâ (1983): 68. See also ‘Alâ’
al-Dîn ‘Abdul-Muta‘âl (2003): 131.
Ibn Sînâ (1983): 72. See also Al-‘Atî
(1993): 110.
Ibn Sînâ (1983): 74.
Ibn Sînâ (1938) Al-Najât, ed. Muhyî al-Din S. al-Kurdî, 2nd ed., Cairo: n.p.: 117.
Named after its founding
figure Abû al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari, this Sunni theological school had its origin in
the reaction against what they viewed as the excessive rationalism of the
Mu‘tazila (a movement founded by Wâsil Ibn ‘Atâ’ in the second century AH/eighth century ad. The Ash‘arites insisted that reason must
be subordinate to the literal data of revelation. They accepted some of the
cosmology of the Mu‘tazilites, but put forward a nuanced rejection of their
theological principles. See also EI2, ‘Al- Ash‘arî, Abu ‘L-Hasan’,
I: 694; ‘Ash‘ariyya’, I: 696; ‘Mu‘tazila’, VII: 783.
22 Abû Yûsuf
Ya‘qûb Ibn Ishâq al-Kindî (ah185-256/ad805-873) is considered the historical ‘father’ of
Islamic philosophy. He was also a scientist of high calibre, a gifted
mathematician, astronomer, physician and a geographer, as well as a talented
musician. See also EI2, ‘Al-Kindî’, V: 122.
24 Mohammed
Ibn Zakariyya al-Râzî (ah251-313/ad865-925). See also EI2, ‘Al-Râzî’, VIII: 474.
25 Abû Nasr
al-Fârâbî (ah259-339/ad 870-950) was one of the foremost Islamic philosophers and logicians.
See also EI2, ‘Al-Fârâbî’, II: 778.
26 Euclidean
geometry is based on the ideas of Euclid (c. 300 bc), who stated in his book The Elements five postulates on which he based all
his theorems. According to these postulates, space is homogeneous like that
which we feel on the Earth. In modern cosmology and with the high intensity
gravity found near giant stars and galaxies, space can no longer be treated as
homogeneous, and therefore a new branch of geometry (non-Euclidean geometry)
has been introduced to take into account the curvature of space-time. For
information about Euclidean geometry, see Patrick (1986).
27 This is
because of the ‘uncertainty (Heisenberg) principle’ which states that not all
of the physical parameters (e.g. position [x] and momentum [p]) of a system can be fully
determined at the same time. It is mathematically expressed as: Ax.Ap > h where h is Planck’s constant, which
is in the order of 6 x 10-34 erg-seconds.
28 Before
the advent of Quantum Mechanics there was a long debate about the nature of
light, whether it is particles or waves. Some experiments (and theories)
confirmed that it is particles, while others confirmed that it is waves.
Quantum Mechanics solved this contradiction by suggesting that particles have
wave properties and waves have particle properties. See Baierlein (1992).
2 General aspects of Ibn ‘Arabî’s concept
of time and days
2 In the
language of kalam theology, a ‘negative attribute’ (sifa salbiyya) is an attribute that is not a real description, but simply
a negation of a purported description. See also The Book of Eternity (Kitâb Al-Azal) for Ibn ‘Arabî.
3 For more
details about the ‘line-point’ and ‘time-now’ analogy, see Hasnaoui (1977): 50.
See also Ibn ‘Arabî’s treatise of ‘Risâla fi Asrâr al-Dhât al-Ilâhiyya’ inRasâ’ilIbn ‘Arabî (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Intishâr
al-Arabî, 2002-04), ed. Sa‘id ‘Abd al-Fattah, Vol. I: 193-206 [201].
4 There are
two closely related words in Arabic commonly used for the everyday senses of
‘time’: zamân and zaman. They are basically used in the same contexts, and usually Arabic
dictionaries (such as Lisân al-‘Arab (Beirut: Dâr Sâdir, n.d.),
XIII: 200) do not distinguish between them. Ibn ‘Arabî also seems to use these
two words interchangeably in many places, although we can detect a unique
pattern of use in the Futûhât: in many places he uses zamân for the general meaning of time that has a
span or duration, while he uses zaman to mean the current time or a specific time that is usually short and defined, such as in the
technical expression ‘the single time’ (al-zaman al- fard) [I.318.22, II.82.22, IV.267], which is
explained later in this chapter.
5 Al-jawhar literally means ‘the jewel’
but technically it means ‘the essence’. Ibn ‘Arabî took this technical usage
from kalam theology. We will translate it as ‘the monad’, which is the
indivisible substance that is thought to constitute matter. We will devote a
full section to the monad in section 6.2.
6 Al-‘arad - in this technical sense drawn
from the usage of the kalam theologians - is the actual appearance or the form
of al-jawhar, or the form each monad wears
in order to appear in existence. The atomists, especially the Ash‘arite
theologians, asserted that the world is composed of substances and accidents (jawâhir and ‘arâd) and that substances remain while accidents always change.
Ibn ‘Arabî, however, employs the term more strictly than the Ash‘arites, since
he says that everything that we see always and constantly changes,
though it may change into ‘similars’ or ‘likenesses’ (s. mithl), which is why we think that certain things are not
changing [III.452.24]. He also asserts that this monad (al-jawhar) is not visible by itself, but only appears wearing this
form or the other. See also SPK: 97.
7 There are
two different words in Arabic habitually used for the meaning of space: al- makân and al-hayyiz. Al-hayyiz is more accurately used to refer to the
abstraction of three-dimensional space, while al-makân in fact refers to ‘the place’ rather than space. Ibn ‘Arabî
himself sometimes uses both of these two words to mean space, but in one
passage he clearly defines them: ‘al-makân is what the objects rest on,
and not in, it; for if they were in it, these would
be al-ahyâz (s. hayyiz, space), not al-makân (place)’ [II.458.3].
8 Al-Afrâd min al-rijâl: al-afrâd (‘the Solitary
Ones’) are a group of the highest spiritual Sages who are outside the circle of
the spiritual Pole (al-Qutb);
al-Khadir (lit.
‘the green man’) is one of them [II.19.9]; and ‘they are not governed by the
circle of the Pole and he has no rule over them, but rather they are as
complete as himself’ [III.137.12]. In Ibn ‘Arabî’s technical usage, al-rijâl (‘the True Men’) refers not at all to a
gender but to the fully accomplished spiritual sages or ‘true Knowers’ (‘urafâ’). See also Al-Mujam Al-Sûfi: 515-521.
9 See
chapter 371 of the Futûhât [III.416] for a detailed
account of the creation scenario of both the physical and intelligible worlds
as seen by Ibn ‘Arabî. Also in chapter 7 of the Futûhât [I.121] Ibn ‘Arabî gives many details about the different
stages of creating the natural or physical world in time; however the numbers
that he gives there fall far short of the modem well-established scientific
results.
10 Ibn
‘Arabî explains this in detail at the beginning of the Futûhât, as he was discussing the ‘special people of Allah’. He
discusses this doctrine there under many issues (masâ’il) in which he summarizes the relations between the Real, the
world and nonexistence. See his introduction in the Futûhât [I.41-47]. Ibn ‘Arabî also wrote these issues and much more
in Kitâb Al-Masâ’il which is also known as ‘Aqîdat ahl al- ikhtisâs, ‘the doctrine of the special
people (of Allah)’, see the Bibliography.
11 When Ibn
‘Arabî uses this term ‘in charge of moving’ to describe the active force here,
he has in mind his famous concept that the world (where bodies and objects
move) is like a super-human (insân
kabîr)
[III.11.19], where all physical motions are due to this active force of the
Universal Soul, and all noetic changes are due to Its intellective force.
12 On the
basis of the hadith ‘the Pedestal (al-kursî) is the place of the two feet’
[Kanz: 1683], Ibn ‘Arabî asserts that the ‘foot’
in question is the divine ‘constancy’ (thubût) and
the ‘two feet’ that are ascribed to the All-Merciful, the most Glorious, refer
to ‘the foot of compulsion’ (qadam
al-jabr) and ‘the
foot of choice’ (qadam al-ikhtiyâr)
[III.432.23]. Ibn
‘Arabî showed that Allah’s, the All-Merciful’s, Word (in the Throne) is One
(all mercy), but by the swinging (tadallî) of these two feet of
compulsion and choice on the Pedestal, the Word divided into two, [II.438.27],
and this distinction between compulsion and choice caused the emergence of the
world of command ( ‘âlam al-amr) and the world of creation ( ‘âlam al-khalq), of the (divine) ban and the order,
obedience and the disobedience, and the Garden and the Fire (Gehenna), but all
this is from the same single divine root of Mercy that is the attribute of the
AllMerciful Who ‘mounted on the
Throne’ (al-rahmân ‘alâ al-‘arsh istawâ, 20:5) [IV 274.25]. Then Ibn ‘Arabî also
relates this same distinction to the symbolism of the daytime and night, where
he says that, because the Word above the Pedestal is one, it is all daytime
(light) there, but below the Pedestal it is daytime and night [III.202.31]. See
also section 2.13.
13 Formore
detail about this subject, see Minkowski (1923) and Hinton and Rucker (1980).
14 See Muhyî
ad-Dîn al-Tu‘aymî (ed.) (1994) Mawsû’at
Al-Isrâ’ wa’l-Mi‘râj, Beirut: Dâr al-Hilâl. This book contains six important treatises
written by prominent early and classical Muslim scholars, such as Ibn ‘Abbâs,
al-Qushayrî and al-Suyûti, about the occasion of the Prophet’s Isrâ’ and Mi'râj.
15 For a
full translation and study of related passages see ‘Ibn ‘Arabî’s Spiritual
Ascension’ in Chittick (2002): 201-230.
16 This book
has been published many times but the most notable critical edition is published
by Su‘âd al-Hakîm in 1988 (Beirut: Dandarah).
17 Abû Ishâq
al-Nu‘mânî al-Shâfi‘î, Al-Sirâj
Al-Wahhâj fî Haqâ’iq Al-Isrâ’ wa’l-Mi‘râj’, inMawsû’at Al-Isrâ’ wa’l-Mi‘râj (note 14 above): 53-114 (p. 58).
18 See the
short chapters 244 and 245 of the Futûhât [II.543-544], where Ibn
‘Arabî explains these notions of spiritual ‘absence’ (ghayba) and ‘presence’ (hudûr).
19 Nath (or al-shartayn: the two signs of Aries), Butayn (the belly of Aries) and Thurayya (Pleiades) are houses of the Moon.
3 The significance of the divine week and
its seven days
1 Sanâbil, sunbulât (s. sunbula), the term used in the Qur’anic account of Pharaoh’s dream
interpreted by Joseph (12:43), and also in the promised reward of charity (zakât) (1:261).
2 This is
one of the 12 zodiacal signs, also called al-‘Azrâ (the Virgin).
3 He
asserts later in this same chapter that ‘when the orbs rotated ... and when the
(celestial) rule went back to Virgo, the human composition appeared “by the specific determination of the
All-Mighty, the All-Knower (taqdîr al-‘Azîz al-‘Alîm 41:12 [also: 6:96, 36:38])”’ [chapter
60, I.294.8]. Ibn ‘Arabî then explains [chapter 60, I.294.10] that the time of
the ruling of Virgo is 7,000 years, after which the ruling task is handed over
to Libra (‘the Balance’, representing the eschatological time of divine justice
at the final Rising). In this chapter, however, he first takes pains to explain
that those ruling spirits are only angelic servants (of God) doing their jobs,
and not separate deities as the pagans had believed; so the command is all to
Allah and there is no ‘sharing’ with Him.
4 This is
because Virgo, as Ibn ‘Arabî goes on to explain, has the number ‘seven’, but
also has its multiples: seven, 70, 700:
That is why Allah - since He created
us in Virgo - multiplied our reward as He said: ‘The likeness of those who spend their wealth in Allah’s way
is as the likeness of a grain which growth seven ears, in every ear a hundred
grains. Allah gives increase manifold to whom He will’ (2:261) - but always multiples of seven.
[I.294.15]
5 To remove
any confusion, ‘Day(s)’ and ‘Week’ (with capitals) are used to refer to the
actual ‘cosmic’ or ‘divine’ Days and Week (of Creation) - not to the many
relative, astronomical days and weeks defined by the different relative motions
of different heavenly bodies. We have already mentioned the meaning of these
divine ‘Days’ in section 2.15, but the different types of cosmic Days will be
discussed in more detail in the following chapter.
6 See Herodotus: The Histories, ed. Walter Blanco, Jennifer
T. Roperts, trans. Walter Blanco (New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company,
1992), 2.82 (fifth century bc).
7 Sunday is
the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for
Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times.
8 In one
hadith [Kanz: 15120] which we shall
translate below, the Prophet Muhammad clearly specified that Allah started the
Creation on Sunday.
9 See also
Ibn ‘Arabî’s book Al-Asfâr (the
Journeys') in Rasâ’il Ibn Arabi (Beirut: Dar Ihyâ’ al-Turath al-‘Arabî,
n.d.). pp. 12-15. This book was edited and translated into French by Denis Gril
(1994).
10 See also
the long passage translated in section 2.12 where Ibn ‘Arabi defines the different
timing periods including the solar month and year.
11 The
Babylonians originally used a combination solar-lunar calendar like the one
Muslims use nowadays (i.e. the Hijrî Calendar with varying 29/30-day months),
though they made adjustments from time to time to make it fit with motion of
the Sun. Later (during the reign of the Chaldean king Nabonassar, 747-734 bc), the Babylonian astronomers switched to
the 30-day, 12-month calendar, again making adjustments for the actual 365-day
year (Parise 1982: 5).
12 For
details about the concepts of sainthood (walâya) and prophethood (nubuwwa) and the hierarchy of awliyâ’ see Chodkiewicz (1993b).
13 Mudâwi Al-Kulûm is the name of the Single
Pole that is the spirit of the Prophet Muhammad even before creating humankind
when Adam was still ‘between water and soil’, and to this spirit different
manifestations in the world where the ‘Pole of Time' is his perfect manifestation, but he is also manifested in the ‘Solitary Ones (al- Afrâd)’ and in the ‘Seal of Sainthood’, both the Muhammadan Sainthood (who is
Ibn ‘Arabî himself) and General Sainthood (who is Jesus) [I.151.26]. And he was
called Mudâwi Al-Kulûm because he is so kind and
polite with his friends; when he wants to draw the attention of one of them to
a specific issue, he kindly hides that from others in guard for him just as
Jacob asked Joseph to keep his vision secret and not to tell it to his brothers
[I.153.19].
14 The
ambiguities in the translation here are quite intentional: God sees Himself
reflected in (both mirrors of) creation and Adam; Adam sees himself/God in the
mirror(s) of himself and creation; and finally God (as Spirit) sees what Adam
sees. See chapter 1 of the Fusûs
Al-Hikam for the
full elaboration of the teaching summarized here in a single short Arabic
phrase.
15 See A.
Kâshânî’s well-known Tafsir Ibn
‘Arabi, published
by many publishers, for example Beirut: Dar Sâdir, 2002, vol. I: 245, vol. II:
571.
16 This
English word here fits very well in this meaning for the Arabic word 'yusabbihu' (n. tasbih: magnification) and probably conveys the meaning here more
clearly than the more abstract Arabic word, because at the end the process of
creation, according to Ibn ‘Arabi’s view, is a ‘multiplication’ of the Oneness
of Allah, and a ‘magnification’ (manifestation) of His ‘absolute Unseen’
dimension (al-ghayb al-mutlaq). This magnification started
with the creation of Angels, and then proceeded with the creation of the jinn
who were given extra privilege and duties, because they are commissioned
servants, while the perfection (of the theomorphic Image) was only given fully
to the (perfect) Human Being (insân) who is the Khalifa (the ‘vice-gerent’ of Allah).
17 This was
mentioned in one long hadith which describes the sequence of creation according
to week days (see al-Mustadrak ‘ala
al-Sahihayn by
Mohamed al-Nisabûri (Dar Al- Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya: Beirut, n.d), vol. II: 593, no.
3996/7). See also section 7.10.
18 Ibn
‘Arabî indicates in many places that both the world and the Perfect Human Being
work in the same way, which is why he calls the world the ‘Great Human Being’ (al- insân al-kabir) and the Human Being the ‘microcosm’ (al-‘âlam al-saghir) [III.11.18]. See also Al-Mujam Al-Sûfi: 168-170, and SPK: pp. 4, 16, 30, 107, 136, 276, 282, 297, and also SDG: 6, 8, 28, 35, 37, 175, 189, 259, 264, 274, 288, 332, 339,
348, 360-363. See also section 3.2 for more analogies between the creation of
the world and embryology.
4 The actual flow of time
1 Mathematically
we can divide the circle into 360 degrees, 400 grads, 2n radians or indeed to
any number of units. Ibn ‘Arabi, however, affirms that the 360-degree system
has a divine origin, which is the total number of prime divine forms of knowing
( ‘ilm) that the Universal Intellect (the ‘Higher
Pen’) was taught by the ‘Greatest Element’ (Nûn) [I.295.8, alluding to the standard cosmological interpretation of the
Qur’anic symbols at 68:1]. Also in Al-Tanazzulât
Al-Layliyya fî Al-Ahkâm Al-Ilâhiyya, he mentioned on page 35 that the Intellect has 360 faces
towards the divine Presence (Al-
Hadra Al-Ilâhiyya).
2 For the
Arabs, whom Ibn ‘Arabî follows on this point, the night-time of a particular
day is that which precedes the daytime of that day, and
not the night that follows that daytime. See Ayyâm Al-Sha’n: 4. See also section 2.14.
3 In
appendix A in their study of Ibn ‘Arabî’s book: Ayyâm Al-Sha’n, The Seven Days of the Heart (p. 149), Pablo Beneito and
Steven Hirtenstein translated ayyâm
al-takwîr’ as
‘the cyclical days’ and translated the Qur’anic verb yukawwiru as ‘(He) wraps’. However, I prefer to use the term
‘circulate’ to emphasize the meaning that the daytimes and the night-times go
around each other in a circle, and that they both (together) encircle the
Earth. This type of day (the circulated day) is also the normal, observable
type of day that ‘circulated’ amongst us, to differentiate from the other two
types that we shall see below.
4 This is
mentioned in Tafsîr Ibn ‘Arabî, vol. I: 245, and vol. II:
571. This book is attributed to Ibn ‘Arabî by its modern publisher, but most
scholars agree that it was written by the later Iranian philosopher Al-Qâshânî.
5 The
galactic equator is the intersection of the plane of the Milky Way with the
celestial sphere.
6 It is not
very clear here what does he mean by ‘the middle’, and he also used the same
expression in the same context right in his introduction to the Futûhât.
7 See also The Seven Days of the Heart: 157-159, where Pablo Beneito
and Steven Hirtenstein gave in appendix A and B a good study of Kitâb Ayyâm Al-Sha’n. They found that the number of
contribution for all of the seven Days from all the seven heavens should sum up
to 24, which they interpreted as the 24 hours of the day. Therefore, because
not all the data are found in the source, they had to deduce the missing slots
on the basis of this assumption.
8 As of
1956, the length of a second has been freed from the vagaries of the Earth’s
motion, and is now defined by the Système International d’Unités as equal to
‘the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium-133 atom in zero magnetic field’. This means that the values for these
conventional units of time are no longer tied to the motion of the Earth, and
instead are tied to innate measurable properties of matter. Thus the minute,
hour, day and even the average ‘tropical’ year are defined as exactly 60;
3,600; 86,400; and 31,556,925.9747 seconds respectively.
9 In
mathematics: 10 '
denotes 1/10''.
For example 10-3 is 1/103 or 1/1000, or one-thousandth.
As we have seen in section 1.9, there are some speculations that the shortest
possible time is in fact 10-43 seconds, which is called Planck’s
time. The debate is still going on, and the issue of the quantization of time
is not yet finally settled.
5 Unicity and multiplicity
1 It is
believed that Ibn ‘Arabî entered the spiritual path well before the age of 20.
He mentioned in the Futûhât [II.425.13] that he entered
‘this path’ in the year ah580 (AD1184), and he was born in ah560 (ad1165) (Austin 1971: 23). Other scholars argue that this was in AD 1182 or even earlier
(Hirtenstein 1999: 51-60).
2 It can be
argued that the words ‘no’ or ‘not yes’ do not have a stand-alone significance,
especially when we think about existence. ‘No’ only indicates the opposite of
‘Yes’, because ‘No’ in this sense means ‘non-existence’ which is nothing; it is
only the absence or negation of existence. This also has its pararells in
digital electronics where the signal has two states; either there is a signal
or not, which is translated as Yes and No or 1 and 0 respectively. But because
the ‘0’ is ‘nothing’, we are left with only the ‘1’; this ‘1’ either exists or
not.
3 In his
short book Ma la Yu'awwal ‘Alayhi
(What can not be relied upon) (in Rasâ’il Ibn
‘Arabî, vol. I,
treatise 16: 2) and in his famous chapter 63 of the Futûhât, Ibn ‘Arabi repeatedly affirms that true visions (‘visionary
unveiling’, kashf suwarî) are always correct, while
mistakes actually may come from the individual’s false interpretation, not
from the vision itself. There are, however three kinds of spiritual visions:
the ‘good vision’ is from Allah; ‘psychological reflections’ from the soul; and
‘nightmares’ from Shaytan. See also chapter 188 of the Futûhât, as well as our study of the Sura of Joseph: Yousef (1999):
227-232.
4 Right at
the first page of the Introduction to the Futûhât, Ibn ‘Arabî divides knowledge into three categories: (1)
Logical (ratiocinative) knowledge (‘ilm
al-‘aql); (2) the
knowledge of inner experiential states (‘ilm al-ahwâl); and (3) the ‘(inspired) knowledge of (spiritual) secrets’ (‘ilm al-‘asrâr). The knowledge of states is obtained only
through direct experiential ‘taste’ (dhawq), while the knowledge of
secrets is generally beyond the grasp of the intellect, though some of it
becomes logical after being explained, but the intellect alone could not attain
it [I.31.9].
5 Ibn
‘Arabî quotes this expression and comments on it very often in his books, and
he ascribes it to al-hakîm (‘the philosopher-sage’)
[II.458.20]. Though it is not very clear who he exactly means by al-hakîm, it is possible that he refers to
Plotinus, who was known in several Arabic translations of his writings as ‘the
Greek sage’ (al-hakîm al- yunânî). On the basis of Davidson
(1992), William Chittick asserts that this maxim was apparently first used by
Avicenna (SDG: 17). This maxim is certainly
the basis of Avicenna’s cosmological schema of emanationism (fayd) [see: EP, ‘Emanationism’, I: 473-474,
and also The Cambridge Dictionary
of Philosophy
(Cambridge University Press, 1995, ed. Robert Audi): 258, 604-606, 714], and it
was possibly used by early Christians as the basis of the concept of the holy
Trinity. Ibn ‘Arabî generally disagrees with this proposition especially when
speaking about Allah as the One Who created the manyness of the world.
6 Ibn
‘Arabî uses two distinct term with regards to the existence of creatures with
relation to God; ‘withness’ (ma'aiyya) and ‘at-ness’ ( ‘indiyya). The first refers to the presence of God
with all things after they are created (57:4, 58:7), while the first indicates
all things were (‘determined’) with God even before they come into real
existence. See also SDG: 35, 37, 45, 88, 137, 170,
171, 179, 180, 297, SPK: 72, 76, 125, 181, 183, 216,
249, 302, 313, 327, 364-366, 380.
7 Ibn
‘Arabî often elaborates on the lofty rank of the ‘people of God’ (ahl Allâh) who are the ‘true knowers’ (al-muhaqqiqûn), also sometimes referred to as the ‘the
people of Qur’an’ alluding to a famous hadith [Kanz: 2277, 2278, 2279, 2342, 4038, etc.] which Ibn ‘Arabî often
quotes or paraphrases [II.299.18, I.352.27, I.372.14, I.510.12,
8 In the
original printed text (followed in the standard later Cairo and Beirut
reprintings used here), this rare long comment is described as ‘a note by Sîdî
‘Abd al-Qâdir [al- Jazâ’irî], transcribed from his own handwriting’.
9 For
details about the differences between the divine Names al-Wâhid and al-Ahad see Al-Masâ’il: 139. And also see Ibn ‘Arabî’s descriptions of these
Attributes and all other divine Attributes in the long chapter 558 [IV.196-326;
see in particular
IV. 293-294].
Ibn ‘Arabî also wrote a dedicated book called Kitâb Al-Ahadiyya; see the Bibliography. See also SDK: 25, 36, 58, 90, 235, 237, 244-245, 278, 349, 364.
10 See also Tawajjuhât Al-Hurûf (Cairo: Maktabat al-Qâhira, n.d.): 17.
This small book includes also the prayer Al-Dawr Al-‘Alâ or Hizb
al-Wiqâyah li man Arada al-Walâya and a few other short treatises, including Al-Salawât Al-Faydiyya.
11 See also the Futûhât [I.109.3, I.125.28, I.216.13, I.228.13, I.263.19, I.313.29,
I.643.33, III.74.2,
III.398.15, etc.].
This famous saying (al-‘ajz ‘an dark al-idrâki idrâk) is often quoted by Sufi
authors in support of what we have just explained, especially by Ibn ‘Arabî
[I.51.7, I.92.1, I.95.2, I.126.14, I.271.6, I.290.2, II.170.8, II.619.35,
II.641.12, III.132.35, III.371.21, III.555.17, IV.43.5, IV.283.16], and it is
usually attributed to Abû Bakr al-Siddîq.
In his book Al-Masâ’il (The Issues), which contains over 230 philosophical
issues, Ibn ‘Arabi showed that the divine Names and Attributes are the first
multiplicity that occurred in the Existence. See issue (Mas’ala) no. 94 in this book.
Ibn ‘Arabî’s profound view of
creation is essentially based on the concept of ‘the Breath of the
All-Merciful’; he explains the world and everything in it through this concept.
He mentioned and explained it in the Futûhât and other books more often
than anything else. See in the Futûhât [I.97.22, I.152.13, I.168.15,
I.185.16,
I. 263-270,
I.272-274, II.172.5, II.181.12, II.293.30, II.310.21, II.390.18] and throughout
the long chapter 198 [II.390-478], as well as [III.269.22, III.279.18,
III. 429.34,
III.443.12, III.459.21, III.465.27, III.505.9, III.524.25, IV.65.32,
IV. 200.11,
IV.211.27, IV.256.24, IV.330.22], to mention some examples. We shall see below
(section 7.8) that this concept of the Breath of the All-Merciful is indeed the
theological and cosmological equivalent of the modern physics theory of Superstrings
introduced in the 1980s.
This book (OY no. 515; listed
in Ibn ‘Arabî’s own lists of his writings) is called Al- Muthallathât Al-WâridafîAl-Qur’ân Al-Karîm.
See for example: Lyman Abbott,
A Dictionary of Religious
Knowledge, 1875:
944. See also Hopkins (1930), chapter XX: The Christian Trinity, chapter XVII:
The Triad, chapter XVIII: The Hindu Trinity, chapter XIX: The Buddhistic
Trinity.
In Arabic grammatical
language, any group of two is called muthanna (dual), while the term
‘plural’ is reserved for groups of at least three members.
Ibn ‘Arabî often makes such
symbolic analogies (mudahât) between the internal (psychological)
and external (cosmological) realities. Thus he calls the cosmos the ‘Great
Human Being’ (al-Insân al-Kabîr) and the human being the
‘micro-cosmos (al-‘Âlam al-Saghîr) [II.150.26, III.11.17]. He
also says that this knowledge that the world is a Great Human Being and that
the human being is its ‘Summary’ form was given by Idrîs (Mudâwi al-Kulûm) [I.153.21]. See also Ibn ‘Arabî’s al-Tadbîrât al-Ilâhiyya, where he explains these
symbolic analogies at length. In another highly symbolic early book, the Anqâ’ Mughrib, he makes similar analogies between Human
Being and the divine Names. For a full translation and critical study see
Elmore (2000).
It is most likely that this
term was first used by Ibn Taymiyya himself, although he criticized Ibn ‘Arabî
for that. See Madhkûr (1969): 365-380 [370]. See also Al- MujamAl-Sûfi: 1145-1155, and SDK: 79.
Ibn ‘Arabî alludes here, among
other things, to the Qur’anic accounts of the inbreathing of the Spirit into
Adam: ‘So, when I have made him and
breathed into him of My Spirit’ (15:29, 38:72).
This is also evident in
physics, where it is known that the difference between colours is due to the
shorter or longer wavelength of the electromagnetic waves that constitute
light. The red colour has a specific wavelength, and the blue colour for
example has another distinctive (range of) wavelength(s). Although we call it a
colour, there is no wavelength for a colour that is called ‘black’ or ‘dark’:
it is simply the absence of any light-waves.
For more details about this subject see
Ormsby (1984).
See Ibn ‘Arabî’s discussions of this
conception in the Futûhât [II.168.23, II.343.28,
II. 379.9,
II.444.16, II.501.4, III.343.23, III.471.13].
See Ibn ‘Arabî’s discussions in the Futûhât [I.42.21, I.204.12, I.284.32, I.680.7,
III. 275.32,
IV.46.6, IV.129.31, IV.228.12, IV.236.15].
See The Wisdom of the Prophets (Fusûs Al-Hikam), translated from Arabic into
French with notes by Titus Burckhardt; translated from French into English by
Angela Culme-Seymour (TAJ Company: New Delhi, revised edition 1984): 32.
26 See for example in
the Futûhât [I.79.5,
I.461.25, I.735.17, II.356.26, II.372.23,
II.451.33, II.471.32, II.554.18, III.105.27, III.199.11, III.288.16, III.362.16,
IV.9.9,
IV. 320.5,
IV.343.16, IV.367.18, IV.379.1, IV.397.22, IV.418.20].
6 The Single Monad model of the cosmos
1 The ‘one’
at the end of the sentence refers to the Single Monad (al-jawhar al-fard), and not likely to the divine Name al-Ahad (‘The One/Unique’), because this Name is never
manifested on the level of multiplicity where knowledge normally is actualized.
Ibn ‘Arabî always shows that multiplicity is ultimately related to the Name al-Wâhid (the Alone, the Only One) and not to al-Ahad, because with al-Ahad no other entity may exist in order to know Him.
2 See EP, ‘Monad and Monadology’, vol. 5: 361-363.
3 See Shajarat Al-Kawn (Dar al-Mahabba: Damascus, 2003), ed.
‘Abd al-Rahîm Mardinî: 39.
4 This
important note can be used to give more details and extensions about the ‘the
Single Monad model of the Cosmos’ that we discuss in this chapter. Ibn ‘Arabî
is describing the three main jobs or motions of the Intellect in creating the
world including himself and also his acceptance of knowledge from his Lord.
5 In Arabic
grammar when two consonant characters meet, one of them is omitted, usually the
vowel-like ‘incomplete letters’. In this case the imperative of (yarûhu) is '¿jj (rûh) so because both the wâw and the hâ are consonants, the wâw that is a vowel is omitted and the result is '¿a (ruh).
6 Ibn
‘Arabî quotes this name after Abu al-Hakîm Bin Barrajân (d. 536/1141) in Al-Tad- bîrât Al-Ilâhiyya: 90.
8 Here Ibn
‘Arabî is using the term al-jawhar
al-fard in its
original sense in the physics of kalam, to refer to the ‘atom’ or the simplest
physical substance, whose compounds form natural bodies (jism). This is the opposite extreme from the all-encompassing
creative Single Monad.
9 It has to
be noticed, however, that, for Ibn ‘Arabî, this ‘al-haqq al-makhlûq bihi’ is not other than the Real, Allah, but
he is also not Allah; he is the most perfect manifestation of Allah. See also
Chapter 5 (especially section 5.3). See ‘Uqlat Al-Mustawfiz: 59. See also Al-MujamAl-Sûfi: 828.
10 See also
Chittick, SDK: 134 [The Universal Reality].
In other related hadith some other realities are said to be the ‘first-created’
such as the Intellect [Kanz: 7057], the Pen [Kanz: 597, 15116] or ‘the Muhammadan Light’, etc. There is no
contradiction in these hadith because those are just different names of the
same reality as we discussed in section 6.3.
11 See
chapter 73 of the Futûhât [II.2-39] where Ibn ‘Arabî
explains and lists the different groups of saints, and especially the
extensive summary and analysis of that long chapter and related materials found
in Chodkiewicz (1993).
12 As we
have seen in section 5.3, Ibn ‘Arabî argues that number one is the primordial
basis of all other numbers, just as alif is the foundation of all the letters.
See also [II.122.19, and Al-Masâ’il: 109].
13 This
divine Name is usually taken in the meaning of ‘the Most-Kind’, which is a possible
meaning in relation to His Creation: ‘He is the Most-Kind with His servants’
(42:19). Ibn ‘Arabî here, however, emphasizes the general meaning of latâfa which means fineness.
14 Insân: i.e. here and throughout this
book, the immortal spiritual reality and dimension of people - which is the
reflection of the cosmic First Intellect, or ‘Perfect Human Being’; and not
their passing material, mortal-animal ‘nature’ (bashar).
15 Ibn
‘Arabi spends a good deal of the first chapter of the Futûhât trying to explain this mysterious point regarding the
subjective experience and the actual reality offanâ’. He explains that, in making the circle, the compass returns
to the starting point [I.48.33], until he concludes: ‘if they (the seekers of
the Real) knew (the goal of their search) they would not have moved from their
place’ [I.49.1], and ‘so he (the seeker) would be sad on arriving at what he
has (earlier) left behind - but he would be happy for the secrets that he
gained on the way!’ [I.49.14]
16 See also
Yousef (2006): 422.
17 See Al-Salawât Al-Faydiyya, published together with some other short
treatises and prayers, for example in Tawajjuhât Al-Hurûf (Maktabat al-Qâhira: Cairo, n.d.).
18 I.e. as
my ultimate identity which is as the Perfect Human Being, not as You (the transcendent
Real), because this is impossible as we said above. This is the state of spiritual
‘abolishment’ (mahw) of the ego, like the
momentary disappearance of the shadow at noontime, as we have seen above.
19 The
pronoun here (translated as ‘its’) is usually interpreted by many scholars so
that it refers to Allah. Ibn ‘Arabi, however, affirms that it indeed refers to
the thing in ‘everything’ [II.110.25, II.313.16, III.255.22]. However, both
cases are plausible [IV.417.18], if we take into account what we have mentioned
in Chapter 5 that the things are not other than Him, and that the ‘face’ of a
thing is its essential reality [as Ibn ‘Arabî argues at I.181.19, I.306.12,
I.433.36, II.182.17, II.632.34, IV.417.18]. So the things in reality are not
other than Allah, but the forms that we see are all perishable, and at the end
there remains only His Face in everything. So this verse is indeed another
clear expression of the oneness of being.
20 See Tawajjuhât al-Hurûf: 26.
21 Like the
English pun, Ibn ‘Arabî frequently plays with the fact that the same Arabic
word ( ‘ayn) refers at once to the
observing ‘eye’, the concrete individual entity (of the observer), and to their
ultimate Source. See also Kitâb
Al-Azal: 9.
7 The Single Monad model and its
implications for modern physics
1 Al-sirr literally means ‘the secret’,
but Sufis use it to refer to the innermost spiritual core of the heart (qalb), the ‘heart of the heart’. It was said that the sirr also has a sirr, and so on down to seven
levels. For Ibn ‘Arabî, the Spirit (rûh) is the third level after the
heart and the sirr, but also the Spirit has its
‘secret’ dimension, and this sirr also has a sirr which is
called sirr al-sirr (‘the secret of the secret’)
[I.117.8]. Ultimately it is this final Sirr that is directly connected with the Real (the wajh al-khâss discussed in several passages in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6).
2 In 1999
Ahmed Zewail was awarded the Nobel Prize ‘for showing that it is possible with
rapid laser technique to see how atoms in a molecule move during a chemical
reaction’ (see Press Release, The 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Kungl.
Vetenskap- sakademien, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 12 October 1999).
This discovery is known as femtochemistry, where molecules are watched over a
very short time-scale with Femto-second resolution. The Femto-second resolution
(1 fs = 10-15 s) is the ultimate achievement to date for studies of
the dynamics of the chemical bond at the atomic level. On this time-scale,
matter wave packets (particle-type) can be created and their coherent evolution
as a single-molecule trajectory can be observed (Zewail 1990: 40-46).
3 The
flickering is the variation (and discontinuity) in light intensity which is
normally seen on some computer monitors. As we have all observed in watching
monitor screens shown on television emissions, that flickering becomes more
apparent when we video-record what appears on the screen. That effect happens
because of the difference in the frequency (refresh rate) of the filmed
monitor and that of the observing video camera. If the refresh rate of the
camera is much higher than that of the monitor, then at some times the camera
will record blank screens that we normally do not see with our naked eye. This
concept can be used to measure high-frequency motions. This is the same
phenomenon that causes us to see fast-moving wheel spokes or a propeller appear
to be moving backward (or forward) in slower motion, or even motionless, when
on in fact moving at a very high speed. The illusion happens because of the
human eye’s limit for the tracking and retention of images, which is usually
about one-fifteenth of a second.
4 See for
example Gaines (1997).
5 Ibn
‘Arabî asserts that this person was Asif bin Barkhya, who is known as al-Khadir. Al-Khadir literally means ‘the Green
One’, a legendary figure endowed with immortal life. He represents freshness of
spirit and eternal liveliness. The stories surrounding al-Khadir are usually
associated with Sûrat al-Kahf in the Qur’an [18:60-82],
where Allah described the journey of Moses and his servant to the ‘meeting of
the two seas’ to meet al-Khadir and learn from him. Ibn ‘Arabî himself
mentioned that he had met him several times [I.186], and he considers him a
divine Messenger and one of four ‘Pillars’ in the spiritual hierarchy [II.5.31].
6 See Fusûs Al-Hikam, with commentary by ‘Abd al-Razzâq
al-Qâshânî and Bâlî Effendî (Cairo: Al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya li-l-Turâth, 1997):
321-324.
7 The black
body problem was raised by the observation that certain materials (especially
black bodies) can absorb all frequencies or wavelengths of light. So when
heated they should then radiate all frequencies of light equally - at least
theoretically. But the distribution of energy radiated in real-life experiments
never matched up with the predictions of classical physics.
8 The spin
is the motion of the particle around its axis just like the daily motion of the
Earth.
9 For more
details about the hierarchy of letters according to Ibn ‘Arabî see the related
English translations by Denis Gril (2004) in The Meccan Revelations, vol. II, NY: Pir Press: 107-220.
10 Wim van
den Dungen, ‘On Being and the Majesty of the Worlds’, Reg. No.51, in SofiaTopiaNet', Sophia Society for philosophy, [www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/being. htm#dim].
11 Ibn ‘Arabî makes various comments on this verse in the Futûhât [I.156.15, I.238.13,
I.279.16, II.16.32, II.150.34, II.209.9, II.225.6, II.296.6, II.298.33,
II.556.32,
III.275.33, III.315.6,
III.344.30, IV.28.28, IV.93.3].
12 Ibn
‘Arabî explained before this text that angels correspond cosmologically to
eighteen characters of the alphabet, which are produced as a result of the
meeting between the nine divine donating (ilqâ’) orbs and the nine human accepting (talaqqî) orbs [I.54.12].
The bibliography is arranged into four categories:
A Ibn ‘Arabî’s printed works (in Arabic)
B Arabic works on Ibn ‘Arabî and related subjects
C English translations and studies on Ibn ‘Arabî and
related subjects
D Cited books and articles on philosophy, cosmology and
time
A: Ibn ‘Arabî’s printed
works (in Arabic)
The following is a list of Ibn ‘Arabî’s printed books and
treatises that are available in Arabic. This list is arranged alphabetically
according to the title, not including initial article Al-, Kitâb or Risâla.
The ‘OY no.’ column on the right gives the corresponding bibliographical
classification of the original manuscripts by Osman Yahya. The names of editors
have been cited whenever given in the printed text. The numbers given in
parentheses immediately after the names of some individual treatises also refer
to Yahya’s classification.
Ibn ‘Arabî (1994) Al-‘Abâdila, Cairo: Maktabat Al-Qâhira, 2nd ed., ed.
‘Abd OY#
Al-Qâdir A. ‘Atâ 2
----- (1999) ‘Ajâ’ib Al-‘Irfân fî Tafsîr Ijâz Al-Bayân fi
Al-Tarjama ‘an Al-Qur’an,
Cairo:
Al-Sharika Al-Muttahida, ed. Muhammad I. M. Sâlim 732
----- (1999) Kitâb ‘Anqâ’Mughrib,
Cairo: n.p., ed. Muhammad I. M. Sâlim 30
(n.d.) ‘AqîdafîAl-Tawhîd,
or ‘Aqîdat ahl Al-Islâm, Egypt: n.p. 34
(1919) ‘Uqlat Al-Mustawfiz,
including Kitâb Inshâ’Al-Dawâ’ir and 802
Kitâb
Al-Tadbîrât Al-Hâhiyyafi Islâh Al-Mamlaka Al-Insâniyya, Leiden: 289
Brill; in Kleinere
Schriften des Ibn Al-‘Arabî, ed. H. S. Nyberg 716
----- (1954) Kitâb Al-Bâ’, Cairo: Maktabat Al-Qâhira,
also includes: KitâbAl-Yâ’
(OY no. 205), Kitâb
Al-Jalâla (169), Kitâb Al-Alif (25), Kitâb Al-Sha’n (26) 71
----- (1968) Dhakhâ’ir al A ‘lâq,
Cairo: n.p. 116
(1855) Dîwân Ibn ‘Arabî,
Bulaq 102
(1996) Dîwân Ibn ‘Arabî,
Beirut: Dâr Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya, ed. Ahmad Hasan
Basaj 102
-- (1997) Fusûs
Ai-Hikam with
commentary by ‘Abd Al-Razzâq Al-Qâshânî and Bâlî Effendi, Cairo: Al-Maktabat
Al-Azhariyya li-l-Turâth 150
-- (n.d.) Ai-Futûhât
Ai-Makkîyya, Vols
1-4, Beirut: n.p.; this is a photographic reprint of the old edition of Bulaq
1329/1911 which comprises four volumes each about 700 pages of 35 lines; the
page size is 20 by 27 cm. This is the standard version used in citations
throughout this book. 135
----- (1970)
Ai-Futûhât Ai-Makkîyya, Vols. 1-14, ed. Osman Yahya,
Cairo: The
General
Egyptian Book Organization; this is the critical edition by Osman Yahya. This
version was not completed, and the 14 volumes correspond to only volume I of
the standard Bulaq/Beirut edition. 135
----- (AH 1326) Hilyat Al-Abdâl, Istanbul: n.p. 237
----- (1907) Kitâb Al-Hujub, Cairo: n.p. 247
----- (2004)
Kitâb Al-Hujub, Cairo: Maktabat Al-Thaqâfa Al-Dîniyya, ed. As‘ad
‘Abd Al-Fattâh 247
----- (1988)
Kitâb Al-Isrâ ilâ Al-Maqâm Al-Asrâ or Kitâb Al-Mi‘râj, Beirut:
Dandarah;
critical edition, ed. Su‘ad Al-Hakîm. 313
----- (n.d.) Istilâhât Al-Sûfiyya, Cairo: ‘Âlam Al-Fikr 315
----- (1996)
Kalimat Allah or Kitâb Al-Jalâla, Damascus: Al-Hikma, ed. Riyâd
M.
Al-‘Abdullâh 169
----- (1987) Kitâb Al-Khalwat
Al-Mutlaqa, Cairo: n.p. 255
----- (1967) Kitâb Kunh mâ lâ Budd
li-l-Murîd Minhu, Cairo: M. A. Subaih 352
----- (1970) Kitâb Al-Mabâdî
wa-l-Ghâyât, Damascus: n.p. 380
----- (1949) Majmû'at
Sâ‘at Al-Khabar,
Cairo: Mustafa Al-Halabîi 642
(1999) Al-Masâ'il li-Îdâh Al-Masâ’il, Amman: Azmina, ed. Qâsim M.
Abbâs 433 (1907) Mawâqi Al-Nujûm, Cairo: n.p. 443
----- (n.d.) Mir ’ât Al-Ma‘ânî, photocopy of a book in Al-Maktaba
Al-Zâhiriyya,
Damascus: n.p. 230
----- (AH 1369) Mishkât Al-Anwâr, Cairo: n.p. 480
----- (n.d.)
Muhâdarat Ai-Abrâr wa Musâmarat Ai-Akhyâr, Vols 1 & 2, Beirut:
Dâr Sâdir 493
----- (1978)
Al-Nûr Al-Asnâ bi-Munajât Allah bi Asmâ’ihi Al-Husnâ, Cairo:
M. A. Subayh 502
----- (1994) Kitâb Al-Qasam Al-Ilâhi
bil-Ism Al-Rabbânî, Cairo: n.p.------------------- 565
(n.d.) RaddAi-Muhkam Ha
Ai-Mutashâbih, Cairo: ‘Aâlam Al-Fikr, ed. ‘Abd Al-Rahmân Hasan Mahmûd 588
-- (n.d.) Rasâ’ilIbn
Arabî, Beirut:
Dâr Ihyâ’ Al-Turâth Al-‘Arabî; this is a photographic reprint, in a single
volume, of the same famous collection published by the Dâ’irat Al-Ma‘ârif
Al-‘Uthmâniyya (Hyderabad, 1948), based on a
manuscript in the Ayasofia
library (Istanbul), no. 376, containing 29 short works. Many of these works
have been published also separately or in other groups of collected treatises.
These are the books and pamphlets contained in this collection, in the same
order:
Part I 1. KitâbAl-Fanâ’fîAl-Mushâhada 125
2.
Kitâb Al-Jalâl wa-l-Jamâl 168
3.
Kitâb Al-Alif wa huwa
Kitâb Al-Ahadiyya 25
4.
Kitâb Al-Jalâla wa huwa
Kalimat Allâh 169
7.
Kitâb Al-Rlâm bi-Ishârât
Ahl Al-Ilhâm 281
8.
KitâbAl-Mîm wa-l-Wâw
wa-l-Nun 462
9.
RisâlatAl-Qasam Al-Ilâhî 565
13.
Kitâb Al-Isrâ ilâ Al-Maqâm
Al-Asrâ 313
14.
Risâiafi Su’ai Ismâ'îl bin
Sawdakîn 182
15.
Risâlat Al-Shaykh ilâ
Al-Imâm Al-Râzi 612
16.
Risâlat La Yu'awwal Alayhi 532
Part II 18. Kitâb Al-Tarâjim 737
19.
Kitâb Manzil Al-Qutb wa
Maqâmuhu wa Hâluhu 585
24.
Kitâb Al-Isfâr ‘an Natâ’ij
Al-Asfâr 307
29.
Kitâblstilâh Al-Sûfiyya 315
----- (2002-04)
Rasâ’ilIbn ‘Arabî, Beirut: Mu’assasat
Al-Intishâr Al-‘Arabî, ed. Sa‘îd ‘Abd Al-Fattâh; four volumes in this series of
collected treatises have been published so far. Most of their contents are
available in separate books from other earlier publishers (including many of
those listed separately here), but the editor has given some critical notes and
comparisons between different manuscripts. A number of the treatises included
in this collection are clearly apocryphal works. These are the books and
pamphlets contained in these four volumes, in the same order (with page nos):
|
Part I 31-70 |
Fihras Mu’allafât Ibn ‘Arabî |
142 |
|
71-118 |
Kitâb Al-‘Azama |
70 |
|
119-130 |
Kitâb Marâtib ‘Ulûm Al-Wahb |
423 |
|
131-146 |
Kitâb Al-Hurûf Al-Thalâtha |
462 |
|
147-156 |
Kitâb Al-Lum‘a |
372 |
|
157-192 |
Kitâb Manzil Al-Manâzil Al-Fahwâniyya |
412 |
|
193-206 207-232 |
Risâiafi Asrâr Al-Dhât Al-Ilâhiyya Kitâb Al-Qutb wa-l-Imâmayn wa-l-Mudlijîn |
585 |
|
233-246 |
Kitâb Maqâm Al-Qurba |
414 |
|
247-264 265-278 |
Kitâb Al-Madkhal ilâ Al-MaqsadAl-AsmâfîAl-Ishârât Kitâb Nuskhat Al-Haqq |
551 |
|
279-347 |
Kitâb Shaqq Al-Jayb bi-‘Ilm Al-Ghayb |
671 |
|
Part II 18-61 |
Kitâb Al-Qutb Wa-l-Nuqabâ’ |
548 |
|
62-131 |
‘Uqlat Al-Mustawfiz |
802 |
|
131-145 |
Risâlat Al-Durrat Al-Baydâ’ |
178 |
|
146-231 |
Risâlat Al-Anwârfî mâ Yumnahu Sâhibu Al-Khalwa
min Al-Asrâr |
33 |
|
233-287 |
Tâj Al-Rasâ’il wa Minhâj
Al-Wasâ’il |
736 |
|
288-406 |
Kitâb Ai-Tadbîrât Ai-Hâhiyyafî Isiâh
Ai-Mamiakat Ai-Insâniyya 289 |
|
|
Part III |
Ai-Kawkab Al-Durrîfî Manâqib dhî-l-Nûn Ai-Masrî |
|
|
Part IV 19-76 |
Kitâb Al-Yaqîn |
834 |
|
79-162 |
Kitâb ‘Anqâ’ Mughrib |
30 |
|
165-311 |
Kitâb Al-Ma‘rifa |
433 |
----- Rasâ’ilIbn
‘Arabî; Kashf Al-Sitr (Amman: Azmina, 2004), ed. Qâsim M. Abbâs.
Includes the following treatises (several apparently
apocryphal):
|
69-90 |
Kashf Al-Sitr li Ahl Al-Sirr |
340 |
|
91-97 |
Risâlat Al-Waqt wAl-Ân |
|
|
95-111 |
Kitâb Marâtib ‘Ulûm Al-Wahb |
423 |
|
113-131 |
Kitâb Al-Huwa |
205 |
|
133-143 |
Risâlat Al-Ma‘lûm min ‘Aqâ’idAhl Al-Rusûm |
402 |
|
145-167 |
Kitâb Al-Ittihâd Al-Kawnî fî Hadhrat Al-Ishhâd
Al-‘Aynî |
|
----- (2000)
Majmû'atRasâ’ilIbn ‘Arabî, Beirut: Dâr Al-Mahajjat
Al-Baydâ; most of the contents of these three volumes, as in no. 64 above, are
brought together from previously published separate books or collections, but
the reprinted versions in this volume are newly type in a clearer modern font.
Three volumes containing a collection of treatises as follows:
|
Part I |
7-74 |
Tahdhîb Al-Akhlâq |
745 |
|
|
75-94 |
Al-Maw‘iza Al-Hasana |
448 |
|
|
95-230 |
Risâlat Rûh Al-Quds |
639 |
|
|
231-258 |
Al-‘Ujâla |
772 |
|
|
259-290 |
(Risâlat) Al-Anwâr |
33 |
|
|
291-308 |
‘Aqîda fî Al-Tawhîd aw ‘Aqidat Ahl Al-Islâm |
34 |
|
|
309-358 |
Shajarat Al-Kawn |
666 |
|
|
359-372 |
Al-Nûr Al-Asnâ bi-Munajât Allâh bi Asmâ’ihi
Al-Husnâ |
502 |
|
|
373-422 |
Tanbîhât ‘Alâ ‘Uluww Al-Haqîqat Al-Muhammadiyya |
763 |
|
|
423-454 |
Al-Khalwat Al-Mutlaqa |
255 |
|
|
455-520 |
Kitâb Al-Bâ’ |
71 |
|
|
521-546 |
Kitâb Kunh mâ lâ Budd li-l-Murîd Minhu |
352 |
|
|
547-574 |
Istilâhât Al-Sûfiyya |
315 |
|
|
575-602 |
Ai-Hikma Ai-Hâtimiyya |
233 |
|
|
603-622 |
Risâlat Al-Shaykh ilâ Al-Imâm Al-Râzi |
612 |
|
|
623-662 |
Tawajjuhât Al-Hurûf [including: Al-Salawât
Al-Mutalsama, Al-Salawât Al-Akbariyya (OY no. 705), Al-Salawât
Faydiyya (702), Al-Dawr Al-A‘la (244) andAl-Salât Al-Nâriyya] |
244 |
|
Part II |
5-66 |
Al-Tanazzulât Al-Layliyyafî Al-Ahkâm
Al-Ilâhiyya |
761 |
|
|
67-314 |
Al-Tanazzulât Al-MawsiliyyafîAsrâr Al-Taharât
Wa-l-Salawât Wa-l-Ayyâm Al-Asliyya |
762 |
|
|
315-504 |
RaddAl-Mutashâbih ilâ Al-Muhkam min Al-Ayât
wAl-Ahâdîth |
588 |
|
Part III |
5-60 |
‘Anqâ’Mughrib fîKhatm Al-Awliyâ wa Shams
Al-Maghrib |
30 |
|
|
61-250 |
Al-Abâdila |
2 |
|
|
251-374 |
Mawâqi' Al-Nujûm wa Matâli' Ahillat Al-Asrâr
wa-l-‘Ulûm |
443 |
|
|
375-484 |
Majmû'at Sâ'at Al-Khabar |
642 |
------ (1998)
Rasâ’ilIbn ‘Arabi: Sharh
Mubtada’Al-Tûfân waRasâ’il Ukhrâ, Abu Dhabi: Cultural Foundation, eds Qâsim M. Abbâs and
Husayn M. ‘Ujayl; this book contains 12 probably apocryphal treatises which are
based on a manuscript in the Museum of Iraq (Baghdad no. 597), listed by its
publishers as an autograph dated AH 635. The editors claim that those works
were written by Ibn ‘Arabî between AH 636 and 638 in apparent contradiction
with the earlier date they assign to their manuscript:
2 Khurûj Ai-ShukhûsminBurûj Ai-Khusûs 262
3 Inkhirâq Ai-Junûdiiâ Ai-Juiûd 288
6 Al-Miqdârfî Nuzûl Al-Jabbâr 472
7
Nashr Al-Bayâd fîRawdat
Al-Riyâd
10
Khatimat
Al-Radd‘alâAl-Yahûd 256
11
Baqiyyat Khâtimat Al-Radd
‘alâ Al-Yahûd
12
Kashf SirrAl-Wa‘dwaBayân
‘AlâmatAl-Wajd 342
----- (n.d.) Al-RisâlaAl-Wujûdiyya
(The Treatise on Being), Cairo:
n.p. 13 (1970)
Kitâb Rûh Al-Quds, Damascus: n.p. 639
(1964) Risâlat Rûh Al-Qudsfî Muhâsabat Al-Nafs, Damascus: Matba‘at Al-‘Ilm
639 (1996) Al-Shajara Al-Nu‘mâniyya, Cairo: n.p.----- 665 (2003) Shajarat Al-Kawn, Damascus: Dâr Al-Mahabba, ed. ‘Abd
Al-Rahîm
Mardinî 666
------ (2002)
Sharh Asmâ’Allâh Al-Husnâ or Kashf Al-Ma‘nâ ‘an Asmâ’Allâh
Al-Husnâ, Cairo: Al-Maktaba Al-Azhariyya
li-l-Turâth, ed. M. I. M. Sâlim 338 (1999)
Shujûn Al-Masjûn wa Funûn
Al-Maftûn,
Damascus: Sa‘d Al-Dîn,
ed. Dr ‘Alî I. Kurdî 692
------ (2002)
Tafsîr Ibn ‘Arabî, Vols. 1 & 2, Beirut: Dâr
Sâdir; Osman Yahya lists
this work in his
classification of Ibn ‘Arabi’s works, on the basis of one manuscript, but he
and all other commentators agree that it is actually by the later figure Abd
al-Razzâq al-Qâshânî, a famous commentator on Ibn ‘Arabî’s Fusûs ai-Hikam. 732
------ (1988)
Al-Tajalliyât Al-Ilâhiyya, Tehran: Dânishgâh-i Tehran;
critical edition
by Osman Yahya,
with the anonymous commentary Kashf Al-Ghâyât and Ibn Sawdakîn’s notes 738
-- (1987) Ai-Tanazzuiât
Ai-LayiiyyafiAi-Ahkâm Ai-Iiâhiyya, together with Risâla fîNasab
Al-Khirqa (OY no. 530), Cairo: ‘Âlam Al-Fikr, ed. ‘Abd Al-Rahmân
Hasan Mahmûd 761
------ (1986)
Al-TanazzulâtAl-MawsiliyyafîAsrâr Al-Taharât Wa-l-Salawât
Wa-l-Ayyâm Al-Asliyya or Tanazzul
Al-Amlâkfî ‘Âlam Al-Aflâk, Cairo: ‘Âlam
Al-Fikr, ed.
‘Abd Al-Rahmân Hasan Mahmûd 762
-- (1966) Tarjumân Al-Ashwâq, Beirut: Dâr Sâdir; this
volume is in fact the 116 Kitâb Al-Dhakhâ’ir wa-l-A‘lâq, which is Ibn
‘Arabî’s own commentary on 767
his Tarjumân
Al-Ashwâq (OY no.
767).
-- (n.d.) Tawajjuhât
Al-Hurûf Cairo:
Maktabat Al-Qâhira; includes Al-Dawr
Al-A‘alâ or HizbAl-Wiqâyah li man ’AradaAl-Wilâya (244) and a few short works
or prayers upon the Prophet including Al-Salawât Al-Faydiyya (702). 244
B: Arabic works on Ibn
‘Arabî and related subjects
‘Abdul-Muta‘âl, A. (2003) Tasawwur Ibn Sînâ li-l-Zamân wa Usûluh
Al-Yunâniyya (Ibn Sînâ’s ConceptofTimeandlts GreekOrigins) Alexandria: Dâr Al-Wafâ’
Abu Zayd, N. H. (1983) Falsafat Al-Ta’wîl (A Study of Ibn ‘Arabî’s
Interpretation of Qur’an), Beirut: Dâr Al-Wahda
--- (2002) Hâkadha Takallama Ibn ‘Arabî (That Is What Ibn ‘Arabî
Said), Cairo: The
General Egyptian Book Organization
Al-Ghazâlî, M. (1927) Tahâfut Al-Falâsifa (The Incoherence of the
Philosophers),
ed. M. Bouyges with a summary in Latin, Beirut: n.p.
Al-Hakîm, S. (1981) Al-Mu‘jam Al-Sûfî: Al-Hikma fi HudûdAl-Kalima
(The Sufi Dictionary: The Wisdom in the Word), Beirut: Dandarah
--- (1991) Ibn ‘Arabî wa Mawlid Lugha Jadîda (Ibn ‘Arabî and the Birth
of a New Language),
Beirut: Al-Mu’assasa Al-Jami‘yya
Al-Jîlî, A. (1970) Al-Insân Al-Kâmil fi Ma'rifat Al-Awâ’H
wAl-Awâkhir (The Perfect Human Being ...), Cairo: Mustafâ Al-Bâbi Al-Halabî
----- (1999) Marâtib
Al-Wujûd (The Levels of Existence), Cairo: Maktabat Al-Qâhira
Al-Kindî (1950) Rasâ’il Al-KindîAl-Falsafiyya, Risâla
fiAl-Falsafa Al-Ûolâ (Al-Kindi’s Philosophical Treatises, a Treatise on the
First Philosophy),
ed. Muhammed A. Abû Ridâ, Cairo: n.p.
Al-Marzûqî (2002) Al-Azmina wAl-Amkina (The Times and the Places), ed. Muhammad N. Al-Daylami,
Beirut: ‘Alâma li-l-Kutub
Al-Muttaqî Al-Hindî (1989) Kanz Al- ‘Ummâl (The Treasure of the Workers), Beirut: Mu’assasat Al-Risâla
Al-Nisabûri, M., Al Mustadrak ‘ala Sahihayn (n.d.) Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya.
Al-Shâfi‘î, A. (1980) Al-Sirâj Al-Wahhâj fî Haqâ’iq Al-Isrâ’
wa’l-Mi‘râj’, in Mawsû‘at Al-Isrâ wa’l-Mi‘râj, Cairo: Maktabat Al-Il-I‘tisâm
Al-Sha’rânî, A. (1959) Al-Yawâqît wa-l-JawâhirfiBayân Aqâ’idAl-Akâbir, Cairo: Mustafâ Al-Bâbi
Al-Halabî; including: Al-Kibrît
Al-Ahmarfi Bayân ‘Ulûm Al-Shaykh Al-Akbar
Al-Taftazânî, A. G. (1973) Ibn Sab'în wa Falsafatuh Al-Sûfiyya (Ibn Sab'în
and His Sufi
Philosophy), Beirut: Dâr Al-Kitâb Al-Lubnânî
Al-Tu‘aymî, M., ed. (1994) Mawsû‘at Al-Isrâ wa’l-Mi‘râj, Beirut: Dâr Al-Hilâl
‘Al-Turâth Al-Arabî’, periodical magazine published by the
Arabic Authors Union in Damascus, special issue 80, July 2000; this issue was
devoted to Ibn ‘Arabî, with ten articles by various Arab writers.
Badawî, A. (1965) Aristûtâlîs, Al-Tabî‘a. Tarjamat Ishâq ibn
Hunayn ma‘a shurûh Ibn Al- Samh wa Ibn Âdî wa Mattâ ibn Yûnus wa Abî Al-Faraj
ibn ayyib, 2 vols
(Aristotle’s Physics ...), Cairo: The General
Egyptian Book Organization
Ibn Sînâ (1983) Al-Shifâ’ [Al-Tabî‘iyyât: Al-Samâ‘ Al-Tabî‘î], ed. Sa‘îd Zâyid, Cairo:
L’Organisation Egyptienne Générale du Livre
Ibn Taymiyya (1969) Jâmi‘ Al-Rasâ’il (The Collection of Treatises), ed. Muhammad Rashâd Sâlim,
Cairo: Maktabat Al-Madanî
Madhkûr, I. B. ed. (1969) Al-Kitâb Al-Tadhkârî, Muhyî Al-Dîn Ibn ‘Arabî
(The Commemorative Book of Muhyi ed-Dîn Ibn ‘Arabî), Cairo: The General Egyptian Book Organization
Mahmûd, A. ed. (1995) Dîwân Ibn Al-Fârid (Ibn Al-Fârid’s Poetry), Cairo: ‘Ayn for Human and
Social Studies
Râdî, A. A. (1970) Al-Rûhiyya ‘inda Ibn ‘Arabî (Spirituality in Ibn ‘Arabî), Cairo: Makta- bat Al-Nahda Al-Masriyya
Sâlim, M. I. (1993) Ta'yîd Al-Sûfiyya fi Al-Majmû’a Al-Hâtimiyya
(Supporting the Sufis Through the Hâtimî Works), Cairo: Maktabat Hamada
-- (1996) Miftâh Ai-Futûhât Al-Makkiyya (The Key to the Meccan
Openings), Cairo:
Al-Sharika Al-Muttahida
Yahya, O., trans. Ahmad
Al-Tayyib (2001) Mu’aiiafât Ibn
‘Arabî, Tarîkhuhâ wa Tasni- fuhâ (History and Classification of Ibn ‘Arabi’s
Books), Cairo:
The General Egyptian Book Organization; translation from French
Yousef, M. H. (1999) Sulûk Al-Qalb Min Al-Wujûd Ilâ Al-Fanâ’ thumm
Al-Baqâ’: Sharh Ta‘wil Al-Shaykh Al-Akbar Muhyi Al-Din Ibn ‘Arabi H Sûrat Yusuf
(Ibn ‘Arabi’s Interpretation of the Sura of Joseph), Beirut: Dâr Al-Hayât
----- (2006) Shams
Al-Magrib (Biography of Ibn ‘Arabi) Aleppo: Dâr Fussilat
C: English translations
and studies on Ibn ‘Arabî and related subjects
Addas, C. (1985) Ibn ‘Arabi ou La quête du Soufre Rouge, Paris: Gallimard; translated
into English by P. Kingsley (1993), Quest
for Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn ‘Arabi, Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society
Affîfî, A. E. (1938) The Mystical Philosophy of Muhyid Din-Ibn’ul
Arabi, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
-- (1998) The Twenty-nine Pages: An Introduction to Ibn ‘Arabi’s
Metaphysics of Unity, Cambridge: Beshara Publications
Ali, A. Y. (2001) The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an: Arabic/English
with Commentary, Beltsville:
Amana Publications
Arberry, A. J. (1956) Sufism, An Account of the Mystics of Islam, London: George Allen and
Unwin
Austin, R. J. (1971) Sufis of Andalusia, London: George Allen & Unwin
-- trans. (1980) The Bezels of Wisdom, New York: Paulist Press; translation and
introduction by Ralph Austin and preface by Titus Burckhardt.
Beneito, P., Hirtenstein, S.
(trans.) (2000) The Seven Days of
the Heart: Prayers for the Nights and Days of the Week, Oxford: Anqa Publishing
Bewley, A., trans. (2002) Ibn ‘Arabi: The Mysteries of Bearing Witness to
the Oneness of God and Prophet-hood of Muhammad, Chicago: Kazi Publications
Bowering, G. (1992) ‘Ibn
Al-‘Arabî’s Concept of Time’, in God
Is Beautiful and He Loves Beauty: Festschrift in Honour of Annemarie Schimmel
Presented by Students, Friends and Colleagues, edited by Alma Giese and J. Christoph
Bürgel, Bern: Peter Lang: 71-91
Brockelmann, C. (1996) Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur, Leiden: Brill Academic
Publishers
Burkhardt, T. (1950), Mystical Astrology according to Ibn ‘Arabi (Clef
spirituelle de l’astrologie musulmane d’après Mohyi-d-din Ibn ‘Arabi); translated into English by:
Bulent Rauf (1977), Abingdon: Beshara Publications
Chittick, W. C., Morris, J. W.
(trans.), Chodkiewicz, M. (ed.) (2002) The Meccan Revelations, Vol. I, New York: Pir Press
Chittick, W. C. (1989) The Sufi Path ofKnowledge: Ibn Al-'Arabi’s
Metaphysics oflmagi- nation, Albany, NY: SUNY Press
-- (1996) ‘The School of Ibn ‘Arabî’, in History of Islamic Philosophy, eds S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman,
London: Routledge
--- (1998) The Self-disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn Al-Arabi’s
Cosmology,
Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Chodkiewicz, M. (1993) The Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and
Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn Arabi, Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society
--- trans. D. Streight (1993) An Ocean Without Shore, Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press
Chodkiewicz, C., Gril, D.
(trans.), Chodkiewicz, M. (ed.) (2004) The Meccan Revelations, Vol. II, New York: Pir Press
Corbin, H. (1969) Alone with the Alone: Creative imagination in
theSufism oflbn ‘Arabi, Princeton: Bollingen
Culme-Seymour, A. (trans.)
(1984) The Wisdom of the Prophets
(Fusus Al-Hikam),
translated from Arabic to French with notes by Titus Burckhardt; translated
from French to English by Angela Culme-Seymour, New Delhi: TAJ Company
Davidson, H. A. (1987) Proofs for Eternity, Creation, and the Existence
of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press
--- (1992) Alfarabi, Avicenna and Averroes: Their Cosmology, Theories
of the Active Intellect, and Theories of the Human Intellect, New York, Oxford University
Press
Elmore, G. T. (1999) ‘Ibn
Al-‘Arabi’s Book of “the Fabulous Gryphon” (‘Anqâ Al- Mughrib)’, The Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn
‘Arabî Society,
XXV
--- (2000) Islamic Sainthood in the Fullness of Time: Ibn Al-Arabi’s
‘Book of the Fabulous Gryphon’, Leiden: Brill; introduction, translations and notes by
Gerald T. Elmore of Ibn ‘Arabî’s book: ‘Anqâ’ Mughrib.
Harris, R. T. (trans.) (1989) Journey to the Lord ofPower: A Sufi Manual on
Retreat; with
notes from commentary of ‘A. K. Jîlî, Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions
International
Hirtenstein, S. (ed.) (1997) Foundations of the Spiritual Life According to
Ibn ‘Arabî: Prayer & Contemplation, San Francisco: Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabî
Society
--- (1999) The Unlimited Mercifier, The Spiritual Life and Thought of
Ibn ‘Arabî, Oxford:
Anqa
Hasnaoui, A. (1997) ‘Certain
Notions of Time in Arab-Muslim Philosophy’, in Time and the Philosophies, ed. Paul Ricoeur, London: UNESCO,
Benham Press
Husaini, S. A. (1979) The Pantheistic Monism of Ibn Al-‘Arabi, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf
--- (1996) Ibn Al-Arabi: The Great Muslim Mystic and Thinker, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf
Gril, D. (1994) Le dévoilement des effets du voyage Ibn Arabî, Combas: Éditions de l’Eclat;
translation into French of Ibn ‘Arabî’s Kitâb Al-Isfâr ‘an Natâ’ij Al-Asfâr, with introduction
Izutsu, T. (1983) Sufism and Taoism, Los Angeles: University of California
Press
Knysh, A. D. (1999) Ibn ‘Arabî in the Later Islamic Tradition: The
Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, Albany, NY: SUNY Press
MacDonald, D. B. (1927)
‘Continuous Re-creation and Atomic Time in Muslim Scholastic Theology’, Isis 9: 326-344
Morris, J. W. (1993) ‘Seeing
Past the Shadows: Ibn ‘Arabî’s “Divine Comedy”’, Journal of the Muhyiddîn Ibn ‘Arabî Society XII: 50-69
Nasr, S. H. (1964) Three Muslim Sages: Avicenna Suhrawardi Ibn
‘Arabî, New York:
Caravan Books
--- (1978) An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines:
Conceptions of Nature and Methods Used for Its Study by the Ikhwân Al-Safâ,
Al-Bîrûnî, and Ibn Sînâ, London: Thames and Hudson
Netton, I. R. (1989) Allah Transcendent, London: Routledge
-- (1992) Al-Farabi and His School, London: Routledge
-- (1998) Middle East Sources: A Melcom Guide to Middle Eastern and
Islamic Books and Materials in the United Kingdom and Irish Libraries, London: Routledge
Nicholson, R. A (1969) A Literary History of the Arabs, London: Cambridge University
Press
-- (1974) The Mystics of Islam, London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan
Paul
-- (1980) Studies in Islamic Mysticism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ormsby, E. (1984) Theodicy in Islamic Thought: The Dispute over
Al-Ghazâlî’s ‘Best of All Possible Worlds’, Princeton: Princeton University Press
Pickthall, M. M. (1996) The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: An
Explanatory Translation, Beltsville: Amana Publications; revised and edited in modern standard
English by Dr Arafat El-Ashi
Palacios, M. A. (1979) Ibn ‘Arabî: His Life and Doctrine, translated into Arabic by
Abd- el-Rahmân Badawî, Kuwait: Wikâlat Al-Matbû‘ât
Sambursky, S., S. (1987) The Concept of Time in Late Neoplatonism: Texts
With Translation, Introduction and Notes, Leiden: Brill
Schimmel, A. (1975) Mystical Dimensions of Islam, Chapel Hill: The University
of North Carolina
-- (1993) The Mystery of Numbers, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sorabji, R. (1983) Time, Creation and the Continuum: Theories in
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Yahya, O. (1964) Histoire et Classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn
‘Arabî, Damascus:
Institut Français
D: Cited books and articles on philosophy,
cosmology and time
Al-‘Atî, I. (1993) Al-Zamân fi Al-Fikr Al-Islâmî: Ibn Sînâ, Al-Râzi
and Al-Ma‘ârrî (Time in Islamic Thought ...), Beirut: Dâr Al-Muntakhab Al-Arabî
Arntzenius, F. and Maudlin, T.
(2002) ‘Time Travel and Modern Physics’, in Time, Reality
& Experience, ed. C. Callender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Aspect, A., Grangier P. and
Roger G. (12 July 1982) ‘Experimental Realisation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm
Gedanken Experiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities’, Physical Review Letters 49 no. 2: 91
-- and R. Dalibard (20 Dec. 1982) ‘Experimental
Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers’, Physical Review Letters 49 no. 25: 1804
Aveni, A. F. (1990) Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks and Cultures, London: I. B. Tauris &
Co.
Baierlein, R. (1992) Newton to Einstein: The Trail of Light: An
Excursion to the WaveParticle Duality and the Special Theory of Relativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Bell, J. (July 1966) ‘On the
Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics’, Reviews of Modern Physics 38 no. 3: 447
Bianquis, T. and Bosworth, C.
E. (1987), eds E. J. Vandonzel and W. P. Heinrichs, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 9 vols, Leiden: Brill
Bickerman, E. J. (1968) Chronology of the Ancient World, Ithaca: Cornell University
Press
Biehkowski, B. (1972) ‘From
Negation to Acceptance (The Reception of the Heliocentric Theory in Polish
Schools in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries)’, in The Perception of Copernicus ’ Heliocentric
Theory: Proceedings of a Symposium Organised by the Nicolas Copernicus
Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science, ed. Jerzy Dobrzycki, Boston:
D. Reidel.
Blanco, W. (trans.) and
Jennifer, T. R. (ed.) (1992) Herodotus:
The Histories,
New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company
Bohr, N. (15 Oct. 1935) ‘Can
Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’, Physical Review 48: 696; Niels Bohr’s response to EPR.
Callender, C. (ed.) (2002) Time, Reality & Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Cornford, F. M. (2004) Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato
Translated with a Running Commentary, Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing
Coveny, P. and Highfield, R.
(1990) The Arrow of Time: A Voyage
through Science to Solve Time’s Greatest Mystery, New York: Ballantine Books
Darling, D. (2004) The Universal Book of Mathematics: From
Abracadabra to Zeno’s Paradoxes, London: Wiley
Deutsch, D. and Lockwood, M.
(March 1994) ‘The Quantum Physics of Time Travel’, Scientific American
D’Inverno, R. (1992) Introducing Einstein’s Relativity, Oxford: Clarendon
Dobrzycki, J. (ed.) (1972) The Perception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric
Theory: Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus
Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science, Boston: D. Reidel.
Dolgov, A. D., Sazhin, M. V.
and Zeldovich, Y. B. (1990) Basics
of Modern Cosmology, Cedex: Editions Frontières
Drake, S. (1990) Galileo: Pioneer Scientist, Toronto: University of
Toronto Press
Dungen, W., ‘On Being and the
Majesty of the Worlds’, Reg. no. 51, in SofiaTopiaNet; Sophia Society for philosophy [www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/being.htm#dim] (accessed May 2005)
Dyke, H. (2002) ‘The Truth
about Time’, in Time, Reality &
Experience, ed.
Craig Callender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 137-152
Edwards, P. (ed.) (1967) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vols, New York: Macmillan
Publishing
Einstein, A. (1920) Relativity: The Special and General Theory, trans. Robert W. Lawson, New
York: Henry Holt
-- (1955) The Meaning of Relativity, 5th ed., Princeton: Princeton University
Press
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and
Rosen, N. (May 1935) ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality
Be Considered Complete?’ Physical
Review 41: 777;
the original EPR paper
Ferguson, K. (1999) Measuring the Universe: Our Historic Quest to
Chart the horizons of Space and Time, USA: Walker & Company
Frankel, F. (1942) ‘Zeno of
Elea’s Attacks on Plurality’ American
Journal of Philology, 63
Fraser, J. T. (1978) Time as Conflict: a Scientific and Humanistic
Study, Basel and
Boston: Birkhauser
-- (1982) The Genesis and Evolution of Time: A Critique of Interpretations
in Physics, Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press
-- (1987a) How to Live with the Knowledge of Time, Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press
----- (1987b) Time
the Familiar Stranger, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press
----- (1990) Of
Time, Passion, and Knowledge: Reflections on the Strategy of Existence,
Princeton: Princeton University Press
-- (1999) Time, Conflict, and Human Values, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois
Press
Fraser, J. T., Haber, F. C.
and Müller, G. H. (eds) (1972) The
Study of Time,
New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Freeman, E. and Sellars, W.
(eds) (1971) Basic Issues in the
Philosophy of Time,
Illinois: Open Court Publishing
Gaines, R. V., Skinner, H. C.,
Foord, E., Mason, B. and Rosenzweig, A. with sections by King, V. T., and
illustrations by Dowty, E. (1997) Dana’s
New Mineralogy,
London: John Wiley & Sons
Gale, R. (ed.) (1968) The Philosophy of Time, London: Macmillan
Giannakis, E. (1992) Philoponus in the Arabic Tradition of
Aristotle’s Physics,
PhD thesis, University of Oxford
Gott, J. R. (2001) Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe: The Physical
Possibilities of Travel Through Time, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Goudsmit, S. A., and
Claiborne, R. (1974) Time, New York: Time-Life Books
Grossing, G. and Zeilinger, A.
(July 1991) ‘Zeno Paradox in Quantum Cellular Automata’ Physica D 50, no. 3: 321-326
Grünbaum, A. (1971) ‘The
Meaning of Time’, in Basic Issues
in the Philosophy of Time, ed. Eugene Freeman and Wilfrid Sellars, Ill.: Open Court Publishing:
195-230
Hall, A. R. (1992) Isaac Newton, Adventurer in Thought, Oxford: Blackwell
Harrison, P. (1999) The Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the
Divinity in Nature and the Universe, Massachusetts: Elements Books
Hartmann, W. K. (1990) The Cosmic Voyage: Through Time and Space, Cal.: Wadsworth Publishing
Company
Hawking, S. (1998) A Brief History Of Time: The Updated and
Expanded Tenth Anniversary Edition, UK, USA, Canada: Bantam Publishing.
-- (1994) Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, UK, USA, Canada: Bantam
Heath, T. L. (1981) A History of Greek Mathematics From Thales to
Euclid, New York:
Dover Publications
Hinton, Charles H. and Rucker.
R. (eds) (1980) Speculations on the
Fourth Dimension: Selected Writings of C. H. Hinton, New York: Dover Publications
Hopkins, E. W. (1930) Origin and Evolution of Religions, New Haven: Yale University
Press
Itano, W. M., Heinzen, D. J.,
Bollinger, J. J. and Wineland, D. J. (1990) ‘Quantum Zeno Effect’, Physical Review A 41: 2295-2300
Kant, I. (1998) Critique of Pure Reason, trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen W.
Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Langdon, S. H. (1964) The Mythology of All Races: Semitic, New York: Cooper Square
Publishers
Le Poidevin, R. and MacBeath,
R. M. (eds) (1993) The Unreality of
Time in The Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Leiber, J. (1993) Paradoxes Interpretations, London: Duckworth Publishing
Lettinck, P. (ed. and trans.)
(1994) Aristotle’s Physics and Its
Reception in the Arabic World with an Edition of the Unpublished Parts of Ibn
Bâjja’s Commentary of the Physics, Leiden: Brill
Linde, A. D. (1990) Inflation and Quantum Cosmology, San Diego: Academic Press MacEy, L. S.
(1994) Encyclopedia of Time, London and New York: Garland
Publishing Mandelbrot, B. and Frame, M. (2002) Fractals, Graphics, and Mathematics Education,
USA: The Mathematical Association of
America Incorporated
Mehlberg, H. (1971)
‘Philosophical Aspects of Physical Time’, in Basic Issues in the Philosophy of Time, ed. Eugene Freeman and
Wilfrid Sellars, Ill.: Open Court Publishing: 16-71
Minkowski, H. (1923) ‘Space
and Time’, in The Theory of
Relativity, ed.
H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, London: Methuen
Misra, B. and Sudarshan, E.
(1977) ‘The Zeno’s Paradox in Quantum Theory’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 18: 756
Narlikar, J. V. (1993) Introduction to Cosmology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Oaklander, L. N. and Smith, Q.
(eds) (1994) The New Theory of
Time, New Haven:
Yale University Press
Pais, A. (1982) Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of
Albert Einstein,
New York: Oxford University
Parise, F. (ed.) (1982) The Book of Calendars, New York: Facts On File
Patrick, J. R. (1986) Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Price, H. and Callender, C.
(ed.) (2002) ‘The Mysteries of the Entropic Arrow’, in Time, Reality & Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Robert, L. W. (1966) Basic Quantum Mechanics, New York: McGraw-Hill
Roger, J. T. (1993) Galaxies: Structure and Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Ross, G. M. (1984) Leibniz, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, Press Release (12 October 1999) ‘The 1999 Nobel
Prize in Chemistry’
Rupert, A. H. (1992) Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought, Oxford: Blackwell
Sainsbury, R. M. (2002) Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Samuel, L. (1994) Encyclopedia of Time, New York: Garland Publishing
Schewe, P. F., Stein, B. (24 April 1992)
‘COBE Picks Out Primordial Seeds at Last’, The
American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News 77
----- (28 December 1992) ‘New Measurements of the Cosmic
Microwave Background
(CMB)’, The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News, 108
----- (31
March 1999) ‘Creating Antimatter with Laser Light’, The American Institute of
Physics Bulletin of Physics News 421
Seeds, M. A. (1990) Foundations of Astronomy, Cal.: Wadsworth
Sitchin, Z. (1976) The 12th Planet, New York: Avon Books
Smart, W. M. (1977) Textbook on Spherical Astronomy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Sorensen, R. (2003) A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and
the Labyrinths of the Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Spinoza, B. (1951) Chief Works of Benedict De Spinoza, ed. and trans. R. H. M.
Elwes, 2 vols, New York: Dover Publications
--- (1994) The Ethics and Other Works: A Spinoza Reader, ed. and trans. Edwin Curley,
Princeton: Princeton University Press
Stern, M. (1999) Semimodular Lattices: Theory and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Stewart, Ian, Clark, Sir
Arthur C., Mandelbrot, Benoit, Barnsley, Michael, Barnsley, Louisa, Rood, Will,
Flake, Gary, Pennock, David, Prechter, Robert R. Jr. and Lesmoir- Gordon, Nigel
(2004) The Colours of Infinity: The
Beauty, and Power of Fractals, Singapore: Clear Books
Stillman, D. (1990) Galileo: Pioneer Scientist, Toronto: University of
Toronto Press
Tayler, R. J. (1993) Galaxies: Structure and Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Taylor, A. E. (1928) A Commentary on Plato S Timaeus, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Trefil, J. (1938) From Atoms to Quarks: An Introduction to the
Strange World of Particle Physics, New York, London, Toronto: Doubleday, Anchor Books
Wehr, M. R., Richards, J. A.
and Adair, T. W. (1984) Physics of
the Atom, Mass.:
Addison- Wesley
White, R. L. (1966) Basic Quantum Mechanics, New York: McGraw-Hill
William, K. H. (1990) The Cosmic Voyage: Through Time and Space, Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth
Publishing Company
Wolfram, S. (2002) A New Kind of Science,Champaign, Ill.: Wolfram Media
Yampolsky, P. (1984) ‘The
Origin of the Twenty-eight Lunar Mansions’, Osiris IX: 62-83, Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger
Zee, A. (2003) Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, Princeton: Princeton
University Press
Zewail, A. H. (December 1990)
‘The Birth of Molecules’, Scientific
American: 40-46
Achilles paradox 171
active force 9, 25, 37, 62; see also intellective force
Adam 9, 44, 53, 70, 76, 83, 85, 89, 90,
92, 96, 97, 98, 125, 128, 182, 188, 198n13, 198n14, 201n20
after-world, the 163; see also hereafter age 7, 17, 30, 31, 33, 44, 59, 69, 71, 98, 173,
199n1
all-creative 173
all-encompassing 33, 70, 106, 115, 161,
170, 202n8
All-Hearing 52, 109
All-Knower 90, 151, 197n3
All-Merciful 9, 11, 39, 61, 82, 97, 127,
128, 131, 132, 156, 157, 163, 179, 181, 194n11, 196n12, 201n14
All-Mighty 102, 197n3
All-Prevailing 89
All-Sufficient35, 110
All-Wise 122
alphabet 65, 74, 84, 85, 89, 155, 181,
182, 183, 185, 204n12
analogy 93, 121-2, 150, 152-6, 159-60,
164, 171, 180, 182, 195n3, 198n18, 201n18
Andromeda 4
angel 8, 63, 76, 83, 89, 91, 94, 97, 125,
142, 151-2, 156, 163, 183-5, 187-91, 194n9, 197n16, 204n12
animal 19, 94, 142, 148, 202n14
animated 132
anisotropy 5
annihilation 40, 48, 166, 167, 169, 185
anti-clockwise 153
anti-particle 40, 167
Archangels 152, 188
Aristotle 1, 2, 14, 17- 20,
28, 30-1, 118, 171-2 arrow, of time 16, 23; paradox 171
A-series 21; see
also B-series
astrology 52, 74, 76, 82, 84, 94, 163 astronomy 1-3, 7, 14, 22, 40, 55, 57, 59,
60, 74-5, 78, 80-2, 99, 112, 119, 130, 184, 195n22, 197n5, 198n11
atmosphere 56
atom 16, 18-19, 40, 43, 47-8, 66, 115,
137, 141, 143, 149, 166-7, 169, 171-5, 189, 196n6, 199n8, 202n8, 203n2
attribute 5, 27, 39, 52, 68-9, 76-7,
81-2, 87, 109, 125, 128, 147-8, 155, 159, 187, 195n2, 196n12, 200n9, 201n12
automata 25
Babylonians 75, 79, 83, 114, 129, 150,
198n11
Bible 99
Bilqîs 168-9
biology 16, 24, 74
B-series 21; see
also A-series
bubbles 71
calendar 59, 79, 110, 198n11 cardinal 154
causality 32, 36, 43, 124, 165, 170, 176-9 celestial 13, 14,
40-1, 45, 48, 55, 58, 60, 69, 75, 88, 113, 115, 147, 154, 179, 197n3, 199n5
Chaos 1, 9
charge 37, 167, 180, 188, 196n11 chest 50-1
Christian 20, 91, 197n7, 200n5, 201n16 chronological 16, 25,
29, 32, 81, 176 Chronos 17 cinema 49, 160
circle 20, 33, 51, 53, 55, 67, 95, 101-2,
108, 120-2, 150, 152, 168, 185-7, 196n8, 198n1, 199n3, 203n15; circular,
1, 16, 17-18, 20, 41, 51-2, 55, 70, 74-5, 86, 93, 100-2,
104, 106-8, 110-11; circulate, 1, 55, 70, 74-5, 86, 93, 100-2, 104, 106-8, 111,
199n3; see also cycle circumambulation 47,
95, 152-4 circumference 3, 51, 56, 101, 120, 151, 155-6, 186
circumstance 16, 37, 39-40, 176 clime 84, 88, 154 clock 16,
22, 24, 46 cloud 11, 185 cluster 3, 4, 66 COBE 5 coherence 16 coincide 33, 99,
110 cold 23, 94, 147 coldness 98 collapse 15, 23 colour 118, 148, 150, 162,
184, 201n21 Command, the Divine 34, 42, 64, 78, 87, 95, 96, 109, 113, 128, 129,
132, 143,
computer 25, 106, 124, 160-4, 166-7, 192,
203n3
cone-shaped 63
constellation 4, 12-14, 40, 55, 57, 74,
76, 79, 84, 89-90, 93, 110, 115
Copenhagen 174
Copernicus 1-3, 8
cosmogony 133, 135, 162, 166-7, 185-6 cosmology 27, 31, 37,
41, 44, 53, 58, 60, 67, 71, 73-8, 82, 84, 94, 99, 102, 117, 119, 120-1, 123,
129, 133, 140, 142,
145, 151-2,
159, 161-2, 165-70, 172, 174, 175, 181-2, 184-5, 193n1, 195n21, 195n26, 199n1,
200n5, 201n14, 201n18, 202n4, 204n12; Ibn ‘Arabî’s 14-16; introduction to 1-9;
and time 23, 25
creation 1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 18, 20, 26, 37,
38, 43, 48-9, 53, 57-8, 65-9, 73-6, 78-84, 106, 109-11, 126, 127, 129-37,
139-43, 145-47, 149, 151-53, 155, 158-63, 166-70, 172-3, 175-8, 182-3, 185-6,
190, 196n9, 196n12, 197n5, 197n8, 198n14, 198n16, 198n17, 198n18, 201n14,
202n13; Creator 32, 53, 58, 68-9, 76, 89, 93-4, 97, 117, 120-4, 130, 133, 137,
139, 143-5, 147, 151, 163, 178; creatures 8, 11, 15, 61, 64, 89, 91, 94-6, 98,
111, 122, 124-5, 131, 133, 137, 149, 162, 178, 184, 187, 193n7, 200n6; and
Divine Names 117-24; the days of 86-102; the origin of 31-35, 193n8
cycle 52-3, 55-7, 59-60, 65, 74, 78, 80,
87, 96, 109, 110, 163; cyclic 25, 33, 51, 52, 62, 199n3; see also circle
day 9, 25, 38, 39, 44, 47-9, 53, 59,
60-71, 73-6, 78-103, 105-16, 125, 129, 136-7, 141, 152-3, 158, 161-4, 168-70,
179, 182-3, 188, 194n11, 197n5, 198n11, 199n2, 199n3, 199n7; daytime 25, 29,
47, 52, 54, 56-63, 67, 70-1, 81, 84, 92, 95-6, 99-107, 109, 116, 129, 135, 141,
173, 196n12, 197n12, 199n2, 199n3
dialectical 41
diameter 3
Dichotomy paradox 171
doctrine 20, 75, 76, 122, 130, 142, 145,
159, 170-71, 196n10
earth 14-15, 40-2, 44-5, 48, 57-8, 64,
65, 73, 77-9, 81, 85-6, 88, 99, 103-4, 111-2, 116, 141, 147, 156, 190
Einstein 2-5, 17, 21-2, 24, 173-5, 180 electromagnetic 40,
166, 188, 201n21 electron 16, 43, 161-3, 166, 167-9, 180 entropy 16, 23
epicycles 184 epiphany 9
EPR 3, 139, 165, 170, 174
equator 110, 158, 199n5
equinox 116
essence 18, 27, 33-6, 50, 56, 62, 68,
89-90, 114, 118, 127-8, 132-4, 137, 142-4, 146, 148, 159, 178, 186-7, 194n10,
195n5
eternal 6, 17, 19, 20, 31, 33-5, 44, 62,
67-8, 87, 94, 96, 97-8, 117, 131, 141, 157-8, 171, 204n5
eternity 46, 68, 94-6, 162-3, 195n3
ethical 133
etymological 80
Euclidean 20, 195n26; see also non- Euclidean
foreknowledge 33-4, 82, 87, 97, 106 form 8, 30, 35, 45, 52,
64, 72, 81, 92-3,
95, 96, 103, 113, 127-9, 132, 133, 136,
137-42, 146-8, 159-62, 165, 175-6, 179, 182-4, 187-8, 194n10, 196n6, 199n1,
201n18, 202n8, 203n19
formable 29, 30
formation 8, 19, 138, 147, 159
Friday 38, 49, 74, 75, 82, 85-6, 90-2,
94-8, 104, 106-7, 141, 163, 179, 194n11 galaxy 2-5, 10-12, 38, 40, 79, 110,
192, 193n1, 193n3, 195n26
Gehenna 14, 40, 96, 98-9, 188-9, 196n12
Gemini 38, 87, 110, 112
Generosity 117
genesis 83
geocentric 1, 14, 193n1
geographical 83, 88, 154
geology 53
geometry 6, 20-1, 97, 121-2, 186, 195n26 God 8, 15, 20, 31,
33-6, 46-8, 53, 63, 66, 73, 75-6, 78, 91-2, 111-12, 115, 125, 132-3, 142,
158-9, 178, 185-8, 190, 194n10, 194n11, 197n3, 198n14, 200n6, 200n7
gold 147
Greatest Element, the 67, 97, 115, 128,
141, 143, 149-55, 157-8, 161, 180, 185-6, 189, 199n1
Greek 1, 17-18, 20, 74, 142, 182, 200n5 grindstone 2
heaven 7, 14-15, 17, 25,
39-42, 45, 53, 55, 57, 63, 70, 73-5, 77-9, 83-91, 93, 97-9, 112-13, 154, 157,
188, 194n11, 199n7
heliocentric 1, 8, 14, 193n1
hereafter 184, 188, 191-2
hexadecimal 114
hidden 39, 58, 63, 70, 102, 105, 106,
133, 140, 157-8, 173-5, 181-2, 193n7
Holy 32, 106, 148
homogeneous 5, 12, 20, 195n26; see also inhomogeneous
imagination 4, 8, 15-17, 25-9, 33, 35,
40, 43-5, 49, 50-1, 53, 56, 64, 69-71, 81, 95, 98, 104-5, 108, 119-20, 123,
125, 136, 140-1, 144, 147, 172, 191, 194n10
infinite 11, 16, 17, 21-2, 33-4, 47, 48,
51, 59, 61, 64, 66, 111, 114, 119, 121, 125, 134, 147, 169-72, 186
infinitesimal 64, 141
infinitum 19, 34, 171
infinity21,24, 172
inflation 5
inhomogeneous 25; see
also homogeneous
instant 6, 18, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 43, 48-50, 64-6, 97, 106, 124, 135, 136-9,
141-2, 147, 158-9, 161-3, 168-71, 173-6, 179, 182, 187, 191
integer 79-80, 192
intellect 9-11, 25, 37, 61-2,
64, 67, 71, 77, 83, 90, 115, 123-4, 128-30, 133-5, 139, 142-4, 150-3, 157, 160,
162, 165, 179, 182-3, 185-6, 199n1, 200n4, 202n4, 202n10, 202n14
intellective force 9, 25, 37, see also:
active force
intertwined days, the 48-9, 57, 73, 81-2,
93, 100-1, 103, 106-9, 111, 114, 137, 163, 167-8
intrinsic 26, 35-6, 49, 60, 97, 126,
136-7, 141-2, 157, 175, 184
isthmus 134
Jupiter 85, 90
Kaaba 46-7, 95, 152-5, 167
Khidr 168-9
Leibniz 20-1, 49
Libra 53, 197n3
light 2-4, 14, 22-4, 38, 40, 41, 55-6,
63, 88, 96, 102, 105, 117, 130-3, 136, 148, 156, 166-70, 173-5, 179, 187-8,
193n3, 195n28, 197n12, 201n21, 203n3, 204n7; Muhammadan light, 202n10
lunar 41, 52, 59, 61, 74, 76, 78-80, 83,
85, 88-90, 93, 110, 198n11
macrocosm 82, 86, 151, 154
Man 30, 83, 115, 182, 196n8
mansion 13, 74, 76, 87-90, 93, 110
Mars 85, 89
Mecca 7, 95; Meccan Revelations
(Illuminations) 7, 204n9
mechanic 2, 5, 16, 22, 49, 169
Mercury 53, 85, 89
Messenger 13, 32, 47, 133, 135-6, 177-8,
204n5
metaphysics 1, 16, 18, 22-3, 48, 52, 100,
117-20, 123-4, 128-9, 140, 142, 146, 149, 151-6, 183
microcosm 82, 86, 99, 151, 160, 174,
198n18
micro-organisms 74
microwave 5
millstone 41
minerals 167
minute 3, 26, 31, 44, 48, 57, 59, 65, 78,
87, 100, 106, 111, 114-15, 168, 199n8
miracle 169
model, the Single Monad see monad moment 4, 6, 15, 17-18, 21, 26, 28-9, 35, 38-9, 43-6, 48-9, 51,
53, 58, 62, 64-7, 71, 73, 96-8, 101-2, 114, 136-8, 141-2, 145, 158, 161-2, 166,
169-70, 173, 175, 203n17 momentum 174, 195n27
monad 10, 30, 67, 89, 97, 115, 127-8,
135-7, 139, 195n5, 196n6, 203; the Single Monad model 4, 65, 140-92, 202n1,
202n4, 202n8
Monday 38, 50, 52, 82, 84-6, 88, 89, 100,
103-4, 107, 109, 111
monism 117, 171
monitor 160-3, 203n3
monotheism 76, 117
month 45, 48, 74, 78-81, 83, 91, 110,
114-15, 198n10, 198n11
moon 59, 78
morning 49, 95, 101, 173
mosque 90
mother 9, 29-30, 73, 76-7, 99, 103, 129
motion 2, 4, 7-9, 14-20, 25, 28-31,
37-8, 40-3, 46, 48-9, 51-2, 55-7, 59-62,
67, 73, 78-84, 87-90, 93, 98, 100, 103, 110-13, 116, 136, 137, 160-3, 165-6,
168-74, 176,
179-80, 184, 187, 190, 193n3, 196n11,
197n5, 198n11, 199n8, 202n4, 203n3, 204n8
movie 23-4, 124, 159-61, 172, 175
Muhammad 7, 13, 45-7, 52-3, 55, 68-70,
75, 90-1, 95-6, 98-9, 117, 126, 132, 135, 152, 155, 159, 182, 188, 193n8,
194n12, 197n8, 198n13, 202n10
multiplicity 34, 36, 50, 117-40, 144,
156, 157, 170, 173, 186, 201n13, 202n1
n-D 192
nebulae 3
Newton 2, 5, 20, 22, 42-3, 49, 123,
169-70
night 19, 25, 29, 39, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54,
56-64, 67, 70-1, 81, 84, 91-2, 94-6, 98, 99, 100-9, 116, 129, 135, 141, 173,
196n12, 199; night-journey 45;
nightmares 200n3; night-time 47, 49, 54,
57, 58, 61, 62, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102-3, 105, 173, 199n2, 199n3
non-Euclidean 21, 195n26, see also:
Euclidean
nonexistence 27, 33-6, 58, 66-9, 87, 94,
105-6, 117, 131-2, 134-9, 144, 148, 166, 199n10
non-finite 134
non-integer 79
non-material 184
non-physical 27
non-zero 67
noon 49, 101, 158, 203n17
odd 129
offspring 66
one-dimensional 21, 184
oneness 122, 135-6, 157, 173; of Allah or
of the Real 120-3, 198n16; of being 4, 20, 25-6, 28, 30, 37, 42, 50, 96-7, 99,
117, 122-4, 130-2, 135, 139, 140, 144, 170-1, 184, 187, 190, 203n19; of light
132; of time 122
ontology 8, 18, 22, 33-4, 39, 66, 90, 98,
117, 130-8, 171, 176, 179
orb 1, 3, 7, 12-14, 19, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31,
37, 38, 40-4, 53, 55-63, 65, 69-71, 73, 76, 79, 81, 83-4, 86-9, 94, 103,
110-11, 113, 115, 119, 144, 147, 155-6, 166, 169, 181, 197n3, 204n11
orient 55-6
pantheism 117
Paradise 90, 98, 152, 188, 191-2
paradox 118, 120, 183
paranatural 31, 37
para-psychological 176
parsec 3
particle 5, 10, 40, 143, 156, 166, 167, 168,
173, 174, 175,
176, 180, 195n28, 203n2, 204n8
past 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29,
33, 39, 46, 51, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 144, 145, 165, 180
Pedestal 11-15, 38, 40, 58, 65, 87,
110-11, 196n12
Pen, the Higher, the Universal 9, 11,
115, 142-3, 151, 160, 162-3, 182-3, 187, 191, 199n1, 202n10; Pen-sounds 182
Perfect Human Being, the 15, 61, 67, 76,
89, 99, 125, 128-9, 132, 134, 142-5, 151, 157, 158-60, 190, 198n18, 202n14,
203n18
period 5, 18, 45, 52, 59-60, 65, 74, 79,
80-1, 98, 111, 114, 173, 198n10, 199n8
phenomena 62, 101, 140, 165, 167-9, 172,
174, 176, 177,
180, 184, 185, 203n3
philosopher 18-19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31,
35, 42-3, 49, 67-8, 78, 115, 118-19, 122-3, 142, 146, 148, 170, 172, 176-7,
184, 194n13, 194n14, 194n16, 195n25, 199n4, 200n5
philosophy 1, 7, 15-20, 22, 24, 27, 41,
47, 49, 118, 120, 129, 131, 171, 194n14, 195n22, 200n5, 204n10
photoelectric 173
photon 5, 43, 156, 166-9, 175, 180 physical 5, 10-11, 15-16,
18-19, 21, 23-25, 27-8, 30-1, 33, 37-8, 41-2, 45, 47-8, 62, 64, 87, 93, 121,
141-2, 146, 149, 155-6, 168, 174, 179, 184, 194n10, 195n27, 196n9, 196n11,
202n8
physician 19, 194n16, 195n22
physicist 1, 19, 22-4, 42-4, 120, 192 physics 3-6, 15, 16,
21-2, 25, 27, 31, 41, 43, 49, 52, 119, 121, 165, 168-70, 174, 180, 183-4,
188-9, 201n14, 201n21, 202n8, 204n7
pilgrimage 7, 152-3
pillar 15, 154-5, 188, 204n5
pixel 161-3
Plato 17-19, 31, 160, 171
Plotinus 18-19, 200n5
plural 71, 126, 129, 142, 201n17
Pole 46, 87-8, 94, 120, 154, 155, 196n8,
198n13
Power 77, 90, 180
pre-existence 33-5, 69, 87, 143
preordained 79, 83
presence 8, 28-9, 51, 64, 70, 94, 106,
178, 197n18, 199n1, 200n6
pre-Socratics 170
primordial 69, 71, 77, 136, 155, 158,
202n12
Proxima Centauri 3
psychology 16, 23, 31, 46, 180, 200n3,
201n18
Ptolemy 1
pulsars 16
Pythagoras 142, 182
quadratic 77
quantisation 5-6, 18, 20-1, 25, 30, 43-4,
47-9, 80, 111, 166, 169-70, 172-4
Ramadan 91
rational 16-17, 146
Real 15, 32-3, 36-7, 47, 50-1, 64, 66,
69-70, 76, 87, 90, 92-4, 97, 99, 111, 119-24, 126, 128, 129, 131-7, 140, 142-4,
148, 157-8, 160, 163, 177-8, 181-2, 185-91, 194n10, 196n10, 202n9, 203n15,
203n17
reality 1, 8, 12-13, 15-16, 20, 22, 26,
28, 30, 32-3, 37, 43, 46, 48, 50-2, 54-5, 57, 60-2, 65-6, 68, 70, 83, 89, 96,
99, 112, 117, 119, 121-4, 127-35, 140-4, 146-8, 151-2, 154-8, 160-1, 169-73,
176-8, 180, 183, 187, 189, 201n18, 202n10, 202n14, 202n15, 203n19
real-through-whom-creation-takes-place, the 143, 158, 182
re-creation 18, 26, 35, 38, 42-3, 48-9,
51-2, 64, 96-8, 124, 135, 137-41, 147-8, 159-60, 162, 166-70, 172, 175-6, 184
redshift 2, 22, 193n3
region 15, 55, 63, 83-5, 88, 116, 154, 174 retrograde motion
8
revolution 2, 16, 38, 48, 57, 59-61,
78-80, 112, 114
Sages 71, 196n8
Saturday 25, 38, 39, 49, 58, 71, 73-5,
81-6, 91, 93-5, 96-8, 100, 104, 106, 141, 162-3, 168-9
Saturn 75, 83, 85, 93-4 self-consciousness 9 self-disclosure
87, 89-90, 93 self-existence 120
Self-Existent 32, 34, 36
self-subsistent 123, 133, 135, 139,
146-7, 150
Self-sufficient36, 137
sexagenary 75, 150
sidereal 55-7, 59, 79
Sierpinski triangle 145
simulation 25, 47, 108, 167-8, 192
simultaneity 170
solar 2, 4, 8, 40, 58-9, 75, 79-81, 84,
193n1, 198n10, 198n11
Solitary 30, 37, 71, 196n8, 198n13
Solomon 44, 168-9
space 2-6, 8, 12, 15-16, 20-5, 28-9, 34,
38-40, 42-4, 46-7, 49-51, 58, 63, 69-71, 74, 89, 96-101, 104-6, 123, 125, 130,
137, 141, 145, 156, 158, 161, 163, 165-6, 168, 171-2, 174-5, 179-80, 185, 189,
191, 194n12, 195n26, 196n7;
space-time 3, 6, 21-2, 24-5, 38-9, 58,
71, 74, 97-8, 100, 105, 123, 141, 180, 193n1, 195n26
sphere 8, 11-15, 17, 25, 41, 45, 48, 51,
54-5, 57-9, 63, 88-91, 93, 111-13, 115, 151, 156, 177, 179-80, 184, 199n5
spin 57, 79, 180, 204n8
spirit 8-9, 38, 44, 46-7, 53, 61, 63, 71,
87, 95, 97, 99, 130-1, 135, 144, 150, 160, 177, 188, 191, 197n3, 198n13,
198n14, 201n20, 203n1, 204n5; spirit-heart-body 130
spiritual 8-12, 15, 27, 30-1, 33, 35, 37,
40, 44-8, 53, 58, 62, 69-70, 73, 83, 88-9, 94, 99, 112-13, 115, 118, 120, 122,
128, 130, 136-7, 140, 145-9, 154-6, 159-60, 164, 173, 177-8, 181-5, 188, 191,
196n8, 197n15, 197n18, 199n1, 200n3, 200n4, 202n14, 203n18, 204n5
Stadium paradox 171
star 1-5, 7, 10-17, 23, 29, 33, 38, 40,
44-5, 53-5, 57, 59-61, 70, 79, 87, 104, 107-8, 110, 112, 145, 163, 166, 174,
184, 191-2, 193n1, 193n3, 195n26
strings theory 9, 180-3; see also superstrings
subatomic 143, 174
sub-entities 67, 68
sub-events 67
sub-intellects 67
sub-moments 67, 145, 173
sufism 6-8, 20, 34, 40-1,
44-6, 66, 69-70, 118-20, 134, 146, 158, 182, 190, 193n7, 194n12, 201n12, 203n1
Sumerians 110
sun 1-4, 12-14, 19, 29, 32, 46-7, 52-63,
67, 69, 72, 74-5, 78-81, 85, 87-8, 90-1, 99, 101-3, 106, 111, 116, 130, 145,
157-60, 185, 188; sunlight 157-8, 179; Sun-Line-Cave 160
Sunday 38, 49, 52, 73, 74-5, 81-2, 84-5,
86-7, 91, 95-8, 100-1, 103-4, 106-11, 141, 163, 179, 194n11, 197n7
supernatural 165
superstrings 3, 49, 93, 180, 201n14 supra-natural 184
taken-out days 57, 81, 84, 100, 102-7,
task, the day of 48-9, 59, 64, 66, 73,
98, 100-1, 106, 114, 125, 135, 170, 197n3
technology 3, 16, 161
telepathy 180
theology 1, 7, 18-20, 23, 29, 33, 35, 37,
43, 47-8, 58, 68-9, 71-2, 74-5, 78, 99,
115, 120, 131,
137-40, 142, 165, 168, 184, 194n12, 194n13, 194n14, 194n15, 194n21, 195n2,
195n5, 196n6, 201n14
theomorphic 86, 90, 92, 96, 198n16 theory 1, 2, 4-6, 16-17,
20-4, 26, 28, 30, 38-9, 41-2, 44-5, 47-8, 50, 93, 96, 99, 123, 139, 142, 145,
148, 166, 168-75, 180, 195n26, 195n27, 201n14, 204n7
thermodynamics 16
threefold 117, 128-9, 130
Throne 9-11, 13-15, 39-40, 58, 82, 86,
91, 97-8, 102, 127-8, 152, 156-7, 188, 191, 194n11, 196n12
Thursday 75, 82, 85-6, 90-1, 104, 107-8 Timaeus 19
time 15-16, 17-18, 20-1, 23, 27-9, 39,
41-2, 53, 65-6, 78, 99, 114, 195n4, 196n9, 198n13, 199n9; time-gap 166;
timekeeping 16; timeless 168-9; timescale 14, 108, 203n2; time-space 49;
timing 16, 54-6, 58, 174, 198n10
trinity 128, 130, 200n5, 201n16
Tuesday 38, 82, 85-6, 89, 104
twin paradox, the 45
Unicity 36, 117-39
union 22
unique 4, 8, 14, 20, 25-6, 28, 30, 48,
51-2, 59, 64, 73-4, 78, 92-3, 96, 98-100, 117-25, 127, 128, 136-7, 139-40, 151,
156, 161, 175, 184, 195n4, 202n1
unit 7, 29, 40, 58, 62, 67, 71, 74, 78,
97, 100, 105, 142, 149, 150, 164, 167, 186, 190; unity 50, 117, 156
unitary 103
universe 1-6, 8-9, 20, 22-4, 31, 33, 38,
41, 46, 71, 160, 193n1
unseen 58, 62-4, 119, 131, 184
velocity 7, 18, 42, 44, 168, 174
Venus 85, 90
Virgo 73, 197n3, 197n4
wave 25, 40, 156, 161, 166, 173, 180,
188, 190-1, 195n27, 201n21, 203n2; wavelength 156, 201n21, 204n7; waveparticle
duality 25
Wednesday 82, 85, 86, 89, 104, 112
week 25, 38, 48, 52, 58, 71, 73-109, 163,
197n5, 197n7, 198n17
year 1-4, 7, 19, 22-4, 31, 40, 44, 45,
48, 52-4, 56, 59, 61, 69, 71, 75, 77-81, 91, 110, 114-16, 150, 152, 163, 197n3,
198n10, 198n11, 199n8
Zeno 28, 42-3, 165, 170-2, 174 zero-dimension 87 zero-length
66
zodiac 10, 12, 14, 55-7, 74, 76, 78-9,
99-100, 103, 110-12, 115-16, 154, 197n2
zone 24