The Rational Approach to Shi’a Mysticism, Volume One

Ayatollah Nekounam's books

The Rational Approach to Shi’a Mysticism, Volume One

His Eminence, Ayatollah al-Uzma Muhammadreza Nekounam

Main Author: Nekounam, Muhammadreza, 1327 –
Title: The Rational Approach to Shi’a Mysticism / Volume One / Muhammadreza Nekounam
Publisher: Islamshahr: Sobhe Farda Publications, First Edition, 1400.
Physical Description: 3 Volumes
Cataloging: FIPA
ISBN: 978-964-2807-42-0
Note: This book is a commentary on the book “Qawa’id al-Tawhid” by Muhammad bin Habib Allah Torkeh Isfahani.
Bibliography: The bibliography appears as footnotes.
Subjects:

Torkeh Isfahani, Muhammad bin Habib Allah (d. 580 AH) — “Qawa’id al-Tawhid” — Criticism and Interpretation
Mysticism — Ancient Texts up to the 14th Century
Sufism — Ancient Texts up to the 14th Century
Added Author Identification: Nekounam, Muhammadreza, 1327 – — Editor, Commentator, and Reformer
Dewey Classification: 212 / 90
National Bibliography Number: 37320-85M
ISBN: 978-964-2807-42-0

Preface of the Editor

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Say: He is Allah, the One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is begotten, and there is none comparable to Him.

This book delves into the concept of absolute existence and its manifestation. In this regard, absolute existence, when considered in its totality, involves no combination or multiplicity. It is beyond any true name, designation, attribute, or description, as qualities, names, judgments, and effects cannot be ascribed to the absolute essence or to its purest form without considering specific designations and classifications. This theory is one of the most significant viewpoints we have adopted in our mystical writings.

Accordingly, the Divine Reality requires only the true unity of essence and its real individuation, which is referred to by mystics as the “Hidden Essence” or “Indefiniteness.” In this unity and individuation of essence, there is no space for conceptualizations. Therefore, this reality is completely free from any accidental or nominal attributes. However, doubt may arise regarding the stages of its descent or the fields of its manifestation, which pertains to the mystical and existential conditions but not to the essence of the Divine.

The concept of “Indefiniteness” is the first manifestation of the Divine, which entails the awareness of all existential states and considerations of the essence in its totality. The object of this awareness is either the Divine Essence in its inner depth, where all is established and observed, akin to the affirmation of all numerical stages within the One. In this case, it is referred to as “Self-Perfection” and the “State of Oneness” that entails absolute richness, which is the manifestation of the essence in its depth without the need for further transformations through external forms or stages.

Alternatively, the object of this awareness could be the specific existential aspects, revealed through their own essence or in relation to one another in various stages, which is known as “The Perfection of the Names” or the “State of Oneness.”

From the first perspective, there is no distinction between the essence and any of the names; they are one in their essence. Likewise, there is no distinction among the names themselves. From the second perspective, a relative difference appears in their manifestations at various stages of existential and intellectual appearance.

Once this essential reality, according to the will of its designation, manifests as a comprehensive appearance, it brings forth a complete and universal “Cosmic Manifestation” that serves as a perfect reflection of the Hidden Essence and the state of Indefiniteness. This is the core of all truths, the ultimate name of all names, and the simplest and most intimate manifestation of the Divine, transcending even the perfect human being. It is referred to in the Quran as Al-‘Ala (The Most High) and is the seat of Divine Vicegerency and Universal Shadowy Wilayah.

The manifestation of this Divine Truth is the perfect human being, who integrates both the manifestation of the absolute essence and the manifestation of the names, attributes, and actions, embracing balance, inclusiveness, and perfection in his complete existence. He embodies the realities of necessity and the relationships of divine names as well as the possibilities and the attributes of creation. He thus stands as the embodiment of both unity and differentiation, surrounding all the essential chains of manifestation.

Therefore, anyone seeking to walk the path of mysticism must start with themselves, as the key to knowing the Divine is through self-knowledge. They should not become confused by other paths, as the human being is capable of reaching a state where their truth encompasses all names, and the Divine Essence flows through all realities. This can only be achieved once the knots of development in various states of ascent and establishment are undone, shedding the constraints acquired from each stage, until they enter the primordial freedom and attain the ultimate essence—leading to true perfection, which is the true perception of realities as they are in their true and ultimate form.

This is the essence of what is presented in this book, which serves as an introduction to the explanation of “Qawa’id al-Tawhid.” The author and commentator have made every effort to establish this mystical theory through the most rigorous intellectual proofs, following the peripatetic method. The book engages with later peripatetic philosophers who have critiqued and distorted this precious theory to fit their limited and flawed understanding, thereby confusing others.

With all due respect, the philosophical approach adopted in this book sometimes leads to ambiguities and misinterpretations, which are addressed in the explanations provided here. The text has been corrected and refined with the utmost care, and every effort has been made to ensure clarity and accuracy in its presentation. We hope to elucidate the deeper meanings and address the critiques in the most accessible manner, bringing this great mystical work to a wider audience.

May the final word of praise be for Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

Two. Existence and Being are Original
However, existences and beings are numerous and distinct in essence. Every existence is different from another with regard to being. The original existence is characterised by multiplicity in essence, with distinct essences from one another. Although the Peripatetics (Mashsha’iyyun) did not explicitly discuss the issue of the primacy of existence or essence, it is commonly concluded from their discussions that they leaned towards this perspective. However, a careful consideration of the necessity of the correspondence between the cause and its effect, particularly in the writings of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), does not align well with this viewpoint.

Three. Existence is One
Existence is a singular truth, but this singular truth has infinite levels, both in unity and multiplicity. Both the unity and multiplicity of existence are intrinsic to existence itself and are real. According to this view, existence has a hierarchical structure, and this perspective is common in the teachings of Transcendent Theosophy (Hikmat Muta’aliya) and the followers of Mulla Sadra. They assert that existence has infinite gradations of gradability and that both the unity and multiplicity of existence are genuine. Therefore, existence does not have a singular personal unity. The highest and most supreme degree of it is the most intense existence, and other varied and multiple gradations belong to different existences. The supreme degree of existence is absolute and undetermined in relation to others.

Four. The Fourth Viewpoint
In this book, we claim that reality has an ontological description and existence is its essence; a truth that has both fundamental unity and personal unity and does not admit of multiplicity. Multiplicity and diversity exist only in the manifestations and appearances.

In this book, the term “existence qua non” refers to the necessary existence, while “existence qua something specific” refers to general emanation, external existence, and material existence. Furthermore, “existences qua something” refers to possible essences.

Five. The View of the Mystics
From the perspective of the mystics, existence is a single person, not a truth that has gradations or is made up of distinct entities, nor merely a concept. Existence is not a mere concept, but a truth; it is not disparate, but is unified. It is not something with gradations, but a singular entity with infinite manifestations and aspects. It manifests itself in its essence in the essence itself, in the aspect of its singularity in the love of its essence, and in its manifestations through its names and attributes in the realm of action and the external world.

Six. The Unity of Existence
The singular existence in relation to its manifestations is “non-something” (la-bi-shart), meaning it is free from any limitation or division. This notion of “non-something” does not imply restriction to a division, but signifies a freedom from any kind of partition or restriction.

Seven. Reality of Existence and Its Independence
The reality of existence is exclusively attributed to the Necessary Being (God), whose necessity and unity are intrinsic and absolute. All other beings are determinations and manifestations of this singular truth and are never considered as independent instances. Hence, when the plurality of individuals in existence is negated, the division of existence into Necessary and Possible, and further division into mental and external entities, is negated.

Eight. A Significant Insight
In the eighteenth section of this book, there is an important passage that emphasises a point not found even in highly esteemed works like the Fusus al-Hikam (The Ringstones of Wisdom). This passage suggests that certain perfected intellects, particularly the saints and perfect beings, have the capacity to understand the essence of existence only in proportion to their own level of spiritual realization and manifestation.

Nine. The Clarification of Divine Names and Attributes
The twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth sections of the book elaborate on divine names and attributes, as well as some of the most essential topics in mysticism, which require special attention. Further clarification of these matters is provided in the twenty-eighth section of the text.

Ten. The Manifestations of Existence
In the forty-third section, we address essential points that facilitate the understanding of the gradations of “manifestation” and “epistemology of appearance” in mysticism, which strengthens intellectual precision and mystical intuition.

Eleven. On the Perfect Manifestation
In the fifty-third section, a significant distinction between the “comprehensive existence” and the “perfect human” is discussed.

Twelve. The Conflict Between Reason and Love
In the fifty-eighth section, the issue of the conflict between reason and love is addressed. It highlights the shortcomings of the perspective of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali and clarifies the rightful place of each in a new and refined statement.

Thirteen. The Mystics’ View on the Unity of Existence
The mystics, who base their knowledge on inner realization and spiritual power, defend the notion of the personal unity of existence. They perceive existence as a singular personal entity. This elevated view of the mystics is one that each group seeks to reconcile with its own philosophical or intersubjective frameworks.

Fourteen. The Foundation of Mystical Knowledge
The most foundational principle in mysticism, after the uncertainty of existence, is the “personal unity of existence.” This book aims to prove and solidify this notion through rational argumentation. Since existence has a personal unity, it can be directed toward and addressed with a singular personal pronoun, as seen in the verse: “You alone we worship, and You alone we ask for help.”

The “You” in this verse refers to a high and profound meaning, one that is understood only by the realized mystics.

Fifteen. The Independence of Existence
In the reality of existence, independence is a key notion. However, entities other than existence, which cannot even be referred to as possible beings, lack ontological independence. Using terms such as “the human is existent” or “the human is existence” is merely a figurative usage and is not in line with precise philosophical discourse. Philosophical debates should avoid superficial or ambiguous language. Existence is not something that can be attributed equally to both God and creation, as this would entail a contradiction. The issue is not the concept of existence itself, but the fact that the concept and its real instance refer to only one singular instance—God—and thus there is no room for a shared meaning. Shared meanings imply that a concept refers to multiple instances, but in the case of “existence,” there is only one referent: God. Therefore, the notion of a shared meaning does not apply to existence.

Sixteen. The Unity and Independence of Existence
Existence is independent, and its manifestations are not independent. If the term “existent” is used for both God and creation, it must be understood that it refers to two different levels of being. Hence, existence has unity and distinctness and does not have gradation or shared meanings.

The terms “baniyirat minassati” and “min lawami’ al-adwa'” refer to divine names, while “wama tastawjibuhu” and “zuhoor al-anwar bil-akmam” refer to the appearances and manifestations of the divine names and attributes. The hiddenness of the Truth is due to the multitude of its manifestations, whether in the form of divine names or their corresponding manifestations.

The phrase “wa-jalla sha’nuhu min zahir…” is an extension of the sentence “fa-subhanahu min baatin…” and should be understood as such.

The term “bataan hujubihi” refers to the names of majesty (al-jalaal).

“Wama yastad’eehu min ghayahub al-zalam” refers to the manifestations of divine majesty.

“Wa min ghayahub al-zalam” points to the utmost majesty, which represents the hidden attributes of the Truth.

The expression “wa-jalla sha’nuhu min zahir…” signifies the essence of the Truth without any manifestation or determination, existing in the utmost concealment and hiddenness, such that it is not perceptible to the mystic and is beyond the realm of knowledge. It has no name or form, and no one can reach it. It is these manifestations that cause the appearance of the essence, just as the same manifestations cause its concealment. Despite the fact that the veil leads to obscuration, it also makes possible the appearance of the essence.

The Muhammadan Reality (al-Haqiqah al-Muhammadiyyah) is the first manifestation and, in the final stage, all manifestations converge in it. The arc of ascent and descent is akin to a ring, and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is its gem. For this reason, the commentator sends salutations upon him. The Muhammadan Reality is the source of all goodness, the initiator of beginnings, the conqueror of openings, and the finisher of all ends. He is the luminous light that is not affected by the shadows of confusion, and the darkness of clouds does not diminish its brilliance.

All goodness and ultimate good are contained in the Muhammadan Reality, which fully embodies the noble virtues of character. As Imam Ali (AS) says: “Through us, Allah opens, and through us, He closes, and through us, He obliterates what He wills and establishes, and through us, Allah removes the harmful times, and through us, He sends rain. Do not let the deceiver deceive you regarding Allah” [20]; Allah began with us, He ends with us, and by us, He obliterates or establishes whatever He wills. Through us, He removes the harshness of time, and through our blessings, He sends rain. Therefore, do not let the deceiving Satan deceive you concerning Allah.

The Muhammadan Reality is the mediator between the Divine and the creation, both in the realm of divine knowledge and the realm of external realities. First, the Muhammadan Reality as the “eternal archetype” (Ayn Sabit) comes into existence, and then the other archetypes of knowledge follow.

The Muhammadan Reality is a brilliant light, untainted by the multiplicities and impurities of the soul, and exists in a state of absolute sanctity and divine grace.

“Fi’” refers to the weak shadow cast by the retreating sun after midday, appearing near sunset.

“Zill” is the shadow before sunset, which has a relative permanence. The Muhammadan Reality in the arc of descent is situated between the essence and all beings, hence it is called “Zill.” This reality, as it returns in the arc of ascent, is referred to as “Fi’.” It is also “Shams” — the sun of the Muhammadan existence, which, although not the unique essence of the Divine, is not separate from it either.

The Ahl al-Bayt (the family of Muhammad) are the agents of unity and cohesion for all phenomena.

The Matter of Monotheism

Moreover, the issue of monotheism, according to what has been realized by the witnesses and observed by the true knower from those of inner sight and direct experience — who have reached a state that the rational philosophers and logicians have not arrived at yet — except for those whom Allah has supported with His light and guided towards monotheism through His grace, includes those who have reached the stages of rational argumentation and mystical experience, having attained the virtues of self-realization and divine unveiling, and those whom Allah has delivered from the confines of verbal and logical methods to the vast realms of divine insights and direct communications, in accordance with the good following of the Prophets [21] — peace be upon them all — who are the links of the finest realities, from the essence of unity to the place of differentiation, and the intermediaries through whom meanings descend from the heaven of sanctity to the station of manifestation. Especially those who have followed the first of them in existence and rank, and the last of them in time and mission — Muhammad (PBUH), who is the ultimate goal and the source of noble traits, the channel of perfection, and the fountain of felicity, upon him and his family be the best salutations and the most complete greetings.

Thus, you see His noble saints, when they attempt to realize the meanings of monotheism, harmonizing rational proofs with transmitted laws in such a manner that there is no further perfection to be imagined. They have addressed the doubts of certain limited philosophers who fail to apply the correct view to the clear text revealed to them, and similarly in other true sciences and certain knowledge, they have clarified the gaps of the philosophers and shown the errors in their thinking, thereby demonstrating where the confusion lies, distinguishing it as clearly as the sun from the shadow. All of this is but the shining light from the brilliance of the Muhammadan Reality, dispelling the dark night of ignorance.

This light is a manifestation of the saying, “I recognize it from the nose of Khazm” (Shinshanatan A’rafuha min Akhzam), signifying the clarity and undeniable nature of the truth.

Interpretation and Explanations

The phrase “wa-stawā duḥatuhu ʾiqbālih” means that the tree of intellectual discussions has become sturdy, straight, and firmly established.
The phrase “wa-ḥānā ʾawān ʾijtināʾ thimārīh” signifies that the time for harvesting the fruits of knowledge has arrived, and it can be said that “God is one singular being and individual.”
“Wa-kashfa al-qināʿ ʿan makhadarāt abkārih…” refers to issues that are not easily disclosed or revealed, similar to human secrets, but in the present day, their novelties have become visible on the pages of time.
The phrase “min al-ʾathār al-mawjūda fī al-kutub al-munazzalah as-samāwiyyah” refers to the celestial scriptures that have not been tampered with by distortion.
“Wa-az-zubur al-kashfiyyah al-ʿāliyah” refers to non-revelatory books, but those that are collected from the languages of divine prophets and the complete masters of knowledge.
The phrase “qad ṣār mudghah lil-ḵāṣṣi wa-l-ʿām” refers to something softened and chewed, ready for consumption.
The phrase “wā-mā kāna ʾifshāʾuh ʾaftā ʾihrāq dam al-kubār” means that the mere revelation of the truths of monotheism was sufficient to justify the killing of the divine saints under the pretext of defending monotheism. This shows the promptness and decisiveness of opponents in response to statements that carried the essence of true monotheism.
In his commentary, Mirza Mahmud Rizwan Qumi explains the phrase “qad aṣbaḥ fī al-ishtihār kash-shams fī rābiʿat an-nahār” by stating that it refers to the appearance of the Muhammadan authority in the form of the Aliyyan authority and the unveiling of the secrets of the Imamate through his words: “I am the side of God whom you neglected… I am the hand of God, the eye of God, and the hearing ear of God…” Thus, for such words, the secrets of monotheism became clear to the special and to the general, much like the statement of the Abbasid Caliph “I am the truth”, or the followers of the saints who acknowledged the statements of the great ones.
The phrase “illā baʿda ḵalʿ an-naʿalayn… illā bi-ʾinṭiwāʾ al-qadamayn; bal bi-ʾinkhalāʿ ʿan al-quwatein” refers to giving up the necessary means for earthly and worldly journeys, such as shoes and external apparatuses, as well as the two legs of preliminary conclusions, and the powers of imagination and intellect or the mental and imaginative faculties. The phrase “ʿaql” refers to the imaginative intellect that returns to the soul, which is realized through the removal and release from these faculties. It is through this process that the issue of monotheism becomes clear to the complete ones. Therefore, the cause of opposition from the blockers is their enslavement to the self and its inclinations.
The dual pronoun in all phrases such as “sharākahumā”, “naẓdahumā”, “ishtibākumā”, and “idrākumā” refers to the two faculties of imagination and intellect. The phrase “nawāfir” refers to issues that are elusive and rebellious, not easily grasped.
Imagination arranges the premises of reasoning, and intellect perceives their contents. However, imagination cannot handle the arrangement of premises or the formulation of reasoning by itself. The faculty of imagination or the “mūtakhayyal” (the imaginary faculty), serves both imagination and intellect, and in the latter case, it is called “mufakkirah”.
The commentator refers to the above-mentioned verse to state that the issue of the existence of God and the singularity of His being is self-evident and does not require proof, as the Qur’an also affirms the issue of God’s existence and the establishment of monotheism in a manner that does not require proof. The mention of this issue serves as a reminder and an invitation to reflection. The existence of God is not subject to proof; it is self-evident. If God is properly conceived, it is affirmed, and all doubts and denials stem from an improper conception of God’s existence. Otherwise, when the correct conception is formed, affirmation follows naturally.

Shortcomings of the Peripatetics (Ibn Sina’s followers)

It should be noted that, according to the first generation of philosophers who are among the elect of the prophets and saints, as reported by historians like Agathodaimon (known in religious terms as Luqman), Hermes Trismegistus (Idris in religious texts), Pythagoras (Shith), and the divine Plato, there is no other perspective than the unity of the personal existence of God. However, the later followers of the First Teacher, namely the Peripatetics, who limited the path of the pursuit of true wisdom to mere logical argumentation and abstract reasoning, were veiled by dark doubts. These doubts arose from the dialectical foundations upon which their methods were built, preventing them from recognizing the truth of this clear issue.

It is astonishing that those who tried to make investigations or refine the discussions only added contradictions and objections to their works, thus accumulating their writings with a series of dark layers, with only a few able to escape from their shadows. As the Qur’an says, “And Allah has not wronged them, but they wronged themselves.”

Introduction to the “Principles of Monotheism” and its Place

As for the treatise written by my master and ancestor, Abu Hamid Muhammad Isfahani, known as Turkah — may his secret be sanctified — although it includes clear proofs and decisive arguments on the matter, in accordance with what the scholars affirm, it also makes great efforts in dispelling the doubts with subtle expressions and strives to clear away these obstructions with the eloquence of its rhetoric, so that for anyone with even a slight understanding of logic, no doubts remain about the certainty of these principles. Yet, due to the depth of its philosophical aspects and its elevated place in argumentation, most of those who benefit from the book cannot fully grasp the lofty objectives intended, and the intellectual capacity of other seekers of guidance remains insufficient for understanding the profound points made.

Therefore, I endeavoured, in my discussions with some of my friends who are devoted scholars, to uncover the meaning behind the brevity of these statements, so as to make their higher benefits more widely accessible and to complete the noble outcomes of this treatise. In doing so, I refer to most of the core principles of those on the path of spiritual discovery and their fundamental rules, while also keeping the established terminology and metaphors used among them in mind, so as to prevent any misinterpretation that may lead to confusion and error in the discussion.

Thus, the book came to be called “Al-Tamhid fi Sharh Risalat al-Qawa’id al-Tawhid”.

Our issue lies in the fact that the science of music is included under the science of arithmetic, whereas the relationship between these two is one of contrast, not of genus and species. This is because arithmetic belongs to the category of discrete quantity, while music belongs to the category of quality.

What has been stated in logic and philosophy texts in response to this issue, which the commentator also expresses, is that sciences can be divided into three general categories: divine, educational, and natural.

Educational sciences are divided into four disciplines because the subject of educational science is quantity. Quantity can be either continuous or discrete. Continuous quantity is either stationary or moving. Discrete quantity can either involve composition or not.

Moving continuous quantity is the subject of the science of astronomy, and stationary continuous quantity is the subject of the science of geometry. Discrete quantity, which does not involve composition or structure, is the subject of arithmetic, while discrete quantity with composition or structure is the subject of the science of music.

In his commentary on Tamhid al-Qawa’id, Mirza Mahmud Qummi elaborates on the phrase “like music in relation to arithmetic” as follows: Educational sciences, meaning mathematical sciences, are fourfold, because the subject of educational science—quantity—can be either continuous or discrete. Continuous quantity is either moving or stationary. The moving continuous quantity is the subject of astronomy, while the stationary continuous quantity is the subject of geometry.

Discrete quantity, which either involves composition or not, is first and foremost music. Therefore, the subject of music is the numerical quantity of sound waves in the air, which involves melodies and is composed of suitable rhythmic patterns.

The craft of music consists of two components: the first is composition, which concerns melody. A melody is a sound fixed at a certain pitch and duration. The second is rhythm, which concerns the intervals in which beats are struck and transferred from one to another, where the discussion focuses on the pattern of these beats and their deviations. Therefore, music is an educational science, and its subject is discrete quantity with a compositional relation. If the quantity is not considered in terms of composition, then it is arithmetic.

Now that the subject of these four sciences is clear, in response to the objection, we say: the science of music is not inherently different from the science of arithmetic in all respects because the subject of music is a quality coupled with quantity and number. This means that although the subject of music is melody—which inherently belongs to the category of quality—it is a melody where numerical relations are considered. Thus, the subject of music consists of two components: melody and sound, which serve as the foundation for composition and structure, and rhythm, which defines the intervals of notes and the relationships between them. Therefore, the subject of music is both composition and rhythm, not simply quality alone, but with quantity involved, and in this way, it is not distinct from arithmetic. In fact, musical notes are expressed through strikes, and their rhythm and number indicate quantity, while their melody indicates quality. Hence, music is a more complex science than arithmetic and, in this regard, is contained within arithmetic because arithmetic is more unified. The subject of arithmetic is discrete quantity, while the subject of music is melody produced by striking instruments, where the notes of the melody reach their peaks and lows, forming musical scales such as the Dastgahs of Afshari, Segah, Chahargah, Mahur, and Abu Ata.

Second Objection and Response

It could be argued: If the addition of a subsequent quality suffices for the realization of a general and specific relationship, then it does not necessarily follow that the higher science’s subject is inherently more general, because its generality might arise due to an added subsequent quality.

We respond: After assisting in the connection mentioned, we affirm that the quality here is not external to the subject, but rather the very concept of it. The inherent generality is thus required in both cases.

This objection argues that if the addition of a subsequent quality is sufficient for the realization of a general and specific relationship, it does not necessarily follow that the higher science’s subject is inherently more general. However, we assert that the quality here is intrinsic to the subject and thus the generality is inherently necessary in both cases.

Notes on the Text:

The second objection has two responses: one rejects the connection, and the other states that if the connection is accepted, the quality here is not external to the subject but is the very concept of it. As for the subject of mystical knowledge, which is absolute existence, any quality considered in relation to it is still absolute existence itself. In philosophy, however, this is not the case, as absolute existence does not encompass restricted existence, making its generality relative.
Earlier, when responding to the objection of music being included under arithmetic, we spoke of the inclusion of quantitative aspects in music, resolving the issue there. Now, we can claim that the subject of mystical knowledge, as a higher science, does not necessarily have to be inherently more general than the subject of philosophy as a lower science; this generality can be obtained by the addition of a quality. Thus, your argument does not prove the inherent generality of the higher science’s subject over the lower science’s subject.

The response rejects the assumption of the connection, stating that if the quality suffices in a specific case, there is no necessary connection for the general case. Therefore, the higher science does not necessarily require inherent generality.

In the second response, we say that the quality is not external to the subject. This is because the quality can either be universal, restrictive, or causal. For example, “human, as a human, is a rational animal” is a universal quality; “the laughing human” is a restricted quality; and “honoring scholars” is a causal quality.

In compositions, restrictive and causal qualities are distinct, but in simple subjects, they merge. Thus, in the case of mystical knowledge, the generality of the quality is inherent in the subject, unlike music or arithmetic, where the inclusion of quality requires composition. Therefore, the subject of philosophy, as well as that of mystical knowledge, has inherent generality due to its simplicity, whereas in music and arithmetic, this inclusion occurs with composition.

The phrase “the generality is necessary in both cases” refers to the fact that, based on the two responses, whether the generality pertains to the essence of the subject or arises from a subsequent quality, the generality of the higher science’s subject remains intrinsic.
In the original objection, it is argued that if the addition of a quality suffices for the specific case, it does not imply the same for the general case. However, Mirza Mahmud Qummi interpreted this to mean that the quality of specificity, if added, must necessarily also apply to generality, creating an inconsistency in the premise.

Third Objection and Response

If it is argued: If the quality of the subject in mystical knowledge is the very concept of existence itself, then the research should be limited to matters that pertain to existence as existence, which excludes material concerns. Thus, the subject of mystical knowledge would only pertain to non-material things, and no distinction would exist between higher and lower knowledge.

We respond: This only follows if the existence considered is absolute and abstract, but if the subject is absolute existence without the consideration of its abstract nature, all characteristics and qualities—whether material or immaterial—are included in it.

Text Notes:

The original objection assumes that mystical knowledge should focus solely on immaterial or transcendental subjects. However, the response clarifies that the subject of mystical knowledge is absolute existence, which includes both material and immaterial aspects.
The distinction between philosophy and mystical knowledge is that philosophy addresses existence with restrictions, while mystical knowledge addresses existence in its absolute form.
In philosophical terms, existence discussed in metaphysics is abstract, while mystical knowledge concerns the real, experiential, and ultimate nature of existence, accessible through spiritual and external journeys.
The Subject of Mysticism: Existence and the Divine Essence
It was mentioned that the subject of mysticism is absolute and encompasses all the subjects of the various sciences. However, the question arises: which term should we choose to reflect this broad and inclusive meaning, such that its scope is not limited in any way? The term “existence” (وجود), certainly, when referring to the totality of existence—commonly termed “absolute existence”—and the blessed term “Truth” (حق), that is, “absolute Truth,” are among the best and most fitting expressions for this meaning. Although, these words also refer only to the more specific attributes of the subject of mysticism and do not encompass all its characteristics. Divine names and attributes, as well as earthly expressions, generally do not exist without their opposites. Each name is made general by its opposite. However, these two terms do not have opposites and are, in themselves, the most general of concepts.
The subject of mysticism is “existence.” The definite article (the “al” in Arabic) in this context serves to indicate completeness and to prevent the inclusion of non-related concepts. Without it, the subject remains “existence” and “Truth.” The term “existence” is oriented towards the teaching and educational aspects, while the term “Truth” pertains to the spiritual journey and mystical experience.
A concept like “thing” (شیء), due to its lack of an external counterpart and its vagueness and ambiguity, cannot be the subject of mysticism.
The Term “Existence”
Moreover, there is no term more fitting in this context than the term “existence” (الوجود) due to the following reasons:
Firstly, the concept of “general and specific relationships” implies that every entity, possessing either external or mental existence, is part of the broader concept of existence. In contrast, the reverse is not true. As previously discussed, a concept cannot have a general meaning unless every individual entity that belongs to it, either externally or mentally, can be considered part of that broader concept of existence.
Secondly, the clarity or ambiguity of a concept is determined by whether it requires an intermediary to define it. If a concept’s relation to existence requires an intermediary, it is considered ambiguous. However, if the concept can relate directly to existence without intermediary, it is considered clear. Since existence is fundamental and does not require any intermediary, it is the clearest of all concepts.
It is also evident that the term “existence” is the closest concept to the origin (البدء). Nothing can exist by itself (as a substance) or in relation to another (as an accident) unless it is associated with existence. Furthermore, nothing can come into being unless the concept of existence is realized in it first.
The Generality of the Concept of Existence
The term “existence” is the most inclusive of all concepts because it can encompass everything, even its opposite—non-existence (عدم). This is because, even the concept of non-existence, although it does not have an external referent, can still be understood as a mental concept, which is a form of existence itself. Therefore, existence is the most general concept that includes all other concepts, even their opposites.
As mentioned earlier, the relationship between existence and any other specific concept is one of generality and particularity. For instance, the term “sky” (سماء) or “earth” (ارض) applies to all that falls under them, whether mentally or externally, but the reverse is not true. For instance, the concepts of “sky” and “earth” do not apply to all things that are mentally or externally considered to exist. The generality and particularity of a concept arise when every specific instance of the concept, whether external or mental, is also part of the general concept.
The Ambiguity of Concepts and the Clarity of Existence
The clarity or ambiguity of a concept depends on its relation to existence. If the concept requires an intermediary to be understood or realized, it is considered ambiguous. However, a concept like “substance” (جوهر), which directly relates to existence, is clearer because it does not require an intermediary. Similarly, human beings are closer to existence through a mental or external intermediary, while substances are inherently related to existence.
The concept of existence is the clearest and most fundamental because it is not preceded by anything else. It is also the first and most evident of all concepts.
Criticism of the Generality of Mysticism’s Subject
We have stated that the subject of mysticism is absolute existence and the Divine Essence (حق‌تعالى) in terms of its relation to both the Divine and creation. Consequently, the attributes, names, and essential realities of the Divine (such as the divine names and the fixed entities) are considered the objects of mystical discussion. At this point, three objections arise, which we will now address.
Mysticism and Its Essential Attributes
It is commonly understood that the subject of each science is defined by its essential attributes, which are considered external to it but essential for its definition. The attributes that are applied to the subject in mysticism, such as divine names and realities, cannot be regarded as external additions. They are, in fact, the very essence of the subject itself. Mysticism, then, cannot involve external attributes or consequences that are not inherent to the subject.
Objection Regarding the Generality of Mysticism’s Subject
The second objection suggests that if divine names and fixed entities are considered as attributes or external consequences of the subject, then these attributes and the subject itself become indistinguishable. This would contradict the notion of generality and superiority of the concept of “existence” over other concepts. If the subject and its attributes are identical, there would be no justification for considering one concept as more general than another. Therefore, the attributes of mysticism—such as divine names—cannot be considered external to the essence of the subject.
Conclusion
The generality and clarity of the concept of “existence” are crucial for understanding the subject of mysticism. The term “existence” encompasses all concepts, even their opposites, and is the closest concept to the origin of being. Mysticism, in its pursuit of understanding the divine essence and the nature of existence, can only be properly studied through the lens of existence, which is fundamental, clear, and general.
After discussing the subject of the science of mysticism and its inherent characteristics, the discussion turns to the principles of this science. The principles of any science are the necessary perceptions that form its foundation.
The principles of any science can be divided into two categories: conceptual and affirmatory. Each of these can be further classified into evident and self-evident, or non-evident and theoretical. Non-evident principles, whether conceptual or related to affirmatory judgments, must be based on self-evident principles.
The conceptual principles of mysticism refer to the perceptions of divine names, including the names of essence, attributes, actions, names of union, and relative names, as well as the specific properties and effects of these names. Therefore, the conceptual principles required in the science of mysticism are the perceptions of the names and attributes related to the subject of mysticism (existence).
In the phrase “he who perceives the mothers of truths,” the intended meaning of “perception” is not intellectual acquisition or mental cognition; rather, the conceptual and affirmatory principles in mysticism refer to the realization of divine names (of essence, attributes, and actions) and their interrelations. This is because, in contrast to other sciences, in mysticism, the talk of perception and cognition is equivalent to achieving presence with the divine names. Therefore, mere intellectual understanding or mental grasp of the concepts and meanings of divine names and attributes is not sufficient in mysticism.
The phrase “the mothers of the necessary truths of the existence of the Almighty,” refers to the divine essence names, which are the inherent characteristics of the subject of mysticism (existence). These are names that never lose their generality, are never confined, and are unaffected by restrictions or limitations. They do not get absorbed in any specific name and remain universally applicable.
The phrase “for the existence of the Almighty” is an explanatory addition. The term “existence” refers to the “Truth,” and the “Truth” is, in this context, the “existence.”
The affirmatory principles are the positive causes that establish and clarify the attributes (such as characteristics, necessary relations, and effects) of the subjects in the science, which are identical to the fundamental topic of the science.
The affirmatory principles of any science can also be divided into two categories: evident and self-evident, or non-evident. The self-evident principles are shared across all sciences; for example, the principle of non-contradiction. What is important in the affirmatory principles of any science is the proof of its theoretical principles, which are specific to that science.
In mysticism, the theoretical affirmatory principles involve the affirmation of the fundamental truths, the names of attributes (names that relate to essence and description), names of actions (names relating to occurrence), and the relationships between them.
The phrase “and the names of relations and additions” refers to the relationships and connections between one name and another, such as the relation between “healer” and “provider,” or “provider” and “merciful,” which is referred to as the “union of names.” The union of names is a very profound concept in mysticism and the science of names. In the union of names, some names combine with others due to their correspondence and different positions, leading to new names and more specific, limited concepts. This process moves from the general to the specific, and as it progresses, the names become more limited, complex, and, in a sense, more expansive and multiplied.
The conceptual principles of the science of mysticism are the attainment of divine names. But what distinguishes conceptual from affirmatory principles? In conceptual principles, there is no judgment involved; the discussion is about presence, attainment, and observation, much like seeing fire. However, in affirmatory principles, judgment is involved, such as determining the heat of the fire in the previous example. Although in both cases, the important factor is the presence near the fire and the direct observation of it, whether or not we speak of heat and warmth.
Thus, the presence, attainment, and observation of the divine names and attributes constitute the conceptual principles of this science, while the judgment regarding their divinity is part of the affirmatory principles.
The reference of all the pronouns in the phrase “its judgment by establishing it in itself or by establishing some of its necessary relations” refers to the divine essence.
Evidency and Authority
If it is said: The principles must either be self-evident by themselves, or established in a higher science and accepted by it, and since these truths are not self-evident, they must be clarified in a higher science, and there is no science higher than this as it has been established.
We would reply: The way to inquire into the principles—as has been established—is through one of two means:
First: Through the manifestation of their effects in the world, where the mystic perceives these effects and judgments either through sensory perception, reason, intuition, or unveiling, and learns from them, which is akin to the evidency in formal sciences.
Or secondly: By receiving them from one who has a higher and more complete unveiling, such as the perfect ones among the prophets and saints, which is akin to what is clarified in a higher science.

All Exit

Regarding the issues at hand (in Mysticism): They refer to matters that lead to the clarification of the subjects and names, which are the stations and realms, and are the cause of the specification of each of them to a particular station and origin. These are also the matters that explain the details of the names’ rulings and the specific relationships of each. For each name has a particular station it pertains to, and the concept of the terminological necessity of divine names, according to the principles of mysticism, refers to this.

If an objection arises that in any science, issues are referred to matters for which a demonstration has been established in that science, and since demonstration has no place in mysticism, mysticism would therefore be a science that cannot have any issues to discuss, we would respond by stating that a demonstration is the composition of certain principles that are clear or self-evident, in such a way that they lead to the desired judgement, which is called an “issue.”

And since you understand that, for the two mentioned categories of principles (the clear and the clarified) in this science, those two categories of clarity are established by the appearance of their effects and imitation of the one who possesses the highest revelation, it follows that what arises from the composition of these principles—when we seek to attain scientific knowledge and true insights—is the “issue.”

Moreover, this concept is restricted by the accepted norms in specific, formal sciences, so it is not necessary that this rule applies to the universal science, as the characteristics of the general (or universal) are different from the specifics. Therefore, it is not required to apply the rules of the specifics to the general — which applies to its individual components — but rather, the universal principles must be applied to the specifics, not vice versa.

However, since the premise of the discussion in this treatise follows the approach of those who engage in reasoned speculation and argument, adhering to such applications is not entirely beyond the permissible framework.

Textual Notes

Issues: Matters that require reasoning and demonstration in any science. An “issue” refers to a problem that must be resolved by outlining and organizing the necessary subject matter and principles of that science, so that with the aid of these principles, questions, problems, and demands can be addressed.

Thus, if a science has a subject to organize its discussions logically, and if it has principles—whether they are clear or clarified—that can be used to argue and solve its unknowns, then the issues of that science are the matters to which arguments and demonstrations are applied, and once demonstrated, these are considered as the contents of that science.

The Commentator’s Definition of the Issue: “Demonstration is the composition of certain principles that are clear or self-evident, such that they lead to the desired judgement, which is called the ‘issue’.”
Mystical Issues: The issues of mystical science concern divine names and attributes, and the manifestation of their intellectual and objective correlates, as well as the relationships between these names and the governing principles over them. In other words, the issues of mystical science pertain to divine names and attributes, which are the essence of existence that seeks them, and the essence itself possesses these names and attributes.
Objection Regarding Mystical Issues: An objection is raised stating that every science’s issues require arguments or reasoning, and since mysticism focuses on mystical vision, knowledge, and the direct experience of the essence, which involves the existence and objective reality of it, there seems to be no place for reasoning or intellectual, conceptual arguments.
Response to the Objection: Mysticism also has its own type of demonstration. The difference lies in the nature of the demonstration, not in its absence. What is termed as demonstration in mysticism is far superior to philosophical demonstration, and hence philosophy is considered a relative higher science, not a true one, because its subjects, principles, and issues revolve entirely around the mind and concepts. In contrast, mysticism is a true science where its arguments, reasoning, and inferences are much higher and more exalted than those of other sciences, including philosophy. We have explained the nature of mystical demonstrations both in terms of direct experience and in terms of narrative and transmission. The issue is not that the common philosophical and logical demonstrations cannot address mysticism, but rather, this is a limitation of Aristotelian logic, which is incapable of grasping these profound matters. In mysticism, instead of the common reasoning, revelation and infallibility are the mainstays, which are much stronger and firmer, and have a direct connection to the external truths, rather than to mental concepts. Therefore, one cannot place mysticism on the same level as other specific sciences and apply their principles to it. Rather, the principles and rules of general sciences and mysticism should be applied to specific sciences.
The Meaning of “These Truths and Names”: These refer to divine names and attributes. The distinction between “name” and “attribute” lies in the fact that in attributes—such as life, knowledge, and power—the essence is not considered, whereas in a name, the essence is implied; for example, “the Living,” “the Knowing,” and “the Powerful.”
The Meaning of “Realm” (Moṭan): This refers to the mystical station and the stage of attainment that the seeker reaches in practical wisdom and mysticism.
“Station” (Martaba): Refers to the existential or theoretical consideration.
“Origin” (Maḥtad): The root, foundation, lineage, and place of origin.
The Phrase “For Every Name Has a Realm It Belongs To”: This suggests that every name has a particular station it belongs to. Just as every name has a manifestation, it also has a “manifestor.” It is vital for a person to know their own station and to understand which divine name is their governing force. In mysticism, if a person knows themselves and knows which name is their guiding force and their Lord, many of their problems will be resolved.
The Phrase “For Every Name Has a Realm It Belongs To, and This is What is Meant by the Terminological Necessity of Divine Names According to Their Rules”: This is unrelated to the discussion of defining issues. While the discussion of the terminological necessity of divine names is a secondary, detailed issue within the broader discussion of divine names and attributes, the way the commentator brings it up here and defines the terminological necessity of divine names is not accurate. The focus of our discussion is the definition of the central and general issues of mystical science, which are the divine names and attributes, and the terminological necessity of divine names is a specific issue that belongs to the discussion of divine names and attributes, not equivalent to it.
The Terminological Necessity of Divine Names: This is a theological or jurisprudential issue. Briefly, this matter has no fundamental religious or rational basis, and any name or attribute that does not carry any notion of imperfection can be ascribed to God. In fact, it can be said that every perfection that can be ascribed to creation should also necessarily be ascribed to God.
The Commentator’s Critique: The late Mirza Mahmoud Qumi, in his commentary, has stated that the definition of issues provided by the commentator is incomplete and instead defines the general issues of mysticism as: “The issues here are those that become clarified through the chief names, which are the principles of their related realities, the stations, realms, and relationships detailing the rulings of each division and its place, and what is determined by them and their effects through their descriptions, attributes, and the subsidiary names.” He adds that all of this ultimately refers to two matters: the knowledge of the connection between the world and the Divine, and the connection of the Divine with the world, and what can be known from the whole, and what is impossible to know.
Completion of the Argument: The commentator, after discussing the subject, principles, and issues of mystical science, turns to explaining certain shared terms and concepts between philosophy and mysticism, which are in fact part of the conceptual foundations and definitions of this science. This clarification aims to prevent confusion among beginners who might mistakenly equate terms from both fields due to their similarities, ensuring that the debate remains precise and clear.
The term “existence” is a shared concept in both philosophy and mysticism. In philosophy, existence is applied to “being in entities” or “becoming in an absolute manner.” The first meaning encompasses external existences, while mental existences are considered secondary or derivative discussions; unlike the meaning of “absolute being,” which encompasses all existential discussions in philosophy in a primary way and will not have a secondary discussion. Therefore, these two meanings cannot be placed alongside each other with the word “or.”
The esteemed commentator considers the philosophical term “existence” synonymous with “becoming = being” and defines them interchangeably as explanatory or clarifying definitions.
In the wise formulation of terms, synonymy is prohibited. The term maker, while considering the specific and distinct meaning of a concept, assigns a term for that meaning, without introducing a second term for the same concept, even though it may not always be evident in usage. “Becoming” and “existence” also have subtle and distinct meanings. The term “becoming = emergence” is more familiar and known in mysticism, while the term “existence” is more familiar in philosophy.
The esteemed commentator refers to “existence” and “becoming” as simple natures, yet neither of these is a nature that could be simple or compound, as it is the substance that can be simple or compound. Nature pertains to essence, and when discussing the types, qualities, and attributes of essences, nature comes into play. Therefore, “becoming” and “existence” are neither natures nor can they be simple or compound.
The conceptual definition of “existence” and “becoming” is an explanatory and linguistic substitution for better understanding the meaning; otherwise, the true definition of these two terms cannot be established together.
The Otherness and Superiority of Existence Over Essence
Furthermore, since existence is seen as an additional element over the essences of beings and since nothing can come into being without being coupled with existence, and entering into a type of absolute realization—whether actual or hypothetical—philosophers imagine that the relationship between essences and existence is like that of bodies to space. Just as each body has a natural attachment to a specific location that it does not transcend, so too do essences in relation to existence.
Some essences, such as relations and hypothetical additions, only exist in the perceiving faculties and are known as hypothetical existence, with their objects being hypothetical.
Some essences are realized outside of the hypothetical and mental constructs—whether or not the intellectual hypothesis exists—and are known as real existence or existence in itself.
From this category, some are also present outside, termed external existence—meaning outside of sensory perception—while others have their reality in perception, such as actual relations and additions, and other concepts that occur in the second level of intellect.
In their explanation, the commentator claims that existence is additional to essence. Addition, in this case, refers to otherness. Existence is separate from essence, because in intellectual analysis, existence and essence are distinct. For example, when it is said “man exists” and “animal exists,” the existence of man and animal is the same, but the essences of man and animal are separate. Haji Sabzevari mentions in his “Manteq al-Mohammadi” that:
“Existence is the accident of essence,
in perception, and both are unified in identity.”
In intellectual analysis, existence is distinct from essence, even though they are one reality in the external world.
The commentator likens the relationship between existence and essence to the relationship between a body and a location, where the location is the container for the body. However, bodies and locations both exist independently, whereas existence and essence have a relationship where essence can only exist through the presence of existence. Existence, whether mental, hypothetical, or external, is the necessary factor for essence’s realization—be it in a real or hypothetical sense.
Interpretation of Existence Types
There are categories of mental beings that are real and exist independently, while some exist purely as mental constructs or hypothetical constructs. These terms of existence show the duality of essence’s dependence on existence, whether in the intellectual realm or beyond, and give structure to the distinctions in how existence is viewed philosophically and mystically.
This translation conveys the intricate philosophical reasoning in the original text, focusing on the nature of existence in relation to essence, including distinctions between hypothetical and real existence, and its dual nature as perceived mentally or externally.
The mental proposition “Zayd, the non-existent, is a human” – although it does not have external existence and realisation – still exists as a mental entity, and as such, possesses truth conditions and a criterion for truth. For this reason, one can assert that “Zayd, the non-existent, is a human”. Thus, the truth of this proposition is not contingent on its externality, as it does not have an external referent, nor on its being mental, since the mind does not determine truth. Rather, the criterion for determining the truth or falsity of this proposition, and all propositions, is the “Nafs al-Amr” (the realm of the thing-in-itself).

The Reason for Nafs al-Amr

The reasoning for “Nafs al-Amr” is as follows: belief in the truth or falsity of propositions concerning the non-existent is not possible without relying on some corresponding external reality. Hence, such propositions must have an external counterpart, which, however, is not in the external world as it is commonly understood, but in the realm of Nafs al-Amr.
The commentator, in asserting the existence of Nafs al-Amr, arrives at the desired conclusion from the earlier discussions.

The Difference Between True and False Propositions

If it is asked: How can one judge the truth of Zayd’s humanity as “true” or the falsity of Zayd’s donkey-ness as “false”, when these propositions do not correspond to anything in the external world? A true proposition is one that has a correspondence in the external world, while a false proposition lacks such correspondence.
We reply: “External” is used ambiguously (i.e., with different meanings). Sometimes it refers to the external world as a reality outside the mind, as when we say, “This statement has a correspondence in the external world,” and “This statement does not have correspondence in the external world.” This meaning of “external” corresponds to Nafs al-Amr. Other times, “external” refers to things in opposition to mental existence, as in the context of our discussion, where it is more specific.
With this clarification, it becomes evident that the absence of correspondence in the “external world” in the specific sense does not imply that there is no correspondence in the “external world” in the general sense.

Comment on the Text

The commentator presents an argument for the existence of Nafs al-Amr, stating that the truth or falsity of the proposition “Zayd, the non-existent in the external world, is a human” or “Zayd, the non-existent in the external world, is not a donkey” is based on Nafs al-Amr. One may object by asking how we can determine the truth of the humanity of a non-existent Zayd or the falsity of his donkey-ness, given that the truth and falsity of propositions require a correspondence to an external reality.
The commentator responds by asserting that “external” is used ambiguously in two ways. Sometimes it refers to external reality, which is broader and synonymous with Nafs al-Amr, while other times it refers to things outside of mental existence. The first sense of “external” is broader, encompassing both external and mental existence, and is the criterion for the truth or falsity of propositions.
Thus, the proposition “Zayd, the non-existent in the external world, is a human” or “Zayd, the non-existent in the external world, is not a donkey” corresponds to the external in the broader sense (i.e., Nafs al-Amr), and this is what determines the truth or falsity of the statement.

Objection to the Concept of Nafs al-Amr

It might be argued: “It is self-evident that every entity which does not exist in the cognitive faculties must have an existence outside those faculties; otherwise, it would not exist at all. Therefore, the claim that there is something called ‘Nafs al-Amr’ that exists beyond both mental and external existence requires further clarification and proof.”
We respond: It has been established, according to rational laws, that there must be an entity existing independently outside of these faculties, existing as a self-sufficient reality that is not subject to change, corruption, or dissolution. This entity encompasses all rational concepts that can potentially be realised, and it is eternal and unchanging. This is referred to as the “Universal Intellect” or the “Preserved Tablet” in certain philosophical traditions.

Critique of the Explanation of Nafs al-Amr

Some contemporary thinkers have posed a criticism by applying it to the existence of necessary beings and intellects. They argue that if Nafs al-Amr refers to a universal intellect, it must be devoid of existence in the higher realms and the divine world. Following this line of thought, it would imply that humans are unable to recognise the truth of things since they do not have access to the higher realms. This suggests that the Universal Intellect cannot be Nafs al-Amr.
The commentator, however, rejects this critique, offering an alternative interpretation of Nafs al-Amr. He claims that Nafs al-Amr refers to a higher, intellectual realm where all the true and real forms of things exist as abstract, eternal entities. These truths exist independently of material change and have an immutable nature. This realm is distinct from the physical world, yet it provides the basis for understanding the truth of propositions.

Final Thoughts

The truth of propositions is not merely based on mental representations or external realities. Instead, Nafs al-Amr, which serves as the source of all reality, whether mental or physical, provides the underlying foundation for truth and falsity. The existence of such a realm helps reconcile our understanding of existence, cognition, and the ultimate nature of reality.
The key point in the awareness and access to the reality of things and the knowledge of their essence lies in the fact that there is no distinction between the believer and the non-believer. Although those who do not believe in God and the unseen realms and beings have, by their own doing, deprived themselves of the ability to access the reality of these things and matters, it is also possible for a believer to remain ignorant of a mathematical, natural, or philosophical issue and not acquire knowledge in relation to it.
One must differentiate between knowledge of the essence of things and the essence itself. What is meant by knowledge of the truth of things is the knowledge of their essence. The true scholar is someone who attains knowledge of the truth of things and exists with the beings. The thing that is known must possess essence and substance; therefore, there is no distinction between the Almighty and other beings regarding the possession of essence.
What can be said to justify the theories of great scholars of knowledge is that the only way to access the reality and essence of things is not solely through patience, division, and rational analysis. Rather, a few individuals can perceive the essence of things through the lens of universal reason, the preserved tablet, the higher pen, and the eternal realities, even beyond these realms. However, it must be understood that this matter is not universal and that what is shared between minds is the path of reasoning and thought. While the mystical access to things is an undeniable truth, it is sequential rather than simultaneous. However, this path is not accessible to all. This belief is neither a philosophical belief nor, in terms of thought and reasoning, a correct belief, because it has been stated that access to these abstract worlds is only possible for a few of the masters of mysticism and spiritual journeys. On the other hand, access to the truth or falsity of a matter, its correctness or incorrectness, is available to everyone. Therefore, the essence of things cannot be judged by the aforementioned worlds and existences. However, it is also true that these existential worlds can serve as a mirror for the mystic’s heart. Faithful seekers and the saints of God can, through these worlds, see the truth and falsehood of things, understand their characteristics, and recognize the world of nature as it truly is. For someone who has reached the presence of the Cause, the recognition of its effects is an inevitable and self-evident matter. As Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said, “I know the paths of the heavens better than I know the paths of the earth.” In the stage of the Cause, recognizing its effects becomes easier for them. Seeing is not limited to visual perception and mental reasoning, nor to philosophical or empirical knowledge of the essence of things in the natural world. The special path of the saints, who are people of vision and witnessing, is also accessible to only a few.
Why this book is written in the style of philosophers:
Be aware that most of the discussions in this book, due to their detachment from natural qualities and their strangeness to ordinary minds, are accompanied by quotes from the words of the masters because they are presented to the views of those who engage in logical reasoning, and very few among them possess keen discernment. Hence, it is necessary to reference those things that are worthy of being relied upon, according to their custom and what their understanding and communication have been based upon, to bring some peace to their hearts. Perhaps God will open to them the gates of truth and certainty through these keys of trust and belief, for He is the Opener of the Clear. Otherwise, such topics are not suitable for referencing external sayings, nor is there a need for the construction of logical arguments. This is all based on the opinions of those who engage in reasoning and logical deduction, while other words, whose meanings are well-known to them, do not require further discussion.
Meaning of “Existence” according to the Scholars of Mysticism:
As for the scholars, existence is not something additional to beings; rather, beings are merely the specific types of existence, and their variations are distinguished merely by relations and accidental conditions based on perception and sensation. The essences of these truths are identical to their identities and existence, and not something else. This is further explained in the work of the esteemed Sheikh in his book Insha’ al-Dawair where he states: “Know that existence and non-existence are not something extra added to the existent and the non-existent. However, the imagination perceives existence and non-existence as attributes related to the existent and the non-existent, imagining them as though they are like a house into which existence and non-existence enter. For this reason, we say, ‘This thing has entered into existence after it was non-existent.’ However, the true meaning of existence and non-existence is that the thing is found in its essence, and existence and non-existence are expressions for affirming and negating the essence of the thing. Once the essence of a thing is affirmed or negated, it may be described by both existence and non-existence, and this is relative and dependent on a particular perspective.”
Explanation of “Being” and the Notion of Unity and Multiplicity:
As for the term “Being”, the Greatest Sheikh (May God bless him) said in his explanation of terms according to the way of the people of God: “Indeed, all things that exist are in a state of being.” To properly understand this statement, one must first introduce a crucial premise. Unity has two considerations:
1. Its intrinsic nature: This is known as absolute or true unity. In this sense, a thing is understood in such a way that its concept does not imply any multiplicity or duality at all, and even the denial of multiplicity is not taken into consideration, as that would imply opposition to multiplicity, which necessarily entails duality. Hence, unity, in this sense, does not stand in opposition to anything, nor is it opposed by anything. Therefore, it is not a unit in the sense of numbers, as when one says “God is One, not by number.” This refers to this meaning.
2. An external consideration: This is called relative or comparative unity. Here, the thing does not divide into multiple parts of its own, but in relation to other things, it is considered as one. Hence, in this sense, unity is opposed to multiplicity, and this opposition is external and accidental.

The Sections of Carrying in the Justification of Carrying Attributes on the Essence

If one were to ask: how can one of the opposites be conceived through the other, and how can it be judged accordingly? The means by which things are known and judged must necessarily be through attributes that are carried upon them in a “He is He” manner.

I would reply: attributes have two considerations:

The first consideration is according to their intrinsic nature. By this consideration, there is no contradiction between the attributes and the essence; rather, they must be true of the essence in a “He is He” manner.

The second consideration is according to the accidents that later befall them, in terms of their occurrence in the mind. It is through this second consideration that contradiction occurs. This is apparent in the example under discussion, as the description of ignorance, when considered in its nature as it is, has no contradiction with its essence; otherwise, it would not be its essence, nor would it be true to say of it “He is He.”

However, when one considers the subsequent identity that comes with the attribute as it is realised in the mind, contradiction arises between the essence and this attribute. It is clear that the accidents that affect things, in terms of external considerations beyond their essence, do not influence their essential judgments. Otherwise, it would lead to the conclusion that no concept remains fully universal when conceived, since everything that occurs in the mind is particular.

This is an aspect of divine wisdom, as God has endowed the intellect with a special power or disposition by which it can conceive concepts in their pure form, independent of the accidental features that may arise in the mind and the constraints imposed by particular instances. This ability enables the intellect to distinguish between true judgments—which relate to the essential, conceptual nature of things—and other accidents that might be associated with them in their external appearances or gradations, allowing the intellect to conceive things as they truly are in existence and to reveal their realities as they are. This power is one of the effects of what we referred to earlier as the first act of the Divine, the “First Intellect,” and its corresponding determinations in this world.

The Second Consideration of Multiplicity

This brings us to the second consideration of multiplicity, which is known as “relative and additional multiplicity.” It refers to the state of something as being divisible into multiple parts due to its inherent nature. The distinction between this consideration and that of the later consideration of unity is not obscure.

This multiplicity, in its intrinsic form, does not create contradictions, as it is merely a reflection of the true nature of the thing itself. The essence of a being, considered from this perspective, may be understood as comprising parts or divisions without any inherent contradiction. The multiplicity exists in the very fabric of that essence, as it is determined by its inherent nature. This is the concept of multiplicity as it applies to the essence of things, which can be recognized in their divisions and subdivisions, without implying any contradiction within the essential framework of the being itself.

However, the second aspect of multiplicity, the one that arises from external causes or accidents, is different. This multiplicity refers to the manner in which a being or concept is divided by external circumstances or through the intervention of the mind. Such multiplicity, which arises through external factors or mental constructions, is accidental and does not reflect the true essence of the thing in question. When multiplicity is considered in this way, contradictions can arise because it is no longer based on the essence itself but rather on external or imposed divisions that distort the true nature of the being.

This understanding is crucial when examining the interplay between essence and accident. The essence remains indivisible and unified in its true form, while the accidents—arising from external influences—introduce an apparent multiplicity that may cause confusion or lead to incorrect judgments about the nature of the thing. Therefore, while the essence of a being may possess inherent multiplicity, it does not suffer from contradiction unless the multiplicity is imposed by accidental factors, such as mental divisions or external impositions that are not part of the essence itself.

The Role of the Intellect in Recognising Essence and Accident

The intellect plays a vital role in distinguishing between these two types of multiplicity. The intellect is capable of discerning the essential nature of a thing, untainted by the accidental features that might be present. It can recognize the pure essence, free from the external conditions or mental constructions that might otherwise confuse its understanding.

This capacity of the intellect is not a trivial matter. It enables the mind to conceive of things in their true form, without being influenced by the accidents that might be attached to them in particular instances. In this way, the intellect has the power to abstract and isolate the essential nature of a being from the multiplicity that might arise in its external manifestations.

It is through this intellectual capacity that we can achieve true knowledge, which is based on the essence of things as they are in themselves, independent of the accidents that may occur in the external world or in the mental processes. This distinction between essence and accident is fundamental to understanding the nature of reality, as it allows the intellect to grasp the true form of things, free from the distortions of external influences or mental representations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the process of carrying attributes upon the essence and the considerations of multiplicity and unity are fundamental to understanding the relationship between essence and accident. The attributes of a being, when considered in their essential form, do not contradict the essence; however, when considered in terms of their external or accidental features, contradictions may arise. The intellect, through its unique capacity, can discern between the essential nature of a thing and the accidental features that might be attached to it, thus achieving true knowledge. By distinguishing between essence and accident, and recognising the inherent multiplicity within the essence itself, the intellect is able to grasp the true nature of reality and the beings within it.

Second, the proof that, although all beings are manifestations of the Absolute Truth, they exist in varying degrees and in the unity of the collective, they manifest only in the individuals of the human type — which has been realised in the aforementioned degrees through intuition and spiritual perception — and from among all of them, there is one who is specifically granted the distinction of finality and perfection. Upon him and his family, peace and blessings be upon them. Therefore, his statement, “Prayers upon His Prophet,” refers to this matter.

And his statement, “The Gnostics have gone towards him,” refers to the later Muhammadan saints (may God’s peace and satisfaction be upon them). These are the individuals who have revealed the truth, expressing it openly in poetry and prose, and for the confirmation of unity for those with insight, they have used narration and reasoned arguments.

And his statement, “And the Realised ones point towards him,” refers to the previous prophets (may God’s peace be upon them) and their disciples, who are the saints of God, such as Enoch and the ancient philosophers. They conveyed the concept of unity more often in the form of symbols and hints, for these great figures spoke according to the understanding and wisdom of the people of their time, reducing the concepts to the level of their comprehension. They could not speak openly about the unity of the Divine except by way of allusion, which itself held a degree of concealment, so that the comprehensive words they conveyed could be understood by the select few, not the general public.

Text Notes:

After the extended introduction by the esteemed Sa’in al-Din, the text of the treatise Qawa’id al-Tawhid by Abu Hamid begins. The text is structured in sixty-five “Qal” and “Aqoul” (sayings), which we will explain and elucidate in sixty-five parts.
The introduction of the text clearly outlines the author’s approach and ultimate purpose of this treatise in two short expressions: “Praise be to the Lord” and “Prayers upon His Prophet.” These two phrases unveil the purpose of the treatise, the first concerning the mystical unity and the issue of the Oneness of Existence, and the second referring to the perfect human being, the mirror reflecting the beauty and grandeur of God.
The meaning of the phrase “The first: Establishing the Unity of the Absolute Existence” is that the mystic, in his understanding, speaks about establishing the Unity of Existence, rather than the philosopher’s search for the Necessary Existence, or the theologian’s search for a creator or the cause of the created world.
The statement “The second: Establishing that the mentioned Absolute Truth, although all creatures are its manifestations, it is only in certain individuals among the human type, who have realised this truth through their intuition and perception, that this truth fully manifests itself.” In the course of spiritual ascent, the human being reaches the ultimate realisation of all stages, intuitively and experientially, which makes him the complete mirror of the Absolute Truth.
In the second part, he discusses the nature of the mystical path and the type of knowledge in mysticism. While philosophical discussions are based on conceptual and logical reasoning, mystical knowledge is based on the purification of the heart and soul. It is this purification that allows an individual to access divine realities and to come to knowledge of the necessity of existence.
And his statement, “The Gnostics have gone towards him,” refers to the later Muhammadan saints (may God’s peace and satisfaction be upon them). These individuals, who have realised the truth, have openly expressed it both in poetry and prose. For the confirmation of the unity of the Divine for those with insight, they have employed both narrative and rational arguments.
His statement, “And the Realised ones point towards him,” refers to the previous prophets (may God’s peace be upon them) and their disciples, who are regarded as the saints of God. Notably, this includes figures such as Enoch and the ancient philosophers. These figures conveyed the concept of the divine unity in a manner that was frequently symbolic or allegorical, for they spoke in accordance with the intellectual capacity of the people of their time. They reduced these profound concepts to a form that could be understood, but their approach was more veiled, as they could not express the unity of the Divine in such an explicit manner as the later Gnostics did. Thus, they communicated their understanding of divine unity through hints, symbols, and indirect references, preserving the secrecy and depth of these truths for only a select group who were capable of understanding them.

The Treatise:

Following the introduction by the venerable Sa’in al-Din, the treatise Qawa’id al-Tawhid by Abu Hamid officially begins. This treatise is comprised of sixty-five “Qal” (sayings) and “Aqoul” (principles). The purpose of this treatise is to elucidate the intricate concepts of the unity of the Divine and the experiential path that leads to realising the absolute oneness of existence. We will explore and explain each of these principles, shedding light on their deeper meanings across sixty-five sections.

Purpose of the Treatise:

The opening statements of the treatise immediately highlight the central purpose of the work. The phrases “Praise be to the Lord” and “Prayers upon His Prophet” are not merely formalities, but rather represent the essence of the treatise. The first phrase signifies the mystical exploration of the Oneness of Existence, or the unity of the Absolute, while the second refers to the concept of the Perfect Human Being, the ultimate manifestation of divine attributes. This human being serves as the mirror through which the Divine reality is reflected.

The Unity of Existence:

The phrase “The first: Establishing the Unity of the Absolute Existence” addresses a fundamental mystical teaching — the oneness of the Divine Existence. In contrast to the philosopher’s concept of the Necessary Existence or the theologian’s search for a creator, the mystic seeks to realise that all of creation emanates from a single, unified source. This is the core teaching of tawhid (the doctrine of divine unity) in mysticism.
In this view, the entire cosmos, from the most subtle to the most manifest, is nothing but the expression or manifestation of the Divine Truth. As such, all beings, while appearing distinct and separate, are united in their origin and essence. The goal of mysticism is to penetrate beyond the surface diversity of the world and realise the unity underlying all things. This realisation is not merely an intellectual concept but a deep, intuitive experience that is realised through the purification of the soul and the heart.

The Perfect Human Being:

The “second: Establishing that the Absolute Truth, although all creatures are its manifestations, is fully realised only in certain individuals of the human type,” refers to a key aspect of the mystical path — the idea that the highest realisation of divine unity is found in specific individuals. These individuals, known as the “perfect human beings” or “awliya” (saints), have attained a direct experience of the Divine Truth and reflect it perfectly. These are individuals who, through spiritual discipline, intuitive insight, and the purification of their hearts, have come to embody the full potential of human existence.
In the context of Islamic mysticism, this perfection is most clearly embodied in the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), whose life and being serve as the ideal model for the realization of divine unity in human form. Through him, humanity can access the highest levels of spiritual understanding, and his example is the template for all future seekers of the Divine.

Role of the Prophets and Saints:

The phrase “The Gnostics have gone towards him,” refers to the later generations of mystics who followed in the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the saints who came after him. These mystics, or gnostics, were individuals who, through profound spiritual insight, were able to confirm the unity of existence and direct their entire being towards the realisation of this unity. They achieved this realisation by purifying their hearts and by the grace of God, engaging in deep contemplation, and unifying their inner selves with the Divine.
In contrast, the earlier prophets, including figures such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them), were the initial bearers of the message of divine unity, but their teachings were often communicated in a more symbolic and veiled manner, suited to the intellectual and spiritual capacity of their respective communities. The prophets were the first to plant the seeds of spiritual understanding, while the saints and mystics after them nurtured and expanded this understanding.

Concealment and Revelation:

The mystics often speak in symbols and allusions because their understanding of divine unity transcends the limitations of language and reason. For the general populace, these concepts may seem abstract or esoteric, and thus, the mystic must use metaphor and allegory to convey the truth. The esoteric knowledge of the Divine is only accessible to those who have purified their hearts and minds. For others, it remains veiled, requiring a certain degree of readiness and spiritual maturity before the veil can be lifted.
This is in contrast to the more direct, rational explanations provided by philosophers and theologians, who often try to articulate divine unity in logical terms. While this intellectual approach is valuable, the mystic knows that true understanding can only come through direct experience — an experience that is beyond the grasp of reason alone. This experiential knowledge of divine unity is the ultimate goal of the mystic’s journey.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the treatise Qawa’id al-Tawhid is a profound exploration of the unity of existence from a mystical perspective. Through the study of the sixty-five principles, we gain insight into the journey towards realising the Absolute Truth, the perfect human being, and the role of the prophets and saints in guiding humanity towards divine unity. The treatise underscores the importance of both intellectual understanding and spiritual realisation, for it is only through the purification of the soul and the cultivation of deep insight that one can truly comprehend the unity underlying all of existence.

Explanation of the Writer’s Statement:

It should be clarified that certainty regarding the truth of the matter of monotheism leads to the certainty of the invalidity of all kinds of certain propositions. This means that rational propositions, as well as innate propositions that are accompanied by such reasoning, and sensory propositions, including empirical observations, as well as innate propositions that are fundamental principles, and instinctive propositions that are part of intuitive perceptions—all of these propositions, according to one who is certain about monotheism, are deemed false. This is because the literalists, who consider the concept of monotheism to be incompatible with multiplicity, assume that the affirmation of the distinction of essences and the contradiction of determinations—since this is the result of such premises—contradicts the notion that judgments of differentiation and distinction between essences are abolished.

Moreover, just as the emergence of symptoms of illness is preceded by actions that lead to the disease, a sound and direct mind naturally transfers this thought to the conclusion that such illness is ugly and repulsive in nature. Hence, after describing this, Abū Ḥāmid (al-Ghazālī) stated: “After engaging in futile struggles and ascetic practices,” referring to excessive wakefulness and hunger, which cause the bitter black bile to dominate the noble organs of the brain, and these organs are the means for other intellectual perceptions that constitute the primary essence for human beings.

Textual Remarks:

The objection, contrary to the previous objection that denied the connection between scientific certainty (which is a mental quality) and the disturbance of the temperament (which is a bodily quality), accepts the connection in a general sense but rejects it concerning the perception of universals.
To explain this objection, it must be said: If the human soul perceives the matter of mystical monotheism and the negation of multiplicity in the same way as it does imaginary forms or partial meanings via the bodily faculties, it might be argued that these perceptions are linked to a disturbance in temperament and faculties. However, it must be understood that the matter of monotheism belongs to the category of universal concepts, which the soul perceives without the mediation of bodily faculties. Therefore, the invalidity of such perceptions cannot be used as evidence for the disturbance in the temperament and bodily faculties.

The Third Section:

On the issue that a truthful perception indicates the health of the temperament.

He said:

“But since the matter is contrary to what they believed; in fact, it is the opposite of what they imagined.”

Third Section: The Truth of Perception and the Health of the Temperament

Explanation:

Indeed, what they used as evidence for the poor temperaments of the subjects of the mental faculties is actually an indication of the health and stability of these temperaments. For when the perceptive powers and sensory feelings accurately correspond to what is in reality, and their judgment about things aligns with their actual state, this signifies the soundness of the temperaments of the faculties involved. The actions that emanate from sound faculties are a sign of their proper functioning. Therefore, the matter is exactly the opposite of what they thought, as what they used to argue that the temperaments of the faculties are disturbed, actually indicates the firmness of the poor temperaments of those who fall short in this regard. Every power or principle, whether natural, animal, or psychological, when aimed at a specific goal, will fail to reach that goal only due to the presence of a pathological disturbance, deviating from its original state. If that temperament were left to its own nature, undisturbed by any obstacles, it would naturally reach its completion, and its goal would follow. Certainly, the ultimate goal of the intellectual and perceptive faculties is to perceive things as they truly are. Hence, when they fail to achieve this goal, it is due to a disturbance in temperament. Thus, it becomes clear that the matter of the disturbance in temperament is the opposite of what they believed.

If you say:

The claim that the matter of monotheism, as personal unity, is among the perceptions that show things as they truly are, and that it is the desired goal of the intellectual faculties, is the beginning of the issue and the point of dispute. How, then, can it be used to argue for the correctness of their method?

We say:

Let these propositions be accepted as established for the time being, until their proof is provided in the appropriate section of the treatise, as is customary among those who prove theoretical matters.

Textual Remarks:

In the previous section, the opponent’s objection to the mystical method was discussed. In this and the following sections, Abū Ḥāmid defends the epistemology and method of mystical perception. The main argument of Abū Ḥāmid in this section is that not only is the method and speech of mystics in their journey and acquisition of truths not incorrect or mistaken, but the matter is the opposite. It is the opponents and detractors of mystics whose method and speech show signs of madness and confusion. Thus, he argues that if mystical knowledge is criticized for someone saying things contrary to reality or denying self-evident truths, this condition reflects a mental disorder of the person in question. In response, he argues that the belief in personal unity and the denial of multiplicity is consistent with rational and transmitted proofs, and we should assert that the matter is the opposite. The detractors’ cerebral findings and acquired knowledge are flawed due to a disturbance in their temperaments.
The commentator, in response to the objection about how it can be claimed that the mystic’s statement is correct and the opponent’s is false, refers to the proof being presented in the body of the book and invites the opponents to accept this claim as a fundamental premise here, so that the argument for it can be presented later.
In the phrase “The matter of the disturbance in temperament is the opposite of what they believed,” the commentator uses this argument to demonstrate the inadequacy of the understanding of those denying the absolute monotheism and the personal unity of being. He says that every power, whether natural, animal, or mental, when it has a specific goal, and fails to achieve that goal, this failure is due to a disturbance in temperament. If the temperament were left to its natural state without interference, it would reach its goal, and there is no doubt that the ultimate goal of intellectual faculties is to perceive things as they truly are. Thus, when this goal is not achieved, it is evidence of a disturbance in temperament.

Greetings. Unexpected states manifest in the person which are beyond their control, and it is inappropriate to reproach or criticize someone who is in pursuit of the truth for experiencing phenomena that go against conventional norms, habits, and manners. A traveller on this path, if they rise and ascend, walks the path where only a close angel, a sent prophet, or a servant whose heart has been tested by God with the sweetness of faith walks. As it is expressed in the narration:

Indeed, our matter is difficult and challenging, and its essence is known only by three: a close angel, a sent prophet, or a servant whose heart God has tested with faith. Therefore, when a secret is revealed to you or a matter becomes clear, accept it, and if not, remain silent to preserve your safety, and return our knowledge to God, for you are in a space wider than between the heavens and the earth.

And how beautifully it has been composed:

Where the eagle’s wings fly, how can a frail mosquito rise?

The valley of mysticism for the weak is a game with fiery spheres, which sometimes burns their garments and sometimes ascends higher, capturing their very being, leaving them no longer themselves. Such individuals are prone to changes and cannot be expected to exhibit the behaviour of those who have attained composure. The difference between changes and composure is explained in Sīr-i-Surkh (A detailed explanation and reconsideration of the stages of spiritual journey).

The mystic, a lover in their early stages, if they wish to follow a path where walking is akin to playing with fire and the tail of a lion, speaking of reaching the truth and having direct knowledge, must inevitably be a disciple of one of the beloved saints. They must proceed with caution and careful consideration on this dangerous journey and not enter the path without an experienced guide, so as not to harm themselves or others. Mysticism for lovers is realised through the guidance of a master, adherence to guardianship, and devotion. As previously stated:

Do not travel without a guide in the tavern, no matter how great you may be, like Alexander of his time.

Many of the harms on this path can be prevented through the guidance of a master and an experienced teacher.

We mentioned earlier that the essence of this flaw, particularly for those who are not perfected, is somewhat inevitable for the mystic, as part of the journey and progress involves walking on a sharp sword. However, with a teacher and guide, the harm can be reduced to a minimum. Given this explanation, it should be noted that this flaw should not be seen as a shortcoming of mysticism, but rather as a sign of the authenticity and precision of the journey, because one who is near the forge of molten metal must have a red face, even scorched hands and a burnt body. This is quite different from someone who is lying down while others fan them with peacock feathers. These difficulties should be viewed with fairness, kindness, and a forgiving eye. Additionally, the state of the devoted soul should be considered, and care and protection should be given to them, not criticism and rebuke.

The Fifth Stage:

On the Sharing of Existence According to Meaning and Concept

He said:

Know that existence is shared among all particular existences, not according to the word, but according to the meaning, as we have explained in our other writings.

Fifth Stage: The Commonality of Existence in Terms of Concept and Reference

It must be understood that existence is shared among particular existences, not in a verbal sense, but in a meaningful sense, as we have explained in our other books.

Commentary:

Since the essence of existence is self-evident, both in terms of its simplicity and its true nature, as previously noted, we begin with its characteristics and rules. The first rule is commonality, for it is the closest characteristic to the essence of existence and is the basis for other rulings and discussions in this treatise, such as necessity and unity.

Textual Observations:

This section introduces the first characteristic of existence, which, according to Abū Ḥāmid, is the “commonality of existence according to concept and reference.” In books such as al-Asfār al-Arba‘ah and Sharh al-Manẓūmah, the clarity and primacy of existence are discussed first, followed by the commonality of existence. However, in this work, the discussion begins with the commonality of existence because the subject of mysticism, which is the true nature of existence, is self-evident and does not require proof. It is directly necessary to discuss the characteristics and effects of existence. One of the most important aspects of existence is its commonality in concept and reference. Abū Ḥāmid has used “meaning” in place of “reference,” but in his context, “meaning” refers to the reference of existence.
Abū Ḥāmid has also stated, before delving into mysticism, that in philosophy, he held the same viewpoint: existence is not only shared in terms of the word but is also shared in its meaning, as he points out in his phrase “as we have explained in our other books.”
The term “true nature of existence” in the commentary refers to the most general concept, not the specific essence that stands in contrast to existence.
The commentator notes that since the true essence of existence is self-evident, Abū Ḥāmid began his discussion with the rules of existence and put forth the commonality of existence as the closest rule to the essence of existence, which serves as the foundation for other rulings, such as necessity and unity.
It should be noted that such an entry into philosophical and mystical discussions is subject to criticism. It is not appropriate to pass over the fundamental subject of philosophy and mysticism simply by asserting its self-evidence and referring to it as a necessity, dismissing the need for argument or explanation. Some philosophers do not accept the self-evidence of existence. In such a context, speaking of the self-evidence of existence seems more like imitation than genuine research and argument. Scientific inquiry should carefully examine and clarify every matter, without assuming anything to be self-evident. The nature of existence and its conceptual and referential aspects need thorough discussion, which many philosophical and mystical works in Islamic traditions lack.
The meaningful commonality of existence is not very clear in terms of imagination, as commonality can be divided into verbal and philosophical types, and these terms have different meanings. If the distinctions between these two are not considered, the reasoning behind the philosophical commonality will be mixed with the literary commonality, leading to confusion. Some philosophers have fallen into this fallacy.
In literature, a term is said to have a meaningful commonality when it applies to multiple instances or references in the same manner, such as the concept of “human” applying equally to all humans. However, if a term is applied in multiple ways, each meaning being independent, it is a verbal commonality. For example, the term “eye” is used separately to refer to both “the eye of a person” and “the spring,” each with its own meaning.
In philosophy, when it is said that “existence and being are shared meaningfully,” it means that different existents, which have different characteristics (e.g., the earth is not the sky, the sky is not the mountain, the human is not the animal, the animal is not the tree), all share one common aspect, which is “existence.” The concept and reference of existence are shared meaningfully by all beings because the word applies to various instances in the same way. If there is no unity among the instances, then the word is not shared meaningfully.
It is possible that a philosophical term, such as “accident” in contrast to “substance,” is a meaningful commonality for a literary scholar but a verbal commonality for a philosopher, depending on the context.
The term “existence” can be considered a case of verbal ambiguity. If the word “existence” is used as a rhyme in a poem, it would certainly result in rhyme repetition, which is regarded as a flaw in poetry. However, if “existence” is a case of verbal ambiguity and is used with different meanings in each verse, it would constitute a form of paronomasia (wordplay) in rhyme, which is considered an embellishment in rhetoric.
Secondly, there are arguments that substantiate the notion of a shared meaning of existence in its instances, such as the fourth argument presented by Haji Sabzevari in his commentary on the “Manzuma of Hikma.” He states: “The fact that everything in existence is a sign of the Necessary Being proves the shared meaning of existence. All entities—whether external or internal—are signs of the Necessary Being, and a sign of something cannot be completely different from that which it signifies. If the concept of existence were not shared between the Necessary Being and possible beings, creatures would not be signs of Him; yet this result is invalid and unacceptable. God Almighty says:
‘We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that He is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is Witness over all things?’ (41:53)”
If existence were not shared in meaning between all entities, creatures would not be signs of the Divine. However, all beings, in virtue of their existence, are signs of the Necessary Being.
Both groups of explanations—those asserting verbal ambiguity and those asserting a shared meaning of existence in its instances—are effective. The difference lies in that the second group presents the shared meaning of existence directly in its instances, while the first group first suggests a shared meaning of the concept of existence, and then through its verbal ambiguity, it narrates the shared meaning of its instances, thus explaining it indirectly.
Philosophers who consider existence as primary and assert the shared meaning of existence, while believing in the distinction between various forms of existence, are as far from the truth as those who assert the primacy of essence. Just as essences are the source of multiplicity, and those who believe in the primacy of essence deny any unity between existents by considering existence as merely a concept, those who affirm the distinction of existences similarly deny this unity. Therefore, the objection attributed to Ibn Kammuna applies not only to the proponents of the primacy of essence but also to those who affirm the distinction of existences.
The truth is that the term “existence” is singular, and its instances are also singular. Its unity is a real one, not merely conceptual, although the manifestations of existence vary and differ according to the different characteristics and properties of the beings. Hence, the issue of the shared meaning of existence does not arise, and this debate is only relevant in the contexts and manifestations of existence.
The most appropriate introduction to the philosophical and mystical discussion is the concept of the generality of existence, which we have elucidated in our work on “Neo-Existential Philosophy.”
Shared Meaning of Existence and the Proof of the Primacy of Existence
Furthermore, the obviousness of reality, although it necessitates the obviousness of its shared meaning, the author has provided several enlightening points here for further clarification. Among these is the following: the concept of existence, which is self-evidently known, if it were not shared among all existents, it would not follow that the negation of this concept of existence from all beings would entail the negation of all beings. However, this conclusion is false because we know by necessity that whatever lacks the concept of existence, which is self-evidently known, is entirely negated.
It is not to be said: what is expounded in the author’s other works is merely the shared meaning of existence according to the philosophers of the peripatetic school, because his arguments there are aligned with their approach. Hence, it would not necessarily follow that the shared meaning of existence, in the sense we are discussing (i.e., the real meaning of existence), is implied, as the difference between these two meanings is apparent in the terminology of the mystics and philosophers.
We respond by saying: the author’s view on the two meanings of existence is in line with the perspective of the true philosophers and mystics, who take existence to be real rather than conceptual, contrary to the view of some later thinkers (such as Suhrawardi), who held existence to be a mere concept. After demonstrating the weakness and instability of the conceptualist view and highlighting the resulting breakdown of rules and lack of consistency, the author has clarified in several of his works that the meaning of existence, for us, is the real meaning, and he has substantiated this with clear reasoning. Anyone familiar with the philosophical principles and foundations of this argument will, upon reflection, not doubt its truth when delving into this deep discussion.
As the author states in his work “Al-I’timad,” after addressing the arguments of Suhrawardi and others concerning the conceptuality of existence: if what Suhrawardi meant by the conceptuality of existence is that existence has no reality beyond its conceptualization, then this is true, as it is the mind that has attributed an additional existence to it and considers it as real. In other words, the conceptual meaning of existence is conceptual and not real. This is a correct statement; however, it does not imply that existence itself is merely conceptual.
If Suhrawardi’s position is that existence involves something additional that is conceptual, and that by the conjunction of this reality with the concept, a conceptual entity is formed, then we have no dispute with this view. However, it does not follow from this that the existence itself is conceptual.
Finally, if Suhrawardi intended to assert that the very realization and essence of existence are mental constructs, the falsity of this claim is self-evident and requires no further argument. This is because each of the essences that exist in reality, by virtue of being essences, lacks an independent identity or existence and derives its existence from something else. Therefore, the reality or identity that is additional to the essence and not part of it must be something real. Even if the identity and reality that underlies the term “existence” is considered inseparable from the essence in the external world, this does not imply that existence is merely conceptual. In either case, whether existence is identical to or a part of essence, the idea of existence being merely conceptual does not hold.
Observations on the Text
The author, Abu Hamid, as a note of caution on the obviousness of the shared meaning of existence, states: the concept of existence, which is self-evidently known, is shared among all existents. This is because if it were not shared, the negation of existence would not entail the negation of all things; however, when existence is negated, everything ceases to exist. Thus, existence pervades all forms of determination and is united through a shared meaning.

On the First Argument for the Primacy of Existence:

The Obviousness of the Shared Meaning of Existence:

Dear Abu-Hamid, the discussion regarding the shared meaning of the reality of existence is considered self-evident because the reality of existence is self-evident. In the identity of shared meaning, just as with the reality of existence, the aspect of the unity of existence is central; thus, it cannot be a mere homonym. One cannot conceive of existence in a way that, in terms of its concept, it is multiple and its instances are disparate!

Accepting the obviousness of the reality of existence, which is the unity of existence, necessitates accepting the obviousness of its shared meaning, which also involves unity. Therefore, in the phrase “That the obviousness of the truth, though it necessitates the obviousness of its shared meaning,” there is an implication of the connection between the obviousness of the reality of existence and the obviousness of its shared meaning, in such a way that: the reality of existence, by virtue of its unity, is self-evident, and the criterion for its shared meaning is the unity of existence itself.

The Use of “Existence” and “Being” in the Argument:

In the argument that begins with the term “existence” and concludes with the phrase “that whatever lacks the concept of being as known by immediate intuition, is entirely negated,” the words “existence” and “being” are used synonymously to refer to the same truth. The distinction made between these two terms seems more of a linguistic construction or a strained attempt to define terminology. Of course, the term “being” is more commonly used and familiar in mysticism than “existence.”

Objection to the Argument’s Use in Mysticism:

Some have objected to the use of this argument in mysticism, asserting that since it is derived from the philosophical works of Abu-Hamid, it aligns with his earlier Aristotelian approach and does not correspond to the way of mystics. They argue that the argument, used to prove the shared meaning of existence, is not based on the direct experience or intuitive insight of mystics. While it is true that the Peripatetics claim existence is primary and shared in meaning, they regard it as separate from essence, whereas the mystics base their understanding of shared meaning on the unity of existence itself, and thus their view contradicts the Peripatetic view, as mystics do not believe in existence as something separate from essence.

Differences Between Peripatetic and Mystical Philosophies:

The objection raised here focuses solely on the differences in the philosophical foundations of the Peripatetic philosophers and the mystics concerning the nature of existence. It does not pertain to the concept of existence itself. Therefore, the phrase “there is no necessary implication in this argument of the shared meaning of existence as we are discussing it” means that the Peripatetic philosopher, by asserting the primacy and shared meaning of existence, cannot prove the mystic’s stance that existence is nothing additional to something else but is, in fact, the very essence of all being, because the Peripatetics argue that existence is additional to essence. Consequently, the mystic must, based on the personal unity of existence, offer proof for the shared meaning of existence, rather than following the Peripatetic approach, which maintains the separation of existence and essence.

The Commentary on the Objection:

The commentator responds to this objection by stating that Abu-Hamid, before discussing the shared meaning of existence, discredits the later Peripatetic philosophers’ views with sound arguments, thereby distinguishing his own views from theirs. In such a context, when Abu-Hamid speaks of existence, he refers to the true existence, based on the mystic’s view of personal unity, not a conceptual existence.

Critique of the Peripatetic View:

In critiquing the Peripatetic position, which holds that existences are separate and distinct from essences, the commentator shifts to the position of the Illuminationist philosopher and critiques their view that essence is primary and existence is merely a conceptual construct. The response given by the commentator is valid up until the phrase “as stated by the scholars” but becomes misguided when he adds “not as an imaginary concept, as some later thinkers believe,” because the debate here is not about the concept of existence and its attribution but about the actual existence and its distinction from essence. The commentator then continues by referencing Abu-Hamid’s criticisms of the Illuminationist’s position based on the work Al-I’timad.

On the Illuminationist Critique of Existence:

An example can be given in the critique of the Illuminationist view: it is not the case that if the concept of fire does not burn, then the actual instance of fire should not burn either, because this is a fallacy of conflating concept and instance. If the true existence of fire — which also entails a conceptual dimension — is combined with another concept of fire, the result will be a conceptual creation, not a reality. This does not prove that the true fire itself is a conceptual entity. The actual existence of fire, with its own concept, when combined with a different concept, would yield a composite that is conceptual in nature, but this does not mean fire itself is merely conceptual.

Further Explanation on Existence and Its Conceptual Nature:

If the notion of the conceptuality of existence is meant to suggest that existence as a reality is a mere mental construct, this is easily refuted, as each essence existing in the real world, in so far as it is an essence, lacks independent external existence and derives its reality from something else. Therefore, the reality and essence that exist beyond essence and are not tied to any conceptualization must be based on true and external realities.

If the notion of existence being conceptual refers to the realization and original existence as mental constructs, this view is also refuted, as no instance of existence, whether in reality or concept, can be merely mental in nature.

Chapter Three: The Revelation of Divine Truths in the Holy Qur’an

Introduction

In my childhood, I experienced love. I was very young when I felt love for the Holy Qur’an. The first book I cherished and connected with during my early years was the Holy Qur’an. It was my first companion in the material world, and of all books, I have spent the most time with the Qur’an.

Though I was a child and could not understand words and letters, I felt a profound connection to the meaning and truth of the Qur’an. I saw its meanings clearly, even before I could read it. From that moment, I knew that in order to truly benefit from the Qur’an, one must become close to it and develop a deep relationship with this Divine Book. A recommended method for engaging with the Qur’an is to place it closed in front of you, sit with purity, and face the Qibla, so that the Qur’an can impart its wisdom directly to you.

Anyone who establishes such a bond with the Qur’an will find themselves in the presence of the truth contained in this heavenly book, receiving its profound insights. In this way, it is not the person reading the Qur’an but rather the Qur’an itself that reads and reveals its truths to the reader. The path to understanding the Qur’anic knowledge lies in coming closer to this sacred book.

When I place the Qur’an on my heart, I feel peace, just as a mother feels when she embraces her child, holding her heart against the child’s. Every time I place the Qur’an on my heart, I feel as though the Divine Book is reading me and revealing its meaning to me. When I speak, my unconscious mind often expresses the Qur’anic knowledge because of the deep connection I have with it. Even before I attended school and learned to read, I understood the essence and meaning of the Qur’anic verses—though I did not yet know their written form. Later, when I was able to read the written Qur’an, I would place it on my heart and find that its meanings flowed to me. This was my experience during my childhood.

There have been times when I would place the closed Qur’an in front of me and gaze at it for long periods, much like a lover gazes at their beloved with joy and longing. I would often gaze at the words “Al-Qur’an Al-Karim” on its cover for hours. When I placed the Qur’an on my chest, my breathing would deepen and quicken. As a child, I was in love with the Qur’an. When I removed the Qur’an from my chest, my breathing would return to normal.

The method I have for engaging with the Qur’an and extracting its meanings and interpretations I learned during my childhood, and no one taught me this method. The interpretative method I have adopted, which I based my “Tafseer Hudaa” (Interpretation of Guidance) upon, was discovered by me through personal experience. If I were to speak for years about the Qur’an, my words would never end.

My interpretation is the result of a deep connection and companionship with the Qur’an, not the outcome of reading this book or that book. My interpretation is entirely unique to me, and you will not find it anywhere else. It is the expression of my inner thoughts, feelings, and deep, constant presence with the Qur’an—not simply the act of reading it.

While I do not limit the understanding of the Qur’an to this method alone, I believe this is the fastest and most effective way to grasp its knowledge.

I have spent most of my time in the presence of the sacred Qur’an. Every time I hold the Qur’an, it feels new to me. Even when I look at different printings of the Qur’an, I find new meanings. It’s as if, even though the print is the same, the act of engaging with different versions somehow imparts new meanings.

Throughout all my research, the Qur’an has been my primary reference. On the pulpit, I only spoke from the verses of the Qur’an, for quoting the Qur’an is always noble.

Among the many books I have taught—from literature, jurisprudence, mysticism, philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, and related fields—none have had the same attraction for me as the Qur’an. It has been my love and my constant source of guidance. I learned about Prophethood and the Divine Revelation through the Qur’an. Revelation—specifically the Prophetic form, as opposed to the legislative type—has no end. It is a human attribute, similar to poetry, that appears in certain people at certain times. Revelation, especially for humans whose understanding can deepen over time, continues to grow. Just as God’s knowledge is infinite, His words are eternal, and Prophetic guidance does not cease. The finality of revelation applies only to the legislative type, and anyone who comes thereafter follows the final law.

The Qur’an is a book that requires companionship with it to truly understand its depth. Without the guidance of the Commander of the Faithful (Ali ibn Abi Talib), no one can succeed in its companionship. Without the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet) and their purity, it is impossible to truly benefit from the Qur’an. From all the things in this world and the next, if I could choose only one thing, it would be the Qur’an, and with it, I would need nothing else. The Qur’an is an infinite and boundless book, encompassing everything. In my view, it is the “identity card of everything.” The Qur’an is a living truth that can be placed on the heart or carried within the soul. As the Qur’an itself says:

“We have sent down to you the Book which explains everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for the Muslims” (Qur’an, 16:89).

Every other book is limited in scope and finite in time, and it lacks the purity of truth. It ages and becomes outdated. However, the Qur’an is timeless, always relevant, and continuously fresh. For anyone who truly engages with it, the Qur’an will always be a source of knowledge, guidance, and wisdom.

The Qur’an is a treasure, openly given by God to His servants, but often it is not valued. In discussions of information protection and psychology, they say: “Place your valuable possessions where they are visible, so that no one will tamper with them.” The Qur’an is an open treasure, and its visibility often leads to negligence and abandonment.

The path to spiritual perfection is through the guardianship of the Commander of the Faithful. For the past 1,400 years, Islam has been lost because it has distanced itself from the path of the Commander of the Faithful. As a result, fifty Muslim countries have faced failure and stagnation. Just as Islam cannot be understood without the guidance of Ali, the path to perfection cannot be achieved without the Qur’an and its wisdom. All knowledge is contained within the Qur’an. Jurisprudence, philosophy, mysticism, and every other branch of knowledge must bow before the Qur’an in humility. Only then can they lead to purity of heart, clarity of mind, and true success.

The Qur’an must be the foundation of all knowledge, and I have derived all the knowledge I have studied from it.

Throughout my fifty years of teaching, I have always started my lessons with the Qur’an. There was only one day when I considered starting my lesson with Hadith instead, but something happened that prevented me from doing so. That was the only time in my life that I attempted to teach without starting from the Qur’an, and I thank God that it didn’t happen. I consider this a divine guidance:

“Our Lord, do not let our hearts deviate after You have guided us, and grant us mercy from Yourself; surely, You are the Bestower.” (Qur’an, 3:8).

This guidance should always be sought from God. Distance from the Qur’an is deviation and misguidance. For all the years I have been teaching or conducting research, I have never started any discussion without first referencing the Qur’an. That one day when I considered beginning with Hadith, I quickly changed my mind. Hadith are secondary sources. On that day, I had planned to discuss the number of angels and their various roles—topics which are extensively covered in Hadith.

For every topic, my first reference is the Qur’an, which is the greatest source of knowledge. One night, I became troubled when I was thinking about not starting with the Qur’an. When I went to open the Qur’an, I felt ashamed. In jurisprudence, I always begin with the Qur’an, asking what God’s law says before moving on to Hadith and the books of the scholars.

Tafseer Hudaa (Interpretation of Guidance)

The “Tafseer Hudaa” is based on my deep connection with the Qur’an. In this interpretation, I discuss the meaning, significance, and effects of the verses of the Qur’an. However, to truly explain the grandeur of each verse and provide a worthy interpretation, one would need to create an entire city dedicated to the Qur’an, where scholars from every field would be housed, and they would be taught the method of engaging with the Qur’an in depth, allowing them to explore all its meanings.

Four volumes of this interpretation have been published, the first containing introductory discussions on the method of interpretation. The second volume deals exclusively with the interpretation of the Basmalah, while the other two volumes focus on the remaining verses of Surah Al-Fatiha. I have also completed the interpretation of Surah Al-Baqarah in full.

The method of entering into the Qur’an is through sincere companionship with its inner truth. This is a method I have followed since childhood. In “Tafseer Hudaa,” I have shared only a small portion of the insights I have gathered

Chapter Three: The Revelation of Divine Truths in the Holy Qur’an

Introduction

While I do not limit the understanding of the Qur’an to this method alone, I believe this is the fastest and most effective way to grasp its knowledge.

Throughout all my research, the Qur’an has been my primary reference. On the pulpit, I only spoke from the verses of the Qur’an, for quoting the Qur’an is always noble.

“We have sent down to you the Book which explains everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for the Muslims” (Qur’an, 16:89).

The Qur’an must be the foundation of all knowledge, and I have derived all the knowledge I have studied from it.

“Our Lord, do not let our hearts deviate after You have guided us, and grant us mercy from Yourself; surely, You are the Bestower.” (Qur’an, 3:8).

Tafseer Hudaa (Interpretation of Guidance)

The Holy Qur’an is the greatest and most remarkable scientific book, containing all knowledge and information in the smallest possible volume of words. Therefore, the language of the Qur’an is such that it can speak of anything and encompass every branch of knowledge. The language of the Qur’an, which expresses the truth of revelation, is a clear and explanatory language, one that conveys the truth and is not figurative or symbolic, requiring interpretation or explanation. Even its mysterious aspects, such as the disjointed letters (Muqattaʿat), are revealed and clarified within the Qur’an itself, and one must simply uncover them. The language of the Qur’an is miraculous, and its clarity is a manifestation of its miraculous nature. However, those with weak perception must learn the language of the Qur’an through the immaculate realm and the noble saints, for such education is found within the domain of language learning. Any shortcomings in understanding are due to ignorance and limitations of the individual, not because of any ambiguity or vagueness in the language itself.

The language of the Qur’an is clear and universal. Its universality is such that it speaks not only to scholars but also to ordinary people, bringing them a message that resonates at all levels. The identity and truth of the language of the Qur’an are inherently clear, and it unveils its meaning directly to those who recite it. As I mentioned earlier, gaining insight into the Qur’an’s language does not come through conventional academic study or reading one book after another—these are mere academic exercises and are not truly effective in reaching deep understanding. Rather, the method approved by the Qur’an itself for interpreting this sacred text is “intimacy with the verses of the Qur’an.”

Interpretation of the Qur’an

Beneath the apparent surface of the Qur’an lie layers, each of which has its own degrees, referred to as the “inner meaning” or the “hidden” layer of the Qur’an. The inner meaning of the Qur’an reflects the inner truths of all phenomena, and just as the detailed book of existence contains objective truths, the Qur’an is the comprehensive summary of all these truths. Through it, one can uncover every realm of knowledge and scientific proposition. The knowledge derived from these hidden layers is called ta’wil (interpretation). Ta’wil refers to the deeper essence of every phenomenon, whether it is the Qur’an or anything else. Ta’wil comes from the root “awl,” meaning a special and unique return to the essence of something. Every phenomenon has a reality, and the specific return to this reality is called ta’wil. Therefore, the ta’wil of the Qur’an refers to a return to the deeper truth of each verse and its hidden meaning.

Thus, ta’wil of the Qur’an is the method by which a purified soul navigates to the inner layers of the Qur’an, retrieving the essence and meaning of each phenomenon through a focused and scholarly approach, with the help of a divine virtue. This definition clarifies the difference between ta’wil and tafsir (interpretation), for the latter only engages with the surface meanings of the words, aiming to uncover the hidden questions and answers within them. The definition also highlights the relationship between the inner meanings and the words of the Qur’an, emphasizing that to understand any phenomenon, one must focus on the specific words related to it in the Qur’an. Only through specialized and expert attention to these words can one access the essence and truth of the phenomenon. Furthermore, it is only a purified soul that is able to reach ta’wil, as an impure soul is incapable of doing so.

Each verse of the Qur’an has an existential truth in the world, and its written form mirrors this truth. The word and meaning are united, and the Qur’an’s written form embodies the truth, which itself has an interpretation. It is not that the ta’wil of the Qur’an only returns to this truth; rather, it is the verse and its surface words themselves that contain the hidden meaning, which can have multiple and sequential manifestations.

Ta’wil requires “depth” or “penetration” (rusukh). Without rusukh, there is no ta’wil. Rusukh is an inner process, while entry (wurood) is an external one. Wurood refers to the written text itself, whereas rusukh involves penetration into the depth of a reality that is infinite and tangible, guiding us to its truth. Reaching that truth through rusukh is impossible without engaging with the surface meaning of the Qur’an, and to neglect this leads to misleading interpretations. The characteristic of rusukh is that it cannot contradict the surface text, and any interpretation that conflicts with the apparent meaning of the Qur’an is false. The interpretations of those deeply rooted in knowledge follow the surface text, with rusukh representing the path of entry.

Through frequent recitation of the Qur’an and becoming familiar with its divine words, one can approach the essence of every phenomenon to better understand it. This is only possible by developing intimacy with the Qur’an and drawing closer to this unique divine book, for it is through this process that one becomes knowledgeable about all phenomena and gains understanding of the past, present, and future.

The Criterion of the Qur’an

The path to the hidden meanings of the Qur’an lies in the realm of ta’wil, which enables the discovery of its concealed truths. Among these hidden truths is wilayah (divine authority), which is embedded in the Qur’an. For this reason, the Qur’an is referred to as al-Furqan (the Criterion):

(“And He revealed the Furqan”) (Qur’an 25:1).

The concept of wilayah is hidden in the Furqan of the Qur’an, and it is only the saints of God who have knowledge of it. The Qur’an emphasizes its nature as a Qur’an, as it advocates for unity, solidarity, and collective harmony, whereas Furqan signifies separation and division. The Qur’an does not endorse division, but rather the unity and collective cohesion of all.

The Science of Divination through the Qur’an

Among the sciences that can be derived from the Qur’an is the science of tafaul (divination), which involves predicting future events for individuals, communities, or other phenomena through the analysis of causes, reasons, and outcomes. The Qur’an is a register of existence and its phenomena, and anyone can extract the story of their own life through tafaul from it, seeing both their past and their future, or even foreseeing the political future of a country. Through this Qur’anic knowledge, one can gain awareness of many future events and hidden matters.

Note that tafaul differs from the occult matters, of which the Qur’an has spoken openly.

The Science of Istikhara through the Qur’an

The science of istikhara (seeking divine guidance) through the Qur’an is a divine and special knowledge that some of God’s friends are granted. This science is a gift from God, not an intellectual or acquired skill. The process of istikhara comes through the divine grace of God, not through human reasoning or memory. However, reason, through its wisdom, understands the legitimacy and truth of the process. Like the interpretation of dreams or knowledge of divine names, istikhara is an esoteric knowledge related to the unseen world, and faith in it implies belief in the hidden and unseen aspects of the world.

Qur’anic Healing

Every verse of the Qur’an has its own unique, effective power, such as healing and connecting with the unseen world, or providing knowledge of the unknown. If the Qur’an, the book of truths, is capable of revealing hidden matters and curing diseases, then surely it possesses immense power. Every verse of the Qur’an has an effect, but one must discover the method of accessing that effect. Researchers must delve into each verse, taking into account its specific attributes, and experiment with it in relation to different individuals to uncover its potential and properties. This research will pave the way for the saints of God to uncover these hidden secrets in the future.

For the use of Qur’anic therapy, one must be familiar with the sciences of phonetics, rhythm, and the musical notation of the Qur’an, which relate to the material composition of words, their pronunciation, and the rhythm of their expression. Additionally, understanding the melody of the Qur’an helps convey its meaning, even without knowing the Arabic language.

Purification from Superstitions through the Qur’an

I have long believed that there should be a discipline of “purification from superstitions” in academic circles, which aims to identify and eliminate religious and cultural superstitions, falsehoods, and excesses. This purification should be applied in all areas, whether cultural, social, religious, or otherwise. Superstitions often threaten academic and religious institutions, and religion cannot remain vibrant and relevant unless it is free of these impurities. Ignoring this process leads to the growth of superstitions.

The plants, animals driven by lust, wild beasts driven by rage, the deceptive cunning and temptation of demons, and the intellectual phenomena, alongside the angels of knowledge, sincerity, and purity, collectively embody the collective potential of humanity. An individual’s potential for these qualities is rooted in their true nature, but the perfection of humanity lies in its ability to realize this potential.

Animals, in their base nature, never tire of their desires and ferocity because lust and rage are intrinsic to their being. However, the human potential surpasses these base instincts. Humans tire of indulgence in lust, savagery, and devilishness, as these behaviors contradict the natural course of human life. The core and natural essence of humans is aligned with divine purpose, the vice-regency of the Creator, and the expansion of knowledge that resides in their essence. Humans do not tire of knowledge, for it is not material but inherently fulfilling, with an insatiable hunger for understanding.

An animal with base or ferocious qualities expresses these with sincerity and, in this way, embodies a form of primal love. An animal, acting purely, seeks only what it desires, achieving satisfaction without hypocrisy. In contrast, angels, saints, and the righteous, embody this sincerity, as their purity is reflected in their knowledge. Devils, on the other hand, embody deception and manipulation without sincerity.

Truth (صدق) is based on two pillars: awareness in thought and character, and freedom and fairness in action. In other words, truth is an intrinsic matter, while fairness emerges from this truth and is external. Responsibility manifests in actions. The root of love, truth, and fairness lies in these principles.

There are three major obstacles to an individual’s sincerity and true self-realization: the superficialities of tradition, authority, and religion. These are all born from the influence of cultural customs, religious practices, and political power, none of which are rational or deeply spiritual. Fighting these superficialities prepares the ground for the emergence of truth and love, which can only be fully realized through a return to the source of divine revelation—the Qur’an.

A community is one of truth when its members, Muslim or non-Muslim, follow the principles of truth, whether through religious commandments or civic rights, as they have willingly accepted them. A Muslim adheres to “truth,” and a non-Muslim adheres to “reality.” True sincerity manifests in “fairness” and “justice” for a just society and in “love” and “spiritual guidance” for a society of guardianship (wilayah). A society must either be based on justice or guardianship. In just societies, sincerity manifests as real fairness, needing no faith or truth, while in societies of guardianship, sincerity manifests as real love and affection, rooted in “wilayah.”

Thus, a truly free or authentic society is either monotheistic and religious or real and civic. Any society built on lies is corrupt and unjust. In a society of guardianship, the heart, love, and truth reign, with the human being being central—society itself is merely a reflection of the individual’s heart. In such a society, the heart is the leader and cause of unity, as hearts that create an atmosphere of oneness around the leader converge, making all hearts one. Just as God has a personal unity, the heart, too, becomes unified in a singular purpose, aligning with the true leader.

A civil society may achieve fairness and justice but lacks the capacity to promote sacrifice, empathy, affection, or love. Such a society may be healthy but lacks the ultimate spiritual well-being. While it provides material comfort, it leads to weariness and stagnation, as it does not address the spiritual needs of humanity. Experience-based, material-focused societies substitute feelings and emotions with a purely sensory, experiential approach that weakens the capacity for genuine emotional connection.

The Path to Truth and Divine Knowledge

To reach true sincerity and love, an individual must understand their own path to success, recognizing their potential and pursuing it. This requires knowing their “Lord” (Rabb). There is no path to God except through understanding the “Lord.”

The paths to divine truth are not many but are singular, and this path is the “Straight Path.” What unites this path is the nature of the “Rabb” (Lord), whose essence gives direction to the individual’s journey. Each person has a unique “Rabb,” and all phenomena ultimately lead to the singular essence of God.

To know the self, one must first understand one’s essential nature, followed by the recognition of one’s attributes, characteristics, and the actions derived from them. Actions are a manifestation of both essence and attributes. Gaining awareness of these elements allows an individual to understand their actions. While one can catalog numerous actions, the understanding of one’s inherent nature and attributes requires a deeper and rarer level of reflection.

Negative attributes of the soul include fear, restraint, and an inclination toward comfort. Positive attributes, on the other hand, include freedom and autonomy. These inherent qualities can be discovered only when an individual is freed from social norms, religious constraints, and public image. Only then can one discover their true nature. One may behave in a socially acceptable manner within a closed environment, but when freed from such constraints, their true character emerges. Understanding one’s essence requires liberation from all external influences, including societal rules, education, and religious injunctions.

Spiritual Development and Divine Guidance

Divine guidance operates naturally and systematically. Just as water in colder regions freezes without external intervention, all phenomena of existence follow a natural order that leads them to their destined place. The Qur’an describes this natural progression: “All are swimming in a sphere” (Quran 21:33). Each phenomenon has its own orbit, a path uniquely designed for its existence.

The act of naming, highly emphasized in Islam, serves to help parents and individuals recognize the essence of a person and raise them according to their true nature. If names are chosen in alignment with divine wisdom, they provide insight into the path and potential of the individual.

Academically and intellectually, institutions that aim to nurture individuals must recognize each person’s intrinsic qualities and potential, aligned with their unique nature and capabilities. Otherwise, they risk leading individuals down paths that do not align with their true selves, causing dissatisfaction and failure.

The Condition of Belief in God and Success

Ultimately, the path to truth and success requires recognition of the “Rabb” and understanding one’s unique potential. All humans have an innate drive toward God. If they cannot find God, they will create false gods or substitutes in their lives. This is a fundamental aspect of human nature. The desire for God is inherent, and if true knowledge of God is lacking, people will create false gods to satisfy this need. This reflects a basic human need for spiritual nourishment.

Human beings inherently seek to connect with God. As the body needs food, water, and air for physical survival, the soul needs God for its spiritual survival. The soul is naturally inclined toward God, and without this connection, it becomes spiritually malnourished. If a person does not experience this connection with God, they will seek other, false means of fulfillment.

The Inhabitants of Hell:

(Say, “Shall We inform you of the greatest losers in actions? Those whose efforts are wasted in this world while they think they are doing good. Those are the ones who have disbelieved in the signs of their Lord and in meeting Him; so their deeds are void, and We will not assign to them any weight on the Day of Resurrection. That is their recompense—Hell—because of their disbelief and mockery of My signs and My messengers.”) (Qur’an, 18:103-106).

Faith must be firmly rooted in the heart, and just as a drop of water, if it falls on a stone for an extended period, penetrates it, so too must faith be continuously channelled into one’s heart and soul. In the words of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him), one must remain steadfast in Islam until the moment of death, lest one is caught unaware and dies without it: (And Abraham instructed his sons, as did Jacob, saying, “O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you the religion, so do not die except while you are Muslims.”) (Qur’an, 2:132).

“Faith” is the most crucial factor in dispelling fear, for faith connects a person to a higher and all-encompassing force that has the power to avert harm. Faith prevents many anxieties and tensions, which is why Allah confers a great favour upon His believing servant: (They count it a favour to you that they have accepted Islam. Say, “Do not count your Islam as a favour to me. Rather, Allah has favoured you that He has guided you to faith, if you should be among the truthful.”) (Qur’an, 49:17). The force of faith operates through love and does not leave its creation abandoned. The weaker one’s faith becomes, the more fear consumes them. “Fear” and “security,” much like “disbelief” and “faith,” are intrinsic qualities; neither can be described as non-existent.

The Collective System of Truth and Faith:

Allah conducts His actions according to a collective system. This is why seeking help and assistance, as well as intercession, prayer, and supplication, all make sense within this system. The servant is a manifestation of Allah’s will, and Allah is the ultimate cause and manifestation of the servant’s actions. In the true executor of actions, there is no division between the doer and the action itself. The servant’s action is an expression of Allah’s action, and in the reality of execution, there is no distinction between the power of the servant and that of the Divine. The action of Allah and the servant is not in a hierarchical or dualistic sense; it is rather a seamless and non-distinct process. In the context of human duties and commands, the servant is nothing but the manifestation of Allah’s actions.

Hence, the servant is not devoid of knowledge and power; rather, it is Allah who, in His perfect system, makes human actions fall within the scope of knowledge and power He has granted. The system of duties, rewards, and punishments is established by Allah, without the action being entirely attributed to the servant. Every action is determined by numerous causes and factors, and the person is but one of those factors, though ultimately it is Allah who governs all. From the father’s lineage, to the environment, to social influences, to the Divine itself—all play roles in determining even the smallest actions of a person. I refer to this perspective as “the collective and shared nature of deeds.”

Guidance towards Truth:

We have said that truth is about finding one’s natural path and walking it. Therefore, guidance must be based on life, movement, and the special journey each individual has. (Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed Your grace…) (Qur’an, 1:6-7) means that one seeks to follow a path that is natural to them, one that is in harmony with their growth and potential. Allah governs all existence directly, without delegating the management of any realm. Allah, in His absolute sovereignty, directs all worlds and all creatures.

It is only through Allah’s guidance that anyone can guide another. As it is said in the Qur’an: (Indeed, you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills, and He is most knowing of the rightly guided.) (Qur’an, 28:56). Thus, it is essential to rely on Allah in every movement and every act, for without His guidance, no one can help another.

Finding One’s True Path and Purpose:

In life, it is of utmost importance that each individual recognises their nature and capabilities. The religion teaches the way of life by revealing one’s true path. It is vital to distinguish between the qualities of those who are guided and those who are misguided. Without the necessary insight to recognise them, a person might stray from the true path, leading to great harm, losing both their worldly well-being and their eternal happiness.

The “graced” ones are those who have received Allah’s blessings without effort, and their path is one of guidance. On the other hand, those who are misguided—referred to as the lost ones—are those who reject this guidance. Their path is one of deviation, and the way of salvation lies in following the guided path. The “graced ones” and the “lost ones” must be distinguished, as failing to recognise these categories could lead to spiritual ruin.

The path of those who are graced is intimately linked to the guidance of the Imams and the Prophets, and it is their path that one must seek in order to achieve salvation. The Imams, starting with the Five Pure Ones, represent the highest form of spiritual guidance. However, the path is not always simple to follow, and one must strive to remain on it.

Recognising the Natural Path:

In the mundane realm, each individual must find their specific path and talents. Faith does not merely consist of worship or rituals; it is about recognising one’s true purpose and acting in accordance with it. There is no one who is entirely devoid of good or evil qualities. Even the most seemingly negative traits can be part of a person’s inner potential, which may manifest in future generations.

It is crucial to know one’s true path, as wandering aimlessly through life leads to dissatisfaction. Those who follow their natural course find peace and contentment. Those who do not, however, often live a life of discontent and loss. This is why understanding one’s true nature and purpose is so important in the journey of life.

Chapter 4: The Philosophy of Being and Manifestation / Ontology

A philosopher must seek to discover being freely and recognize its effects. They must understand being through direct, objective, and efficacious means so they can conceptualize it and form an ontological philosophical system. It should be noted that this conceptual narration expresses the reference of being and is directed towards it, as the mere concept of being or manifestation is not the subject of philosophical discussion. Although, in the context of teaching, the philosopher is necessarily forced to use concepts to communicate their philosophical truths and content, these concepts are applied with respect to their objective and external referents.

Philosophy is a mental narration of the truth of being and its effects and attributes. We will analyze this mental narration in the section on “Epistemology” and argue that this concept is directed towards the external world and corresponds with it.

Rational Philosophy

Rational philosophy is a theoretical thought that requires refinement for growth and movement. Its refinement is through knowledge and the attainment of truth. Thought needs vision, closeness of the heart, and proximity to truths to understand them and build wise thought from them, thereby shaping the narrative of attaining truth and reality into a reflective and reasoned framework. Philosophy generates scientific and mental propositions from empirical matters. The truth of being is attained through the soul’s union with being and proximity to it, and its effects, judgments, and manifestations are justified both logically and intuitively. Philosophy serves as both a prerequisite for mysticism and wisdom and draws its propositions from those higher and objective sciences. When mysticism and wisdom speak, they become philosophy. The relationship between philosophy and mysticism is symbiotic, and each complements the other. Philosophy is rational, verbal, and conceptual, whereas mysticism is a direct encounter with being, with no proof except inner vision and experience of truth.

Our Philosophical System

Our philosophical system is composed of three main parts: Ontology, Anthropology, and Epistemology, which are outlined further below. These three themes are discussed in detail in the philosophy.

Ontology

“Being” has essence, independence, necessity, unity, while “manifestations” have necessity but lack essence and independence. Being is the truth of existence. There is no negation opposing this being, and manifestation is its intrinsic necessity. Being is infinite and boundless, and manifestation exists fully in alignment with being and is infinite and without limits.

The relationship between being and manifestation is an inherent necessity and there is no separation or deficiency between them. Manifestation remains in accordance with the everlasting and eternal existence of being. Just as being is both real and absolute, its manifestation is likewise absolute, and this leads to the necessary relationship between them. The absolute nature of manifestation also ensures that one particle of manifestation is equal to all other particles. However, this absoluteness applies to the truth of manifestation, not the particular manifestation that serves as a vessel for this truth. This truth is the manifestation of love, and being is the loving agent within it. We will further discuss the relationship between being and manifestation.

Individuation and Determination

In philosophy, we have the person of being. Being has individuation. Individuation pertains to individual characteristics. Being has individuation in its essence, while the individuation of manifestation is contingent on the level it attains. Every manifestation is a person, having individuation both in identity and in attributes. In addition to individuation, manifestation has determination, but being itself does not possess determination. Manifestation is subject to endless change and transformation. It is the aspects of manifestation that vary, but determination—the container for these levels—does not change or deviate. For this reason, each manifestation remains itself.

Being does not have distinction, for distinction always occurs between two beings, and being itself has unity and does not allow for distinction.

Unity

The unity of being does not require proof, but any claim of multiple beings must provide evidence. Therefore, doubt about being is not possible, and there are no degrees within being. What is multiple are manifestations, and the degrees arise from the attributes of manifestations, without implying any multiplicity within being itself. The intensity of qualitative attributes, the increase in quantity, and the distinction of being in terms of quantity and quality all belong to the system of nature, not being.

We understand the system of being and manifestation as based on unity, individuation, and the interrelationship of manifestations, and no composition, connection, or separation applies to them. As a result, there is no space for any “less” or “more” to be connected or separated. In this philosophical system, categories are completely discarded, and one must resort to empirical sciences to understand terrestrial phenomena. However, for empirical sciences to correctly understand phenomena, they must take a path of connection and traverse a path of love to access their essence.

The Simplicity of Being

Given that being is synonymous with unity, and being is also synonymous with actuality, and the actuality of anything is the true form and essence that does not admit of composition, being is simple, not composite. In this way, the personal unity of being is one in essence, unity, and actuality— a pure and simple truth with no room for discussion of multiplicity in being. Hence, the theory of “unity of being in the face of multiplicity” (as posited by Mulla Sadra) has no place here. Multiplicity is in the realm of the manifestation and follows it in a linear manner, not existing in parallel with it.

Equivalence does not mean equality. Equivalence refers to the relationship between two concepts that are unified in a single meaning, like “human” and “man,” which are conceptually unified, but distinct in different ways. Since equivalence requires semantic identity, and we reject semantic redundancy, two concepts cannot have equivalence and unity in the philosophical sense. Therefore, unity, actuality, and the true form of being are identical in their referents, not their conceptual meanings. We borrow the term “equivalence” from Mulla Sadra’s discourse to articulate the simplicity of being according to our own viewpoint.

Essence and Existence

Being does not possess essence, limit, or definition and does not accept divisions or classifications. I do not agree with the theory of “the primacy of being and the derivation of essence.” Essence, in my view, is purely a mental concept and linguistic term, not something that possesses independent existence. Being, in its true sense, does not have essence; essence is a mental concept that appears as a title for determination, a title that has no external effect. The determinations of being are merely labels attributed to it in the process of thought.

Manifestation, likewise, does not possess essence and does not accept any form of division.

Since essence is purely a mental concept, the discussions of necessity, impossibility, possibility, and the creation of essence or its addition to being, as well as cause and effect, substance and accident, and categories, belong outside the scope of this philosophy. These are mental concepts and analyses that, while anyone may imagine them, have no external counterpart. The categories discussed in philosophy are descriptive concepts that refer to attributes and characteristics of particular levels of being, presented scientifically, not as representations of the external world.

The Role of Mental Concepts in Philosophy

Because being is personal and does not involve multiplicity, many logical discussions need to be rethought. For instance, the concepts of negation, opposition, and contrast are completely discarded from logic. Although there is opposition and levels in phenomena due to the unity and manifestation of being, the extreme opposites do not make sense because, in manifestation, there is no finality or end. Being, because it is personal and unified, cannot have essence or limitation. Neither being nor manifestation is universal, and manifestation, likewise, is individual and personal.

The Nature of Creation

Manifestation neither has essence, is not accidental, nor possible. Hence, it is not subject to creation. Manifestation is not creation, nor emergence, nor is it the creation of being from non-being. It is an inseparable necessity of being, eternal and necessary.

The Abstract Nature of Being and the Rejection of Prime Matter

Being is pure abstraction with no beginning, end, or direction. Contrary to what Mulla Sadra suggests, matter is not part of being. Being does not have the traits of materiality and cannot be reduced to the combination of form and matter. One must use the methods of empirical and natural sciences to explore matter, while abstract and universal concepts are investigated rationally. Manifestation has no matter or passive potentiality—it is not something that accepts anything from outside but reveals and unfolds from within itself.

The structure and movement of being have no specific direction; it does not proceed from one path to another. The movement of being is infinite, circular, and free.

In general, the characteristic of manifestation is its inherent ability to attract and unfold endlessly. This attraction and unfolding may be natural and aligned with the progression of descent, or coercive, leading to deviation and error.

Determinacy and Unity in Ontology

In philosophical ontology, we cannot speak of the essence of existence without considering its determinacy. Existence has two types of determinacy: the essential determinate unity (Ahdiyyat) and the determinate perfection of unity (Wahdiyyat). The essence of being is the manifestation of Ahdiyyat in the consideration of divine unity (God as my essence) and the manifestation of Wahdiyyat in the consideration of multiplicity (God as our essence). This singular reality, with these determinacies, exists in a continuous and dynamic state of self-manifestation.

The Concept of “Anniyyah” (Selfhood)

Another concept we have analyzed extensively is the proposition “The necessary being’s essence is its existence” (“inniyyat mahaityh”) which we critiqued in depth, addressing its fundamental issues, particularly regarding the combination of the necessity of being. We also provided counterarguments to Mulla Sadra’s reasoning for asserting this thesis. Additionally, we explained how the immutable essence relates to mutable phenomena and transformations, as well as how the divine knowledge connects with the flux of mutable realities.

Types of Possibility

In the discussion of the three types of possibility, we have outlined: general possibility (imkan ‘am), specific possibility (imkan khas), necessary possibility (imkan akhas), and potential reception (imkan istiqbaali). These are merely the mental abstractions of concepts that the mind is unaware of. By negating the essence, the possibilities that pertain to it also vanish from the realm of reality. If the subject of possibility is the essence in its totality, it is termed as essential possibility.

If the subject of possibility pertains to fixed entities or scientific appearances, this is referred to as scientific possibility. We do not ascribe true possibility to scientific phenomena, which we regard as necessary, eternal, and infinite. God’s knowledge is not confined to these appearances but extends beyond them into the realms of Wahdiyyat and Ahdiyyat, even transcending them within His essence. We have elaborated on the characteristics of these fixed entities in an innovative manner and clarified God’s unique knowledge, which is central to our philosophical perspective. God’s knowledge is not of something separate from the truths of existence, but rather, divine knowledge itself is the unfolding and realization of these truths.

The Possibility of Receptivity (Imkan Istiqaabiyyah)

Receptive possibility is a mental abstraction of an uncertainty regarding whether a particular manifestation will emerge in the future, as its emergence is neither necessary nor impossible. Receptive possibility reflects a form of ignorance about the future, for example, “Zayd will write tomorrow, possibly.” Overall, existence does not necessarily entail essence, and necessity is a quality of existence that exists only relative to the corporeal world, except for the lives of those inherently and originally connected to the divine existence by causality and necessity, not by coercion.

The Possibility of Poverty (Imkan Faqri)

In Mulla Sadra’s philosophy, the possibility of poverty pertains to a contingent, dependent existence. We view manifestation as an inherent relation and find it unnecessary to create a special term for it such as contingent poverty. In our writings, we prefer the term “manifestation of love” to describe this concept. Though manifestation is not existence in itself, it is not non-existence either. It is a form of existence, and thus it cannot be described as poverty, although we may say that the manifestation in its developmental phase does not possess independence, making the concept of poverty applicable in certain respects.

The Concept of Temporal Emergence (Huduth)

It must be noted that existence cannot undergo emergence, nor can essence in the external world be subject to emergence. The very notion of emergence is a mental abstraction, applied to a concept based on prior mental knowledge. The concept of emergence does not apply to the essential appearance of existence itself, but rather to the specific manifestations that arise from it, which are bound to the principle of necessity. Emergence is only applicable to specific instances of manifestation, not the essence itself.

The Relation Between Existence and Manifestation

There is no opposition between existence and manifestation, because existence embodies everything actively and positively, without any need for an external foundation. Therefore, manifestation cannot arise from elsewhere, as it is not a negation or absence, but an additional mode of existence. Manifestation is not negation or non-existence but is simply the determined state of existence, which takes on its various modes of expression. Existence is pure affirmation, and manifestation is a specific form of this affirmation— it is a relation of existence, not a separate entity.

Love and Attraction in Manifestation

The universe follows a specific, harmonious system, where attraction and love play central roles. Existence and manifestation are inherently bound by the attraction of love, and this is what brings the world into harmony. The concept of “attraction” or “love” has two faces: shauq (desire) and ishq (love). Desire moves towards the unseen, while love preserves what has been found. The key is to transform the attraction of desire into the love of unity.

The manifestations are all forms of a singular love, which has been revealed through the essence of existence itself. The very reason for the emergence of phenomena is love, not mere philosophical possibility or linguistic occurrence. Every manifestation is an essential necessity of existence itself, a necessary relation and consequence of being, rather than something that arises from a separate cause.

Existence and Its Essential and Innate Motion

Existence, despite its stability, possesses an essential and existential motion. The motion of existence manifests in the entirety of its manifestation. Therefore, no form of stillness can exist in either existence or its manifestation, although stability and preservation reign supreme over all. Existence and manifestation are inherently in motion. Existence possesses life, and life cannot exist without motion. In addition to the existential motion, existence also possesses an expressive motion. Manifestation, likewise, has an inherent motion. Some stages of manifestation also have specific movements of their own. It must be emphasized that defining motion and its attributes or some kinds of movement does not, in itself, bring about motion. In philosophy, the discussion has not centered on motion itself but rather on defining certain types of motion, such as motion within some accidental entities, like quality, or motion within material substance and its attributes, and the transition from potentiality to actuality, which defines the moving subject, rather than motion itself, particularly when confined to material matters.

However, motion is fundamentally part of existence. We do not adhere to the belief in potentiality, and we regard the system of manifestation and the relationship between inner and outer realities as true and objective. These inner actualities are drawn into manifestation. Even what philosophers consider potentiality is, in itself, the actuality of potentiality, even though we reject the concept of potentiality. Manifestation and determination are full of actuality and presence; there is no lack within them.

Motion is a descriptive phenomenon and has no essence of its own, although it is present within the moving entity; however, it possesses a truth that is descriptive. There is nothing that is not in a state of movement and renewal, although its perception requires acute sensory perception. The motion inherent in the manifestation makes it gradual, and even what seems sudden has subtle gradations. The motion of every manifestation of existence is, in a structured way, inherent to that manifestation itself, just as the intrinsic motion of existence is from itself, requiring no agent or mover outside of itself. Moreover, when we say that the motion of existence is intrinsic, no subject remains for an agent or a mover, as there is no stillness upon which motion could occur. Rather, the essence of everything is self-propelled in its progression. Even motion in manifestation and in every stage follows this same self-propelled and systematic process, even though it has no intrinsic essence, because manifestation does not arise from stillness but is formed through life, consciousness, motion, and the warmth produced by this movement and the love that follows it.

Motion is an essential and inseparable attribute of the life of consciousness, present in every direction and dimension. Stillness has no place in any manifestation, though manifestation possesses stability, and its stability arises from and within motion. Existence, along with its manifestation, does not engage in interaction or mutual influence, as manifestation lacks essence to have independent action. Instead, it acts in a shared and collective manner within motion, where all manifestations move together. The motion of manifestation is both from its core and can create movement through attraction and affinity among them. Motion, like existence, possesses individuality and personal unity, but its unity is neither of type nor of kind.

Motion neither arrives at stillness nor at contradiction; though it can lead to opposition or inconsistency, it can also direct voluntary movements in a path. Motion and the progression of any manifestation are guided by a framework that depends on the degree, capacity, and grace it receives, and the power derived from it. Power is the capacity for voluntary action, either to perform or refrain from something, guided by knowledge and will. Therefore, awareness and will are crucial components of power. The trajectory of knowledge and will gives the ability to attract and effectuate action, thereby imparting motion and progression. The greater the power and capacity of a person, the stronger their manifestation and the broader their growth trajectory, resulting in greater honor. The key is that the possessor of power must engage in the best, most necessary, most beneficial, and most righteous acts, rather than merely performing good deeds. Similarly, sin and impurity are seen as hindrances or deviations from the natural and free path of every phenomenon within the shared and relative system of the earthly world. Since this system is shared, the consequences of sin, especially major sins such as oppression, affect everyone, and no one can remain neutral toward it. However, minor sins, being realized within a shared system, are endless and perpetual, especially since nothing can truly perish or be annihilated, but instead it transforms to its peak or lowest point, and a phenomenon can reach all worlds.

Chapter Four: The Philosophy of Existence and Manifestation / Anthropology

It is essential to focus on the best actions rather than just good actions to bring about the healing of society through a policy of centralization. Power requires legitimacy to make its motion natural. Voluntary power, along with other conditions, is the subject of religious duty. In this context, we have discussed the action and agent, the different motivations of the human agent, and the distinctions between natural, coercive, subjugating, voluntary, deliberate, and receptive agents, and how the divine agent acts in manifestation and the unity of action, collective, and shared nature of deeds. We have also stated that manifestation operates according to a relative, conditional system and is involved in action to the extent of its power and its manifestation, with all manifestations acting collectively, except for the inherent lovers whose system is a necessary, causal one rather than a conditional one.

Existence too, exercises its control over the actions of manifestation, and its actions are shared, not distinct or multiple in a conflicting or contradictory manner. We have rejected the theory that the agency of manifestation is purely numerical or that the action in manifestation is merely external. Manifestation, by its nature, holds the power of self-expressive movement, though it is ineffective in interaction and mutual influence. This is because manifestation has no essence, and its role is inherently relational and occurs in the system of shared existence. Furthermore, manifestations reflect one another in a collective manner, and nothing occurs individually or in isolation, even though each phenomenon holds its own unity and simplicity.

Anthropology

One of the crucial areas in philosophy for me has been the discussion of anthropology. Many individuals claim not to understand it.

The Relationship Between Body and Soul

We do not consider a human to be merely the body, nor solely the soul, nor a mere combination of both. Matter and the immaterial undergo an interconnected and endless process of refinement, with matter gradually being refined into immateriality, and immateriality becoming dense and returning to material form. A person, starting predominantly with nature and material existence, acquires features and manifestations according to the proximity and engagement with each manifestation, and they can either descend or ascend. This appearance cannot be stripped away; once something becomes part of the human being, it cannot be detached. What we refer to as the “self” is an action and determination of the soul, not the soul itself, and this action cannot be separated from it. A person can take on an infinite number of appearances without anything being lost or externalized; likewise, nothing enters into it. The system of transformation and change is governed infinitely. Therefore, one should not consider a person as a duality or a combination of matter and immateriality.

Chapter 4: Philosophy of Being and Appearance / Epistemology

Any individual or society that can transform the strength of manifestation into power and combine power with wisdom, so that it does not devolve into oppression, corruption, force, or violence, will attain a life of well-being and ultimate happiness in the afterlife. Every human being will realise that they are a complete human being. The foundation of power is knowledge and understanding. Knowledge is also the foundation of sincerity.

Epistemology

The greatest issue in the humanities is the incorrect definition of “science” that it possesses.

I have conducted a detailed study on the epistemology of philosophy, presenting a new perspective that is distinct from what is found in the philosophies of Peripatetic, Illuminative, and Theological schools. Since essence has no place in our system of manifest existence, it cannot be used to explain cognitive faculties, understanding, or the relationship between the mind and the external world, particularly in the context of knowledge.

Knowledge is revelation. Our discourse on knowledge asserts that the knower does not encapsulate the known within themselves, and the unity between the knower and the known is not achieved through an actual merger; rather, knowledge is a determination within the knower that corresponds to the external reality. The determination of knowledge reveals the existential essence of the known, and the unity of the knower with their knowledge concerning the known is realised within this determination. Knowledge is an active, creative process, not merely the mental images or affirmations that are commonly conceived.

In the case of the Divine, knowledge is of the same nature as being, while in humans, it is of the nature of manifestation and transcends categorical limitations. That is, it is not a qualitative, subjective state; although a psychological manifestation is related to the external world, the relationship itself constitutes the essence of knowledge, and without this relationship, knowledge cannot exist.

Knowledge is the manifestation and creativity of the soul, and for the soul itself, it is present, not a mere occurrence of something from outside.

The human mind is a composite of material waves and the reflection of the arrangement of particles in the brain and its cells. It is linked to the human soul, which imparts to it the capacity to manifest its appearance.

Mental knowledge is entirely present and has no essence of its own; it cannot be conceived as an acquisition or as possessing an impressionable form. Knowledge is a psychic manifestation, meaning the soul has the creative power to form external phenomena within itself. For the soul, this knowledge is entirely present, but its presence can be strong or weak, with the weakest form being imagination. This manifestation of knowledge is, in fact, the manifestation of the soul, not that of the external world, and it reflects the intellectual capacity and power of the individual, not the external mind. Nevertheless, no mental knowledge is entirely disconnected from the external world, as it is influenced by it.

Every phenomenon, beyond its physical manifestation, has a manifestation in every world, and in the human soul—an entity that is from infinite divine realms and not a single type—it will also have a manifestation. Depending on the soul of each individual, this manifestation will vary in intensity and weakness. If the soul gains great power and strength, and becomes of the nature of light, i.e., relative abstract entities, it can perform extraordinary acts, miracles, and even transcend normal occurrences in any world, where the intensity of manifestation is in accordance with that world. The production of knowledge is similarly a manifestation within the soul itself—a manifestation that does not involve the creation of existence. As stated earlier, perception and understanding do not depend on essence but on existence and manifestation.

The soul has such subtlety and creative power that it can assign determination to all manifestations. Knowledge, like love, affection, pleasure, hatred, desire, pain, and even conscience and nature, is one of the psychic powers affected by external factors and dependent on them. It is not an entirely internal passive process. All mental knowledge forms through a relationship with the external world, whether it is through synthesis or analysis in the external world.

The soul invents knowledge within itself and assigns determination to it. Knowledge is the manifestation of the soul, not the influx of something from the outside. The soul does not receive anything from the outside, but rather creates what exists externally within itself. The knowledge within the soul has an external aspect, and it is not appropriate to refer to these external yet internal realities as “pseudo-external,” since the pseudo is not the reality itself. Knowledge is the manifestation of that reality, but it is a mental manifestation.

Knowledge is an action of the soul, and the soul assigns the knowledge its determinate form; that is, knowledge is the manifestation of the soul, and it emerges from the soul, while not being entirely separate from the external world. Knowledge derives its vitality from this external world, shaping external truths within itself. This is why it is vital to possess the capacity and tools to discern the particular external truths, in order to establish accurate scientific concepts and propositions. As a result, these concepts should also serve as a bridge to reach the external world, for if this reaching does not occur, the knowledge is not true knowledge.

Since knowledge is a facet of the soul, it is not of the nature of concept or essence, and cannot be acquired or reduced to quality. It is not subject to transformation, and no internal change occurs. Knowledge within the soul is a manifestation that is external but psychic, present but not to be mistaken for the external existence of the phenomenon. Just as external phenomena undergo change and transformation within their external realm, the mind too has the power to alter its own inventions within the mental domain. Every transformation and change in one truth has a unified underlying reality.

Knowledge is the manifestation of the determinations of external phenomena, and it reflects them in a manifested form. In other words, nothing from the outside enters the mind; rather, the soul creates a manifestation of it. The soul has the ability to create the external determinations within itself, presenting a manifestation that is neither identical to the outside nor entirely different from it. It is a manifestation of the outside. The soul can, through its creative abilities, make a mistake and create something contrary to the external reality. This subtlety and creative power of the soul, which is its strength, can also lead to error, bringing weakness into the process. Once again, we emphasise that the manifestation of knowledge is purely a manifestation of knowledge itself; it is neither a quality, a substance, nor an essence.

What exists within the soul is knowledge, not the known. However, the close relationship between knowledge and the known creates the illusion that the known exists in the mind. The known and the mental image are the objects of knowledge, but not knowledge itself. The known exists outside the mind, not within it. The mind sees the external form of the known, not the mental image that arises within the mind. Therefore, the difference in the object of knowledge does not result in a difference in knowledge. Nothing from outside is captured by the mind, but knowledge merely presents and manifests. The soul determines the knowledge and with it constructs an externalised knowledge that is distinct from the actual external reality; it is knowledge, and knowledge alone, subject to the soul and its mental abstraction.

The known reveals the external known, but the form of the external known is not the same; because there is no actual “known” in us. However, since knowledge cannot exist without the relation to the external world, it cannot create something separate from the external. Knowledge merely creates a mental image of the external known, which does not come from outside, but is a determination of the soul. Knowledge does not possess form; the mind sees meaning, but this meaning, because it has a form in the external world, gives rise to the misconception that the mental meaning has form.

The Stages of Knowledge

Knowledge has degrees of intensity and weakness, ranging from the lowest to the highest. Knowledge has infinite determinations, and its strength and weakness depend on the foundation of its premises, the will’s power, and the proximity or distance to the ultimate level of unity. Knowledge can be conceptual in the process of teaching or can be an experiential, direct knowledge. Just as the soul has the power to directly perceive phenomena without intermediary manifestation, it can attain the manifestation of direct reality, not just the manifestation of knowledge that is of a conceptual nature.

Knowledge has stages, and the basic mental knowledge shared by all humans, in its essential nature, does not depend on the soul’s essence. The lowest stage of mental knowledge begins with imagination. All beings, including minerals, plants, and animals, as well as humans, possess life and knowledge in the form of awareness. This awareness resides within them, and each of them performs its subtle tasks with its natural awareness. They possess life and physical awareness, though it is not the soul’s awareness, even though the soul may use them as tools. Nevertheless, their essential truth remains the same. The highest level of knowledge is perfection. Intellectual, heart, spiritual, and divine knowledge are among the highest forms of knowledge. The higher stages of knowledge depend on the nature of the soul and spirit, and anyone who is granted divine proximity will find their perceptions becoming more powerful and accurate. A sanctified soul, aided by a gift or divine guardianship, attains knowledge that is clear and aligned with reality, which is made in accordance with divine and religious principles, as discussed in the book “The Sociology of Religious Scholars.”

Conformity with Reality

Mental knowledge, if it corresponds to reality, is knowledge; otherwise, it is ignorance. Unfortunately, certainty often replaces knowledge, and certainty may be mistaken for belief, which may be fallacious and will ultimately be proven to be untrue, since it is not knowledge. Faith, belief, and conviction are mental, psychic, or spiritual attributes, while reality is the external truth. Conformity with reality is the criterion for correct knowledge. Reality, as discussed in our epistemology,

The Ontology of the Mysticism of Mahbubi

The Divine Essence has three aspects: the essence and the indeterminate, the pervading identity (and, according to the Qur’an, the sustaining presence), and the aspect of divine effusion and creation. In each of these aspects, the Divine is truly Divine. The Divine Essence, in its effusion, descends in conjunction, and this descent brings about the divine manifestations and actions. The Divine Essence refers to that indeterminate truth, while the Divine Essence in its pervading identity and sustaining presence refers to the divine manifestations in creation, where the indeterminate becomes manifest and determined. Every particle and manifestation has its own order, allowing the permission to utilize the power and influence of the Divine Essence. While the Divine grants the permission, it can also be transformed into evil. Each higher aspect or stage has a lower one that is actualized.
The Divine Essence, with its will and intrinsic agency, and through its love, is in a constant state of descent and ascent, experiencing both the clarity and manifestation of the divine descent and the self-manifestation and upward return. The descent is the clarity of the Divine Essence, which is manifest and is the cause of all phenomena and their manifestation, rather than any independent creation. The ascent refers to the self-manifestation of the manifestation. It is the manifestation itself that ascends. It must be noted that phenomena and determinacies are the manifestations of the Divine Essence, not its external appearances. The manifestations of the Divine Essence have no independent identity or existence.
All of existence is the Divine Essence, which has effusions in creation and manifestations. “Presence” refers to the Divine Essence and its divine attributes, while “the world” refers to the effusion and manifestation of the Divine. Therefore, the presences are the manifestations, and the worlds are the reflections of those manifestations. The Divine Presences include: the Divine Essence in its indeterminate state, the Hidden Realm of Hidden Realms, the Determination of the One, and the Determination of the Unity of God. The fixed essences (Ayaan Thabitah) are subject to and emerge from the unity. The worlds of effusion and creation consist of five realms: the realm of Intellect (Jabarut), Souls (Malakut), the Imaginal World (Mithal), the Corporeal World (Nasut), and the world of humans, which contains all realms. Humans, in their ascension from the corporeal world and nature to the Imaginal World, the Soul (from the commanding, blaming, and inspiring soul to the inspired, peaceful, and complete soul), intellect, unity, singularity, and the indeterminate Divine Essence, have the power to ascend.
Both the state of indeterminacy and all of the divine determinations have manifestations.
The state of the Divine Essence has no determinations, qualifications, or conditions. It is neither conditional nor conditional in any manner. The name of the Divine Essence refers to a state without name or determination; the determination is the name itself. Therefore, no name can be attributed to it. The state of the essence does not accept a name, although God has intrinsic names that are separate from the Essence itself.
We have said that the state of the Divine Essence neither accepts a name nor a form. However, in terms of its internal unity, which is the essence of actuality, the name “Oneness” is applied. A name means determination. Oneness marks the beginning of divine unity and the first determination, and is the collective name for all divine attributes. The divine qualities and names, which have no determination in the state of Essence, are determined in the state of Oneness. In the state of Oneness, God possesses all attributes without multiplicity. Attributes in the state of Oneness are not determined by multiplicity or degree, which does not mean that there are no attributes in this state. If that were the case, then the attributes would not be determined in the state of unity. Oneness means that God, in His essence, has no parts to share, denying internal multiplicity, composition, and partnership, thus confirming His uniqueness and incomparability.
“Oneness” has two connotations: one refers to the essential Oneness, which is a manifestation and determination prior to the state of unity, and the second refers to the pervasive Oneness that is in every particle and realm—including the corporeal world—and signifies the unity of God’s actions, attributes, and Essence. When one witnesses the pervasive Oneness, they attain a vision of the Divine, seeing His face in all things. The pervasive Oneness is a brief experience, as opposed to someone seeking the name of God through the phenomena and names, and after passing through the keys to the unseen and the unity, they reach Oneness, which requires a long journey.

The pervasive Oneness is visible in every particle, as though God sits with each, without needing the Divine to possess Oneness after unity.

With this Oneness, whatever is seen is God, and polytheism is entirely eradicated from the individual. The pervasive Oneness can be recognized in any phenomenon, whether it is the beauty or majesty of God or even in misguidance. We have discussed the pervasive Oneness in philosophy. It should be noted that the ultimate mysticism of the lovers of God is the state of pervasive Oneness, but the initial mystics speak of the absolute essence.

Oneness is the first manifestation, the manifestation of Essence unto Essence, where the appearance of divine names and attributes are inseparably merged. This manifestation is called “Appearance,” determination, and the manifestation of the essence. In this manifestation, the aspect of effusion is concealed.
Oneness manifests and determines in Unity. The state of expansion and differentiation of divine names and second determinations is called Unity. Unity means that God has no partner or equal outside Himself and is unique. In the state of Unity, God possesses all the names in their multiplicity, yet these names and attributes are real and identical with the essence, not merely conceptual, necessary, negative, or non-being.

“Allah” is the name for this station, whose essence is the name “He.” The divine names are entirely the essence of God, both in Oneness and in Unity. These two stations are identical in their essence with the Divine, yet they differ in their rank.

The station of Unity is the realm of divine names or the treasures and keys of the unseen, serving as the intermediary between the Essence of the One and the effusion of manifestation. Unity, in terms of the keys to the unseen—representing the divine names exclusive to God, which only have divine appearances but no effusion—has a specific Unity. The general Unity is the collection of all the most beautiful divine names.

The keys to the unseen, emanating from the hidden essence, work without external cause or manifestation and bring about unexpected phenomena. The keys to the unseen are identical to the essence of God, His very being and the names exclusive to Him. These names are ever-open and unsealed, enabling the manifestation of events without external causes.

In the second manifestation, which is the manifestation of the Essence for the attributes and Unity, the fixed essences (Ayaan Thabitah) emerge, and this marks the beginning of effusion. The manifestation of names is identical to the essence of the Divine, and there is no externality or action involved, although appearance and effusion still occur. Every effusion is a manifestation, but not every manifestation is an effusion, because effusion pertains to creation. The effusion of God is eternal, necessary, primordial, eternal, and everlasting.
The effusion of the Divine does not leave any room for potentiality. The descent of the Divine and the determination of all appearances are covered by the general state of Unity, through which phenomena connect with the keys to the unseen.
The truths in the two determinations of Oneness and Unity are granted in a manner of giving, without acquisition or the intervention of free will, and with “supervision” by God.
When it is said that the Divine only has one manifestation, this “one” does not refer to numerical singularity but to an encompassing application that includes all manifestations. When we speak of the multiplicity of manifestations or of one and unique manifestations, it refers to the degree of determination. The first determination is Oneness, and the second is Unity.
Unity exists in two forms: One that has no opposite, referred to as essential unity and unity without condition, which is the very essence of God. The second, which contrasts with multiplicity, is unity beyond essence, and in one sense, unity, and in another, it accepts multiplicity.
The Divine Essence is both One and Unique. The uniqueness means that there is no composition or connection, while Oneness signifies that God has no partner.
Union is based on multiplicity, diversity, composition, juxtaposition, externality, and weakness. The divine names do not unify with one another.
Knowledge and Cognition: A Philosophical and Mystical Perspective
Knowledge and cognition represent two distinct levels of understanding. We have previously discussed the concept of knowledge within the realm of philosophy. The subject of mysticism, however, is cognition. At an introductory level of education, cognition transforms into knowledge. Cognition is superior to knowledge. The subject matter of knowledge can be either general or particular, while the subject matter of cognition pertains only to particular and individualized matters. Mysticism, as a discipline, focuses on the cognition of the Divine.
Philosophical knowledge is a psychological phenomenon, with the soul manifesting the external world within itself. The correspondence between this internal manifestation and the external world serves as an indicator of its existence, as it is a reference point for the untouched reality outside. Acquired knowledge operates on this plane, influenced by one’s inner faculties, the purity of the heart, and the degree of effort and guidance from teachers and other external factors, as previously discussed. Doctrines related to the heart and soul are influenced by the pain, suffering, devotion, love, and affection for the Creator, which are the causes of divine proximity, and are dependent on these factors.
Ordinary thought and common theoretical understanding derive from a heart illuminated by divine grace, which submits and obeys, gaining purity and radiance from it without engaging in it. Just as a strong intellect can bring the soul into obedience and turn the soul’s base desires into subordinate powers, so too, if the soul becomes stronger than the intellect, it weakens the reason and dominates over its decisions.
Philosophical knowledge and thought are declarative and productive in nature, differing from mere memorization or information retention. Someone who simply reads and memorizes others’ concepts and treats them as their own is not a true scholar, but rather a mere memorizer. Memorization has no intrinsic value in understanding the truth or finding a legitimate, valid belief. A true scholar is one who has the power to affirm and demonstrates their knowledge through expression and inspiration, articulating the essence and truth of knowledge based on their personal insights.
Cognition represents the inner presence of the truth. Therefore, cognition and truth are different. Cognition is an internal phenomenon that implies a hidden quality, while truth refers to external facts and objects of reference. Divine secrets may either belong to knowledge or to truth. The term ‘secrets’ (in plural, “asrar”) refers to those aspects of the Divine that are centred in the heart. In mysticism, when it is said that something is secret, it refers to matters of the heart, which can only be comprehended by those who have reached the station of the heart.
Divine proximity, which plays a crucial role in the gift of cognition, is a powerful attractive field in which the heart, within a specific boundary, is protected by the mercy and grace of the Divine, preparing it to experience the Divine realities and truths. The inner flow of the heart, tranquillity, composure, calmness, and purity are signs of nearness to the Divine.
Proximity is of two types: obligatory (fard) and voluntary (nafl). Obligatory proximity is the Divine right, binding on all creation, with God as the agent of actions through both the external and internal faculties of the servant. Voluntary proximity, on the other hand, involves the flow of creation through the Divine, where the individual plays no active role in the process but is part of God’s actions. This concept is derived from scriptural teachings and integrated into mysticism. The most effective means of achieving proximity are the obligatory duties (fara’id), and they must be given due attention. Proximity through obligatory acts leads to annihilation (fana), which is a process of dissolution and total surrender.
The pinnacle of proximity through obligatory duties is the attainment of sanctity and infallibility, which is a divine gift dependent entirely on the will of God, His love, and affection. It follows from the path of prophethood, mission, and leadership, and represents the highest form of human perfection. The saint and the prophet are intermediaries between the Divine and the created world, with the Imam ensuring its continuation and safeguarding it with the infallible knowledge and actions they possess.
Mysticism has two branches: practical and theoretical. From a philosophical perspective, practical mysticism is a derivative of theoretical mysticism, as the value of any action lies in the thought that informs it. Thus, both in philosophy and mysticism, the value of practical mysticism and the worth of practical philosophy depend on theoretical mysticism and theoretical philosophy. On this basis, practical mysticism by itself holds no intrinsic value; rather, it is the theoretical mysticism and its heights that lend significance and effectiveness to practical mysticism. Mysticism and the journey of the mystic are not a matter of abstract knowledge or mental concepts. Although knowledge is necessary for the mystic, knowing the path does not equate to walking it. A traveller (salik) should not assume that reading mystical texts makes them a mystic, nor should they fall into the fallacy of confusing knowledge with power. Indeed, every form of knowledge that is declarative and expressive is a form of power, yet conceptual knowledge, which is essentially “information,” is only news without any engagement with the truth.
Mysticism does not involve theoretical navigation or purely educational content; rather, it is a practice of pain, love, and discipline. Love and cognition are not attained by simply gazing at paper or by superficial rituals; they arise from sincere dedication and conscious effort, which grants the power of submission.
Those who seek only knowledge wish to know everything and possess every form of knowledge. Such individuals resemble spoiled children who desire everything they see. Naturally, this mindset, which fosters intense engagement with the external world, is incompatible with the mystical path.
Someone who perceives the gate of cognition as identical to that of knowledge and approaches it with the same attitude—learning to become a master of the inner realm just as they would in acquiring knowledge—is mistaken. One may become a jurist or a theologian through study, but one cannot become a mystic through reading. Mysticism is not attained through reading alone, just as a scholar who knows the rules of poetry cannot necessarily compose a poem.
A mystic must undergo trials, refrain from indulgence, consume lawful sustenance, and dedicate themselves to solitude and self-reflection. They must cultivate the qualities of those who possess true knowledge, trust their path, and maintain perseverance. The journey requires years of relentless effort, sometimes in apparent stagnation, but ultimately, their actions lead to realization.
Knowledge pertains to outward appearances and concepts, while cognition concerns inner realities. Mysticism does not yield immediate results from day-to-day practices; the progress of a mystic is gradual. However, over time, the traveller may ascend multiple stages in one step. If mysticism were merely an academic discipline, the practitioner would learn things that would be ineffective in bringing them to power and truth. Instead, they must engage in sincere spiritual practices, devotion, and cultivate a pure heart, without fixating on the immediate outcomes, which are often incomprehensible to beginners. The mystic’s practice is not about achieving particular results, but about submitting to whatever God places in their path.
Those who seek only knowledge will experience gradual, measurable outcomes in their intellectual pursuits. But the mystic must exhibit patience, for the ultimate goal is the complete dissolution of their selfishness. This process requires years of discipline and a deep internal transformation, until the final, decisive moment when the self is annihilated, much like a seed that bursts open to reveal its true nature. Mysticism is not a gradual process like knowledge; rather, it is sudden, though its preliminary stages take time to form.
Patience and Perseverance in the Fundamentals of Mystical Practices
Patience, forbearance, and endurance, especially in the foundational stages, are of utmost importance. The traveller (Sālik) must be attentive to the principles of the path and not disregard any of the fundamental elements, particularly patience in accompanying the master. One should never treat them superficially or consider them insignificant; nor should they become impatient in fulfilling them. Without the complete realisation of these foundational principles, which hold the nature of the root, the principles of construction, which bear the nature of the fruit, are not responsive.
The Role of Mystical Vision in Knowledge
One of the ways of acquiring knowledge is through mystical unveiling. Mystical unveiling is a kind of inner and unseen vision without the ordinary tools of sensory perception, intellect, insight, or genius. The object of unveiling could be events or truths. Preoccupation with the vision of events often leads to regression and misguides the seeker, leading to a type of asceticism and withdrawal from the higher spiritual truths, which are abstract and immutable. Unveiling that pertains to these truths brings the individual to fruition and realization. When the individual becomes detached from any particular truth, they attain the station of total unity.
Anthropology in Mystical Tradition
God is the ultimate source of being. Humans are the manifestation of the divine presence. The worlds of divine grace are realised through “humanity.” The first manifestation of God is the human soul, and subsequent manifestations are the descent of humanity. The subject of mystical knowledge is God, who is both the source and the manifestation, and the ultimate aim of mysticism is to realise God’s presence. The perfect manifestation of God is the complete human being, who is the epitome of existence. Therefore, mysticism is the study of God and the perfect human, and there is no other subject to be discussed.
The Perfect Human as the Collective Manifestation of Divine Attributes
The human being is the collective manifestation of the Divine. The worlds of divine grace manifest the ultimate and collective human position. A human, in their essence, is the manifestation of divine unity and, through this, attains the station of “the ultimate.” This ultimate station is the manifestation of divine unity. A human in the collective state is a manifestation of the oneness of God, and this oneness embodies the collective human state. The collective human state is the manifestation of the ultimate. Thus, the human being embodies both the divine attributes and the entirety of God’s qualities, reflecting all of His perfections. A human can experience the highest state of transcendence as well as the lowest state, surpassing even the most degraded of earthly phenomena.
Human Beings and their Mystical Designations
A person who lacks a special divine breath or influence is referred to as “Bashar” (human). A person with divine breath is called “Adam.” The collective state, with the capacity for descent and ascent in all worlds, can only be found in Adam, who is the one able to embody any state, even the state of non-being, while still retaining their human attributes.
The collective and ultimate state is both the origin of the first human, Adam, and the origin of reason and knowledge, which are the emanations of the Divine. The collective state supersedes the individual, for it is the key to the hidden and the manifestation of divine unity.
Dual Paths of Knowledge and Mysticism
Humans have two paths of intellectual and rational knowledge: philosophical knowledge and mystical, experiential knowledge. Mystical presence is a genuine, personal, and direct realisation of God and phenomena. This realisation involves the negation of desire, through which the seeker can transcend the four general stages of intellect: the “spontaneous intellect” (basic awareness of necessity), the “active intellect” (the capacity for reasoning), the “intuitive intellect” (the ability to grasp universals), and the “sacred intellect” (the mystical faculty for understanding and union). The seeker progresses through these stages until reaching a state of non-being.
The True Seeker of God and Their Unselfish Devotion
The mystic does not desire anything, including God, and negates even their own attachment to the Divine. The mystic’s love for God is so profound that they do not even perceive it as love, and they have transcended the concepts of lover, beloved, and love itself. Their love is the unity of all three, and they remain silent, beholding the Divine as it truly is, without any expectation or desire.
A true mystic is one who has attained this level of realisation without attachment, their soul illuminated by the light of God. They see nothing but God, and their contentment lies only in the Divine. The true mystic does not seek satisfaction from anything else, for everything is a manifestation of the Divine.
The Importance of Inner Search
The most fundamental principle of spiritual practice is for the seeker to discover their true self, understanding what innate qualities, abilities, and dispositions they possess and how they contribute to their journey towards divine unity. The seeker must come to understand their own essence, their core identity, which is referred to as the “Lord” within. This “Lord” represents the ultimate state of humanity, the destination to which all human striving leads. To realise this, one must look within, for the truth is not found outside but within. The true path requires introspection and personal discovery, for the foundation of spiritual practice lies in discovering the divine within oneself.
The Mystical Seeker’s Journey Through Challenges
The spiritual journey requires the seeker to transcend personal desires and self-centeredness. If the seeker becomes attached to selfish desires, their spiritual progress will be impeded, leading them further away from the Divine. The seeker must constantly practice detachment and selflessness to purify their heart. Those who let go of their selfishness are graced with the Divine’s assistance, and they may encounter trials and tribulations that ultimately purify their souls.
The process of self-purification is central to the mystic’s path. The mystic seeks to soften the soul, avoiding harshness and excess. The practice of asceticism must be done in moderation, as too much hardship can harm the seeker and detract from their spiritual development. True asceticism leads to spiritual growth, not depression or frustration.

The Concept of Wilayah and Imamate in Islamic Mysticism and Theology

Wilayah and Ismah (infallibility) are purely divine gifts and have no inherent ability for acquisition, although the manifestation of this infallibility can be considered as contingent and resembling the process of acquisition. The proximity and sanctity of each manifestation is determined by the purity and sanctity of its divine gift. Wilayah is a matter of gradation and hierarchy.
Miracle (I’jaz) is not the ability to perform the impossible, but rather the acceleration and alignment of a natural process. A miracle does not disrupt the natural order; rather, it renders others powerless to perform the same act. Hence, miracles are not irrational. The miracle signifies the extraordinary nature of the one who claims prophecy.
The identification of the possessors of Ismah is solely through the Divine will and is based on textual proof.
Imamate is the continuation of prophethood and its preservation. Each Imam follows the religion and prophecy of their predecessor and is subordinate to it. When the prophethood of a certain prophet is concluded, the Imamate of that prophet also ceases. Belief in all the known prophets and Imams of all eras is obligatory. However, the prophetic and imamate functions are now defunct, with their practical obedience no longer applicable. In the age of occultation, the absolute obedience and authority is solely due to the Awaited Imam, Imam al-Zamana (aj), from whom the religion is derived.
The outward titles of Wilayah hold a transcendent, timeless essence and are not confined within a temporal framework; they are fluid and appear without restriction. Claims to these titles, being superficial in nature, must be substantiated.
The final station (Maqam Khātimī) is the ultimate manifestation of all divine names and attributes, and it is the highest, unqualified manifestation. Although it lacks independent essence, it is the most perfected manifestation of divine attributes. Thus, the highest degree of virtue belongs to the possessor of this station, whose essence is a culmination of the divine attributes.
In the process of divine revelation, there is both an ontological manifestation (Mudhhir) and a manifestation of the revealed (Mazhar), which are intimately connected. The Mudhhir represents the divine names of God, which are intrinsic and essential to His essence. The first manifestation of unity (Ahadiyyah) reveals the first exemplification of this essence, which is the ultimate station of prophethood and Wilayah. The distinctions between the Mudhhir and Mazhar should not be conflated. Unity is a singular, indivisible quality, as is the final station of prophethood and Imamate, which will not see any new prophetic revelations after the conclusion of prophethood. This distinction must be preserved, particularly in understanding the nature of the Wilayah of Imam Ali as the ultimate and eternal.
Imam Ali holds the position of the highest Wilayah, encompassing all prior prophets and Imams, manifesting as a unique, eternal, and complete embodiment of the Wilayah. The Imamate of the Awaited Imam, Imam al-Zamana, represents the consummation of the Wilayah of Imam Ali and is not distinct from it, but rather an extension or embodiment of the same.
The Fourteen Infallibles (Ahl al-Bayt) are the ultimate exemplars of the proximity to the Divine. The true followers of these Infallibles, particularly those who have transcended the limits of ordinary human understanding, are not simply their devotees, but reflections of their inner truth. The presence of Lady Fatimah al-Zahra represents the highest and most hidden essence of divine purity, which does not manifest in ordinary forms like prophethood or Imamate.
The final truth of Wilayah does not materialise abruptly in this realm (Nasūt), but gradually manifests, being rooted in eternity, unaffected by the constraints of mortality or decay. The decrees of these two stations should not be confused.
One of the critical subjects of discussion in the context of Wilayah is the distinction between the Beloved and the Lovers (of God). In our mystical writings, we have extensively elaborated on this, offering insights that have not been previously articulated with the same precision and depth.
During the Occultation, the lawful authority of the Faqih (jurisprudent) is established by divine mandate. The Faqihs who meet the required conditions are appointed as a collective body and have equal standing, with none possessing superiority over another. Following an unqualified Faqih is tantamount to disobedience, as we have elaborated in our work “The Law of Wilayah.”
Wilāyat encompasses a vast array of sub-disciplines, such as the divine names, divination, interpretation, and esoteric sciences, some of which we will address in the third volume of this text.

Reconsidering the Sources of the Love-Based Mysticism

For years, we have strived to introduce a school of Divine Infallibility-based Mysticism in our spiritual lessons. On this basis, we have critically analysed the texts of the “Manāzil al-Sā’irīn” in practical mysticism and works typically studied in theoretical mysticism—namely, the ninth and tenth paths of al-Ishārāt wa al-Tanbīhāt, “al-Tamhīd al-Qawā’id”, “Sharḥ Fusūs al-Hikam”, and “Misbāh al-Ans”—examining and critiquing the content of each, in alignment with the culture of the Ahl al-Bayt. We have analysed each statement, providing critique on any inaccuracy or discrepancies, elaborating on the authentic teachings of the Shi’a and correcting any scholarly, mystical, or theological shortcomings. I have been teaching these texts in the Qom Seminary for over forty years.

“Manāzil al-Sā’irīn” and its Significance

“Manāzil al-Sā’irīn” and the commentary by Kāshānī are key texts in the mystical journey of the lovers. The author, Khāwaja ‘Abdullāh al-Anṣārī (d. 396 AH), a prominent mystic of the 4th century, lays out the spiritual journey in his work. The Manāzil al-Sā’irīn is a detailed description of the stages of the mystical path. While it is a brilliant theoretical work, it is deeply rooted in the mysticism of the lovers and is concerned with the practical process of spiritual ascent.

The text divides the journey into ten sections, each containing ten stations, resulting in a total of one hundred spiritual stages. These stages of mysticism are comprehensive and correspond to ethical and spiritual developments in the seeker’s path.

These practical exercises and spiritual disciplines are carried out under the guidance of an experienced master who provides both insight and action, steering the disciple away from mere intellectualisation. A seeker benefits from such grace only if their soul is capable of accepting the master’s teachings, with a receptive mind and a purified heart. Otherwise, the seeker—if their soul is tainted with malice—will only appreciate their own findings, considering themselves the epitome of wisdom and understanding, even offering proof of their righteousness to the saints of God. Such a soul is hard, cruel, and dead. A living soul, however, is attentive to its own end, pursuing the path of health and happiness, and steering clear of pitfalls and what leads to misery, guided by knowledge, awareness, and the divine grace granted by God.

A seeker must possess dynamic and creative thinking, the power of knowledge, and wisdom, with their primary merit being the ability to exercise independent reasoning and understanding of life’s challenges. The seeker must possess the faculty of deduction to avoid falling into mere popular belief, superficial practices, or blind obedience. Naturally, only those who have knowledge, wisdom, and a living soul can possess such abilities.

The vitality of the soul and its dynamism are marked by two important signs: firstly, the ability to listen—to hear and critically consider the opinions, criticisms, and objections of others, and to analyse them; in other words, to seek to learn from others and discover their own weaknesses in their words. Secondly, each day, a new thought and insight should bloom in the soul, with the individual possessing the ability to critique and innovate, constantly enriching their inner life with fresh discoveries; otherwise, without these two attributes, the soul is sick and dead. This means that among scholars, only those who continuously develop and grow their thoughts on the path of life can truly be said to have vitality, offering new insights and perspectives every day.

A seeker must not only be master-centered in their path, but also remain focused solely on the Divine throughout their journey. They must not be distracted by anything, even if it appears to be spiritual or pure, as demons can disguise themselves as serene, alluring figures to mislead the seeker. Sometimes even angels, in their love for the seeker, may present themselves. One must desire nothing but God, follow the path of Truth, and understand that everything is for the sake of the Divine.

Additionally, it is crucial that the seeker does not act out of habit or unconsciousness. Actions performed without intention, as if out of instinct, have no value on the spiritual path and are like weeds. A seeker who sleeps and wakes without conscious intention, or cannot fall asleep, will find no spiritual benefit in their rest. A true seeker must possess the will to love and the will to reject, not merely be passively attracted to or repelled by something. If a seeker wills to love, no force can prevent them from doing so, for they are powerful in their resolve. Such a person is not afraid of prisons or chains because they have chosen their path through free will. They love their beloved, even if the entire world speaks ill of them. No one can change or alter such a person.

One of the most important first steps on the path is “the healing of what is lawful.” Consuming what is unlawful is the worst affliction for spiritual matters.

Additionally, the seeker must be willing to endure the demands of their beloved at any cost, or else their heart will not be purified, and their growth and ascent will be halted.

Adhering to these principles brings lightness and speed to the journey. A seeker who gains momentum must have a guide to regulate their pace, or else their rapid ascent may lead to the destruction of their inner self and a fall.

Regulating the ascents and descents in spiritual practice is of utmost importance. Those who have reached great heights are not subject to the weight of the corporeal world, but controlling their speed becomes difficult. In such a state, the soul of the seeker becomes surrounded by the spirits of the world and the phenomena of the Divine realm, which may drain their strength, so that they no longer wish to descend, just as an astronaut feels weightless beyond Earth’s atmosphere. If a seeker finds themselves in this state without a seasoned guide, they may face difficulties in their lower self and become lost in their journey. They will experience a spiritual death or confusion unless they can return to the grounded teachings.

Among the books on mysticism, “The Mysticism of the Beloved and the Seekers of the Beloved” provides an understanding of this journey. In the path of a lover, it is impossible to design a single path with specific stages for all individuals to reach God. Each soul has a unique path and speed, sometimes slow, sometimes with leaps. These differences are both personal and categorical. Thus, the book focuses on the general characteristics of these seekers rather than individual paths, in contrast to the more structured path described in other mystical traditions.

Spiritual Mysticism

In my book Spiritual Mysticism, I elaborate on the fundamentals of spiritual pathfinding in Shia mysticism. For the first time in Shia philosophy, I have outlined the “Practical Mysticism” system based on the teachings of the Infallible Household, explaining the principles and rules that guide the seeker from the material world to the realm of the unseen.

The journey to the unseen has three stages: first, adherence to the Shariah (religious law), second, following the Sufi path (Tariqat), and third, attaining the Truth (Haqiqat). These stages are known as the beginner’s, intermediate, and advanced stages, corresponding to action, state, and realization.

Practical Mysticism aims to guide the seeker from external religious actions to inner transformation, following the specific path laid out by the Shia school of thought. This journey in Shia mysticism has a defined structure, although human curiosity has led to many diverging paths that, when disconnected from the teachings of the Infallible Household, can lack authenticity.

Mysticism is the study of the luminous essence of the self. What is said about humans, calling them “the speaking animal,” refers to their material aspect, but humans also possess a luminous nature that connects them to the higher realms. Mysticism guides the seeker to embrace this spiritual essence and return to their divine origin. The first phase of this three-stage system is outlined in Spiritual Mysticism, with sixty-eight principles of Shia practical mysticism. The deeper discussions on the sovereignty of the saints and on the unity of the Divine are elaborated in my other works, especially in my commentary on Ibn Arabi’s Fusus al-Hikam.

Mysticism is intimately connected to the “heart” of the individual, and those with mystical potential carry the pains of opening their hearts. Spiritual Mysticism serves as an introduction to the Red Journey and prepares the reader to approach the subtleties discussed in the next volumes of my work.

In the book, I explain that the path to spiritual realization is not an academic pursuit but a divine gift. A seeker must possess the inner potential to follow this path, and any attempt without such innate potential will be fruitless. True mysticism is not learned through books but through direct, inner transformation guided by an adept teacher. The seeker must first realize their own inner potential and then, under the guidance of a master, develop their spiritual faculties through discipline and meditation.

The seeker’s journey is about discovering and refining their inner essence, not acquiring external knowledge. Mysticism is a deep, internal process that transcends intellectual understanding. Through a combination of inner aptitude and external guidance, the seeker moves towards uncovering the divine truths hidden within.

He is considered the embodiment of beauty, perfection, and the manifestation of love, representing spiritual degrees.

The Sheikh reminds us of the secrets of the friends of God under three categories:

a. Fasting for an extended period, which reveals certain fundamental principles.

b. Extraordinary acts beyond the usual, such as traversing the earth, which exemplifies the mastery of the mystic.

c. Prophecy or knowledge of the unseen, which demonstrates the mystic’s vision to others. To prove the possibility of such knowledge, he offers a long discussion across sixteen chapters (indications and reminders).

At the end of the book, the Sheikh gives two important pieces of advice: First, that a wise person should neither deny everything nor easily accept everything without evidence. Those who accept or reject things without careful consideration or proper reasoning lack intellectual value, and such reactions stem from their weakness and incapacity. The Sheikh advises that one should regard anything as possible and refrain from denial until one arrives at proof; however, one is not required to accept it. This is a principle that anyone, be they a philosopher or someone delving into intellectual or rational matters, should follow: not to hastily accept or dismiss statements without adequate evidence.

The Sheikh’s statements in his “Indications” (Isharat) are brief, especially regarding the details of the mystic’s stations and conditions. These can be seen as general guidelines and an introduction to mysticism. Therefore, they do not have practical applicability and do not assist the spiritual aspirant in recognizing their own stage or condition. They are rather scattered pieces of advice meant for moral reflection, akin to the character of theological ethical books.

Explanation of Fusus al-Hikam

The great Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (d. 638 AH) is the author of two significant mystical works, Fusus al-Hikam and Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya. I regard him as one of the most prominent mystics, whose writings are rooted in the theological beliefs of the Sunni tradition.

He is one of the strongest figures in the mystical path of love and is a leader in this tradition, having approached mysticism with a foundation in Sunni theological beliefs. Here, I will focus only on his book Fusus al-Hikam. It is worth mentioning that I have taught the explanation of Fusus al-Hikam in two periods in Qom. The second course was recorded, and the sessions accumulated to 1,151 lectures. My explanation in Persian is the most comprehensive commentary on this book to date.

The explanation of Fusus al-Hikam is titled Matalib al-Husayn fi Ma’ani Fusus al-Hikam by Dawud Qaysari (d. 751 AH), who was a student of Abd al-Razzaq Kashani. Although Qaysari’s explanation is an essential and systematic commentary on Fusus al-Hikam, there are many instances where Qaysari struggles to understand Ibn Arabi’s subtle allusions, failing to grasp the intent of Ibn Arabi’s words and interpretations. He often repeats Ibn Arabi’s statements without independent insight, even when Ibn Arabi might have made significant errors. Furthermore, at times, he distorts the meanings of the text. Qaysari relies heavily on the oral teachings of mysticism rather than direct mystical experience, making his commentary valuable but somewhat limited in experiential depth.

In his introduction, Qaysari praises Ibn Arabi, giving him the title Khatam al-Wilayat al-Nubuwwiya (the Seal of Prophetic Saints). He accepts Ibn Arabi’s claim regarding his own position. However, we reserve this title exclusively for Amir al-Mu’minin (Ali). In his introduction, Qaysari outlines the foundational principles of Ibn Arabi’s mysticism, including concepts such as existence, unity, divine names and attributes, the fixed essences, intellects, the world of imagination, and the stages of descent, which provides a basis for understanding Ibn Arabi’s mystical teachings.

In my own commentary on Fusus al-Hikam, I have sought to critically reassess and correct the existing mystical culture by revisiting, correcting, and refining the teachings. If I had not undertaken this task, I would not have regarded this commentary as a text for academic study. My goal has been to ensure that this text is refined in such a way that even Ibn Arabi himself and his commentators would be pleased with it. During the time of Ibn Arabi, when knowledge was scarce and difficult to obtain — and perhaps under the pressure of political oppression — they presented this text, just as we have painstakingly explained it.

I chose to teach and explain this book because it provides a succinct yet comprehensive approach to mysticism, which is rare in our intellectual tradition. For example, the works of the late Sayyid Haydar Amoli, though deeply rooted in the concept of Wilayah and Shi’ism, also suffer from fundamental issues. Only a sharp intellect and a pure heart could fill this gap, which is what I sought to achieve through this commentary.

The idea I aim to convey through this commentary is that Shi’i mysticism, in its focus on the Wilayah and the essence of the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet), is so rich that it does not need books like Fusus al-Hikam and Qaysari’s commentary. I hope that through this effort, I will be able to compile a comprehensive text on mysticism based on this commentary, which can serve as an academic textbook that replaces books like Fusus al-Hikam.

My approach in this commentary involves not only correcting the mysticism of Fusus al-Hikam but also incorporating the Shi’i tradition of mysticism. Additionally, I have revisited the theological, philosophical, and historical elements that Ibn Arabi uses in Fusus al-Hikam, replacing them with a more accurate mystical framework. At the same time, I have highlighted the profound and accurate statements Ibn Arabi makes, which show that this book is not only academically valuable but also spiritually powerful.

Fusus al-Hikam is one of Ibn Arabi’s finest works and surpasses his Futuhat al-Makkiyya. It contains the foundational principles of Ibn Arabi’s mystical philosophy, just as Al-Asfar al-Arba’a is the most important text for the philosophy of Mulla Sadra. Ibn Arabi, with his deeply experiential mystical insight, has succeeded in conveying the profound experiences and meanings he encountered, giving these ideas form through language.

Among human texts, Maqamat al-Sairin is the finest work in practical mysticism, and Fusus al-Hikam is one of the best theoretical mysticism texts. This work, written through Ibn Arabi’s visionary experiences, is a technical text. He has taken mysticism beyond its previous limitations and provided a comprehensive framework, demonstrating the expansiveness of his intellect and heart in the mystical domain. Through this work, Ibn Arabi became a central figure in mysticism, and his teachings have shaped the practices of later mystics, who have largely followed his path.

The intellectual authority of Ibn Arabi is not immune to flaws. He was led to certain unwarranted claims and an overreliance on his own views, which led to various distortions in Fusus al-Hikam. However, despite these flaws, the grandeur of the spiritual path that Ibn Arabi charted cannot be diminished. Our objective is to provide a scientific analysis and critique of his writings, not to judge his spiritual proximity to God.

Ibn Arabi claims a form of spiritual inheritance. While he may not be superior to many scholars in terms of moral and spiritual excellence, he is at least their equal. He possesses universal Wilayah and love for the Ahl al-Bayt, but his understanding of specific, esoteric Wilayah (related to the ascent to the unique station of Amir al-Mu’minin) does not align with Shi’i beliefs. Thus, his teachings on Wilayah may not be entirely correct, especially when it comes to identifying the true representatives of God’s authority. However, it cannot be claimed that his love for the Ahl al-Bayt is absent. He speaks of the spiritual station of Wilayah and guidance, but his perceptions and doctrinal conclusions, especially concerning the esoteric dimension of Wilayah, differ from the Shi’i perspective.

Some commentators have attributed to Ibn Arabi the title Khatam al-Wilayah al-Kulliya (the Seal of Universal Wilayah), but we reserve this title for Amir al-Mu’minin, as he occupies the highest spiritual station. Ibn Arabi is not at that level, and in my own commentary, I have aimed to clarify these mystical truths, avoiding judgment over his spiritual position, as such decisions lie with God.

In his discussions of nature, especially the theory of celestial spheres, Ibn Arabi draws heavily on ancient ideas and the Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology, which has since been rendered scientifically obsolete and archived. Such discussions are now considered superfluous and belong purely to the history of science. There should be an effort to revise and critically edit his text to eliminate such outdated concepts. Even in his analysis and justification of concepts like the Throne (Arsh) and the Footstool (Kursi), he resorts to these archaic embellishments. He also explains concepts such as the Supreme Spirit, the First Intellect, the Tablet, the Pen, the Lower World (Dahr Asfal), the Higher World (Dahr A’la), and the concept of Eternity (Dahr) in some cases with fabricated claims. His view of the impossible as a divine truth reveals the weaknesses in his philosophical and epistemological theories.

Ibn Arabi posits the existence of a universal soul that, through its collective power, encompasses all individual souls, imaginations, and representations. He considers this universal soul to be the highest, simplest, and the first form in relation to the permanent entities (A’yan Thabitah). However, we find no evidence to support the notion of a universal soul, universal imagination, or the faculty associated with them, and we deem these ideas baseless and unfounded.

In the arrangement and structure of the chapters in his “Fusus al-Hikam,” Ibn Arabi does not adopt a systematic or scholarly approach. The sequence of the chapters appears disorganized, inappropriate, and imbalanced. For example, he places the chapter on Jesus (Isa) too early and the chapter on Moses (Musa) after that on Harun (Aaron), despite Harun being the brother and successor of Musa. The positioning of Harun’s chapter without explaining the life and significance of Musa makes little sense. Moreover, the chapter on Musa addresses worldly and social issues, while the chapter on Isa focuses on spiritual matters, divine mercy, and miraculous care. In the natural order and the prophecy of the messengers, Isa came after Musa.

Since Ibn Arabi has a theological orientation rooted in the beliefs of Sunni Islam, his mystical thoughts do not reflect a robust philosophical grounding. He accepts the concept of essence and applies it to the theory of permanent entities, utilizing the concepts of substances and accidents in his natural philosophy. In discussions of free will and volition, he reiterates the deterministic views of the Sunni tradition and struggles to justify human agency, which he sees as a divine action within the self. His perspective renders the mystic’s endeavor futile and inactive. We assert that the one who possesses the station of knowledge and determination performs the best actions and grows in efficacy. The idea that everything is a manifestation of divine truth does not contradict the system of causality, human free will, obligation, and punishment, and these concepts should be preserved in these discussions. He speculates, somewhat arbitrarily and intuitively, that one can reach a level where religious duties no longer apply.

Ibn Arabi, disregarding the Quranic verses, asserts that Idris and Ilyas are the same person, united in a reincarnation-like state. While it is true that some mystics’ views resemble the theory of reincarnation, their statements differ significantly. Ibn Arabi’s claim in this regard lacks proper justification and aligns with the erroneous doctrine of reincarnation. Like the Persian mystic Suhrawardi, he also conflates figures such as Idris and Hermes, the Greek philosopher, without considering the temporal context. Philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, though great in intellect and divine in nature, do not provide any evidence that they were prophets. The philosophical system should not be mixed with that of the divine prophets.

In light of all the scientific challenges within Ibn Arabi’s works, it is no longer appropriate for Shiite mysticism to rely on these teachings without a distinct, independent mystical text of its own.

Commentary on the “Misbah al-Ans”:

In theoretical mysticism, the three main textbooks are “Tamhid al-Qawa’id,” “Sharh Fusus al-Hikam,” and “Misbah al-Ans,” which serves as a curriculum text. “Tamhid” is an introductory and purely conceptual work, discussing two primary issues: the divine and the perfect human. “Fusus al-Hikam” addresses numerous, though disorganized, topics, whereas “Misbah al-Ans” is a logical and harmonious book. It must be said that the most important and highest-level book taught in theoretical mysticism is “Misbah al-Ans.”

The main author of the text, “Miftah al-Ghayb” (The Key to the Unseen), is the esteemed Sadr al-Din Qunawi (607-671 or 673 AH), a disciple of Ibn Arabi and one of his most distinguished followers. After Ibn Arabi, Qunawi was a prominent figure in mysticism, dedicated to explaining, clarifying, and correcting his teacher’s teachings. Qunawi, who was rightly regarded as the heir to Ibn Arabi’s mystical legacy, systematized and expanded his teacher’s teachings in works like “Miftah al-Ghayb,” while also correcting certain errors found in Ibn Arabi’s writings. Within the mystical tradition, Ibn Arabi is known as “Sheikh al-Akbar” (The Greatest Master), while Qunawi is referred to simply as “Sheikh.”

“Miftah al-Ghayb” is largely a repetition of the ideas found in “Fusus al-Hikam” and “Futuhat al-Makkiyyah.” A careful study of this book frees the reader from the need to consult many other mystical works, as it encompasses the most comprehensive mystical discussions. However, “Miftah al-Ghayb,” like “Fusus al-Hikam,” adheres to the Sunni tradition and has not surpassed Ibn Arabi’s affectionate, devotional mysticism. Through the commentary on “Misbah al-Ans,” we seek to reframe mysticism based on the Shiite tradition of Wilayah (spiritual authority), and create a work that does not conflict with the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt, offering unembellished scientific and mystical truths.

If we view “Fusus al-Hikam” and “Futuhat al-Makkiyyah” as an ocean of knowledge, albeit with embellishments, a scholar like Qunawi strives to edit and refine Ibn Arabi’s mysticism and correct many of his mistakes. His work, as much as his ability allows, clarifies the mistakes of the “Great Sheikh” and brings coherence and accuracy to the teachings.

Both Ibn Arabi and Qunawi are undoubtedly great mystics, with Qunawi being so influential in mysticism that his legacy shines as brightly as Ibn Arabi’s. However, Qunawi’s writings are more precise and methodical than those of Ibn Arabi. Even though Ibn Arabi may have advanced further on the path of knowledge, Qunawi’s approach to mystical writings is more refined and scientifically rigorous. Qunawi’s contributions, while drawing heavily from Ibn Arabi’s teachings, also exhibit significant independence and depth in his own right.

In any case, the main subject of my poetry is the narrative of “pure and collective love”; a love that is devoid of any desire. The negation of desire and the attainment of pure love is the path of beloved mystics; a path that is very short and swift, travelled by the power of love and affection. This is a love that one can reach, and for which a clear path can be found.

Previously, I mentioned that four volumes of “The Complete Works of Nekou’s Diwan” represent a reception and critique of the content of the ghazals in the Diwan of Khwaja Hafiz Shirazi, through the language of poetry and ghazal. This reception is termed “Safi Critique.” In fact, the Safi Critique elaborates on the mysticism of beloved lovers, the subtleties and intricacies of nearness to the Beloved, the red path of mystics, and the differences between the path of lovers and the path of passionate seekers, all conveyed in the language of poetry and the reception of Khwaja’s ghazals. Khwaja Hafiz, as a lover of symbolic nature, has his heart’s eye illuminated by the light of awakening. Hafiz possesses a profound rhetorical influence and a universal acceptance, such that all the people of Iran, and indeed, those knowledgeable of the Persian language worldwide, hold him in high regard.

Hafiz’s mysticism and ontology are grounded on two fundamental pillars: “love” and “intoxication or asceticism.” These thoughts have their roots in the teachings and mysticism of Ibn Arabi, and many of Ibn Arabi’s mystical propositions are reflected in Hafiz’s Diwan.

Hafiz’s mysticism is that of a lover; however, in critique and reception, a mystical, immaculate, and Shi’a beloved mysticism is presented. The “Safi Critique” aims to identify the epistemic flaws in the beloved mysticism system of Khwaja Hafiz and, through the language of poetry, to critique and correct it. The ghazals in the “Safi Critique” are among the finest sources for understanding the qualities and attributes of the beloved and lover of the Divine, as they depict the subtle details of the beloved’s path and critique the lovers.

In his Diwan, Khwaja Hafiz speaks of many topics related to the origin and end of creation, the place of man in the cosmic order, and matters like determinism and free will, the secret of fate, love, reason, knowledge, asceticism, and the condemnation of worldly life, all of which, based on the teachings of Ibn Arabi, require refinement. A sample of this reception is as follows:

“I have said many times and I say again,
That I am the one lost in this path, and I do not ask of myself.
Behind the mirror, the parrot-like form has been held for me,
I say what the eternal master said.”

Here, Hafiz alludes to the preordained destiny of the parrot-like lover, acknowledging that his happiness and sorrow are predetermined and, in general, beyond human will. He accepts this with eagerness, submitting to the will of the Divine, acknowledging that he is bound by fate and does not recognize the law of attraction in love, seeing it instead as a matter of divine decree.

The lover experiences tangible sensations of the wine of awakening and enlightenment (“yaqza”), which lead him to disregard the doubters and dismiss the adornments of the aged ones as mere decoration. However, in his steadfastness, he does not transcend the creatures and phenomena around him but remains confined by them. In response to this passionate ghazal of Khwaja Hafiz, I have written:

“My beloved has said and I too say much,
Whatever the beloved does, I seek only that.
It is not my destiny, but I accept this point:
What my beloved has whispered into my heart, that is what I seek.”

This reception declares that the lover is granted a shared, volitional system of causality and choice, yet in the domain of divine will, the beloved is drawn by the lover’s affection, and divine beauty and majesty are inseparable in his perception. Thus, the lover with divine love within him pursues the divine will, not by his own volition. All appearances bear preconditions, not complete causality in the manifestation of their forms. Therefore, their good or evil circumstances can change under the system of collective and shared existence, and humanity is endowed with the ability to choose and the capacity for rational judgment.

The beloved’s gaze is a divine gaze upon every occurrence, and the Divine is at the core of his being. The beloved perceives the face of the Divine in every moment, and God, in turn, reveals Himself through the essence of the beloved. The beloved, for such a vision, possesses the capacity for profound effort, and in a state of intoxication, he eagerly embraces suffering, for the beloved does not encounter the Divine except through sacrifice.

The “Complete Works of Nekou” has, to date, been compiled into twenty-nine volumes, which are listed as follows:

Title	Number of Verses	Form
The Best Ghazal	3303	Ghazal
Pure Dance	3857	Ghazal
The Gracious State	3533	Ghazal
The Hour of Heavenly Companionship	3584	Ghazal
The Bride of the Heart	4174	Ghazal
Diwan of Love and Knowledge Vol. 1	2832	Ghazal
Diwan of Love and Knowledge Vol. 2	2178	Ghazal
Diwan of Love and Knowledge Vol. 3	2869	Ghazal
Diwan of Love and Knowledge Vol. 4	2715	Ghazal
Safi Critique Vol. 1	1608	Ghazal
Safi Critique Vol. 2	1770	Ghazal
Safi Critique Vol. 3	1655	Ghazal
Safi Critique Vol. 4	1668	Ghazal
Iranian Night Vol. 1	6725	Ghazal
Iranian Night Vol. 2	7274	Ghazal
Iranian Night Vol. 3	2590	Rubaiyat and Doubaiti
Trial and Rulership Vol. 1	2213	Miscellaneous
Trial and Rulership Vol. 2	4181	Miscellaneous
Beloved’s Glories	4384	Ghazal
Woman: The Goddess of Love	3547	Miscellaneous
Divine Passion	3834	Miscellaneous
Heartfelt Suffering	3267	Qasida
Secrets and Delights	7878	Mathnawi
Nearness of the Beloved	1954	Doubaiti
The Most Passionate	3914	Doubaiti
Blood of the Heart	1148	Rubaiyat and Doubaiti
Kindness and Elegance	1642	Rubaiyat and Doubaiti
The Captivation of Zuleikha	800	Doubaiti, Rubaiyat
The Creator of Beauty	3800	Ghazals

The categories of our studies are cyclical: one cycle is the cycle of concept to concept, another is the cycle of example to example. This process, where concepts are not merely theoretical but grounded in tangible instances, is fundamental in our academic exploration of mystical poetry and logic.

آیا این نوشته برایتان مفید بود؟

بلی 0 خیر 0