بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على المبعوث رحمة للعالمين.

Fusus Al-Hikam

A Critical Examination

By Mahmoud Mahmoud Al-Ghorab

Translated by Maryam Al-Sharif

            It cannot be established, in the light of critical examination, that the Shaykh Al-Akbar - Muhyiddin Ibn Al-Arabi - had ever authored a book by the name of Fusus Al-Hikam. The Shaykh never mentions this book, among the many titles which can be, verifiably, ascribed to him. Let us then cast a critical look, at some of the contents of the book in question.

In the chapter on Jesus, (Al-Fus Al-Issawiy) we find the following: -

            “When he (Gabriel) said to her (Mary): {I am but the messenger of thy lord to bestow upon thee a son, most pure}, her consternation was eased, (meaning her saying: {Verily I seek refuge with the all-Merciful, from thee, [approach me not] if thou art righteous}); and she felt her heart dilated, as a consequence; at that very moment, Jesus was breathed into her womb. Gabriel was, thus, conveying the Word of God, to Mary, the way a messenger would convey the Speech of God to his community”.

This is supposed to be the purport of the words of God: “{And he, (Jesus), is His Word, which he cast unto Mary and a Spirit from Him}. Thereafter, Mary was subtly pervaded by conjugal passion and the body of Jesus was thus, formed; it was formed from a real [female] fluid, belonging to Mary and an imagined [male] fluid, belonging to Gabriel!!”

Such a recital is in direct opposition to the Qur`anic text. For, [according to the Qur`an], when Gabriel said to Mary: {I am but the messenger of thy Lord, to bestow upon thee a son, most pure}, she was not eased from her consternation, nor was her heart dilated as a consequence. Indeed, she waxed indignant: {How can I have a son, when no man has ever touched me, nor have I been given to the ways of the unchaste}?! Gabriel’s reply was as follows: {Such is the will of thy Lord, it is but an easy task [for Him]; and We - [God] - shall make him - [Jesus] - a sign unto mankind and a mercy from Us; it is a thing already decreed…then she conceived him} etc. If - as The chapter on Jesus maintains - the [Arabic] letter fa (meaning: and or then) - in “then she was subtly pervaded by conjugal passion (fa sarati - sh - shahwatu)” - was supposed to indicate sequential follow-up (ta’qib), upon Gabriel’s words: {I am but the messenger of thy Lord, to bestow upon thee a son, most pure} etc.; after which “Jesus was breathed into her”; - then such a supposition cannot be accurate. Surely, conjugal passion may not pervade a person, simultaneously, with indignation! The breathing, therefore, must have taken place with the saying of Gabriel: {It is a thing already decreed}. Thus, [the sentence that followed]: {then she conceived him}. There is no question, here, of any passion pervading.

Passion, if passion it must be, may be said to have had a place, for example, in a case such as that of the women of Joseph: {once they saw him, they were enamoured of him and, [in their stupor], they [inadvertently] cut their hands}. If it be said that passion had overcome these women, there and then, it can be accepted; for, indeed, there is a good indication for such an occurrence. This is by way of challenging the literal sense of the text [of the Fusus] and opposing it, [in its Qur`anic context].

Moreover, the statement [of the Fusus]: “Then passion spread in Mary”, is in direct opposition to what the Shaykh had verifiably said in his books. When defining passion, for instance, in the text of the Makkan Revelations (Al-Futuhat Al-Makkiyyah), vol.2/p.189 & 191; he says: “passion is the will to enjoy what is enjoyable; passion is to desire pleasurable things; it is a pleasure and a finding of pleasure in what is pleasurable, in the presence of the desired object.” Obviously, such a concept may not be attributed to Mary; since it is incompatible either her dignity, her chastity or her [state of] consecration [to God].

Moreover, we find the Shaykh himself negating the possibility of passion, in her case, in Kitabu-l-Isra~’ (the book of the Nocturnal Journey) - in [the section of] Al-Isharat-l-‘Isawiyyah (The Jesus Allusions) - when he was asked, in the course of his spiritual ascension: “why was Jesus supported by the Spirit?” He answered: “No pen has ever inscribed him on a tablet; he was cast unto the womb, without passion; that is why, he - (Jesus) - could find no consolation, except in renouncing the worlds [of relative being]”.

The Shaykh further emphasizes this point in his book: Dhakh~a`iru-l-`Al~aq (Treasures Underlying the Attachments), when he says: “Know that the [act of] creating Jesus without natural passion, was by way of producing a representation (at-tamtheel), in the human form; thus, he (Jesus) was [naturally] empowered to overcome mere nature.

We find this explained, moreover, in the Shaykh’s Qur`anic Commentary, “Ijazu-l-Bayan fi at-Tarjamati `ani-l-Qur`an”, where he comments upon the words of God: {And We gave Jesus the son of Mary the most clear of signs and We supported him with the Holy Spirit}; he says: “It is susceptible to two explanation: either, that we created him in [a state of] utter purity, [free] from all natural passion, [of the kind] that occurs with the conjugal act; or, that he was not formed of the conjugal act; thus, nature had no part in his [formation]. How can one reconcile these texts, with the words of the Fusus: “then passion subtly pervaded Mary”?!!

The Formation of Jesus, Peace Be Upon Him

            In The Chapter on Jesus (Al-Fus Al-Issawiy), we find the following:

“His (i.e. Jesus) body - may God’s peace be upon him - was formed from a real fluid, belonging to Mary, and an imagined fluid, belonging to Gabriel; and the humidity, which exists in the animal body - by virtue of the element of water it contains - passed onto the breathing; forming, thereby, the body of Jesus, from two fluids: one real and one imagined; thus, causing him to appear in the human form, after his mother’s form and by virtue of the appearance of Gabriel in the human form; so as not to allow creation to take place - in this human kind - by means other than the habitual ones”! This view, entirely contradicts what the Shaykh himself has said in his verifiable books. Moreover, we find the text - regarding the formation of Jesus from two fluids - twice repeated; as if to lay greater stress on it. Now, insistence upon such a thesis - the formation of a human creature can only take place in the habitual way, by the mingling of two fluids - can be a particularly pernicious influence, on those who are given to fanciful opinions (al-awham) or who possess a weak imagination. It also contradicts what the Shaykh says in the text of the “Futuhat”, vol.1.p.124: “Human bodies are of four kinds: Adam’s body, Eve’s body, Jesus’ body and the bodies of the generality of the children of Adam. Each one of these bodies is formed by means of a causal chain, different from the other; even if they all shared the same [human] form, bodily and spiritually. We specifically stress this point, to prevent the feeble minded from concluding that Divine Power, or the totality of universal truths are restricted to a single causal chain - the habitual way - when it comes to the creation of the human form”, as the text of the “Fusus” maintains. God, [in His Wisdom], undertook to demolish such a misconception, by causing the human form to arise, in Adam’s case, in a different manner from Eve’s; He caused Eve’s body to appear in a different manner from Adam’s; and he caused the generality of the children of Adam to appear in a different manner from Jesus’ - may God’s peace be upon him. In all these cases, the appellation man remains applicable, both as a reality and as a definition. This is by way of showing that God’s knowledge encompasses all things and that His Power can do all things. Thus, we find all the four modes of creation, put together in a single verse of the Qur`an: {O mankind, verily We have created ye}, meaning Adam; {from a single male}, meaning Eve, who was created from Adam - peace be upon him; {and a single female}, meaning Jesus, who was created from Mary -in a manner which corresponds to the creation of Eve from Adam; finally, by combining the two: {from a single male and a single female}, meaning: the remainder of Adam’s progeny, who are reproduced by means of the conjugal union. This verse contains the totality of the ways by which mankind is created; it belongs to that comprehensive and concise type of speech (Jawami` al-kalim) and to that distinct and plain mode of expression (fasl al-khitab), [of which the Qur`an and the traditions of the Prophet are well-noted]. In this way, it becomes very plain, that the purpose is: to convey that human bodies, even if they be one, from the standpoint of their definition, reality and their sensory or spiritual form, yet the means of their composition are different; this is to forestall from [falsely] imagining that they all issue by means of the same causal sequence; God is, indeed, more exalted than that.

                       One, also, detects a further contradiction in the following: the Shaykh himself has never irrevocably claimed that the creation of Jesus was from Mary’s fluid or that it was without fluid altogether; even if this be a single fluid. For we find him stating, in the “Futuhat”, vol.1/ P.125: “Since the people of physics maintain, that nothing could be formed from woman’s fluid, and that the fetus in the womb is formed from man’s fluid [acting alone], we take the view that the formation of the body of Jesus is altogether different [from that of other bodies]; even if its sustenance in the womb was that of all human babies. If, on the other hand, it was formed of woman’s fluid(1), since the Spirit was manifested to her - [Mary] - in the human form; or if it was formed out of a breathing, without [sexual] fluid; still, it is, in every way a fourth body, different in origination from the bodies of the species”.

            How can one reconcile such plain talk, with the words of the Chapter on Jesus (Al-Fus Al-Issawiy), which claims that Jesus was formed from two fluids: (one real, from Mary, and one imagined, from Gabriel). How can we reconcile the attempt to explain the attribution of [sexual] fluid to Gabriel - peace be upon him - by calling it “the humidity which suffused the breath”?!.  How can one compare this, with the probability, which the Shaykh himself expounds, that: Jesus’ creation took place by means of a breathing [of the Spirit], without fluid; whether this was from Mary or from another source!! Is this not enough for rebutting the entire contents of the book of  “the Fusus” and its ascription to the Shaykh - may God be well pleased with him.

*****

In the chapter on Elias (Fus Al-Hikmah Al-Eliassyah), we find the following:

            “This integral knowledge (al-ma`rifa at-tamma), which came to us, from God, in the revealed dispensations (ash-sharai` al-munzala) and whose governing [authority] is acceptable to the imagined perceptions (al-awham) of all men, makes us conclude: that in this human form, imagined perceptions are much more powerful than intellects (al-`uqul); and, that a man of sound intellect - whatever be the degree of perfection he reaches ]in intellectual accomplishments] - cannot remain entirely free, in what he apprehends, from the dominance of imagined perceptions or of conceptual forms. The imaginative faculty (al-wahm) is, thus, [the factor] of the greatest dominance over this perfect human form; by means of it, the revealed dispensations came to us, speaking both [the language] of similarity (tashbih) and [the language] of incomparability (tanzih); they employ [the language of] similarity, for what is incomparable, in terms of [the criteria of] imagined perception; and they employ [the language of] incomparability, for what is similar, in terms of [the criteria of] the intellect”. He, then, goes on to quote the words of God: “{May the Lord of Inaccessibility be for ever exalted, beyond whatever quality they wish to attribute to Him}; and, indeed, they can only attribute to Him such qualities as their own intellects can produce; therefore, He - [God] - declared Himself incomparable, even in terms of the very incomparability which they have attributed to Him; since this [latter] incomparability is itself a limit imposed on Him; because - [human] - intellects are too imperfect to [truly] apprehend such a thing. Thus, all the revealed dispensations were determined by the exigencies of imagined perception; they cannot exempt the Real (al-Haqq) from qualities which [are bound to] manifest Him”.

            Now, let us cast a look, at what the Shaykh - may God be well pleased with him - had actually said, in the books which are verifiably his, or in some of the books which can be rightly ascribed to him; and let us compare the contents of these, with some of the fanciful opinions (lit. imagined perceptions), which occurred in the chapter in question [of the Fusus]; particularly, with regard to the claim that: “imagined perceptions have determined the integral knowledge (al-ma`rifa at-tamma) which is to be found in the revealed dispensations; or that all the revealed dispensations have only brought ‘truths’ that are determined by the exigencies of imagined perception”.

Imagined Perception (Al-Wahm),

According to the authentic Works of the Shaykh

Fut./vol.1/p.275:

“Fear exists in man much more than it does in the animals; except for the cockroach (sursur); the Arabs have a proverb which says: “More cowardly than a cockroach”. The reason why fear is so great in man, is his possession of intellect (`aql) and though (fikr), [the faculties] with which God has distinguished him from all the animals. But, man acquires courage by means of none other than the imaginative faculty (al-quwwah al-wahmiya); both his fear and his courage increase, at certain moments, by means of this faculty. Indeed, imagined perception has great power [over man] … for being (al-wujud) is pleasurable and sweet to taste; it is the Good as such; whereas to imagine the annihilation of one’s own essence (al-`adam al-`ayni) is a thing greatly painful and overpowering to souls; and no one can truly fathom the distress of this, except the very knowledgeable (al-`ulama). Every soul is afraid to suffer her own annihilation; and, whenever she has to encounter a thing which she imagines would result in the annihilation of her own essence or which drives her closer to such an eventuality, she becomes alarmed, full of dread and puts to flight”.

Fut./vol.1/p.415:

“When the servant utters the consecrational magnification of God (Takbirat al-Ihram), to mark the onset of prayer, [he means to say]: May God be magnified (Allahu Akbar), beyond all limitation to states [of being] (ahwal); for He is [absolutely] Himself in all states [of being]; indeed, He is all states [of being, put together]; and, indeed, all states [of being] are in His power; He has no need to depart from Himself to [acquire] any state [of being]. So, you should infinitely magnify Him, from all such [limitations], by resorting to the determining power of your imagined perception (hukm al-wahm), not by means of the determining [power] of your intellect (hukm al-`aql) [alone]; since both the imaginative faculty and the intellect determines after its own manner”.

Fut./vol.1/p.711-712:

“The Real (al-Haqq) is distinguished by being unrestricted; He can do whatever He wills; for, according to the perceptions of the imaginative faculty, which are supported by evidence from the intellect, the actions of the Real (al-Haqq) are not subject to change; because these actions are determined by His property of knowledge. But, if this be so, it would be contrary to His freedom of choice; He - [God] - would thus resemble the restricted. In the day of `Arafa - during the pilgrimage - the servant, as he stays put [in one locality], acquires [a direct] knowledge of restriction, [in so far as it applies to the Real (al-Haqq)]. It is a knowledge which is maintained by imagined perceptions, by means of [supportive] evidence from the intellect. At this particular juncture, in the [servant’s] knowledge of God, [his] imagined perception becomes equal to that of [his] intellect; thus, he attributes restriction to God and makes Him subject to the determination of His own [divine] knowledge of a thing; this is, moreover, the view of a school of thought which maintains that knowledge, as a quality, is additional or extraneous to the Divine Essence; and, even though it is sustained by the Divine Essence, yet it rules over it, by virtue of the objects to which it becomes attached”.

Fut./vol.1/p.741:

“Man possesses more jealousy (ghayrah) than the animals because the powers of avarice and imagined perception are stronger in him; yet, in truth, there can be no relation between the intellect [as such] and jealousy”.

Fut./vol.2/p.4:

“According to the ruling of the intellect, the indivisible cannot have two different directions; yet, imagined perception maintains such a view”.

Fut./vol.2/p.326:

“In [the economy of] being (al-wujud), we meet with a curious phenomenon; on the one hand, there are certain matters which the intellect can well verify (yatahaqqaq), remaining steadfast and holding, unshakably, thereto; yet, the same truths escape the [retention of] imagined perception, which cannot, steadfastly, retain them. One such question is the following: (in loving His manifestation, God loves none but Himself); this is [a proposition] which the intellect can establish and stably retain; whereas, the same truth escapes the [retention of] imagined perception, which cannot stably uphold it.

On the other hand, the opposite is also true; for there are certain other matters which escape the intellect’s [retention], even when they remain stable in the imagination, which has power over them and affects them, [deeply]. One such case, is someone whose intellect has made it [patently] evident that his sustenance shall come to him, whether he goes seeking after it or not; yet, such knowledge escapes his intellect’s [retention]; he, thus, remains governed by the power of imagined perception, which overwhelms him and leads him to believe that: if he does not seek after his sustenance, he shall [certainly] perish; so, he strives, vigourously, to acquire it. Thus, from the standpoint of his intellect, the truth about the matter vanishes; whereas the false view, which is retained by the imagined perception, remains unshaken therein.

Or, it is like the case of one who sees a snake or a lion, from a position where he is safe from their harm - provided he can hold fast to the intellect’s evidence; but this person loses all consciousness of such evidence and falls prey to believing (lit. imagining) himself susceptible to harm; he shrinks, in fright, and both his countenance and his inward [wits] undergo [radical] changes, due to the power of an imagined perception; such cases abound. Therefore, it is given to imagined perception to govern over certain situations and to the intellect to govern over others”.

Fut./vol.3/p.364-365:

“God has bestowed upon the imagination a plastic (lit. form-giving) faculty, which may be subject to the dictates of either the intellect or imagined perception; both intellect and imagined perception can direct it, by issuing it a command. He also caused the power of imagined perceptions to be stronger - in this human form - than that of the intellect. It has not been given to the intellect to apprehend [intelligible] things which may not enter as substrata to material objects or which are not intelligible - from whatever angle of vision - unless they are free from all material clothing. A case in point, is the qualities which are attributed to God. God’s transcendence [effectively] puts Him above being material or above being a substratum of matter; the [divine quality of] knowledge, which we attribute to Him, is not material, nor can it be attributed to [the level of] materiality; yet, the intellectual faculty - when it delves into [speculation about] this [knowledge] - cannot assimilate it, except through form-giving or conceptualization (tasawwur); this conceptualization issues from the power which imagined perception has over the intellect, not from the intellect as such.

The sensorial faculty transmits its own apprehensions to the imagination, wherein the form-giving faculty (al-musawwira) constructs from them whatever [synthetic images] it wills; [images] which are - in their totality - nonexistent to sensory experience, even if their particulars come from this sensory experience. But, when the form-giving faculty constructs such forms - by means of a command from the intellect - through the faculty of reflection (quwwat al-fikr), then this happens because the intellect is seeking to know some particular matter; and [this] knowledge is, doubtless, restricted (muqayyad). But, if the forms, which are spun by the form-giving faculty, issue from the command of the imaginative faculty itself - not from the intellect, acting on [the promptings of] imagined perception - then such forms never lasts; for imagined perceptions vanish quickly, because of the infinity [of the forms] to which the imaginative faculty is disposed; whereas the intellect is restricted, [in its access to forms], and is imprisoned by whatever it comes to assimilate.

Since the majority of creatures are dominated by the exigencies of imagined perception - due to the power of the imagination over the intellect; the effect of this [upon the creature] manifests itself in a failure to admit any intelligible essence (ma`na) - in whatever object of knowledge one knows to be neither material nor a substratum to matter - until it gives it a form. Now, the form given is none other than the form which comes from imagined perception; thus, it cannot be doubted that the intellect is fettered, by imagined perception, in whatever speculative knowledge it possesses.

As for self-evident knowledge (al-`ilm ad-daruri), this remains unaffected by the power of imagined perception; through it, man knows of the existence of intelligible essences (ma`ani) which are not of the material order, nor are they substrata to material objects (a`yan mawad); even if one cannot assimilate [such essences] - speculatively - until one conceives of them as substrata to material objects, [hidden] behind a thin veil, which is required by imagined perception”.

Fut./vol.4/p.210: 

“In [total] being, the Divine Command (al-Amr Al-Ilahi) is simultaneous with the Creative Act (Al-Khalq al-Ijadi); the very word: BE (kun)! Is the creature’s very reception of [the process of] becoming: thus, it is. The [Arabic] letter fa  in (fa yakun; thus, it is) - indicates a ‘sequential follow-up’ (ta`qib), as in [the words of God]: {Indeed, [the nature of] His command is such, that if He wills a thing, He but says to it: be! And it is}; this is the consequent clause (apodosis) upon His command (be); and, [grammatically], a consequent clause and a ‘sequential follow-up’ can only denote [a singularity of] level; thus, people imagine of the Real (Al-Haqq)  that He will not say to a thing (be), unless he wills it, [individually]. Moreover, one sees the existence of some beings coming after that of others; thus, [one concludes]: the existence of every single one of them must be willed, on its own and no being may come to be, unless by means of [a direct] Divine command. Thus man, or the person under the spell of the imaginative faculty, imagines [the occurrence of] many commands, and that, for everything that exists, there is a [separate] Divine command, which the Real (Al-Haqq) does not issue until He wills the creation of this [particular] thing. Because of this particular imagined perception, the command has to be anterior to the creation or the [actual] existence. This is, moreover, made incumbent upon us by the Divine Address (al-Khitab Al-Ilahi), coming upon the tongues of the Messengers; thus, one has to conceive it in a form, even if intellectual evidence cannot so conceive it, nor can it maintain such an opinion; and even when it is only conjured up by imagined perception, which can conceive of it, the way it conceives of impossible things (al-muhal) and believes them to possess existential form - because [such forms] do occur in imagined perception - even if they are not experienced in sensory existence.

Fut./vol.4/p.259:

“Whatever brings satisfaction, one knows, [spontaneously], the wisdom behind it; for one sees how it serves one’s interest; but conflicting views and ignorance occur when things go against one’s interest and conflict with the planned sequence [of events], as one perceives it in the imagination; the intellect, in fact, can only refrain [from judgment]; because it only knows by means of forms. What favours (rajjah, lit. gives weight)[one evidence over another] are the speculations which are based on imagined perceptions - simulating the form of intellectual [evidence]. Far be it, from the intellect to posit [a construed actuality], which God Himself has not selected as favourable. Now, God only favours what is actual; thus, He lets what happens happen for a wisdom, [known to Him], and withholds what does not happen, also for a wisdom, [known to Him]”.

Fut./vol.4/p.409:

“The impact of imagined perceptions upon human souls is stronger and more apparent than that of intellects; save [in the case of] those whom God wills [to be different]”.

The book of “Revealing the Outcomes of Travels” (kitab al-Isfar `an Nata`ij al-Asfar) p.18:

“[God] - may He be exalted - has joined [the act of] glorification (tasbih) to the manner of travel we designate as nocturnal journey (isra`); by means of this travel, He effaces [images] from the heart of those who live under the spell of imagined perception and those governed by their imagination (khayal), among the people who see the Real (Al-Haqq) in terms of similarity (tashbih) and physicality (tajsim), imagining Him to be subject to direction (jiha), definition (hadd) or place (makan).

The book of “the Nocturnal Journey” (kitab al-Isra`) p.22:

“I become enamoured with transmission [of truth]

When I came to realize such truths as would raise me

High above imagined perception and confusion”

The Epistle of Lights (Risalat al-Anwar) p.5:

“If you happen to be under the spell of your imagined perception, there no deliverance for you, except in going into retreat (khalwah), under the guidance of a master who is also a discerning Gnostic. But, if you had control over your imagined perception, then go into retreat, without whatever compunction”.

The Treasures Underlying the Attachments (Dhakha`irul A`laq)/p.168:

“If she enters into the mind, that imagination wounds her: how, then, can she be perceived by the eye?”(2)

“The meaning of ascribing wounds to her, when she enters the mind, is due to the constructs of imagined perception, in that [Divine] Presence which is most inaccessible to all formal conceptualization (at-tasawwur); this is, indeed, a wounding of it; yet, imagined perception is much more subtle than sensorial perception and the incomparability [of The Divine Presence] is inaccessible to the most subtle of perceptions; what can one say, then, of sight, which is too gross, by far; that is why, it is said of the doctrinal positions (`aqa`id) regarding the Real (Al-Haqq): {whatever may occur to your most subtle center (sirrak), whatever falters within your heart or whatever is encompassed by your imagined perception; then, [know] the Real (Al-Haqq) to be other than it all}”.

The Divine Dispositions (At-Tadbirat Al-Ilahiya) p.160:

“Be on your guard from imagined perception for it [really] exists; it appears to the soul in the form of intelligence; you may be deceived in it; it is a well-obeyed minister (wazir); it has great influence and dominance over men; it is the procurer of pernicious thoughts; it occasions the occurrence of [evil] suggestions (waswasah), so, be on your guard from it”.

Imagined Perception (Al-Wahm),

In Books which are ascribed to the Shaykh

The Book of the Witness (Kitab ash-shaahed) p.12:

“The Real (Al-Haqq) - may He be infinitely exalted - may not be subject to the power of imagined perception (wahm) or that of imagination (khayal)”.

The Epistle of Ibn Sawdakin / p.8:

“Know that God is, by far, too exalted to be an object for sight or for intellect; but, the absurd (as-sakhif) imaginable perception purports to measure Him and to have access to Him; the feeble imagination represents Him and gives Him form”.

*****

            As for the [revealed] laws, which The Chapter on Elias (Fus Al-Hikmah Al-Eliassyah) claims: “they are all determined by exigencies of imagined perception”; let us see what the Shaykh actually says about them; what he says about the five [revealed categories of Shari`ah] rules - the Obligatory act (fardh), the [absolutely] forbidden (mahzhur), the recommended (mandub), the discouraged (makruh) and the [freely] allowed (mubah). He says in the Futuhat, vol.3/p.409: “God has not legislated for men, except the rules which are in accord with their own nature; the only additional thing He has given them, is the fact that these rules come from God; thus, men govern by these rules, to come closer to God and to gain access to [ultimate] happiness”.

*****

            As regards the questions of doctrinal positions, similarity and incomparability, he says the following:

“Since wisdom has decreed - for the good of the universe - that individuals in the world are not of one temperament, temperaments being so [vastly] different, we find in the word, those who are knowledgeable and those who are more knowledgeable, those who are ranked high (fadhil) and those ranked higher (afdhal).

Thus, there are those who know God, in the absolute (mutlaqan), without restriction, and there are those who can only acquire the knowledge of God if they constrain Him by qualities which do not lend themselves to being imagined as contingent (sifat la tuhim al-huduth), qualities which preserve the perfection of the qualified; and, yet, there are still others who cannot acquire the knowledge of God, unless they constrain Him by the qualities of contingence (sifat al-huduth), causing Him,  thereby, to enter under the exigencies of contexts such as: time, place, definition and measure. In existence, the knowledge of God is found at the very point of its origination; it is moulded in accordance with the above mentioned natural temperaments. 

God has revealed His laws in accordance with the said hierarchy, so that Divine Grace may be universally felt by creatures; He revealed: {There is nothing like unto Him}… for the people who may know God in the absolute, free from all restriction; He revealed: {He - [God] - has encompassed everything, with His knowledge}… for the benefit of those who constrained Him by the qualities of perfection; and He revealed: {The Infinitely-Merciful has established Himself upon His throne}… for the benefit of those who constrained Him by the qualities of contingency.

Thus, the revealed dispensations have universally covered the requirements of all temperaments in the world; and doctrinal positions can only be one of these categories” (Fut./vol.2/p.219).

            How can one reconcile the claims of the Chapter on Elias (Fus Al-Hikmah Al-Eliassyah), with the contents of the texts, in which the Shaykh describes imagined perception as: giving credence to falsehood; being absurd; increasing man’s cowardice and fear; given form to impossible things and imagining them to possess existential forms. How can the Shaykh, link imagined perception with confusion (labss), warning against it and making it the conjurer of pernicious thoughts and [satanic] whisperings; then - according to The Chapter on Elias (Fus Al-Hikmah Al-Eliassyah) - we find these imagined perceptions described as having: “determined the integral knowledge, which is extant in the revealed dispensations”!!?

How can it be right, to ascribe the contents of this Chapter, in which the dignity of the intellect is being demeaned - whatever be the degree of its perfection; when it is being dismissed it as incapable of adequate knowledge - in this human form - due to its being overpowered by imagined perceptions; and when the Shaykh himself exempts those whom God wills - (these being: the elite, among the Messengers, the Prophets and the perfected Saints) - from being subject to the influence of imagined perception over their souls (Fut./vol.4/409).

            How can it be right to ascribe to the Shaykh a view which holds that all the religious doctrines and the revealed dispensations have come to us, in accordance with the exigencies of imagined perceptions; when it is a certain view of his that the revealed dispensations “have covered, universally, the requirements of all temperaments in the world” - not of imagined perceptions (I refer you to: Fut./vol.2/p.219).

            Furthermore, what of the view behind these words: (employed [the language of] similarity to the incomparable) and (employed [the language of] incomparability to the similar) meaningless words; which run contrary to [hard] textual evidence that the Shaykh provided, regarding the hierarchical categories of men, as these were conveyed in God’s own words about Himself (I refer you to Fut./vol1/p.89 & vol.4/p.7).

            From this critical examination, it becomes clear that the contents of these two Chapters - The Chapter on Jesus (Al-Fus Al-Issawiy), and the Chapter on Elias (Fus Al-Hikmah Al-Eliassyah), of the book of Fusus al-Hikam - may not be ascribed to the greatest Shaykh Muhyiddin Ibn al-Arabi; they run contrary to the [hard] evidence of his verified books, and that these are interpolations, falsely imputed to the Shaykh - may God be well-pleased with him.

والله يقول الحق وهو يهدي السبيل

والحمد لله رب العالمين

محمود محمود الغراب