glory be to Him—who knows and imparts knowledge; the Ruler who rules and appoints to rule; the Subduer who subdues and enables others to subdue; the Powerful who bestows power (that is, gives the servant ability), grants acquisition (that is, attributes acquisition to the servant, although power in reality belongs to God), and does not stint (that is, He neither withholds nor gives sparingly).
(He is) the Everlasting, in whom everlastingness does not subsist as an attribute (that is, as something additional to His Essence); the Holy, who, in contemplation, is beyond being faced or encountered as an opposite (because He is not bounded by place or time).
Rather, in that most transcendent dwelling, the servant acquires freedom from limitation; it is not that He, glory and exaltation be to Him, acquires resemblance to creatures in that most exalted station.[12] In that Presence, directions disappear from the servant; and when the vision is established in him through Him, every turning aside ceases.[13]
I praise Him with the praise of one who knows that He is exalted in His Attributes and exalts, majestic in His Essence and unveils; that the veil of Inaccessibility is drawn before the radiances of His Face,[14] and the door to attaining knowledge of His Essence is locked. If He addresses His servant, He is both the One who makes him hear and the Hearer; and if (He) performs[15] what (He) has commanded to be performed, He is both the Obeyed and the Obedient.[16]
When this reality bewildered me (since within it we see no act or effect belonging to the servant), I recited to creation, according to the way of the Path (in symbolic language):
The Lord is real, and the servant is real:[17]
Would that I knew: who bears the obligation?
If you say, “A servant,” he is lifeless;
If you say, “A Lord,” how could He be obliged?
He, glory be to Him, obeys Himself through His creation when He wills, and renders justice to Himself concerning what has been determined as His due. There are, then, only empty forms (the cosmos)—
Notes
[12]
Ibn al-Arabi explained this in Risalat al-Azal, printed in the collection Rasail Ibn al-Arabi (Hyderabad edition). We explained it in Mafhum al-Zaman inda Ibn al-Arabi (p. ??? [reference unfinished in the source]).
[13]
Ibn al-Arabi mentions in many places that he attained this dwelling in which directions cease to exist. It is called the Dwelling of Light, and he entered it in Fez in 591 AH/1195 CE. We discussed this in detail in Shams al-Maghrib, p. 192.
[14]
Ibn Manzur says in Lisan al-Arab, under the root s-b-h: “The subuhat of God’s Face, with u-vowels on the sin and ba, are His lights, majesty, and greatness … The word is originally the plural of subhah. It has also been said to mean the radiances of His Face, or its beauties, because when you see a beautiful face you say, ‘Glory be to God!’ It has also been said to mean declaring Him transcendent—that is, ‘Glory be to His Face!’ … Subhah also means the beads with which one counts one’s glorifications.”
[15]
The verb may be read in the passive, “is performed,” or in the active, “He performs,” as we have supplied, on the basis that He, glory and exaltation be to Him, is the true agent.
[16]
In his litanies for the days and nights of the week, in the Sunday litany, Ibn al-Arabi says: “O You who subject righteous deeds to the servant, so that their benefit may return to him.”
[17]
This hemistich is often grossly distorted and then cited as evidence of Ibn al-Arabi’s unbelief. In books and sermons of Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah al-Rajihi, a pupil of Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, Ibn al-Arabi is represented as saying: “The Lord is a servant, and the servant is a Lord …” (See al-Rajihi’s commentary on al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah and his commentary on Ibn al-Farra’s Kitab al-Itiqad.) ??? [References unfinished in the source.] Here Ibn al-Arabi is questioning and expressing wonder, not denying: since everything returns to God in creation, will, and power, and the servant possesses no independent existence that is free of need for God, how can obligation fall upon him when he has no act that is truly his own?
Translator’s note TN6-1: “Obligation” translates taklif: being addressed by divine commands and held responsible for them. The poem poses the difficulty of reconciling this responsibility with dependence on divine agency. The supplied editor explicitly reads it as a question, not a denial of obligation. “Real” renders haqq in the verse; it does not mean that Lord and servant have identical modes of existence.
Translator’s note TN6-2: “Freedom from limitation” renders the servant’s participation in tanzih, often translated “incomparability” or “transcendence.” The surrounding text explains this through the disappearance of spatial directions in contemplation.
