The Divinity of Jesus and Ibn ʿArabī: A Study Based on Jesus’s Chapter in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam

Abstract

The most impressive Muslim mystic, Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240), devotes a chapter in his book Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam to Jesus. He emphasizes the divinity of Jesus and offers a distinctive viewpoint. In addition to two different expressions regarding Jesus’s divinity, by which some deny this divinity and some affirm it, similar to the Bible’s differences, he specifically focuses on the duality of reality (taḥqīq) and illusion (tawahhum) in relation to Jesus. Accordingly, Ibn ʿArabī views the divinity of Jesus as related to his aspect of reality (the identity that emerged in his human form) and regards the denial of his divinity as related to his aspect of illusion (his human form). This research investigates Ibn ʿArabī’s views on the divinity of Jesus. It adds that the evidence confirming Jesus’s divinity is not based on the general theory of the unity of being but instead points directly to Jesus’s divinity. The epistemological position of Ibn ʿArabī toward the theory of the “indwelling (ḥulūl) of God in Jesus” is discussed in light of his significant phrases.

1. Introduction

Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī (d.1240/638) is the shining figure of Islamic theoretical mysticism and the most crucial figure of this school (Landau 2008, p. 146; Corbin 2008). He had a great impact on the course of Islamic mysticism; for this reason, he is referred to as “Shaykh Akbar”, and “Imām al-ʿurafāʾ”. Muslim mystics have never held such a position (Ashtiani 1995; Johansen 1996). Ibn ʿArabī is undoubtedly one of the most prolific and productive writers. In his numerous books, he laid the groundwork for an extensive and comprehensive system of thinking based on mystical experiences, and this system is still at the core of Islamic mysticism today. In a nutshell, it could be said that, through his writings, theoretical mysticism has attained its ultimate harmony and perfection.

The most significant of his many works, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, can be cited as being extremely valuable and including all of his ideas (ʻAfifī 1939). The book had a significant impact, and numerous commentaries were written on it (al-Baghdādī 1955; Kahalah 1993). In the book’s preface, Ibn ʿArabī describes the occasion of this work: “In Damascus in 627AH, in a true dream, I saw the Messenger of God, peace be upon him. His Holiness, peace be upon him and his beloved family, was holding a book. He told me, ‘This book is Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. Take it and share it with others to get benefit from it’, I referred to His Holiness’ obedience, as it is for God, His Messenger, and the bearers of divine authority, as they had commanded us” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, p. 47). The word fuṣūṣ is the plural form of the term faṣṣ, which signifies gem, and Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam means “gems of wisdom”. In Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, there are twenty-seven faṣṣ, each of which is in the name of a perfect man. The Holy Qur’an mentions twenty-three of these twenty-seven perfect men, while the other four are Shayth, ʿUzayr, Luqmān, and Khālid. One of the essential ideas and epistemological subjects is the main topic of discussion in each faṣṣ. This book, which contains Ibn ʿArabī’s specific opinions, is thought to be so revolutionary that its publication caused people to doubt him (ʻAfifī 1946, p. 7).

This research focuses on one of these revolutionary opinions: “The divinity of Jesus”. The exponents of Fuṣūṣ frequently interpret the divinity of Jesus in the light of Ibn ʿArabī’s overarching conception of the theory of the unity of being. This paper will outline a different interpretation of Ibn ʿArabī’s viewpoint, emphasizing Jesus’s divinity and God’s emergence in his physical body rather than the unity of being. We will explain the meaning of the divinity of Jesus at the beginning of the discussion of this topic.

Such a crucial understanding will open a massive window into the dialogue between Christian theology and Islamic mysticism. Nancy M. Martin discusses the significance of this dialogue: “Rarely do members of diverse religions, engaged in interreligious dialogue, find agreement on metaphysics and doctrine, though such conversations may be very fruitful and lead to greater understanding and mutual illumination” (Martin 2022, p. 2). Although she looks at Jesus as a source of inspiration and a bridge between Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, and non-traditional viewpoints, she focuses on how Jesus presented interfaith ideas like self-sacrifice, wisdom, active love, interweaving personal transformation, contemplative practice, and social engagement in the pursuit of liberating spiritual realization.

Two questions arise when discussing the divinity of Jesus from Ibn ʿArabī’s perspective in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. First, how does Ibn ʿArabī believe in the divinity of Jesus? Is there solid support for this position in Fuṣūṣ? Second, what motivates a Muslim mystic like Ibn ʿArabī to accept the divinity of Jesus? The first query is addressed in this article. Since the answer to the second query necessitates a separate investigation, the present article, which is dedicated to the first question, does not deal with the second. However, by providing readers with evidence, this investigation may benefit those interested in the influence of Christian mysticism on Ibn ʿArabī and his mysticism.

2. Methodology

This study will refer considerably to Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam to interrogate Ibn ʿArabī’s interpretation of the divinity of Jesus. In order to understand Ibn Arabi’s view on the divinity of Jesus, one should study his various works, including his Futūḥāt, and compare them with what is said in Fuṣūṣ. However, we must know that the first necessary step and prerequisite for such a broad project is the separate study of Ibn Arabi’s various works. What comes in this article is the part related to Fuṣūṣ, which could lead to a broader project in the future studying other parts of his works.

By taking this approach, the study avoids addressing other issues considered by scholars in Ibn ʿArabī’s view of Jesus, such as the portrayal of Jesus in Islamic literature (Meshal and Pirbhai 2010), similarities and differences between Islamic and Christian mysticism (Miner et al. 2014), the mystical image of Jesus presented by Sufi Muslims (Milani 2011), or the effects of Jesus on the mystical nature of Muslim saints (Markwith 2015). Moreover, by taking this approach, the focus of this research, i.e., the divinity of Jesus, circumvents the interpretation, such as Robert J. Dobie’s research, that associates this divinity with Ibn ʿArabī’s general theory of the unity of being (Dobie 2014). Likewise, this approach is used to discuss how the classic commentators on Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam attempted to base Ibn ʿArabī’s perspective of the divinity of Jesus on the doctrine of the unity of being and how their interpretations are incompatible with Ibn ʿArabī’s assertions.

This article gives a general review of the divinity of Jesus from Ibn ʿArabī’s perspective before delving into the specific aspects of this divinity as described by Ibn ʿArabī. Two seemingly at-odds pieces of evidence from Ibn ʿArabī’s Fuṣūṣ are compared to analyze his point of view on the subject. This eliminates the need for extraneous, potentially biased evidence, allowing Ibn ʿArabī’s theological technique to develop naturally and show his precise viewpoint.

3. Ibn ʿArabī’s Position on the Divinity of Jesus

We must first describe Ibn ʿArabī’s interpretation of the divinity of Jesus in the book Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. According to the evidence drawn from the words of Ibn ʿArabī, we find that his understanding of the divinity of Jesus is based on the theory of indwelling (ḥulūl). This understanding is the same as the one that Islamic sources attribute to the Christian view of the divinity of Jesus (for example, see al-Māwardī 1988, p. 25; Āmidī 2001, vol. 2, p. 57). In other words, despite the fact that he is a Muslim thinker, Ibn ʿArabī accepted the same interpretation of ḥulūl that is attributed to Christianity in Islamic sources. According to this interpretation, it is said that Christians accept God the Son alongside God the Father and consider the identity of the two to be the same as the identity of the sun and its light (See, al-Hanfī 1988, vol. 5, p. 495). Accordingly, Christians had accepted that a level of God’s divinity, which is divine knowledge, had been indwelling in the physical form of Jesus (al-Rāzī 2000, vol. 21, p. 533).

Ibn ʿArabī’s interpretations, which we present in this article, show that he believed that such a divinity applied to Jesus; that is, he believed that God appeared in the human form of Jesus as a place for His indwelling. Therefore, to grasp Ibn ʿArabī’s interpretation of the divinity of Jesus, we must understand it according to the meaning of the indwelling (ḥulūl) as attributed to Christianity by Islamic sources. This is while the relationship between God and the other beings that are the place of His manifestation is similar to that of the face and the mirror, where the beings show power, knowledge, and divine will and nevertheless are not the place of His identity. What should be taken into consideration, according to Ibn ʿArabī, is the necessity of separating the material form from the divine spirit indwelling in that form. Accordingly, God indwells in the material form of Jesus, who was present on Earth for some time. But the soul of Jesus is different from his physical body. The body of Jesus was material, but his spirit was God’s indwelled identity. What Ibn ʿArabī deems unacceptable is to consider the human form of Jesus as God.

It should be noted that Ibn ʿArabī’s view on the divinity of Jesus is not based on his view on anthropology. From his anthropological point of view, the perfect human being (al-insān al-kāmil) is said to be the most complete among all human beings in his time, and the most perfect human being (al-insān al-akmal) is said to be so among all human beings forever, which he interprets as the “truth of Muḥammadīyah” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1994, vol. 4, p. 405). The most perfect man (al-insān al-akmal) is the mirror of God. But regarding the divinity of Jesus, Ibn ʿArabī’s view is based on the theory of indwelling (ḥulūl), not the theory of perfect or the most complete man.

Ibn ʿArabī’s statements regarding the divinity of Jesus are twofold. Some of his statements show acceptance of Jesus’s divinity, and some deny it. What is important is how the reader of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam reads these two seemingly contradictory statements as belonging together.

3.1. The Pieces of Evidence Supporting the Acceptance of the Divinity of Jesus

Ibn ʿArabī begins the chapter about Jesus with a poem:

From the vaginal discharge of Mary or Gabriel’s blowing who appeared in a human that is created from dust.

A pure spirit in pure essence, that is, Jesus, was formed, who was free and purified from the requirement of the world of nature, which calls him to hell (of the material world).

Because he is free from the requirements of the natural world, he has been alive for more than a thousand years.

He was the spirit of God, no one else, and therefore he resurrected the dead and made birds out of dust.

He found kinship with God, and that is why he influences and affects the lofty and low.

God kept his body (also) pure and made him purified as a soul and made him similar to Himself in creation.

According to Ibn ʿArabī, Jesus is the place of God’s emergence. The soul of Jesus has the characteristic that it is the soul of God, not that of non-God (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 138). The comparison that Ibn ʿArabī’s commentators have made with the other prophets shows us this statement is compatible with the indwelling (ḥulūl). It means taking a position that God appeared in the human form of Jesus. For other divine prophets, there are many mediators between their souls and God because they are the manifestation of the secondary names of God, but Jesus is the manifestation of the essential name of God from the inner unity of the divine essence; accordingly, it is the perfect manifestation of the name of God (al-Qāshānī 1991, p. 208). It should be noted that the divine spirit of Jesus is different from the spirit that was breathed into other human beings and that God attributed it to Himself in verse 15:29 (So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My spirit). Ibn ʿArabī states that the spirit that is breathed into other human beings is the “breath” of God, not the divine spirit (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 216). We will explain in detail the “divine breath” from Ibn ʿArabī’s point of view momentarily.

Elsewhere, Ibn ʿArabī mentions the similarity between Jesus and God, saying, “God made Jesus similar to Him in terms of creating (the beings)” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 138). Most commentators on Fuṣūṣ believe that it means that God created Jesus similar to Himself since, like God, Jesus also creates beings (Bālī Afandī 2001, p. 193; al-Jandī 2002, p. 524; al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 91), but the point is that Ibn ʿArabī states that the creation of beings is part of the actions that are specific to God, and therefore cannot be attributed to the body of Jesus but rather to his soul (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 141). Thus, the being similar to God in creating does not exist, and if he says that Jesus is similar to God in creating, it means that Jesus has the divine essence. Some interpret it as meaning that God created Jesus, similar to Ādam, who was created without a father (al-Jāmī 2004, p. 326). However, this interpretation is incompatible with Ibn ʿArabī’s phrase because, in this instance, he should have said, “God made Jesus similar to Ādam”.

Ibn ʿArabī sometimes introduces Jesus as the son of God, a usage found in the New Testament. He writes in a poem, “For him (Jesus), the lineage (kinship) to God was established, through which he influenced the heavens and the earth” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 138). Accordingly, the nature of Jesus, the divine spirit issued from God without mediation, makes the kinship between him and God stable. Some commentators interpreted this kinship to signify straight creation, which implies that Jesus was created without a father mediating in his creation (al-Khārazmī 2000, p. 693). However, Jesus is not the only one who was created without a father. Such a direct creation was also made in the case of Ādam; however, Ibn ʿArabī did not read this kinship for Ādam. Ibn ʿArabī asserts that Jesus has authority over the upper and lower worlds due to his divine ancestry. It is an unintended interpretation of Ibn ʿArabī’s purpose if we say that the upper and lower worlds represent the reviving of the dead (upper) and the creation of birds (lower) (al-Qāshānī 1991, p. 208; Bālī Afandī 2001, p. 192; al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 92). He refers to the organization and management of the supreme chain of existence, i.e., the upper world, and the inferior chain of existence, i.e., the world of matter, according to Ibn Turka (Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 2, p. 568). Such a stance attests to the fact that Jesus’s ancestry has a special significance that is not shared by other beings. Accepting the kinship between Jesus and God is on the same plane as the Christian belief that Jesus is “the Son of God”.

There are other examples regarding the divinity of Jesus that are explicitly beyond what has already been said. Even in relation to the physical manifestation of Jesus—his human body—some of Ibn ʿArabī’s assertions make it very obvious that Jesus’s body was not one made of natural materials but rather was an example of a transcendental (mithālī) body. Ibn ʿArabī’s chapter on Jesus begins with a poem that begins by asking whether Jesus was created from Mary’s vaginal discharge or Gabriel’s blowing (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 138). Although some commentators attempted to interpret this question as referring to both the physical and spiritual aspects of Jesus (al-Khārazmī 2000, p. 688; Pārsā 1987, p. 614; Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 2, p. 567), we can see from Ibn ʿArabī’s next verse that he is referring to the fact that Jesus’s body was not natural in the same way that other bodies are; as a result, it was not subject to the laws that govern natural bodies. In the words of Ibn ʿArabī, “From Mary’s vaginal discharge or the blowing of Gabriel, a spirit emerged in essence (Jesus), free from the nature and its laws that call him to the prison of nature” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 138). Ibn ʿArabī intended for Jesus’s body to be symbolic and spiritual rather than like actual human bodies. Despite being visible, his body was a soul that had only ever existed in the form of having physical dimensions. As Jesus enjoys pure spirituality, he is not chained to a location or imprisoned in the body. Jesus is absolute, and for this reason, he will never be killed or die. “Like the story of his crucifixion, Jesus’ natural acts have been symbolic and have exclusively appeared in the eyes of observers. Even though Jesus was consuming heavenly food, he demonstrated to the crowd that he was eating and drinking” (al-Jandī 2002, pp. 523–24). Other commentators also reiterated the transcendental (mithālī) nature of Jesus’s body (al-Qāshānī 1991, p. 209).

According to Ibn ʿArabī, Jesus did not experience natural death. He claims that the fact that Jesus is still alive after more than a thousand years (up until the time of Ibn ʿArabī) since his earthly birth justifies his extraordinary existence (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 138). Here, a thousand years refers to the maximum length of time (Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 2, p. 568). From the words of the commentators on his writings that survival and “immortality” are qualities of the soul (al-Jāmī 2004, p. 326; al-Qāshānī 1991, p. 216), it can be inferred that Jesus did not have a physical body but was instead a spirit. Some of the commentators on Fuṣūṣ suggest that the fact that Mary’s womb was holy and clean at the time when Jesus’s sperm had coagulated contributed to his longevity for a thousand years (al-Qāshānī 1991, p. 208; al-Jandī 2002, p. 522; Bālī Afandī 2001, p. 192). This interpretation rejects the metaphysical essence of Jesus’s body. However, Jesus is not the only heavenly saint whose sperm coagulated in a pure environment (mother’s pure womb), as several other saints whose mothers were equally as clean and pure as Mary died as well. Other commentators interpret Jesus’s survival for a thousand years to suggest that he had a lengthy life, similar to al-Khidr, who is said to have lived for a thousand years according to various traditions (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 88). However, it should be recalled that Ibn ʿArabī stated in the preceding verse that “a soul is found in the pure essence” and that Jesus’s existence was as a soul. This confirms that Ibn ʿArabī believed that Jesus’s existence was spiritual and not corporeal. Al-Khidr, on the other hand, is present and active in the material world. However, there is no information concerning Jesus’s presence in the earthly world following his ascension to heaven. According to the Qur’an, Jesus was brought to heaven, but reports emphasize Khidr’s life in the temporal world. Also, despite what the Qur’an says regarding Idrīs, “And We raised him to a lofty station”1 (Qur’an. 19:57), the location of the lofty station is unclear; hence, several interpretations have been made by commentators and narratives. Nevertheless, Jesus is mentioned in the Qur’an: “Nay, Allāh raised him up unto Himself; and Allāh is Exalted in Power, Wise” (the Qur’an. 4:158). The Qur’an finds Jesus beside God. A natural body cannot be before God, and a natural body cannot exist in a supernatural environment. According to al-Khārazmī, ‘The material body cannot appear in the heavens because the celestial body is light and the dense material body is dark. Due to this distinction, the soul cannot communicate with the physical body in the material world without the intervention of the subtle body’ (vaporous soul) (al-Khārazmī 2000, p. 691). Therefore, Jesus is not before God in a physical body but in his spiritual reality. The establishment of heavenly creation, according to al-Nāblusī, “is what is necessary for Jesus to live in heaven without nutrition” (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 89).

The most overt reference to the bodily distinction between Jesus and other humans is made by Ibn ʿArabī when he discusses the unique nature of the creation of Jesus. God creates all humans’ bodies in their mothers’ wombs; once this form is complete, the soul enters it and breathes life into it from His soul. However, Jesus was different in that his soul and body were created with the same breath, instead of having his body created first and then having his soul breathed into it (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 142). The fact that Ādam’s body was created of dust and then his soul was later breathed in, as stated by Ibn ʿArabī, demonstrates how Jesus is distinct even from Ādam and that Ādam’s body is the consequence of physical characteristics and the admixture of materials. When the Qur’an says, “the similitude of Jesus before Allāh is as that of Ādam” (Qur’an. 3:59), it only states that the creation of Ādam’s body occurred without an intermediary (without a father), while the Qur’an asserts that Ādam was made from dust before having a spirit breathed into him (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 108).

Amazingly, Ibn ʿArabī always refers to Jesus’s physical body while attributing to him Gabriel. God’s emergence in Jesus’s physical form does not conflict with Gabriel’s blowing on Mary. By this blowing, Gabriel made Mary’s womb ready to develop a material form that may have the capacity to accept the divine emergence (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 140). As a result, Jesus could only execute exceptional deeds and revive the dead in this body because the heavenly spirit had emerged in this form. If Gabriel had been revealed to Mary in another form, such as a plant, an animal, or an inanimate object, the power of Jesus would only be realized if he took on that particular form. This is because the form created for the divine emergence would then be the same as Gabriel’s physical form, just as if Gabriel had not chosen to be a material form at all but instead had shown with the identical form of immaterial light that Jesus would only be able to perform those actions when he manifested in that immaterial light (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 140). Ibn Turka asserted that the divine tradition is that everything appears in its causal form, just as a child is in the form of their father. This is true regarding Jesus’s physical manifestation (Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 2, p. 582).

3.2. The Pieces of Evidence on the Rejection of the Divinity of Jesus

Ibn ʿArabī’s remarks represent the apparent dualism regarding the divinity of Jesus. Due to this, his statements also exhibit the rejection of divinity in addition to supplying positive shreds of evidence. This collection of expressions introduces Jesus as a human being with human traits. One of these proofs is Ibn ʿArabī’s mention of the union of Mary’s vaginal discharge and Gabriel’s imagined sperm. Ibn ʿArabī insisted on this pairing to define Jesus’s creation within the context of the creation of all human beings. Ibn ʿArabī compares the development of Jesus’s visible and natural shape to the development of other human bodies. The union of a male’s semen and a female’s vaginal discharge in a woman’s womb results in the creation of a human body, and the creation of Jesus’s natural form was influenced by both the genuine semen made from Mary’s discharge and the semen that originated in Mary’s imagination (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 139). He explains that Mary’s vaginal discharge was joined with the fictitious sperm of an imaginary man in her imagination so that the creation of the human type would not differ from what is typical (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 139). Although Ibn ʿArabī claims that spiritual creatures manifest in the physical world as physical beings and that these forms are just like human clothing (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 139), he does not explain that there is no reason for these physical forms to be made according to regular natural rules. Therefore, even though some narrations claim that Gabriel came to the Prophet of Islam in the form of a man by the name of Diyḥah al-Kalbī, the development of this man’s bodily form did not take place in a typical manner or through natural birth, but instead all at once and against the rules of nature. Ibn ʿArabī’s mention of Mary’s impact on Jesus’s personality is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence that establishes Jesus as a human being.

Ibn ʿArabī claims that Mary initially became terrified of Gabriel and grew defensive and tense due to her perception of the stranger as a man who intended to rape her. Jesus would have evolved into a hostile, reclusive, and morose entity with whom no human being could communicate if Gabriel had breathed the Word of God into Mary simultaneously, given that a child is influenced by the mother’s personality and qualities (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 139). How can Mary, a human, influence the divine soul of Jesus if he is the divine Word of God? Ibn ʿArabī significantly widens the reach of this influence. He asserts that Jesus exhibited moral traits like humility due to the influence of his mother, Mary. Thus, Jesus includes a provision in his legislation stating that if a Christian is slapped, he must give the other side of his face for the second slap (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 140).

Ibn ʿArabī also discusses how Jesus is shared with other creatures in being the Word of God. He maintains that all beings are the Word of God since they all are produced by the word “Be” (kun), which is the Word of God (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 142). Accordingly, some commentators believe in the similarity between Jesus and other beings in being the spirit and servant of God, based on Ibn ʿArabī’s remarks (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 110). However, this is not what he advocated. He only mentions the similarity in being the Word of God.

3.3. Reading Two Sets of Contradictory Statements of Ibn ʿArabī

Ibn ʿArabī consistently emphasizes the existence of a duality and triple aspects in his study of Jesus. Jesus is examined from many perspectives due to this duality and triple aspects; thus, various words are spoken about him. Ibn ʿArabī identifies “reality” (taḥqīq) and “illusion” (tawahhum) as the duality. He maintains that Jesus has two sides—a reality that he refers to as taḥqīq and an unreal, imaginary side that he refers to as tawahhum (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 139). One must focus on these two elements in studying Jesus (Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 2, p. 578). The emergence, existence, nature, earthly life, and all the activities that Jesus performed on Earth are examples of these two foundations. In essence, Jesus himself is the combination of reality and illusion.

In Ibn ʿArabī’s interpretations, reality and illusion in Jesus do not always belong to the same subject. For example, he says that the creation of Jesus is from real semen, that is, Mary’s vaginal discharge and illusory semen. The real sperm was formed in Mary, and the illusory semen was formed in Mary’s imagination, seeing the man and imagining that he was going to have intercourse with her and transfer his semen to her (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 139). In this case, illusion is an immaterial entity, while real is a material one. Reality and illusion are expressed differently in the other distinct scenarios. For example, the dead were brought back to life by God (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 139). This was real since Jesus’s identity was God (al-Jandī 2002, p. 530). However, the populace believed that Jesus’s blowing brought about the revival. In this case, illusion is a material entity, while real is immaterial.

Ibn ʿArabī asserts that if one looks at Jesus from the perspective of reality (taḥqīq), one will find his divinity, in which case, Jesus lacks human characteristics. However, if one looks at Jesus from the perspective of illusion (tawahhum), he is viewed as a human. The viewer’s vision, not Jesus’s reality, results in perceiving Jesus as a human and assigning him human characteristics. People were perplexed by Jesus because of these two characteristics. On the one hand, they noticed that he was performing acts exclusive to the divine essence. However, they also noticed that this being has a human form (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 141).

Ibn ʿArabī also refers to triple aspects: Jesus’s human form, Gabriel’s human form as he emerged for Mary, and the unique acts of God that Jesus accomplished. These three qualities caused people to perceive Jesus in three different ways: as a man (attributed to Mary), an angel (attributed to Gabriel), and God. Various peoples view Jesus and his character differently due to the triple aspects (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 142). Focusing on one of these three aspects while disregarding the others, according to Ibn ʿArabī, is an example of illusion. All three parts must be seen together to arrive at the reality of Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God, the spirit of God, and the servant of God. He is the Word of God because Gabriel’s breath gave him his human form. He is the spirit of God by the act of resurrecting the dead. He is the servant of God because of his human form. The Qur’an reads: “And His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him” (The Qur’an, 4: 171), and says: “I am indeed a servant of Allāh” (The Qur’an. 19: 30).

One arrives at the basic idea of Ibn ʿArabī’s conception of Jesus under the heading of separation between the material form and the reality of Jesus by paying attention to the duality of reality and illusion and the triple aspects of Jesus. The expressions that suggest the divinity of Jesus allude to his reality, whereas the ones that reject his divinity refer to his physical form.

4. Ibn ʿArabī’s View of the Divinity of Jesus and His Theory of the Unity of Being

Many commentators on Ibn ʿArabī’s writings claim that he held the theory of the unity of being. Philosophers and mystics have different interpretations of how to explain this theory, but addressing them would deviate this article from its intended objective. Without getting into the debate over the unity of being and the various points of view on it, this theory is consistent with the idea that God manifests Himself in various ways throughout the universe. Mystics examined and explicated their view based on the manifestation of God in objects and creatures (Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 1, p. 19). The crucial point is that Jesus would not have any unique qualities compared to other creatures if Ibn ʿArabī’s conception of the divinity of Jesus was founded on his general theory of the unity of being. This result would be in direct opposition to the divinity of Jesus. We think that Ibn ʿArabī’s assertion on the divinity of Jesus is not based on the unity of being.

4.1. God’s Distinctive Relationship with Jesus Compared to Other Creatures

Ibn ʿArabī emphasizes the relationship between God’s divinity and beings and between God’s divinity and Jesus. In the first section, Ibn ʿArabī explicitly bases his discussions on the theory of the unity of being, which discusses the manifestation of God’s divinity throughout existence. Ibn ʿArabī discusses a phenomenon known as the breath (nafas) of God and how it mediates between the divine essence and all living things. God’s breath is similar to that of animals, according to Ibn ʿArabī. Animals’ breath contains unique qualities, such as the capacity to adopt the shape of letters, syllables, and sounds. Breath also gives comfort and relief to the breathing creature, which is another aspect of breath. The same qualities characterize God’s breath (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 144). The creatures of the world are the manifestation of God’s breath. These creatures’ forms are similar to the letters, words, and sounds made by animals’ breath. God’s breath is a light that manifests itself in various ways. It is the same thing but emerges in the forms of all things, and the diversity is because of different forms, not because of differences in the divine breath (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 123). If the perfections and the effects of God’s names (asmāʾ) do not manifest, the arena of God’s names will be in difficulty. However, this difficulty is removed from the realm of God’s names by His breath, which manifests as creatures, causes the world’s creation, and manifests the perfections and effects of God’s names (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 145). God’s breath denotes the eruption of God’s mercy (al-Jāmī 2004, p. 342). God’s breath is a universal spiritual essence that determines the forms of all living beings. This breath is the kind of substance that makes up beings: like the wood used to make doors, chests, and chairs; like the soil used to make jars; or like the dough used to make bread (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 117); it is a living nature that exists in the world and is dynamic in the forms of beings (al-Jāmī 2004, p. 342).

Therefore, in Ibn ʿArabī’s view regarding other creatures, this is the divine breath that emerges, indwells in, and accepts their forms. Because the universe is manifested in the divine breath, Ibn ʿArabī’ claims that to understand the world, one must understand the divine breath (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 145). The mediation of God’s breath occurs even in the creation of humans. God creates human clay from all parts of the Earth with his own two hands, which is an allusion to the names of God’s beauty and glory (Ibn ʿArabī, vol. 2, p. 196). There are reciprocal effects between these two hands. Among these effects are rage, compassion, mercy, and indignation (Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 2, p. 598). Emphasis on two hands conveys the duality of the divine nature and human beings. In this sense, there is no difference between humans and other creatures. Ibn ʿArabī raised the creation of man apart from that of other species because man is the only being created by the two divine hands. For that reason, he is regarded as the best outcome of material beings.

In this part and the part describing how God’s divinity manifests throughout existence through His breath, Ibn ʿArabī proceeds to explain the section about Jesus separately and under the heading “But regarding the God’s word: Jesus ” (wa- ammā al-kalimah al-ʿīsawīyah), which demonstrates the difference in Ibn ʿArabī’s viewpoint on Jesus. Here, Ibn ʿArabī refers to a query and its answer in the Qur’an: “And behold! Allāh will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me and my mother for two gods beside Allāh.?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden”’. (The Qur’an. 5:116). Ibn ʿArabī’s analysis focuses on unity while dwelling in plurality (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 146). This unity, while dwelling in plurality, is based on reality and illusion, which is the foundation of his perspective on Jesus. Illusion is duality, and reality in Jesus’s identity is unity, which is defined in terms of his human form and the divine spirit. Ibn ʿArabī claims that this verse contrasts development and limitation, unity and plurality, and collection and separation; all of them point to unity while dwelling in plurality or between reality and illusion (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 146). All instances in this Qur’anic question and answer that are a sign of duality are based on the illusionary line and are brought up in the context of the human form. Among the instances where, in Ibn ʿArabī’s opinion, there is evidence of duality are the following: God’s question and Jesus’s response; God’s glorifying by Jesus; the use of the addressee’s pronoun; and the denial of the divinity of Jesus regarding his identity. However, Jesus said that if he had said something similar, God would have known because He was the One who said it; that God was the tongue that Jesus speaks with; and that Jesus’s human form, not God that is in Jesus, cannot know Him. These are indications of unity (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 146).

The commentators on Fuṣūṣ wished to claim that the evidence of unity is all based on the theory of the unity of being. However, the examination of these cases demonstrates that Ibn ʿArabī does not propose this unity about Jesus because of the theory of the unity of being, but instead, based on the divinity of Jesus (God’s indwelling in Jesus). The unity found in Jesus is objective rather than a manifestation of unity; therefore, it is not compatible with the unity of being but with God’s indwelling (ḥulūl). Ibn ʿArabī, for instance, states: “Jesus first said, ‘Worship Allāh’! Allāh is the collective name of all His names. ‘He is my Lord and your Lord’. However, because Jesus used the first-person pronoun for himself and the second-person pronoun for the people, it can be concluded that God’s Lordship for Jesus is distinct from His Lordship for other creatures” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 147). Ibn ʿArabī may mean that when it comes to Jesus, God’s Lordship only applies to his human form and not to his spirit, which is God Himself.

4.2. Ibn ʿArabī’s Perspective on the Theory of God’s Indwelling (ḥulūl) in Jesus

At the beginning of this article, we made it clear what Ibn ʿArabī meant by indwelling (ḥulūl), which means a special emergence (revealing in the form of a material phenomenon). Now, we must know that the answer to the question of whether the divinity of Jesus is based on the theory of the unity of being or not depends on Ibn ʿArabī’s perspective on God’s indwelling (ḥulūl) in Jesus. He writes: “Believing in God’s indwelling (ḥulūl) in Jesus, some people think that Jesus is God. Sharia attribute this to disbelief (kufr). The word ‘kufr’ means ‘concealing’. They conceal and ignore God in the human form of Jesus. The Qur’an says: ‘they disbelieved indeed those that say that Allāh is Christ the son of Mary’. (The Qur’an. 5:17). This group committed errors and disbelief. The entirety of their sentence, not just the individual sections, is considered when evaluating this error and disbelief (kufr) because saying that ‘Jesus is God’ and ‘Jesus is Mary’s son’ are neither disbelief (kufr) nor incorrect” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 141). Most commentators believed that Ibn ʿArabī’s claim saying that “Jesus is God is neither disbelief (kufr) nor error” is based on the theory of the unity of being (al-Jandī 2002, pp. 533–34; al-Khārazmī 2000, p. 706; al-Qāshānī 1991, p. 214; Ibn Turka 1999, vol. 2, p. 585). The statement “saying that ‘Jesus is God’ and ‘Jesus is Mary’s son’ are neither disbelief (kufr) nor incorrect” is not founded on the unity of being, and it seems that Ibn ʿArabī accepts the indwelling (ḥulūl) of God in Jesus. Our proof for this assertion is the following three points:

(A). Ibn ʿArabī clearly states that “deviating from God to the human form is disbelief” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 141). It is disbelief to associate the divine entity with Jesus’s human form rather than the God that indwelled in his body. Now, the meaning of Ibn ʿArabī’s statement becomes clear that what is considered disbelief is the whole sentence (God is Jesus, Mary’s son). Therefore, it is disbelief and an error to combine God and Mary’s son (which alludes to his human form). Jesus, in the sense of his physical body and Mary’s son, is not God (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 103). Jesus possesses divinity in the sense of the divine identity of the One who indwelled in his body. Ibn ʿArabī takes a different route. On the one hand, he affirms the indwelling (ḥulūl) of the divine identity in Jesus’s body. On the other hand, he thinks that this identity and the human form should be distinguished. Jesus is God (in the sense of the identity that indwelled in his body), and Jesus is not God (in the sense of the human form selected for this indwelling).

(B). For Ibn ʿArabī, those who believe in the issue of “indwelling (ḥulūl)” are accused of disbelief since there has been a misunderstanding of their statement. He writes: “The reader imagines that they attributed divinity to Jesus’ human form, while this was not the case. Instead, they included the divine identity in the human form and made the human form the place of the indwelling (ḥulūl) of the divine identity” (Ibn al-ʿArabī 1946, vol. 1, p. 141). Moreover, al-Jāmī interprets Ibn ʿArabī’s words: “The reader assumes that they meant Jesus was considered God in terms of this human form. They did not have this belief, and the reader understood their comments as so. They found the divine identity as the indwelled one in the human body and associated the reviving of the dead to this, not to the body in which the divine identity indwelled”. In other words, they did not attribute the divinity to the body but to the indwelled one, and this is neither wrong nor disbelief. In Ibn ʿArabī’s words, they distinguished between the body and the indwelling (ḥulūl) and did not see any relationship between the form (human body) and subject (divine essence) (al-Jāmī 2004, p. 336). “In fact, ‘their blasphemy was linguistic-based’—which means hiding—not Sharia-based, because the form has obscured God’s identity” (Bālī Afandī 2001, p. 196).

(C). Ibn ʿArabī draws a parallel between Gabriel’s indwelling (ḥulūl) in a human body when he appeared to Mary and the indwelling (ḥulūl) of the divine identity in Jesus’s body. Gabriel appeared human, but the blowing on Mary came from him, not from the human form. Anybody who thinks so is erroneous, just as anyone who links Jesus’s human form with his divinity (al-Jāmī 2004, p. 336). This comparison demonstrates that, in Ibn ʿArabī’s opinion, they are right if they distinguish between the divine identity that indwelled in Jesus and his human form and do not credit the divinity to his human form but rather to the identity of the indwelling one. Ibn ʿArabī believes that there are disparities across peoples and the development of various views about Jesus due to the failure to distinguish between these two aspects (the divine identity and the human form).

Accordingly, it is incorrect to understand Ibn ʿArabī’s assertion that “Jesus is God is neither disbelief nor mistake” in the light of the theory of the unity of being. This expression is based on a quality that Jesus possessed.

Acknowledging that Ibn ʿArabī’s sentence is founded on a certain quality, some commentators interpreted it from a “special manifestation” (al-tajallī al-khāṣ) perspective, meaning God’s emergence in a particular material creature. Indeed, God emerged from a tree and the flames that Moses saw. Al-Nāblusī writes: “Their statement that ‘Jesus is God’ was not disbelief since God manifested Himself in a Jesus form, which was His creation. That manifestation was not indwelling (ḥulūl) or unity. God can emerge in any physical form while maintaining His actual essence and innate glorification” (al-Nāblusī 2008, vol. 2, p. 103). This interpretation conflicts with Ibn ʿArabī’s words. Along with the aforementioned proofs that clarify the indwelling (ḥulūl), during a “special manifestation”, God makes a sound, movement, or carries out another physical action in a material form for the observer to see, just as He did with Moses in regard to the fire and the tree. These physical effects are material and are limited to the natural world. What happened regarding Jesus was an identity that gave rise to unique divine deeds beyond the realm of the material and unique to the divine nature, like reviving the dead. Ibn ʿArabī underlines several times that reviving the dead is a unique act of God. Thus, this was the divine identity that was realized in Jesus.

In summary, it should be observed that Ibn ʿArabī’s viewpoint is in opposition to that of other commentators on Fuṣūṣ, who claimed that “belief in the indwelling (ḥulūl) requires the limitation of divine identity in Jesus, and this is disbelief (kufr)” (al-Qāshānī 1991, p. 214; al-Khārazmī 2000, p. 693). Ibn ʿArabī clarifies that while Gabriel’s identity is indwelled in a human form, this does not imply that his identity is uniquely limited to this form. As one of the commentators on Fuṣūṣ in the 8th century, Hamdānī writes: “Gabriel is the king of the natural world and can appear in the seven heavens and below, which is the world of nature, in any forms he wants, while his main form is not a natural one, but a light” (Pārsā 1987, p. 616).

5. Conclusions

This article demonstrates Ibn ʿArabī’s nuanced perspective on the divinity of Jesus with regard to how the divine identity indwelled in his body. Ibn ʿArabī’s claims, on occasion, offer proof that refutes this divinity. In other words, he offers obvious proof of Jesus’s unique divinity. The conflict between these two categories of evidence is only settled based on the duality of reality (tḥqīq) and illusion (tawahhum) that he proposed. Moreover, this basis shows that these two expressions are mutually affirming and beneficial to one another. Ibn ʿArabī does not see any contradiction between the negation and proof of the divinity of Jesus because the denial of his divinity is related to his human form, which is an illusion, and the proof of his divine identity is the real aspect of the issue. Ibn ʿArabī suggests that this duality should be taken into account in all analyses of Jesus.

The view of some commentators on Fuṣūṣ, which grounded the belief in the divinity of Jesus on Ibn ʿArabī’s general philosophy of the unity of being, is incompatible with the explicit evidence in his assertions. The belief in the distinction between Jesus and other creatures and the conviction in the uniqueness of God’s relationship with Jesus makes the general theory of the unity of being far removed from Ibn ʿArabī’s interpretation of the divinity of Jesus. Furthermore, “the indwelling (ḥulūl) theory” and Ibn ʿArabī’s declaration that “believing in Jesus as God is neither disbelief nor a mistake” are taken as explicit proofs of this assertion.