Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨

Notes on his Life, Influence and Reflections

on the Mu¢ammadan Reality*

Mohammed Rustom

Dåw¬d b. Ma¢m¬d b. Mu¢ammad al-Qayßar¨ was most likely

born in the central Anatolian town of Qayßariyya,1 which is the
Arabicized version of the Roman Caesarea.2 Although the date of
Qayßar¨’s birth is surmised by one scholar to have been around
1260 CE,3 the exact date of his birth is not known.4 However, the
authorities are unanimous that he died in the year 751/1350 5 or
751/1351.6 Contrary to what one would expect, the influential

* I would like to record my thanks to Todd Lawson for introducing me

to Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ and for his useful comments on earlier drafts of this
paper. I would also like to thank Atif Khalil for his helpful remarks on an
earlier version of the article.
1. Mehmet Bayrakdar, La Philosophie Mystique chez Dawud de Kayseri
(Ankara, 1990), pp. 11–13.
2. See “Kayßariyya” in The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edn, vol. 4, pp. 842–3.
˙
3. See Ibrahim Kalin, “Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ on Being as Truth and Reality” in
Knowledge is Light: Essays in Honor of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ed. Zailan Morris
(Chicago, 1999), p. 235.
4. Mehmet Bayrakdar, La Philosophie Mystique chez Dawud de Kayseri,
p. 11.
5. Claude Addas, Quest for the Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn ¡Arab¨, trans.
Peter Kingsley (Cambridge, 1993), p. 76; Sayyid Jalål al-D¨n Åshtiyån¨, Shar¢-i
Muqaddima-yi Qayßar¨ bar fuß¬ß al-¢ikam (Mashhad, 1385/1966), p. 15; Meh-
met Bayrakdar, La Philosophie Mystique chez Dawud de Kayseri, p.15; William
Chittick, “The School of Ibn ¡Arab¨ ” in History of Islamic Philosophy, eds. S.H.
Nasr and O. Leaman (New York, 1996), p. 518; Ibrahim Kalin, “Dåw¬d al-
Qayßar¨ on Being as Truth and Reality”, p. 236 and Alexander Knysh, “Irfan
Revisited: Khomeini and the Legacy of Islamic Mystical Philosophy”, The
Middle East Journal, 46:4 (1992), p. 631.
6. James Morris, “Ibn ¡Arabi and His Interpreters, Part II: Influences and
52 Mohammed Rustom

fifteenth-century Persian scholar, saint and devotee of the school

of Ibn ¡Arab¨, ¡Abd al-Ra¢mån Jåm¨ (d.898/1492), does not have
an entry on Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ in his Nafa¢åt al-uns. But we do
find an entry on Qayßar¨ in Zayn al-D¨n Mu¢ammad ¡Abd al-
Ra¤¬f al-Munåw¨’s (d.1031/1621) Irghåm awliyå¤ al-shay†ån bi
dhikr manåqib awliyå¤ al-Ra¢mån (also known as the Êabaqåt
al-ßughrå), which is a summary of his well-known biographical
compendium al-Kawåkib al-durriyya f¨ taråjim al-sådåt al-߬fiyya.7
Munåw¨’s note reads as follows:

[Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ was] the scholar given to religious devotion

(al-¡ålim al-¡åbid), the ascetic Sufi who used to partake in spiritual
struggle (al-zåhid al-߬f¨ al-mujåhid). He studied the religious sci-
ences in his home town and then went to Egypt and studied the
three religious sciences with the scholars versed in them. He studied
intensely and became accomplished in the intellectual sciences (wa
bara¡a f¨’l-fun¬n al-¡aqliyyah). Then he occupied himself with Suf-
ism, excelling in and mastering it and devoting himself to writing
about it. He commented upon the Fuß¬ß and attached an intro-
duction to it in which he finely explains the principles of Sufism.
Sul†an Awrkhån b. ¡Uthmån [Orhan Ghåz¨] built a religious school
for him in the town of Iznik, which was the first one built in the
Ottoman empire. He died in the eighth century [AH].8

This biographical account, while accurate, has nothing to say

about Qayßar¨’s intellectual activities in Iznik upon his return
from Egypt. Turning to Mehmet Bayrakdar’s monograph devoted
to Qayßar¨, we notice that he divides Qayßar¨’s life into three
phases, which correspond to three important political periods
in the history of Anatolia: (1) his childhood, which was spent in

Interpretations”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 106.4 (1986),

p. 756.
7. See “Al-Munåw¨ ” in The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2 nd edn, vol. 7,
p. 565.
8. Zayn al-D¨n Mu¢ammad ¡Abd al-Ra’¬f al-Munåw¨, Irghåm awliyå¤ al-
shay†ån bi dhikr awliyå¤ al-Ra¢mån (al-Êabaqåt al-ßughrå), ed. Mu¢ammad
Ad¨b al-Jådir, vol. 4 (Beirut, 1999), p. 284. All translations from the Arabic
are my own.
 Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ 53

Anatolia under the Rum Seljuks, whose power by this point had
seriously waned, signalling their demise; (2) his adult life under
the Anatolian Turkish dynasties; and (3) his old age under the
nascent Ottoman empire.9 It was in this final phase of his life that
Qayßar¨’s most advanced works on Sufi metaphysical doctrines
were written and it was therefore also during this period that he
emerged as a key figure in disseminating the teachings of the
school of Ibn ¡Arab¨ in Anatolia.10
Munåw¨ does state that Qayßar¨ wrote a commentary on Ibn
¡Arab¨’s Fuß¬ß with a very important introduction, but he does not
mention the fact that this commentary of his belonged to a wider
tradition of Fuß¬ß commentaries, mostly written in Arabic.11 The
first member of the school of Ibn ¡Arab¨ to have written a com-
mentary on the Fuß¬ß was ¡Af¨f al-D¨n al-Tilimsån¨ (d.690/1291),
who, upon Ibn ¡Arab¨’s death, became the student of Íadr al-D¨n
al-Q¬naw¨ (d.673/1274), Ibn ¡Arab¨’s step-son and foremost disci-
ple.12 Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨’s own teacher, ¡Abd al-Razzåq al-Kashån¨
(d.c.730/1330), had also written a commentary on the Fuß¬ß al-

9. Mehmet Bayrakdar, La Philosophie Mystique chez Dawud de Kayseri,

pp. 15–16. Also see Ibrahim Kalin, “Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ on Being as Truth and
Reality”, p. 356, n.12.
10. Ibrahim Kalin, “Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ on Being as Truth and Reality”,
p. 236.
11. The first Persian Fuß¬ß commentary was most likely written by Dåw¬d
al-Qayßar¨’s student, Rukn al-D¨n Sh¨råz¨ (d.769/1367). See William Chittick,
“The School of Ibn ¡Arab¨ ”, p. 518. This commentary has been published
under the title, Nuß¬ß al-khuß¬ß f¨ tarjamat al-fuß¬ß (Tehran, 1980).
12. William Chittick, “The School of Ibn ¡Arab¨ ”, pp. 511–17. It has not
been confirmed beyond doubt that Q¬naw¨ was Ibn ¡Arab¨’s step-son, al-
though the evidence strongly suggests that this was the case. See William
Chittick, “The Central Point: Q¬naw¨’s Role in the School of Ibn ¡Arab¨ ”,
JMIAS, Vol. XXXV (2004), pp. 25–6, n.1. A number of excellent articles
devoted to aspects of Q¬naw¨’s thought have been written in English. See the
aforementioned article by Chittick as well as his “The Last Will and Testament
of Ibn ¡Arab¨’s foremost disciple and some notes on its author”, in Sophia
Perennis, 4:1 (1978), pp.43–58; “Commentary on a ¢ad¨th by Íadr al-D¨n
al-Q¬naw¨ ”, Alserat, 6:1 (1980), pp. 23–30; “Mysticism versus Philosophy in
Earlier Islamic History: the ʬs¨-Q¬naw¨ Correspondence”, Religious Studies,
17 (1981), pp. 87–104; “Íadr al-D¨n al-Q¬naw¨ on the Oneness of Being”,
54 Mohammed Rustom

¢ikam which was preceded by the commentary of his teacher

and student of Q¬naw¨, Mu¤ayyid al-D¨n Jand¨ (d.700/1300). The
Fuß¬ß commentary tradition has continued up to our times, and is
still very much alive in certain intellectual circles in Turkey, Iran
and, in some instances, Damascus.13 One of the most noteworthy
F§§ commentaries written in the twentieth century was penned
by none other than Ayatollah Khomeini.14 Khomeini was an heir
to the tradition of Fuß¬ß commentaries which had filtered into
Sh¨¡¨ intellectual circles through such figures as the Sh¨¡¨ philoso-
pher and mystic Sayyid ±aydar Åmul¨ (d.787/1385).15
Where Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ fits into the equation of the Fu߬ß
commentary tradition, then, is in his role in helping popularize

International Philosophical Quarterly, 21 (1981), pp. 171–84; “The Five Di-

vine Presences: From al-Q¬naw¨ to al-Qayßar¨ ”, Muslim World, 72/2 (1982),
pp. 107–28; and “The Circle of Spiritual Ascent According to Al-Q¬naw¨ ” in
Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought, ed. Parviz Morewedge (Albany, 1992),
pp. 179–209; and “Íadr al-D¨n al-K·unaw¨ ” in The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd
edn, vol. 8 (Leiden, 1997) pp. 753–55. See also Jane Clark, “Early Best-sell-
ers in the Akbarian Tradition: The Dissemination of Ibn ¡Arab¨’s Teaching
through Íadr al-D¨n al-Q¬naw¨ ”, JMIAS, Vol. XXXIII (2003), pp. 22–53; and
Gerald Elmore, “Íadr al-D¨n al-Q¬naw¨’s personal study-list of books by
Ibn al-¡Arab¨ ”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 56:3 (1997), pp. 161–81. For
translated passages from Q¬naw¨’s major works, see Sachiko Murata’s The
Tao of Islam (New York, 1992), pp. 82–4; 92–3; 101–4; 107; 134; 149–51;
159; 164–5; 206–8; 214–15; 219–22; 251 and 314–16.
13. The most noteworthy contemporary commentator on the Fuß¬ß in
the Arab world is the Damascene scholar, Ma¢m¬d Ghuråb, who has de-
voted a number of studies to Ibn ¡Arab¨ in Arabic. See his Shar¢ fuß¬ß al-¢ikam
(Damascus, 1985), as well as Michel Chodkiewicz’s review of this book in
Studia Islamica, 63 (1986), pp. 179–82.
14. See Alexander Knysh’s, “Irfan Revisited: Khomeini and the Legacy of
Islamic Mystical Philosophy”, The Middle East Journal, 46:4 (1992), pp. 631–
53. For Khomeini’s relationship to doctrinal Sufism see also Seyyed Hossein
Nasr, “Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and their Significance
Today”, Transcendent Philosophy 6 (2005), pp. 1–36 (particularly pp.18–20
and their accompanying notes). For Khomeini’s glosses on the Fuß¬ß and
Mullå Fanår¨’s commentary on Q¬naw¨’s Miftåh al-ghayb, see his Ta¡l¨qåt
¡alå shar¢ fu߬s al-¢ikam wa mißbå¢ al-uns (Tehran, 1986). Shiraz Sheikh is
currently writing a PhD dissertation at the University of Toronto on Mullå
Fanår¨’s life and thought.
 Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ 55

and disseminate some of the more difficult teachings of the Fu߬ß

commentators who preceded him. As William Chittick notes, of
all the Fuß¬ß commentaries, Qayßar¨’s commentary seems to have
been the most influential in the eastern lands of Islam from the
fourteenth century onwards.16 Indeed, a cursory reading of the
commentaries by Qayßar¨ and Jand¨, for example, reveals that
the commentary of the former, although often synthesizing or
summarizing what the latter has to say in his commentary,17 is in
fact more accessible in both its style and terminology. Therefore,
what Qayßar¨’s Fuß¬ß commentary was able to do was explain Ibn
¡Arab¨’s teachings – albeit in keeping with the increased tendency
by this period to speak philosophically about mysticism – in such
a way as to render Akbarian ideas more accessible to the Turk-
ish, Persian and Indian ¡ulamå¤. Qayßar¨’s work had also been
influential on certain of the Arab ¡ulamå¤, as is evidenced in the
work of the important defender of Akbarian doctrines, ¡Abd al-
Ghan¨ al-Nåbulus¨ (d.1143/1730).18 What also makes Qayßar¨ an
15. William Chittick, “The School of Ibn ¡Arab¨”, p. 518. Åmul¨’s introduc-
tion to his commentary of the Fuß¬ß has been published. See Naßß al-nu߬ß,
ed. H. Corbin and O. Yahya (Tehran and Paris, 1974).
16. William Chittick, “The School of Ibn ¡Arab¨ ”, p. 518 and his earlier
article, “Ibn ¡Arab¨ and His School”, in Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations, ed.
S.H. Nasr (New York, 1991), p. 53. For a comprehensive survey of the influ-
ence of Ibn ¡Arab¨ and his school upon theoretical Sufism from the thirteenth
century to the present, see Nasr, “Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism
and their Significance Today”.
17. William Chittick, “The School of Ibn ¡Arab¨ ”, p. 518.
18. See Ibrahim Kalin’s “Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ on Being as Truth and Reality”,
p. 355, n.7, where he notes that according to Mehmet Bayrakdar (“Davud-
i Kayseri”, Islam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 9 (Istanbul, 1994), p. 34), Qayßar¨ ’s
commentary upon the Fuß¬ß was itself the subject of a commentary by
al-Nåbulus¨.
Elizabeth Sirriyeh, author of the excellent study, Sufis and Anti-Sufis: the
Defence, Rethinking and Rejection of Sufism in the Modern World (Richmond,
1999), has recently published a monograph on al-Nåbulus¨ entitled Sufi
Visionary of Ottoman Damascus: Abd Al-Ghan¨ Al-Nåbulus¨ (1641–1731)
(Abingdon and New York, 2005). This study on al-Nåbulus¨ looks at his
mystical travel writings, his ties with the Naqshbandiyyah and Qådiriyyah,
highlights some of the major conflicts which arose between him and the
Turkish ¡ulamå¤, and devotes a good deal of attention to his writings on
56 Mohammed Rustom

important figure in the history of Islamic philosophy and mysti-

cism is the aforementioned introduction to his commentary of
the Fuß¬ß al-¢ikam, known as the Muqaddimah (Prolegomena).
This text summarizes Akbarian teachings with the utmost preci-
sion and clarity. The Muqaddimah was often studied as a separate
treatise and has been the subject of numerous commentaries as
well, the most recent of which being the commentary in Persian
by the late Sayyid Jalål al-D¨n Åshtiyån¨.19

dream interpretation. This work does not, however, attempt to establish al-
Nåbulus¨’s role vis-à-vis the school of Ibn ¡Arab¨ and the Fuß¬ß commentary
tradition. But it does discuss some of al-Nåbulus¨’s mystical and theological
views. Pp. 30–31 clearly show Ibn ¡Arab¨’s influence upon al-Nåbulus¨’s
thought, but it also demonstrates how it is that al-Nåbulus¨ attempted to
Ash¡arize or theologize Ibn ¡Arab¨’s teachings (witness his assigning actual
ontological reality to the Divine Names, which runs contrary to Ibn ¡Arab¨’s
position on this issue).
19. See his Shar¢-i muqaddima-yi Qayßar¨ (cited in n.5). For three of
Qayßar¨’s important Raså¤il, see Åshtiyån¨’s edition, Raså¤il-i Qayßar¨ (Tehran,
1979). To the best of my knowledge the only monograph devoted to
Qayßar¨ ’s thought is the study written in French by Mehmet Bayrakdar,
La Philosophie Mystique chez Dawud de Kayseri (cited in n.1). See also the
collected volume, Papers of the International Symposium on Islamic Thought
in the 13th and 14th Centuries and Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨, ed. Turan Koç (Kay-
seri, 1998). A web version of James Morris’ article in this volume (“The
Continuing Relevance of Qayßar¨’s Thought: Divine Imagination and the
Foundations of Natural Spirituality”, pp. 161–171) can be viewed at the
Muhyiddin Ibn ¡Arab¨ Society website: http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/
articles/hi_premodern.pdf, pp. 13–19. For articles in English on aspects of his
thought, see William Chittick’s “The Five Divine Presences: From al-Q¬naw¨
to al-Qayßar¨ ” (cited in n.12); Ibrahim Kalin, “Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ on Being
as Truth and Reality” (cited in n.3); Turan Koç, “All-Comprehensiveness Ac-
cording to Daud al-Qaysari, and its Implications”, JMIAS, Vol. XXVII (2000),
pp. 53–62; and Akiro Matsumoto, “Unity of Ontology and Epistemology
in Qayßar¨ ’s Philosophy” in Consciousness and Reality: Studies in Memory
of Toshihiko Izutsu, ed. Sayyid Jalål al-D¨n Åshtiyån¨, Hideichi Matsubara,
Takashi Iwami and Akiro Matsumoto (Leiden, 2000), pp. 367–86. For some
important translated passages from Qayßar¨’s commentary on the Fu߬ß,
see Henry Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth, trans. Nancy Pearson
(Princeton, 1977), pp.144–7; and Sachiko Murata, The Tao of Islam (Albany,
1992), pp. 99–101 and 189–196. Caner Dagli’s Princeton University doctoral
 Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ 57

I would now like to turn my attention to an important part of

Qayßar¨’s commentary upon chapter XXVII of the Fu߬ß, dealing,
as it does, with the Prophet Mu¢ammad, who, for Ibn ¡Arab¨ and
his school, as well as every other Muslim, is the physical manifes-
tation of the culmination of the spiritual life in Islam.20 For the
remaining part of this paper I will discuss Qayßar¨’s statements
concerning the cosmological function of the Mu¢ammadan
Reality (al-¢aq¨qah al-Mu¢ammadiyyah) in the context of his com-
ments upon Ibn ¡Arab¨’s profound discussions in this chapter.
It is hoped that the findings below will help contribute to our
understanding of how an important Fuß¬ß commentator belong-
ing to the school of Ibn ¡Arab¨ is not only able to exposit the
teachings of this school, but how he also reveals himself to be a
highly original thinker in the process.

QAYÍARÔ ON THE MU±AMMADAN REALITY

Ibn ¡Arab¨ begins chapter XXVII of the Fuß¬ß by saying that the
Prophet possesses the wisdom of singularity since he is the most
perfect being in existence. It is through the Prophet that the mat-
ter of creation began and ended. We are here reminded of the
famous ¢ad¨th in which the Prophet says that he was a Prophet
while Adam was still between clay and water:

His is the wisdom of singularity because he is the most perfect

existent of this human species, which is why the matter begins

dissertation looks at the development of ontology in Islamic thought (up to

and including Qayßar¨ ). Dagli has recently published what I consider to be
the best available translation of Ibn ¡Arab¨’s Fuß¬ß al-¢ikam (The Ringstones
of Wisdom [Chicago, 2004]). This translation comes with useful annotations,
many of which draw upon Qayßar¨’s commentary, and, to a lesser extent,
that of Kåshån¨’s as well.
20. On pp. 188–99 of The Tao of Islam (cited in n.19) Sachiko Murata
translates and analyzes a number of passages from Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨’s com-
mentary, along with Jand¨ and Kåshån¨’s commentaries on this same chapter
of the Fu߬ß, paying particular attention to the themes related to gender
cosmology.
58 Mohammed Rustom

and ends with him, for he was a Prophet while Adam was between
clay and water. Then, in his elemental form, he became the Seal
of Prophets.21

Qayßar¨’s comments before this passage are important, since he

provides an explanation as to why the Prophet is the bezel pre-
disposed to receiving this wisdom of singularity:

It is the wisdom of singularity because of his singularity in the sta-

tion of Divine Comprehensiveness, above which is nothing except
the level of the Essence of Exclusive Oneness (al-dhåt al-a¢adiyyah).
This is because it [the station of Divine Comprehensiveness] is the
locus of the Name Allåh, which is the greatest, All-Comprehensive
Name amongst all the Names and qualities.22

In the station of Divine Comprehensiveness, as Qayßar¨ calls

it, the Prophet is the receptacle for all the Divine Names, since
he receives the Name Allåh, which is the Name which brings
all the other Names together. Thus, the Prophet possesses the

21. Ibn ¡Arab¨, Fuß¬ß al-¢ikam, ed. A.A. Afifi (Beirut, 1966), p. 214.
22. Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨, Shar¢ ¡alå fuß¬ß al-¢ikam, lithographed edition
(Tehran(?), 1984), p. 471:1 (p. 471, col. 1). Compare this to Jand¨’s com-
ments on these same lines by Ibn ¡Arab¨, “He (may God be pleased with him)
points to the fact that solitariness belongs to him [the Prophet], because
of his being the most perfect type of human perfection, for solitariness
is, as we have mentioned, specific to the Perfect Man. And there is none
more perfect than Mu¢ammad (God bless him and grant him peace). So
to him belongs the aforementioned solitary reality of the unseen entity
(al-fardiyyah al-¢aq¨qiyyah al-ghaybiyyah al-¡ayniyya) with respect to [both]
his meaning and reality. [He was the] first in the world of meanings (¡ålam
al-ma¡ån¨ ). Then, by his spiritual makeup, he was a Prophet sent to the
rest of the Prophetic spirits, and by his elemental makeup, he was the Seal
of Prophets”, Jand¨, Shar¢ fuß¬ß al-¢ikam, ed. Sayyid Jalål al-D¨n Åshtiyån¨
(Mashhad, 1982), p. 671. For Kåshån¨’s comments on this same passage,
see Toshihiko Izutsu’s Sufism and Taoism (Berkeley, 1984), p. 237. It should
be noted that apart from the lithographed editions of Qayßar¨’s Fuß¬ß com-
mentary there are two modern editions as well (neither of which I was able
to obtain for this study), Ma†la¡ khuß¬ß al-kilam f¨ ma¡ån¨ fuß¬ß al-¢ikam, ed.
Mu¢ammad ±asan Sa¡¨d¨ (Tehran(?), 1995) and Åshtiyån¨’s Shar¢-i fu߬ß
al-¢ikam (Tehran, 1996).
 Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ 59

wisdom of singularity because he is the being who best embod-

ies the Name Allåh – which is at once the All-Comprehensive
Name (al-ism al-jåmi¡) and the Solitary Name (al-ism al-mufrad)
– but also because, in the descent of Being, he stands alone at
the very top of the cosmic hierarchy of God’s Self-Disclosures. In
order to illustrate this point further, Qayßar¨ goes on to quote a
well-known ¢ad¨th in which the Prophet is reported to have said,
“The first thing God created was my light.”23 Qayßar¨ employs
this ¢ad¨th to explain Ibn ¡Arab¨’s point about the Prophet’s being
the first thing created by God:

The first thing that came about by the most holy effusion from
amongst the entities was his immutable entity and the first thing
that came to exist through the holy effusion in its outward aspect
from amongst the existent things was his sanctified spirit, just as he
said, “The first thing God created was my light.” So he came about
through the Exclusive Essence, the Divine level and his immutable
entity [which was] the first singularity.24

Here, Qayßar¨ identifies the singularity which brought about the

Prophet’s existence with the Prophet’s immutable entity. So the
Prophet’s singularity came about in the Divine level, which is
where his immutable entity was brought into existence. And,
since the Prophets are the loci of manifestation of a Universal
Name (ism kull¨), all of which are subsumed under the Divine
Name for which the Prophet Mu¢ammad is the locus of mani-
festation, Qayßar¨ goes on to conclude that the Prophet is the
most perfect solitary being, which is why he says that it was the

23. I have not been able to locate this tradition. Gerhard Böwering’s,
The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: the Qur¤ånic hermeneutics
of the ͬf¨ Sahl at-Tustar¨ (d. 283/896) (Berlin, 1980), pp. 149–57 is a very
good resource for early Sufi discussions on the primal Mu¢ammadan light.
There is another famous version of this tradition in which the Prophet says,
“The first thing God created was the Intellect.” At pp. 483: 2–484:1 of his
commentary Qayßar¨ cites a version of this tradition and relates it to the
primal light tradition (see n.28 below). For Ibn ¡Arab¨’s use of this tradition
in his monumental al-Fut¬¢åt al-makkiyyah, see William Chittick’s The Self-
Disclosure of God (Albany, 1998), p. 273.
24. Qayßar¨, Shar¢, p. 471:1; cf. pp. 483:2 and 484:1.
60 Mohammed Rustom

spirit of the Prophet which became existentiated, which then

later came to exist as the Seal of Prophets in the person of the
Prophet.25 Of course, this is none other than the Mu¢ammadan
Reality which runs across the generations of all the Prophets
and Saints, a point which Ibn ¡Arab¨ is very adamant about, as is
shown by his writings.26 The Prophet is the prototype of God’s
own Self reflection in the phenomenal world with respect to His
Names. It is his reality which manifests itself in every Prophet and
becomes actualized in the physical person of the Prophet himself.
The Mu¢ammadan Reality marks the beginning of existence and
is brought to its completion and its totality in the Prophet, who is
the best example of the Perfect Man. It is for this reason that Ibn
¡Arab¨ states that “the matter begins and ends with him”.27 This
is why the Prophet is both singular with respect to his being one
of the three solitaries, and is also characterized by triplicity, since
through him multiplicity arises. Qayßar¨ also states that the first
singularity is “the Reality of the Mu¢ammadan Spirit (al-¢aq¨qah
al-r¬¢åniyyah al-Mu¢ammadiyyah), referred to as the First Intel-
lect (al-¡aql al-awwal).”28 As is seen elsewhere in Islamic thought
both before Ibn ¡Arab¨ and after him, the Mu¢ammadan Reality
is directly identified with the First Intellect.29 This is indeed a sig-
nificant point, because the First Intellect in Neoplatonic Islamic
philosophy, as articulated by Muslim philosophers such as Fåråb¨
and Ibn S¨na, is the first existentiated entity from the Godhead,
allowing for the world of multiplicity to come about (albeit
through a string of emanations, each producing an intellect

25. Ibid., p. 471:2.

26. For detailed discussions on this topic, see Michel Chodkiewicz’s, Seal
of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn ¡Arab¨, trans.
Liadain Sherrard (Cambridge, 1993), chapter 3 and passim.
27. Ibn ¡Arab¨, Fu߬ß, p. 214. See also Ronald Nettler’s Sufi Metaphysics
and Qur¤anic Prophets: Ibn ¡Arab¨’s Thought and Method in the Fuß¬ß al-±ikam
(Cambridge, 2003), p. 177.
28. Qayßar¨, Shar¢, p. 471:2; cf. Murata, The Tao of Islam, p. 189.
29. See The Tao of Islam, p. 166, where Q¬naw¨’s student and major fig-
ure in the school of Ibn ¡Arab¨, Sa¡¨d al-D¨n Farghån¨ (d.695/1296), identifies
the Mu¢ammadan Light or the Mu¢ammadan Soul with the Pen and the
Intellect. The Mu¢ammadan Light, Spirit and Reality are synonymous.
 Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ 61

and heavenly body in Fåråb¨’s dyadic emanative metaphysical

scheme, with the added element of a string of emanations of
corresponding souls in Ibn S¨na’s triadic scheme). It is with the
emanation of the tenth intellect, the active or agent intellect,
that the world of generation and corruption comes about. Need-
less to say, Qayßar¨ does not adhere entirely to this Neoplatonic
model, not for the least reason that it entails a different anthro-
pology and psychology. But the identification of the First Intel-
lect with the Mu¢ammadan Reality allows Qayßar¨ to maintain
that creation begins and ends with the Prophet. Indeed, the Di-
vine Essence cannot be diffuse throughout the cosmos, and, in
Its manifest aspect, It requires an intermediary of some sorts,
who is none other than the Prophet. This is why the Prophet is
the primal Perfect Man, since he manifests the Name Allåh, and
through whom the Names become diffuse throughout the cos-
mos to their loci of manifestation.30 It is with this point in mind
that the famous ¢ad¨th quds¨ “If it were not for you, I would not
have created the cosmos”,31 although not cited by Qayßar¨, can
be understood.
In his commentary on this chapter Qayßar¨ introduces a discus-
sion in which he attempts to explain how the ranks of Divinity
(al-darajåt al-ilåhiyyah) bring about the cosmos.32 The context

30. In his earthly form, Ibn ¡Arab¨ states that the Prophet is the best proof
for his Lord because he was given all of the words which were the referents
of the names taught to Adam. Commenting on this, Qayßar¨ states that
this is so because the Prophet was given all the Names, which he refers to
as “the Mothers of the Divine Realities and the existential totalities in their
particularities (ummahåt al-¢aqå¤iq al-ilåhiyyah wa’ l-kawniyyah al-jåm¡iah
li-juz¤iyyåtihå).” (Shar¢, p. 472:1) In other words, since the Prophet is the
locus of manifestation of the Name Allåh, and all the other Divine Names are
subsumed under this Name, the Prophet therefore actualizes all the Divine
Names in his person, which is why Ibn ¡Arab¨ says that the Prophet is the
greatest proof for his Lord, since his very being itself points to the name
Allåh, accounting for all the Divine Self-Disclosures as mediated by the Divine
Names and marking the limit of human knowledge of the manifest aspect
of the Divine Essence (pp. 471:2–472:1). Then Qayßar¨ goes on to say that
the Mu¢ammadan Spirit (al-R¬¢ al-Mu¢ammad¨), which is nothing other
than the aforementioned Spiritual Reality or the First Intellect, is a proof for
62 Mohammed Rustom

for these comments is the following statement made by Ibn

¡Arab¨:

He observes the ranks (darajåt) which are with the Real when He
says, Exalted in rank, Possessor of the Throne [40: 15], because of His
establishing Himself upon it with the Name the All-Merciful (al-
Ra¢mån). So there is no-one under the Throne whom the Divine
Mercy shall not reach, which is why He said, My Mercy encompasses
all things [7: 156]. The Throne encompasses everything, and the One
established upon it is the All-Merciful. Through its reality does the
cosmos receive the outpouring of mercy (sarayån al-ra¢mah), as we
have elucidated elsewhere, both in this book and in the Meccan
Revelations.33

According to Qayßar¨, from these ranks of Divinity, the First Intel-

lect is brought about and from it, the Universal Soul is existen-
tiated. From the Universal soul comes about all of the rational
souls, bodily matter, universal substance and the starless heaven
(falak al-a†las), which Qayßar¨ identifies with the Throne (¡arsh).34
Then the Footstool (kurs¨) is existentiated, followed by the ele-
ments from the heavens and the earth. This process therefore
accounts for the intermediate world or the world of imagination
(malak¬t) as well as the phenomenal world (mulk).35 Particularly
noteworthy here is what Qayßar¨ has to say about the Throne
itself. As Ibn ¡Arab¨ stated, the Name the All-Merciful established
itself on the Throne. God says in the Qur¤ån that His mercy
encompasses all things, since the Throne itself encompasses all
things. As the Occupant on the Throne which encompasses all
things, the Name the All-Merciful is therefore responsible for
diffusing mercy throughout the cosmos. Qayßar¨ certainly agrees

itself because “there is no distinction between him and between His Lord,
except from the standpoint of entification” (p. 472:1).
31. Law låk må khalaqtu’l-aflåk. This ¢ad¨th is not to be found in the
standard sources, although it is frequently cited in the Sufi tradition.
32. Ibid., p. 484:1.
33. Ibn ¡Arab¨, Fu߬ß, p. 220.
34. Qayßar¨, Shar¢, p. 484:1–2.
35. Ibid., p. 484:2.
 Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ 63

with Ibn ¡Arab¨’s description of the Throne and more or less sum-
marizes the Shaykh’s comments in this way:

The Name that presides over the Throne is the name the “All-
Merciful”, and the Throne is the locus of manifestation for it, and
through it, the effusion effuses to whatever of the existent things
are under it. For the Names, insofar as they are relations of the
Essence, cannot be a source for the lights effusing from It, except
with spiritual and bodily loci of manifestation.36

But Qayßar¨’s understanding of the Throne is slightly more

nuanced than this. In the following passage he says that the
Throne has two realities: there is the spiritual Throne, and then
there is the bodily Throne:

Since the Throne encompasses all of the existent things under it,
as has already been discussed, the spiritual Throne, which is the
First Intellect, encompasses all the spiritual and corporeal realities,
while the bodily Throne encompasses all the bodies.37

Qayßar¨ explicitly states that the Throne is the First Intellect in

this passage, but we have also noted that he identifies the Throne
with the starless heaven. The spiritual Throne is identified with
the First Intellect, which Qayßar¨ says is the Mu¢ammadan Spirit.
The bodily Throne, identified with the starless heaven, is what
distributes mercy to the rest of the cosmos. Ibn ¡Arab¨ said that
the Name the All-Merciful presides over the Throne. But how
is the First Intellect or the Mu¢ammadan Spirit related to the
All-Merciful? Fortunately, this question is not left unanswered.
Qayßar¨ offers his solution in the following passage:

And through the descent to the ranks of matter, the establishment

of mercy comes about. So the Mu¢ammadan Spirit, which is the
locus of manifestation of God’s mercy, establishes itself upon the
Throne so that His mercy may permeate the worlds, just as He said,
And we did not send you, except as a mercy to the worlds [21: 107].38

In other words, the Mu¢ammadan Spirit or the First Intellect,

36. Ibid., p. 485:1.

37. Ibid., p. 484:2.
64 Mohammed Rustom

insofar as it is the first entification from the Divine Level, is the

locus of manifestation for all of the Names, one of which is the
All-Merciful. As a locus for the name the All-Merciful, the spir-
itual Throne or the Mu¢ammadan Reality establishes itself on
the bodily Throne so that mercy may be distributed throughout
the cosmos. This point is clarified in one more passage where
Qayßar¨ states the following:

And if you want, you can say that, through the reality of the Throne,
this permeating [of mercy] exists in the world. And it is the fixed
entity through which the All-Merciful (al-Ra¢mån) is manifest in
the world, just as He is manifest through the First Intellect in the
world of spirits and through the outermost sphere in the world of
bodies.39

With the foregoing discussion in mind it becomes clear how

Dåw¬d al-Qayßar¨ was able to explain Ibn ¡Arab¨’s opening state-
ment in this chapter of the Fuß¬ß al-¢ikam. It will be recalled that
Ibn ¡Arab¨ said that the matter began and ended with the Prophet,
drawing upon a very well-known ¢ad¨th in which the Prophet is
reported to have said that he was a Prophet when Adam was still
between clay and water. By placing the Mu¢ammadan Reality,
which is the locus of manifestation for the Name the All-Merciful
on the bodily Throne, Qayßar¨ was able to explicate both how
the Mu¢ammadan Reality is the first entification from the level
of Divinity and how it is also responsible for distributing God’s
mercy throughout the cosmos.

38. Qayßar¨, Shar¢, p. 484:2.

39. Ibid., p. 485:1.