al-Insān al-Kāmil, Bāb 10 -- Transcendence

ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (b. 767 AH / 1365 CE; d. c. 1422-1428 CE)

full parallel manuscript · complete bitext

الإنسان الكامل · الباب العاشر في التنزيه

canonical early 15th c. (author d. c. 1408-1428 CE) Arabic ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (b. 767 AH / 1365 CE; d. c. 1422-1428 CE) tr. Hekhal Targum engine (claude-opus-4-8[session]); AI-assisted draft, editor review pending

The tenth chapter of al-Insān al-Kāmil, rendered as a full parallel manuscript: every segment, aligned line by line. With Transcendence (al-tanzīh), al-Jīlī turns to the strict-incomparability pole of his theology — the counterweight, paired with the chapter on Likening (al-tashbīh) that follows, to all the waḥdat al-wujūd of the band. Transcendence is “the singling-out of the Pre-eternal by His qualities, names, and Essence, as He deserves of Himself for Himself” — not, that is, the bare denial of resemblance, but God’s own pre-eternal transcendence, which “is not like the creaturely transcendence” and which “none other than He knows.” al-Jīlī even transcends transcendence: “a transcendence beyond all transcendence,” since our very declaring of God incomparable is a created act set against a created likeness. The chapter ends on the firm note that the creature “grasps nothing but its own like, and the Real is transcendent of the beings.”

Editorial note. Short as it is, this chapter carries one of the most important paragraphs in the whole book for reading al-Jīlī rightly, and it is his own statement of method (§8): “whenever I mention, in this book or in others of my compositions, that ‘this matter is for the Real and the creature has no share in it,’ or ‘this is particular to the creation and is not ascribed to the Real’ — my intent is that it is for the face named by that name, of the Essence; not that the Essence does not have that.” His many “no creaturely share” guardrails (Bāb 5 §10, Bāb 9 §25) are thus statements about a named disclosure-rank, not an absolute dualism — because (§9) “the Essence gathers the two faces of the Real and the creation,” the Real having of it what the Real deserves and the creation what the creation deserves, “with the abiding of each face in its rank, without any mixing.” That last phrase is itself a guardrail: the two faces are gathered, not blended, which is exactly why the book’s unity is neither indwelling nor union. The chapter also stages the Akbarian refusal of bare tanzīh: the one who only declares God transcendent has, in effect, the “creaturely transcendence” that merely purifies his own locus, while the Real “remained as He ever was.” Two reports frame the disclosure: the much-disputed “I saw my Lord in the form of a beardless youth” (likening-form, flagged, not endorsed) and the sound “Light — how should I see Him?” (transcendence-form). A second-reader pass is advisable.

الباب العاشر في التنزيه

Chapter Ten: On Transcendence (al-Tanzīh)

التنزيه عبارةٌ عن انفراد القديم بأوصافه وأسمائه وذاته، كما يستحقه من نفسه لنفسه بطريق الأصالة والتعالي، لا باعتبار أن المحدَث ماثله أو شابهه.

Transcendence (al-tanzīh) is an expression for the singling-out of the Pre-eternal by His qualities, His names, and His Essence -- as He deserves [it], of Himself, for Himself, by way of originality and elevation -- not by the consideration that the originated [thing] resembles Him or is similar to Him.

glossary: tanzih, dhat, asma

فانفرد الحق سبحانه وتعالى عن ذلك، فليس بأيدينا من التنزيه إلاَّ التنزيه المحدَث، واُلتحق به التنزيه القديم، لأن التنزيه المحدَث ما بإزائه نسبةٌ من جنسه، وليس بإزاء التنزيه القديم نسبةٌ من جنسه.

So the Real (glory be to Him, exalted is He) is singled out [away] from that; and there is in our hands, of transcendence, nothing but the originated transcendence, [while] the pre-eternal transcendence is [merely] annexed to it -- because the originated transcendence has, set against it, a relation of its own genus, whereas the pre-eternal transcendence has, set against it, no relation of its genus.

glossary: tanzih

لأن الحق لا يقبل الضدّ، ولا يُعلم كيف تنزيهه. فلأجل ذا نقول: تنزيهٌ عن التنزيه. فتنزيهه لنفسه لا يعلمه غيره، ولا يُعلم إلاَّ التنزيه المحدَث.

because the Real accepts no opposite, and it is not known how His transcendence is. And for that we say: a transcendence beyond [all] transcendence. So His transcendence of Himself -- none other than He knows it; and nothing is known but the originated transcendence.

glossary: tanzih The apophatic apex of the chapter: 'a transcendence beyond transcendence' (tanzīh ʿan al-tanzīh). Even our declaring God transcendent is a created act, set against a created likening; the Real's own transcendence of Himself is unknown to any but Him. This is the Akbarian refusal of pure tanzīh as itself a limitation -- the muʿaṭṭil who only negates has merely bound God by negation.

لأن اعتباره عندنا تعرّي الشيء عن حكمٍ كان يمكن نسبته إليه فيُنزَّه عنه، ولم يكن للحق تشبيهٌ ذاتيٌّ يستحقّ عنه التنزيه، إذ ذاته هي المنزَّهة في نفسها على ما يقتضيه كبرياؤها. فعلى أيّ اعتبارٍ كان، وفي أيّ مجلىً ظهر أو بان -- تشبيهياً كان، كقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: "رأيت ربي في صورة شابٍّ أمرد" --

because its [tanzīh's] consideration, with us, is the stripping of the thing from a rule that could [otherwise] be ascribed to it, so that it is declared transcendent of it; and the Real had no essential likening (tashbīh dhātī) that would deserve [His] being declared transcendent of it -- since His Essence is the [already] transcendent in itself, by what its grandeur requires. So upon whatever consideration [it was], and in whatever disclosure-site He appeared or became evident -- whether likening-like, as in his saying (may God bless him and grant him peace): 'I saw my Lord in the form of a beardless youth' --

glossary: tanzih, tashbih, dhat The 'beardless youth' report is much-disputed and rejected as unsound by many traditionists (cf. Bāb 4 §15); cited here, not endorsed, as an example of a disclosure in likening-form. The point: God needs no tanzīh of an 'essential likening,' since the Essence is transcendent in itself; the tashbīh is only in the disclosure-site.

أو تنزيهياً، كقوله: "نورٌ، أنّى أراه؟" -- فإن التنزيه الذاتي له حكمٌ لازمٌ، لزومَ الصفة للموصوف، وهو من ذلك المجلى على ما استحقه من ذاته لذاته بالتنزيه القديم الذي لا يسوغ إلاَّ له، ولا يعرفه غيره. فانفرد في أسمائه وصفاته وذاته ومظاهره وتجلياته بحكم قِدَمه عن كل ما يُنسب إلى الحدوث ولو بوجهٍ من الوجوه. فلا تنزيهه كالتنزيه الخلقي، ولا تشبيهه كالتشبيه. تعالى وانفرد.

or transcendence-like, as in his saying: 'Light -- how should I see Him?' -- for the essential transcendence has a necessary rule, [as] necessary as the attribute is to the described; and He is, from that disclosure-site, upon what He deserves, of His Essence for His Essence, by the pre-eternal transcendence that is permissible to none but Him, and that none other than He knows. So He is singled out, in His names, His attributes, His Essence, His loci-of-manifestation, and His self-disclosures, by the rule of His pre-eternity, [away] from everything ascribed to origination -- even in any respect [whatever]. So His transcendence is not like the creaturely transcendence, nor His likening like the [creaturely] likening. Exalted is He, [and] singled out.

glossary: tanzih, tashbih, dhat, asma, sifat, tajalli 'Light -- how should I see Him?' (nūrun annā arāh) is sound (Muslim): Abū Dharr asked the Prophet whether he saw his Lord, and he answered thus. al-Jīlī pairs it with the 'beardless youth' report as the two poles -- transcendence-form and likening-form -- of disclosure, both governed by the pre-eternal transcendence that 'is not like the creaturely transcendence, nor His likening like the [creaturely] likening.' This is the Akbarian both/and over the muʿaṭṭil's bare negation.

وأما من قال: إن التنزيه راجعٌ إلى تطهير محلك لا إلى الحق -- فإنه أراد بهذا التنزيه الخلقي الذي بإزائه التشبيه، يعمّ، لأن العبد إذا اتصف من أوصاف الحق بصفاته سبحانه وتعالى، تطهّر محلُّه وخلص من نقائص المحدَثات بالتنزيه الإلهي، فرجع إليه هذا التنزيه.

As for the one who said: 'transcendence refers to the purification of your [own] locus, not to the Real' -- he meant by this the creaturely transcendence, against which [creaturely] likening is set, [which is] general; because when the servant is qualified, of the qualities of the Real, by His attributes (glory be to Him, exalted is He), his locus is purified and freed of the deficiencies of the originated [things] by the divine transcendence -- so this transcendence returned to him [the servant].

glossary: tanzih, tashbih al-Jīlī engages the view (associated with Ibn al-ʿArabī's discussion in the Fuṣūṣ) that 'declaring God transcendent' is really the purification of the worshipper's own locus: the servant qualified by the divine attributes has his place cleansed of created deficiency. The Real, meanwhile, 'remained as He ever was' (§8).

وبقي الحق على ما كان. واعلم أني متى أذكر لك في كتابي هذا أو غيره من مؤلفاتي أن هذا الأمر للحق وليس للمخلوق فيه نصيب، أو هذا مختصٌّ بالخلق ولا يُنسب إلى الحق -- فإن مرادي بذلك أنه للوجه المسمى بذلك الاسم من الذات، لا أنه ليس للذات ذلك. فافهم.

And the Real remained as He [ever] was. And know that whenever I mention to you, in this book of mine or in others of my compositions, that 'this matter is for the Real and the creature has no share in it,' or 'this is particular to the creation and is not ascribed to the Real' -- my intent by that is that it is for the face named by that name, of the Essence; not that the Essence does not have that. So understand.

glossary: dhat THE reading-key for the whole book, in al-Jīlī's own words. When he says elsewhere (Bāb 5 §10, Bāb 9 §25) that 'the creature has no share' in some rank, he means that it belongs to the FACE of the Essence named by that name -- not that the Essence as such lacks it, since (next segment) the Essence gathers both the Real and creaturely faces. The 'no share' guardrails are about the named disclosure-rank, not an absolute dualism; and equally, they are never a license for the creature to claim the Essence's own face.

لأن هذا الأمر مبنيٌّ على أن الذات جامعةٌ لوجهي الحق والخلق، فللحق منها ما يستحقه الحق، وللخلق منها ما يستحقه الخلق، على بقاء كل وجهٍ في مرتبته بما تقتضيه ذاته، من غير ما امتزاج.

because this matter is built upon [the fact] that the Essence gathers the two faces of the Real and the creation: so the Real has of it what the Real deserves, and the creation has of it what the creation deserves -- with the abiding of each face in its rank, by what its essence requires, without [any] mixing.

glossary: dhat The anti-mixing guardrail stated as the metaphysical basis of the reading-key: the Essence comprehends both faces, but 'without any mixing' (min ghayr mā imtizāj) -- each face abides in its rank. This is precisely why the unity is not ḥulūl and not ittiḥād: the two faces are gathered, not blended.

فإذا ظهر أحد الوجهين في الوجه الآخر، كان كلٌّ من الحكمين موجوداً في الآخر. وسيأتي بيانه في باب التشبيه. تعالى مَن ليس بعرَضٍ ولا جوهر.

So when one of the two faces appears in the other face, each of the two rules is existent in the other; and its exposition will come in the chapter on likening (al-tashbīh). Exalted is the One who is neither accident nor substance.

glossary: tashbih

يا جوهراً قام به عرَضان ....... يا واحداً في حكمه اثنان

O substance by which two accidents stand! / O One who, in His rule, is two!

The closing qaṣīda addresses God in the kalām vocabulary of substance and accident -- paradoxically, since the prose has just declared Him 'neither accident nor substance.' The 'two' is the two faces (Real and creation) gathered in the one Essence, not a real duality in Him.

جمعتَ محاسنك العُلى فتوحّدتْ ....... لك باختلافٍ فيهما ضدّان

You gathered Your lofty beauties, so there became unified / for You -- with a difference in them -- two opposites.

ما أنت إلاَّ واحدُ الحُسنِ الذي ....... تمَّ الكمالُ له بلا نقصان

You are nothing but the One of beauty, / for whom perfection was completed, without deficiency.

فلئن بطنتَ وإن ظهرتَ فأنت في ....... ما تستحقُّ من العلا السُّبحاني

So whether You are hidden, or You appear, You are in / what You deserve, of the All-Glorified loftiness.

متنزّهاً متقدّساً متعالياً ....... في عزّه الجبروتُ عن حِدْثان

[As] transcendent, hallowed, exalted -- / in His might the Omnipotence [is free] of [all] origination.

glossary: tanzih

لم يدرك المخلوقُ إلاَّ مثلَه ....... والحقُّ منزَّهٌ عن الأكوان

The creature grasps nothing but its [own] like; / and the Real is transcendent of the beings.

glossary: tanzih The chapter's closing thesis, and the strict-transcendence counterweight to the whole band's waḥdat al-wujūd: since the creature can grasp only its like, and the Real has no like, the Real is in the end ungraspable -- 'transcendent of the beings.' This is the tanzīh that the next chapter (al-Tashbīh) will balance, so that neither pole alone is the truth.

Collation. Two-witness collated, staged 2026-06-03. Bāb 10 of the foundational opening band (al-Tanzīh, Transcendence / Incomparability) -- the paired opposite of the following chapter (al-Tashbīh, Likening), to which it forward-refers. Witness-2 (ibnalarabi.com id=13) clean of navigation chrome; the trailing asterism rule and the site-search widget EXCLUDED. Short but pivotal: it contains al-Jīlī's own reading-KEY for all his 'the creature has no share' statements across the whole book (§8). Closes with a 6-verse qaṣīda. A few kāf-as-alif OCR garbles restored. No lossy drop of authorial prose.

Qurʾān. No verbatim Qurʾān citations in this chapter -- nothing to verify. Two sayings flagged: 'I saw my Lord in the form of a beardless youth' (§5, much-disputed, rejected as unsound by many; cf. Bāb 4 §15), cited as an instance of likening-like (tashbīhī) disclosure; and 'Light -- how should I see Him?' (nūrun annā arāh, §6) -- sound (Muslim, the Abū Dharr report on whether the Prophet saw his Lord), cited as an instance of transcendence-like (tanzīhī) disclosure. The jawhar/ʿaraḍ (substance/accident) language of the closing qaṣīda (§11) is the kalām vocabulary, used paradoxically -- the chapter having just declared God 'neither accident nor substance.'

Apparatus

Transcendence beyond transcendence, the two faces of the Essence, and the reading-key of the book

Bāb 10 gives the incomparability pole of al-Jīlī’s theology, deliberately paired with the chapter on Likening that follows. Transcendence (tanzīh) is not the bare negation of resemblance but the Pre-eternal’s own singling-out of Himself by His Essence, names, and qualities — a transcendence whose very mode “is not known,” since “the Real accepts no opposite.” Hence al-Jīlī’s apophatic apex: “a transcendence beyond all transcendence” (tanzīh ʿan al-tanzīh), because what we hold in our hands is only the “originated transcendence,” a created act set against a created likeness, whereas “His transcendence of Himself none other than He knows.” This is the Akbarian critique of pure negation: God needs no tanzīh of an “essential likening,” since His Essence is transcendent in itself; so whether He discloses Himself in likening-form (the disputed “I saw my Lord in the form of a beardless youth”) or in transcendence-form (the sound “Light — how should I see Him?”), both are governed by the pre-eternal transcendence, and “His transcendence is not like the creaturely transcendence, nor His likening like the likening.” The one who reduces tanzīh to “the purification of your own locus” has named only the creaturely transcendence, by which the servant qualified with the divine attributes is cleansed of created deficiency — while the Real “remained as He ever was.” At the chapter’s centre stands al-Jīlī’s own reading-key for the whole work: his statements that “the creature has no share” in some matter, or that some matter “is not ascribed to the Real,” mean that it belongs to the face of the Essence named by that name, not that the Essence lacks it — for the Essence gathers both the Real and creaturely faces, each abiding in its rank “without any mixing.” The faces are gathered, not blended; one may appear in the other (the topic of the next chapter), but neither is the other. The closing qaṣīda addresses God paradoxically in the kalām idiom of substance and accident — “O substance by which two accidents stand, O One who in His rule is two” — before sealing the chapter on strict transcendence: “the creature grasps nothing but its own like, and the Real is transcendent of the beings.” Recorded in al-Jīlī’s voice, this is the tanzīh that balances the band’s tashbīh, neither pole alone being the whole truth, and framed against the mainstream.

Model: claude-opus-4-8[session]. Glossary: akbarian-sufism-v0.27. Frame: zahir-batin. Drafted: 2026-06-03. Edition: full parallel manuscript (16 segments, complete; one 6-verse qaṣīda).

Source-text attestation: base from the ibnalarabi.com digital matn (kamil.php?id=13), clean of navigation chrome; the trailing asterism rule and the site-search widget excluded. Qurʾān: no verbatim citations in this chapter — nothing to verify. Sayings flagged, not graded here: “I saw my Lord in the form of a beardless youth” (§5) — much-disputed, rejected by many traditionists (cf. Bāb 4 §15), cited as likening-form disclosure, not endorsed; “Light — how should I see Him?” (§6) — sound (Muslim, the Abū Dharr report), cited as transcendence-form disclosure. The jawhar/ʿaraḍ language of the closing qaṣīda (§11) is the kalām vocabulary, used paradoxically. A few kāf-as-alif OCR garbles restored. Doctrinal framing: the reading-key (§8) is the interpretive anchor for the “no creaturely share” guardrails of Bāb 5 §10 and Bāb 9 §25; the “without mixing” clause (§9) cross-links to the anti-ḥulūl/anti-ittiḥād argument of Bāb 3 §24 and Bāb 7 §28; the chapter forward-refers to Bāb 11 (al-Tashbīh). Glossary terms engaged: tanzīh, tashbīh, dhāt, asmāʾ, ṣifāt, tajallī.

Status: AI-assisted draft, editor review pending; a second-reader pass is advisable (the “transcendence beyond transcendence,” the two-faces reading-key, and the two framing hadiths). The tenth chapter of the full-manuscript edition of al-Insān al-Kāmil.