What do you think?
Rate this book
Know Yourself: An Explanation of the Oneness of Being
92 pages, Paperback
First published November 6, 2011
10 people are currently reading
637 people want to read
About the author
Ibn ʿArabi
377 books1,965 followersNote to arabic readers : For the original arabic version of the books, check "other editions" in the book that interests you)
Universally known by the title of "Muhyi al-Din" (The Reviver of the Religion) and "al-Shaykh al-Akbar" (The Greatest Shaykh) Ibn 'Arabī (Arabic: ابن عربي) (July 28, 1165 - November 10, 1240) was an Arab Sufi Muslim mystic and philosopher. His full name was Abū 'Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn 'Alī ibn Muḥammad ibn al-`Arabī al-Hāṭimī al-Ṭā'ī (أبو عبد الله محمد بن علي بن محمد بن العربي الحاتمي الطائي).
Muhammad ibn al-Arabi and his family moved to Seville when he was eight years old. In 1200 CE, at the age of thirty-five, he left Iberia for good, intending to make the hajj to Mecca. He lived in Mecca for some three years, where he began writing his Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (The Meccan Illuminations). In 1204, he left Mecca for Anatolia with Majd al-Dīn Isḥāq, whose son Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qunawī (1210-1274) would be his most influential disciple.
In 1223, he settled in Damascus, where he lived the last seventeen years of his life. He died at the age of 76 on 22 Rabi' II 638 AH/November 10, 1240CE, and his tomb in Damascus is still an important place of pilgrimage.
A vastly prolific writer, Ibn 'Arabī is generally known as the prime exponent of the idea later known as Waḥdat al-Wujūd (literally Unity of Being), though he did not use this term in his writings. His emphasis was on the true potential of the human being and the path to realising that potential and becoming the perfect or complete man (al-insān al-kāmil).
Some 800 works are attributed to Ibn 'Arabā, although only some have been authenticated. Recent research suggests that over 100 of his works have survived in manuscript form, although most printed versions have not yet been critically edited and include many errors.
Universally known by the title of "Muhyi al-Din" (The Reviver of the Religion) and "al-Shaykh al-Akbar" (The Greatest Shaykh) Ibn 'Arabī (Arabic: ابن عربي) (July 28, 1165 - November 10, 1240) was an Arab Sufi Muslim mystic and philosopher. His full name was Abū 'Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn 'Alī ibn Muḥammad ibn al-`Arabī al-Hāṭimī al-Ṭā'ī (أبو عبد الله محمد بن علي بن محمد بن العربي الحاتمي الطائي).
Muhammad ibn al-Arabi and his family moved to Seville when he was eight years old. In 1200 CE, at the age of thirty-five, he left Iberia for good, intending to make the hajj to Mecca. He lived in Mecca for some three years, where he began writing his Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (The Meccan Illuminations). In 1204, he left Mecca for Anatolia with Majd al-Dīn Isḥāq, whose son Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qunawī (1210-1274) would be his most influential disciple.
In 1223, he settled in Damascus, where he lived the last seventeen years of his life. He died at the age of 76 on 22 Rabi' II 638 AH/November 10, 1240CE, and his tomb in Damascus is still an important place of pilgrimage.
A vastly prolific writer, Ibn 'Arabī is generally known as the prime exponent of the idea later known as Waḥdat al-Wujūd (literally Unity of Being), though he did not use this term in his writings. His emphasis was on the true potential of the human being and the path to realising that potential and becoming the perfect or complete man (al-insān al-kāmil).
Some 800 works are attributed to Ibn 'Arabā, although only some have been authenticated. Recent research suggests that over 100 of his works have survived in manuscript form, although most printed versions have not yet been critically edited and include many errors.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Read
October 4, 2025To the people who like this book. There is something seriously wrong about you. What the hell did i just read.
January 28, 2022
I was looking for Al-Ma'arri's books, when I found this one. I came across Al-Ma'arri on r/exmuslims, as a critique of religion, and as the name would suggest, of Islam. Although, later I found he was also a vegan, and has written some really good poetry about it. Oh, by the way, I learned today, Omar Khayyam, who wrote Rubaiyat, was born just a few years before Al-Ma'arri died. My unsuccessful attempts of finding his works resulted in me discovering this one.
And what do I say about this book? I am lost for words. This surely is not a book I can recommend to others. I know of noone who will find anything in this book. This is just apologetics. From beginning to the end, the author, Ibn Arabi, who by the way, was born in Andalusia, makes a castle in the air. I understand when speaking metaphorically, one detaches from reality, but this was going way too far.
The book dwells on the topic, how to know oneself. And given how He/the God is the sole creator, and the only one out there, the so-called 'alpha and omega', one cannot understand themselves unless they know Him. This book had a beautiful cover and exquisite typography. But the content feels quite repetitive. Almost as if "if you say it enough times, you will start believing in it too". In the very beginning of the book, it is made clear, logic and reasoning is not what one should use, in order to understand the God. Well, shit.
If one holds a prior belief, there can only be one God, and polytheism is improbable, this book expands on that. It gives hardly anything, to prove why any of the claims and deductions he is making is true. It makes a few base axioms to be true, which should come to no surprise who knows about the theology, but for someone who is not a believer, this apologetics just does NOT work.
At many places, it feels like Michael Scott speaking. "He is His own name and what is named. Just as His existence is necessary, the nonexistence of what is other than Him is necessary. What you think is other than Him is not other than Him. He is free from there being any other than Him. Indeed, other than Him is Him without any otherness, whether this is with Him or in Him, inwardly or outwardly."
The arguments Ibn Arabi raises, just goes on to highlight the stark difference between an Abrahamic religion and Buddhism. In Buddhism, the enlightened one is the one with humility, the one with the least ego (English word ego), the down to earth mindful being. On the other hand, the God of Abraham prides in his own "greatness" for creating everything, to be mysterious, to be unmatched, to be the only one of his kind. One says, if one tried, they can attain the higher state of consciousness and be an enlightened one. The other says, you are his creation, and you should surrender yourself to him, in his praise, for what would you be, if he did not bring you to this existence. One wants you to evolve and escape moh-mayaa, and the other just comes off as self-centered deity.
The book reflects on His gargantuan presence. And Hitchens words echo in my mind. "Celestial dictatorship".
At some places, the text just contradicts itself. Let me quote a segment:
"If you had an independent existence, you would have no need of passing away or of self-knowledge. You would therefore be a lord apart from Him, but there is no lord apart from God, who is blessed and exalted."
Just wondering, someone worthy of "blessing" the God, must also be independent of the God, unless you imply the God "blessed" themselves. And what does that even mean, if they blessed themselves? What would that mean other than just saying "you are blessed"?
Thinking about it, the word "blessed" seems meaningless, which I can't even define. But I really want to know, who blessed the God!
The prose goes on to define "to know oneself" to be equal to be the servant of the celestial-daddy, inconsequential and need to go serve his demands to understand your own self and also to earn His love. You can't know yourself without accepting him, submitting to him, and placing him above yourself -- which is simply flawed. It takes away any individuality a person has. Almost like a cult. At times, it feels like a cult-handbook, and I am aware that comes off as a rude remark, but that is precisely what it is.
Another contradiction I'd found was:
"He is no different from you nor you from Him" -- yet again, you are not his equal. Even if he is the enabler, he is not me, neither am I him. There is a difference. As much as he is trying to own and control me, it simply is not the case. Here is another PoV. If I am him, I don't have to listen to him, he could as well listen to me, because if both are him, how do you decide which consciousness is the superior one?
If I am Him, let's grant that premise. By me not knowing me, implies He is failing to know himself, implying he and his designs are flawed. -- I am very much aware any apologetic would pounce upon this comment of mine saying how I have failed to understand the premise. But then, I am not the one who is asserting unproven statements, and building my whole world-view around it.
"Their speech is His speech, their actions are God's actions and their claim to the knowledge of God is their claim to the knowledge God has of Himself through Himself." -- Ah, that is nice -- the Abrahamic religion finally admitting there is no free will. Unless of course, they say, "I am not me, and the Lord himself", in that case, I am not an individual agent, and just god himself. In which case, I am god, and I am still not in control of my action. Such a petty god. And if I was merciless, it was not me being merciless, but the so-called merciful god being merciless. Contradiction upon contradiction. But then, this book says not to understand things using logic.
A genuine question one can raise against the apologetics is, is your God in the dung? And that is a question even I have asked. And it is funny how the prose deflects the question, so as to not associate the God with rather unpleasant things -- and that is a clever deflecting method that the author is onto. But then, the prose blames others for others are not capable of knowing the nature of God, which was already claimed to be unknowable. This game is rigged.
The book made me realise something.
It is not that once I was kafir, left a hole in me. When I was expected to 'believe', I was subjected to an emotional baggage of living up to someone's skewed philosophy of the understanding of the god, and that was being forced onto me, to have a whole shift in perspective or the lifestyle, yes, that can make me feel empty. But that is not a hole in me, I am free of the clutter and the mess I once could not get rid off. A new lifestyle could make me feel low, but the good thing is, it gets better over time. One could compare that with a break-up, death of someone who was too much in your everyday-life, of sorts, how it leaves you empty at first -- deconversion could be like that. Especially if you had made that your life. For me, Kafir is a badge to wear with pride.
This also highlights how thoroughly the God wants to be a part of a person's life, and how this is all seemed to be a-okay. Sigh. Should have not gone for an apologetics book.
At least, the translator goes on to highlight why 'He' was used and not 'They'. They go in depths, and that commands my respect.
Knowing oneself does not have to be this difficult. Nor does it need to be a arsekissing event for your 'creator'.
And what do I say about this book? I am lost for words. This surely is not a book I can recommend to others. I know of noone who will find anything in this book. This is just apologetics. From beginning to the end, the author, Ibn Arabi, who by the way, was born in Andalusia, makes a castle in the air. I understand when speaking metaphorically, one detaches from reality, but this was going way too far.
The book dwells on the topic, how to know oneself. And given how He/the God is the sole creator, and the only one out there, the so-called 'alpha and omega', one cannot understand themselves unless they know Him. This book had a beautiful cover and exquisite typography. But the content feels quite repetitive. Almost as if "if you say it enough times, you will start believing in it too". In the very beginning of the book, it is made clear, logic and reasoning is not what one should use, in order to understand the God. Well, shit.
If one holds a prior belief, there can only be one God, and polytheism is improbable, this book expands on that. It gives hardly anything, to prove why any of the claims and deductions he is making is true. It makes a few base axioms to be true, which should come to no surprise who knows about the theology, but for someone who is not a believer, this apologetics just does NOT work.
At many places, it feels like Michael Scott speaking. "He is His own name and what is named. Just as His existence is necessary, the nonexistence of what is other than Him is necessary. What you think is other than Him is not other than Him. He is free from there being any other than Him. Indeed, other than Him is Him without any otherness, whether this is with Him or in Him, inwardly or outwardly."
The arguments Ibn Arabi raises, just goes on to highlight the stark difference between an Abrahamic religion and Buddhism. In Buddhism, the enlightened one is the one with humility, the one with the least ego (English word ego), the down to earth mindful being. On the other hand, the God of Abraham prides in his own "greatness" for creating everything, to be mysterious, to be unmatched, to be the only one of his kind. One says, if one tried, they can attain the higher state of consciousness and be an enlightened one. The other says, you are his creation, and you should surrender yourself to him, in his praise, for what would you be, if he did not bring you to this existence. One wants you to evolve and escape moh-mayaa, and the other just comes off as self-centered deity.
The book reflects on His gargantuan presence. And Hitchens words echo in my mind. "Celestial dictatorship".
At some places, the text just contradicts itself. Let me quote a segment:
"If you had an independent existence, you would have no need of passing away or of self-knowledge. You would therefore be a lord apart from Him, but there is no lord apart from God, who is blessed and exalted."
Just wondering, someone worthy of "blessing" the God, must also be independent of the God, unless you imply the God "blessed" themselves. And what does that even mean, if they blessed themselves? What would that mean other than just saying "you are blessed"?
Thinking about it, the word "blessed" seems meaningless, which I can't even define. But I really want to know, who blessed the God!
The prose goes on to define "to know oneself" to be equal to be the servant of the celestial-daddy, inconsequential and need to go serve his demands to understand your own self and also to earn His love. You can't know yourself without accepting him, submitting to him, and placing him above yourself -- which is simply flawed. It takes away any individuality a person has. Almost like a cult. At times, it feels like a cult-handbook, and I am aware that comes off as a rude remark, but that is precisely what it is.
Another contradiction I'd found was:
"He is no different from you nor you from Him" -- yet again, you are not his equal. Even if he is the enabler, he is not me, neither am I him. There is a difference. As much as he is trying to own and control me, it simply is not the case. Here is another PoV. If I am him, I don't have to listen to him, he could as well listen to me, because if both are him, how do you decide which consciousness is the superior one?
If I am Him, let's grant that premise. By me not knowing me, implies He is failing to know himself, implying he and his designs are flawed. -- I am very much aware any apologetic would pounce upon this comment of mine saying how I have failed to understand the premise. But then, I am not the one who is asserting unproven statements, and building my whole world-view around it.
"Their speech is His speech, their actions are God's actions and their claim to the knowledge of God is their claim to the knowledge God has of Himself through Himself." -- Ah, that is nice -- the Abrahamic religion finally admitting there is no free will. Unless of course, they say, "I am not me, and the Lord himself", in that case, I am not an individual agent, and just god himself. In which case, I am god, and I am still not in control of my action. Such a petty god. And if I was merciless, it was not me being merciless, but the so-called merciful god being merciless. Contradiction upon contradiction. But then, this book says not to understand things using logic.
A genuine question one can raise against the apologetics is, is your God in the dung? And that is a question even I have asked. And it is funny how the prose deflects the question, so as to not associate the God with rather unpleasant things -- and that is a clever deflecting method that the author is onto. But then, the prose blames others for others are not capable of knowing the nature of God, which was already claimed to be unknowable. This game is rigged.
The book made me realise something.
It is not that once I was kafir, left a hole in me. When I was expected to 'believe', I was subjected to an emotional baggage of living up to someone's skewed philosophy of the understanding of the god, and that was being forced onto me, to have a whole shift in perspective or the lifestyle, yes, that can make me feel empty. But that is not a hole in me, I am free of the clutter and the mess I once could not get rid off. A new lifestyle could make me feel low, but the good thing is, it gets better over time. One could compare that with a break-up, death of someone who was too much in your everyday-life, of sorts, how it leaves you empty at first -- deconversion could be like that. Especially if you had made that your life. For me, Kafir is a badge to wear with pride.
This also highlights how thoroughly the God wants to be a part of a person's life, and how this is all seemed to be a-okay. Sigh. Should have not gone for an apologetics book.
At least, the translator goes on to highlight why 'He' was used and not 'They'. They go in depths, and that commands my respect.
Knowing oneself does not have to be this difficult. Nor does it need to be a arsekissing event for your 'creator'.
November 10, 2021
An interesting read but one that is too concise for the complexity of the topic. This is not a book that is easy to comprehend and I wish greater elaboration was put to explain the main ideas. I also felt like there was too much repetition of the explanations.
Overall, a quick read that is easy to complete in one sitting and a good insight into some Sufi thought.
Overall, a quick read that is easy to complete in one sitting and a good insight into some Sufi thought.
April 20, 2022
The simple beauty of Sufi wisdom always amazes me. And so does the closeness to Shaiva Tantra.
This book was probably written by Balyani. A bit different from Ibn Arabi’s vibe, but equally profound and basically the same. Exchange the word „Lord“ for Brahman or Shiva or Tao or Great Spirit or Reality or the One or Truth ... - all mystics are saying kind of the same thing anyway. Sufis and Tantrikas make it particularly beautiful though. This makes want to read more Ibn Arabi.
This book was probably written by Balyani. A bit different from Ibn Arabi’s vibe, but equally profound and basically the same. Exchange the word „Lord“ for Brahman or Shiva or Tao or Great Spirit or Reality or the One or Truth ... - all mystics are saying kind of the same thing anyway. Sufis and Tantrikas make it particularly beautiful though. This makes want to read more Ibn Arabi.
December 27, 2024
While in theory the concept isn’t unfamiliar to me, I felt the book undermines the concept with its repetition and even its reluctance to expand on the matter in the end. This iykyk attitude is understandable but also unflattering. I would like to put it down to translation or perhaps the context of the times we live in.
As an atheist/agnostic/got better things to do than discuss a God that isn’t really affected by what I choose to do, wear or put my nose for that matter, to a violent visceral spiritual awakening, I do think the rhetorical narrative - romanticizing the idea of unity (but without unity of course) risks deviating a bit from Islamic philosophy into pantheism.
I do get why it’s romanticized though - it’s so damn sweet.
As an atheist/agnostic/got better things to do than discuss a God that isn’t really affected by what I choose to do, wear or put my nose for that matter, to a violent visceral spiritual awakening, I do think the rhetorical narrative - romanticizing the idea of unity (but without unity of course) risks deviating a bit from Islamic philosophy into pantheism.
I do get why it’s romanticized though - it’s so damn sweet.
December 20, 2024
A colleague gifted me this book for our team's secret santa.
While I found the book interesting, I don't necessarily agree with it / it's not my cup of tea.
It's a 30-page reflection on faith from an Islamic perspective, written by an Andalusian scholar in the 12th C. Even though it's a short book, it's rather difficult to follow and seems quite repetitive at times.
While I found the book interesting, I don't necessarily agree with it / it's not my cup of tea.
It's a 30-page reflection on faith from an Islamic perspective, written by an Andalusian scholar in the 12th C. Even though it's a short book, it's rather difficult to follow and seems quite repetitive at times.
January 19, 2025
I believe this is a Sufi text, which I believe is a part of Islam for some Muslims. It reads like a mix between Islam and some far eastern religion/philosophy. Not really my thing
December 17, 2025
Puro núcleo de no dualidad
August 9, 2016
A beautiful book of depth and range, that inspires and enchants the reader. True Sufism, and mysticism in general, was never meant to be articulated in words - it is impossible. Oneness, of all and everyone, and the universality of 'annihilation', of 'fanna', the summary of Ibn Arabi's message, is beautifully translated and presented here.
July 4, 2023
Quite a hard to read book because it is very philosophical. But however, the idea of knowing ourself from not knowing ourself is such an interesing idea! Would love to re-read this book again! Hopefully i could understand it better.
December 29, 2017
It's a very slim read, at only 81 pages and with part of those taken up by introductions, notes etc... I would have preferred the book/pamphlet at half the price I paid for it
That being said; there are some beautiful expressions of non-duality here and it's nice to read something that you know has pedigree. Even if it looks like it wasn't written by Ibn Arabi?
That being said; there are some beautiful expressions of non-duality here and it's nice to read something that you know has pedigree. Even if it looks like it wasn't written by Ibn Arabi?
November 30, 2025
Al-Arabího popis jednoty/božství, což už je v samotném názvu - poznat sebe znamená poznat Boha. Jedině to, co je boží součástí může pochopit svoji jednotu s božstvím. Relativně podrobné, se spoustou podnětných argumentů, ač jde o krátký text, zabývá se jednou konkrétní myšlenkou, o té se ale dá hovořit donekonečna. Napadla mě Arnoldova hláška z Total Recall: "You, you are not you. You are me."
March 31, 2023
Wahdat al-wujud.
The author describes the world as the exteriorization of a single hidden reality. All that we see as creation is a divine self-revelation which is contantly renewed in different forms at every moment.
"You are nonexistent now as you were nonseixstent before creation, because now is eternity-without-beginning and now is eternity-without-end and now is timelessness.
The benefit of the knowledge of the self is to know for certain that you are neither existent nor non-existent, that you are not, never have been, and never will be. In this way, the meaningg of there is no god but god becomes clear: there is no diviinity other than him, being belong to none but him, there is noother except him, ther is no god but he.
I knew the lord through the lord without doubt or uncertainty.
My essence is really his essence without lack or imperfection.
There is no otherness between them and my self is the place where the invisible appears.
Since I have known myself without mixture or blemish,
I have reached union with my beloved without distance or closeness.
I received a gift overflowing without any giving or intermingling.
My self did not vanish in him nor does the one who vanished remain.
The author describes the world as the exteriorization of a single hidden reality. All that we see as creation is a divine self-revelation which is contantly renewed in different forms at every moment.
"You are nonexistent now as you were nonseixstent before creation, because now is eternity-without-beginning and now is eternity-without-end and now is timelessness.
The benefit of the knowledge of the self is to know for certain that you are neither existent nor non-existent, that you are not, never have been, and never will be. In this way, the meaningg of there is no god but god becomes clear: there is no diviinity other than him, being belong to none but him, there is noother except him, ther is no god but he.
I knew the lord through the lord without doubt or uncertainty.
My essence is really his essence without lack or imperfection.
There is no otherness between them and my self is the place where the invisible appears.
Since I have known myself without mixture or blemish,
I have reached union with my beloved without distance or closeness.
I received a gift overflowing without any giving or intermingling.
My self did not vanish in him nor does the one who vanished remain.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews