بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

From the Perspective of

Mishkātī Wisdom

An Unbiased Perspective

Purifying Our Understanding of Cause and Effect

✳️❇️✅✨💫🔆🔸 A Lyrical Elaboration on “Denying Any Length or Breadth of the Divine Essence”

in Mishkātī Wisdom

This reflection offers one of the deepest and most precise expressions of absolute transcendence, denying every relation of length or breadth to the presence of the Essence of the One. Within the framework of Mishkātī Wisdom, we will develop this question systematically and thoughtfully, linking it to the principles set out earlier (the system of knowledge, “لَا مِنْ شَيْءٍ»، و مُعَلِّلُ العِلَل).

**1. Denying “breadth”: denying any partner or equal**

For any being to exist alongside the Divine Essence would mean that two independent, equal essences exist.

This would multiply divinity and lordship, contradicting God’s absolute oneness—for He is «أَحَد» and «صَمَد».

Nothing exists alongside God: not an angel, not a prophet, not the First Intellect, nor any other created being. All exist in the realm of absolute dependence, and none is His equal.

**First conclusion:**

Denying breadth means denying that God has any partner, equal, or counterpart; this is pure monotheism itself.

**2. Denying “length”: denying any chain of causation or vertical causality**

For any being to exist along the length of the Divine Essence would mean that God, as the “origin” or “First Cause,” stands at the head of a vertical chain.

But this view, too, is mistaken, because:

God is «مُبدِء» and «مُبدِع», not merely an “origin” or “First Cause.”

If God were the “First Cause,” He would occupy a place within a causal chain and, in some respect, share a common nature with its other causes.

But God is «مُعَلِّلُ العِلَلِ و المعلولات»: He is not at the head of the chain, but beyond the entire causal order, governing, bringing it into being, and sustaining it.

**Second conclusion:**

Denying length means denying any chain of causation, common nature, or vertical causality in relation to God. He is not the “First Cause,” but «مُعَلِّلُ العِلَل».

**3. Neither along nor alongside, but under His all-encompassing dominion**

No being, law, or cause exists either along or alongside the Divine Essence, because:

Existence alongside Him entails associating others with God and multiplying divinity.

Existence along Him entails a common nature and an infinite regress.

The only proper relation is one of all-encompassing dominion and absolute transcendence: God encompasses all beings, laws, and causes in His Essence, knowledge, and power, without Himself existing either along or alongside them.

He encompasses all things, and nothing encompasses Him. He sustains all things, and nothing shares in sustaining them with Him.

**Third conclusion:**

God’s relation to created beings is neither one of length nor of breadth, but one of all-encompassing dominion and absolute transcendence—one that cannot be measured by either concept.

**4. How this relates to the system of knowledge and divine works**

Within the framework of Mishkātī Wisdom, this denial of length and breadth can be situated within the system of knowledge as follows:

“Pre-knowledge”: a station in which not only does nothing exist—not matter, energy, time, or space—but even “length” and “breadth” are limited concepts that have no access to the realm of the Essence.

“Knowledge” is the plane of the design from which God began creation; yet “knowledge” itself is pre-creative and lies neither in God’s length nor in His breadth.

God’s Essence stands at the level of “beyond length and breadth” and bears no relation to any stage of creation.

Fourth conclusion:

All concepts—even length and breadth, causality, and origination—belong to the realm of action, while the Essence is exalted above them all.

5. Final Summary: Absolute Transcendence Beyond Length and Breadth

In view of all the points above, the “negation of length and breadth” within the framework of Mishkātī wisdom may be summarised as follows:

Concept	Explanation in Mishkātī wisdom
Negation of breadth	The negation of any partner, equal, or counterpart to God, since breadth entails multiplying divinity.
Negation of length	The negation of any regress, affinity of kind, or vertical causality in relation to God, since length entails being a source and the First Cause.
The proper relation	A relation of “overwhelming encompassment” and “absolute supremacy”: God encompasses all beings, and nothing encompasses Him.
God	He is neither the “First Cause” nor situated along the chain of causes; rather, He is “the one who grounds causes and effects,” encompassing the entire causal order.
Final conclusion	No being, law, or cause lies in the length or breadth of the Divine Essence. God is transcendent and free of every vertical or horizontal relation.

Final conclusion:

The Essence of the One is transcendent and free of every vertical or horizontal relation—even the relation of being a “source” or “First Cause.” He is neither at the head of a causal chain nor alongside anything. Rather, He overwhelmingly encompasses all beings, laws, and causes, bringing them into being, governing them, and sustaining them through His absolute power. Any attempt to place God along the length or breadth of created things limits Him and likens Him to finite concepts.

6. Final Addition: The Goal of the Spiritual Path in Light of the Negation of Length and Breadth

With this elaboration, we arrive at the goal of the spiritual path:

By understanding the negation of length and breadth, a person avoids likening God to created things—even as a “source” or “First Cause”—and believes in His boundless greatness.

By accepting God’s overwhelming encompassment, a person is freed from confining Him within limited concepts such as causality, origination, and regress, and turns towards a reality beyond them all.

By critically examining the approach of atheists, a person sees that they either place God along the chain of causes, then raise the problem of infinite regress, or place Him alongside other beings, thereby promoting idolatry. Yet God is transcendent and free of both relations.

But the goal of the spiritual path is to attain this truth: “No one knows Him,” and “The perfection of sincerity toward Him is to deny attributes of Him”; and this itself is the summit of knowledge.

“الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الْوَاحِدِ الْأَحَدِ الصَّمَدِ الْمُتَفَرِّدِ الَّذِي لَا مِنْ‏ شَيْ‏ءٍ كَانَ وَ لَا مِنْ‏ شَيْ‏ءٍ خَلَقَ …”

“My God, praise belongs to You: You are One, Unique, Self-Sufficient, without peer; You neither came from anything nor created from anything. No being, law, or cause lies in the length or breadth of Your Majestic Essence. If anything were alongside You, that would be idolatry; and if anything were along Your length, it would reduce You to the ‘First Cause,’ whereas You are ‘the one who grounds causes and effects’ and encompass them all. Yet Your Essence is beyond all these things, and Your very ‘Huwiyyah’ cannot be attained by knowledge or encompassed by recognition.”

This is the “meeting with God” in Mishkātī wisdom: seeing everything as encompassed by Him, without seeing Him Himself. This is the utmost humility and servitude.

✳️❇️✅✨💫🔆🔸 A Poetic Elaboration on “Length and Breadth” in the Transcendence of the Essence of the One

The question of “above and alongside” is among the most profound discussions in apophatic theology, exposing the fallacy of attributing any improper relation to the Essence of the One. We will now explore this question through ontological, epistemological, and mystical approaches within the framework of Mishkātī wisdom.

1. Framing the question: Why are both “alongside” and “above” mistaken?

“Alongside” means being on the same level, as an equal. If anything were alongside God, there would be two independent, equal essences—implying polytheism and multiple deities.

“Above” means hierarchy and succession. If anything were above God in a chain of being, God would be placed at the head of a causal series as its “origin” or “First Cause”—implying that God belongs to the same order as other things and is therefore limited.

Both relations—being above or alongside—reduce God to limited concepts such as cause, origin, or equal, and are incompatible with His absolute oneness and essential infinity.

2. Critique of “alongside”: Denying every partner and equal

a) Being alongside God entails dualism

If any being were alongside God, this would mean that two independent beings of equal standing existed, each of whom could be a “god.”

This conflicts with “أَحَد” (the uniquely One) and “صَمَد” (the Absolutely Self-Sufficient).

God has no partner—not only in His Essence, but also in His acts and attributes, including lordship, divinity, and creation.

b) Denying any equality within creation

All created things—from the Throne to the earth, from the First Intellect to the particles of matter—exist in a state of utter dependence, and none possesses independence of its own.

Maryam: 93   إِنْ كُلُّ مَنْ فِي السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضِ إِلاَّ آتِي الرَّحْمنِ عَبْداً

Everyone in the heavens and the earth will come to the Most Merciful in utter submission.

All are His servants; no one is on a level with Him.

Conclusion:

To deny that anything is alongside God is to deny every partner, equal, and peer—and this is pure tawḥīd.

3. Critique of “above”: Denying every chain of causation and likeness

a) Being “above” entails the mistaken idea of God as “the First Cause”

If God were situated above the causes, He would be defined as “the First Cause,” at the head of a hierarchical chain.

But this view places God in the same category as other causes and reduces Him to a “limited cause.”

God, however, is not “the First Cause” (at the head of a chain), but “مُعَلِّلُ العِلَلِ و المعلولات”: the one who gives causes and effects their causal relation. He is not of the same kind as cause and effect, but encompasses them all.

b) Being “above” entails either an impossible infinite regress or an impossible limit

If God were situated above the causes, we would have to accept either an infinite regress—which is impossible—or that God Himself was caused by something else—which is even more impossible.

If God had created from something, an infinite regress would follow.

وَ لَوْ كَانَ أَوَّلُ مَا خَلَقَ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ الشَّيْ‏ءَ مِنَ الشَّيْ‏ءِ إِذاً لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ انْقِطَاعٌ‏ أَبَداً وَ لَمْ يَزَلِ اللَّهُ إِذاً وَ مَعَهُ شَيْ‏ءٌ

عَنْهُ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ دَاوُدَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَطِيَّةَ قَالَ: جَاءَ رَجُلٌ إِلَى أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع مِنْ أَهْلِ الشَّامِ مِنْ عُلَمَائِهِمْ فَقَالَ يَا أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ جِئْتُ أَسْأَلُكَ عَنْ مَسْأَلَةٍ قَدْ أَعْيَتْ عَلَيَّ أَنْ أَجِدَ أَحَداً يُفَسِّرُهَا وَ قَدْ سَأَلْتُ عَنْهَا ثَلَاثَةَ أَصْنَافٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ فَقَالَ كُلُّ صِنْفٍ مِنْهُمْ شَيْئاً غَيْرَ الَّذِي قَالَ الصِّنْفُ الْآخَرُ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ع مَا ذَاكَ قَالَ فَإِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ عَنْ أَوَّلِ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ فَإِنَّ بَعْضَ مَنْ سَأَلْتُهُ قَالَ الْقَدَرُ وَ قَالَ بَعْضُهُمُ الْقَلَمُ وَ قَالَ بَعْضُهُمُ الرُّوحُ فَقَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ع مَا قَالُوا شَيْئاً- أُخْبِرُكَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَ تَعَالَى كَانَ وَ لَا شَيْ‏ءَ غَيْرُهُ وَ كَانَ عَزِيزاً وَ لَا أَحَدَ كَانَ قَبْلَ عِزِّهِ وَ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ‏ سُبْحانَ رَبِّكَ رَبِّ الْعِزَّةِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ‏  وَ كَانَ الْخَالِقُ قَبْلَ الْمَخْلُوقِ وَ لَوْ كَانَ أَوَّلُ مَا خَلَقَ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ الشَّيْ‏ءَ مِنَ الشَّيْ‏ءِ إِذاً لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ انْقِطَاعٌ‏ أَبَداً وَ لَمْ يَزَلِ اللَّهُ إِذاً وَ مَعَهُ شَيْ‏ءٌ لَيْسَ هُوَ يَتَقَدَّمُهُ وَ لَكِنَّهُ كَانَ إِذْ لَا شَيْ‏ءَ غَيْرُهُ وَ خَلَقَ الشَّيْ‏ءَ الَّذِي جَمِيعُ الْأَشْيَاءِ مِنْهُ وَ هُوَ الْمَاءُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَشْيَاءَ مِنْهُ فَجَعَلَ نَسَبَ كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ إِلَى الْمَاءِ وَ لَمْ يَجْعَلْ لِلْمَاءِ نَسَباً يُضَافُ إِلَيْهِ وَ خَلَقَ الرِّيحَ مِنَ الْمَاءِ ثُمَّ سَلَّطَ الرِّيحَ عَلَى الْمَاءِ فَشَقَّقَتِ الرِّيحُ مَتْنَ الْمَاءِ حَتَّى ثَارَ مِنَ الْمَاءِ زَبَدٌ عَلَى قَدْرِ مَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَثُورَ  فَخَلَقَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الزَّبَدِ أَرْضاً بَيْضَاءَ نَقِيَّةً لَيْسَ فِيهَا صَدْعٌ‏  وَ لَا ثَقْبٌ وَ لَا صُعُودٌ وَ لَا هُبُوطٌ وَ لَا شَجَرَةٌ ثُمَّ طَوَاهَا  فَوَضَعَهَا فَوْقَ الْمَاءِ ثُمَّ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ النَّارَ مِنَ الْمَاءِ فَشَقَّقَتِ النَّارُ مَتْنَ الْمَاءِ حَتَّى ثَارَ مِنَ الْمَاءِ دُخَانٌ عَلَى قَدْرِ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَثُورَ فَخَلَقَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الدُّخَانِ سَمَاءً صَافِيَةً نَقِيَّةً لَيْسَ فِيهَا صَدْعٌ وَ لَا ثَقْبٌ وَ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ- السَّماءُ بَناها رَفَعَ سَمْكَها فَسَوَّاها وَ أَغْطَشَ لَيْلَها وَ أَخْرَجَ ضُحاها  قَالَ وَ لَا شَمْسٌ وَ لَا قَمَرٌ وَ لَا نُجُومٌ وَ لَا سَحَابٌ ثُمَّ طَوَاهَا فَوَضَعَهَا فَوْقَ الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ نَسَبَ الْخَلِيقَتَيْنِ‏  فَرَفَعَ السَّمَاءَ قَبْلَ الْأَرْضِ فَذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ عَزَّ ذِكْرُهُ- وَ الْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذلِكَ دَحاها يَقُولُ بَسَطَهَا فَقَالَ لَهُ الشَّامِيُّ يَا أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ قَوْلُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى- أَ وَ لَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضَ كانَتا رَتْقاً فَفَتَقْناهُما  فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ع فَلَعَلَّكَ تَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُمَا كَانَتَا رَتْقاً مُلْتَزِقَتَيْنِ مُلْتَصِقَتَيْنِ فَفُتِقَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا مِنَ الْأُخْرَى فَقَالَ نَعَمْ فَقَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ع اسْتَغْفِرْ رَبَّكَ فَإِنَّ قَوْلَ اللَّهِ جَلَّ وَ عَزَّ كانَتا رَتْقاً يَقُولُ كَانَتِ السَّمَاءُ رَتْقاً لَا تُنْزِلُ الْمَطَرَ وَ كَانَتِ الْأَرْضُ رَتْقاً لَا تُنْبِتُ الْحَبَّ فَلَمَّا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَ تَعَالَى الْخَلْقَ‏ وَ بَثَّ فِيها مِنْ كُلِّ دَابَّةٍ* فَتَقَ السَّمَاءَ بِالْمَطَرِ وَ الْأَرْضَ بِنَبَاتِ الْحَبِّ فَقَالَ الشَّامِيُّ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّكَ مِنْ وُلْدِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَ أَنَّ عِلْمَكَ عِلْمُهُمْ.[1]

Thus God is neither within the chain of causes nor at its head. Rather, He sustains the causal order and encompasses all its elements.

C) Denying any likeness within the order of creation

«لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ» (al-Shūrā, 11): Nothing is like Him.

If God were situated within the chain of created beings, He would share a likeness with them, whereas He is transcendent above any likeness to creation.

Conclusion:

To deny that God is within the causal chain is to deny any infinite regress, likeness, or chain of causes; God is not the “cause of causes” but the one who gives causes their efficacy.

4. The proper relationship: “encompassing dominion” and “absolute transcendence”

If God is neither within creation nor alongside it, what is the proper relationship?

God’s relationship with creation is one of “encompassing dominion” and “absolute transcendence.”

Compelling encompassment: God encompasses all beings, laws and causes through His essence, knowledge and power; nothing lies beyond His domain.

Absolute transcendence: God exists at a level beyond all degrees of existence and causality—not in a vertical hierarchy with them, nor alongside them.

“وَ هُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ ما كُنْتُمْ” (al-Ḥadīd 57:4): He is with you wherever you are. But this “withness” is neither a matter of being above or below, nor of being alongside; it means encompassing and sustaining all things.

Conclusion:

The only sound relation is one of “compelling encompassment” and “absolute transcendence,” which places God beyond every notion of above or alongside.

5. How this discussion relates to the order of knowledge and divine acts

Within the framework of Mishkāti wisdom, the denial of above-and-below and alongside can be situated within the order of knowledge as follows:

“Pre-knowledge”: A station in which not only does nothing exist—neither matter, energy, time nor space—but even “above and below” and “alongside” are limited concepts that have no access to the realm of the divine Essence.

“Knowledge”: The blueprint from which God began creation; yet “knowledge” itself is neither above nor alongside God.

God’s Essence: It stands beyond all notions of above-and-below and alongside, and has no relation whatsoever to any stage of creation.

Conclusion:

All concepts—even above and below, alongside, causality and origination—belong to the realm of action, while the Essence is beyond them all.

6. The Essence remains in its own absolute Unseen and has no relation whatsoever to limited beings. What becomes manifest is the “act,” not the “Essence.”

Thus, denying that God is above or alongside creation is not only compatible with pure gnosis; it is a condition of its realisation.

7. Final summary: God is neither above nor alongside

Concept	Explanation in Mishkāti wisdom
Alongside	This entails shirk, dualism and a multiplication of divinity.
Above	This entails an infinite regress, likeness between God and creation, and the mistaken conception of God as merely the ultimate cause.
The sound relation	“Compelling encompassment” and “absolute transcendence”: God encompasses all beings without being above or alongside them.
The order of knowledge	All concepts—above and below, alongside, causality and origination—belong to the realm of action, while the Essence is beyond them all.
Pure gnosis	The relation between Creator and creation is neither indwelling (alongside) nor a hierarchy (above); it is one of “compelling encompassment” and the “manifestation of action.”

Final conclusion:

The Essence of the One is beyond every vertical or lateral relation, even the relation of “origination” or “ultimate causation.” God is neither at the head of a causal chain nor alongside anything. Rather, He encompasses all beings, laws and causes, bringing them into being, governing them and sustaining them through His absolute power. Any attempt to place God above or alongside created things reduces Him to finite terms and likens Him to limited concepts.

8. The goal of spiritual wayfaring in light of the denial of above and alongside

By understanding that God is neither above nor alongside creation, a person avoids likening Him to created things—even as a “source” or “ultimate cause”—and comes to believe in His boundless grandeur.

By accepting God’s compelling encompassment, a person is freed from confining Him within limited concepts such as causality, origination and an infinite chain of causes, and turns towards a reality beyond them all.

By examining the atheist approach, a person sees that atheists either place God above the causes—and then raise the problem of infinite regress—or place Him alongside other beings, thereby promoting shirk. Yet God is beyond both relations.

The ultimate aim of the spiritual path is to attain the truth that “no one knows Him” and that “the perfection of sincerity toward Him lies in denying attributes of Him”; this is itself the summit of spiritual knowledge.

“My God, all praise is Yours: You are One, Unique, Self-Sufficient, without peer; You were not brought into being from anything, nor did You create from anything. No existent, law or cause stands alongside Your majestic Essence. If anything stood alongside You, that would be associating partners with You; if it stood beneath You in a chain of being, it would reduce You to the ‘First Cause,’ whereas You are the ‘Cause of causes and effects,’ encompassing them all. You encompass all beings, and nothing encompasses You. Yet Your Essence transcends all of this, and Your very ‘He-ness’ cannot be grasped by knowledge or contained within cognition.”

To see all things as encompassed by Him, without seeing Him Himself: this is the utmost humility and servitude.

🌼Ali Saei (Abdullah Meshkat) 110.141 (903)🌼

---

[1] Al-Kāfī (Islamic edition), vol. 8, p. 94  Kulayni, Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq, Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya, Tehran, fourth edition, 1407 AH.