Ibn Barrajan

Published online 13 May 2023
Journal of Islamic Studies 34:3 (2023) pp. 371–401 https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/etad015
THE BLESSED TREE IN THE WORKS OF IBN

BARRAJ2N OF SEVILLE (D. 536/1141)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

S A M J AF F E AN D YO U SE F CA S E WI T*
The University of Chicago
ABSTRACT
In his commentary on the Light Verse (Q. 24:35), the Andalusian mystic
and Qur8:n exegete Ab< al-Eakam Ibn Barraj:n (d. 1141) presents the
blessed tree (al-shajara al-mub:raka) not simply as a terrestrial olive tree
in Syria or even as a mystical allegory, but as the ultimate locus of divine
disclosure and the highest metaphysical entity in the cosmos that sub-
sumes the world of creation. This article assesses the originality of Ibn
Barraj:n’s contribution to the heavenly tree motif by examining his
unique mystical and exegetical theories informing his ontological read-
ing of the blessed tree, including the concept of the ‘reality upon which
creation is created’ and the ‘universal servant’. In addition to analysing
the internal logic of Ibn Barraj:n’s discourse, this article explores the
larger interpretive themes recurrent across exoteric, Sufi, and philosoph-
ical interpretations of the Light Verse up to the twelfth century that the
author may have had access to in al-Andalus, including the treatises of
the Brethren of Purity (Ikhw:n al-Baf:) and Biblical sources. Finally, this
article highlights how Ibn Barraj:n weaves the Qur8:nic good tree (al-
shajara al-3ayyiba) and the lote tree of the furthest boundary (sidrat al-
muntah:) into his overarching understanding of the blessed tree. It also
considers how his reading may have contributed to later readings by Ibn
6Arab; (d. 1240) and some of his intellectual heirs.
*Authors’ note: The authors are grateful to Muhammad Ridwaan of Qalam

Editing, Faris Casewit, and this Journal’s anonymous reviewers for their
feedback and assistance.
ß The Author(s) (2023). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Oxford Centre for
Islamic Studies. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
372 JOURNAL OF ISLAMIC STUDIES, 20 23, VOL. 34, NO. 3
INTRODUCTION
Mystical representations of trees as symbols of life, light, and divinity are

not uncommon across the religious traditions of the Middle East and

Western Asia. In his 1921 study titled ‘Tree and Bird as cosmological
symbols in Western Asia’, Wensinck traces the religious symbolism of
trees as representations of light, life, knowledge, and heaven, at least as
far back as the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh.1 Within the
Abrahamic traditions, such symbolism is attested to in the Bible in the
famous trees of life and knowledge which are said to be in the Garden
and to have caused the fall of Adam and Eve. The Qur8:n and Aad;th
also mention numerous mythical trees that have inspired a range of
mystical interpretations by Muslim scholars. It is within this category
of esoteric exegeses that Ibn Barraj:n’s theory of the blessed tree (al-
shajara al-mub:raka) falls.
The aim of this article is to demonstrate how Ibn Barraj:n constructs
his esoteric theory of the blessed tree by integrating the Neoplatonized
writings of the Brethren of Purity (Ikhw:n al-Baf:8) with a literalist read-
ing of the Light Verse (24:35) and his hermeneutical principles of
Qur8:nic harmony (naCm) and interconnectivity (waBl). In contrast to
most Qur8:n exegetes up to the twelfth century, Ibn Barraj:n theorizes
about the blessed tree not only as a mystical allegory but also as a key
cosmological super-entity. While mystical meditations on the Light Verse
historically precede Ibn Barraj:n’s corpus, our author appears to be the
first to assimilate these teachings into an expansive intra-Qur8:nic exe-
gesis and cosmology. He discusses the tree primarily in his commentary
on the famous Light Verse and piecemeal across several other relevant
passages and Qur8:nic references to trees.2 Ibn Barraj:n was likely the
first Sunni exegete to draw extensively upon the treatises of the Brethren
in his tafs;r. His understanding of the cosmological tree developed into a
universalized concept that left a mark on mystical authors in the centu-
ries after him. To better contextualize Ibn Barraj:n’s exegesis, we first
offer a discussion of the key exegetical and cosmological principles that
inform his approach to the Light Verse. Next, we briefly explore how
1
A. J. Wensinck, Tree and Bird as Cosmological Symbols in Western Asia
(Amsterdam: J. Müller, 1921): 1–49, 3. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.
31924019115652. (Last accessed 25 July 2022.)
2
Some verses in the Qur8:n that cite trees include trees as vegetation (16:10–
11), the shajarat al-zaqq<m (37:62–5), the tree of eternity (shajarat al-khuld)
(20:120), the lote tree of the furthest boundary (sidrat al-muntah:) (53:14), the
good tree (shajara 3ayyiba) (14:24), and the blessed tree (al-shajara al-mub:raka)
(24:35).
N
T H E B L E S S E D T R E E I N I B N B A R R A JA 373
various interpreters up to his day had understood the blessed tree in the
Light Verse, paying close attention to both exoteric and esoteric (or
allegorical, ta8w;l) interpretations. While an exhaustive history of the
motif of the heavenly tree is beyond the scope of this article, the glimpses
offered in this broad overview provide some context to appreciate the

originality of Ibn Barraj:n’s contribution to this motif, which was not so
ubiquitous in pre-twelfth century Islamic mysticism as one might as-
sume. Following this overview, we examine Ibn Barraj:n’s commentary
on three Qur8:nic trees—the ‘good tree’ (al-shajara al-3ayyiba), the
‘blessed tree’ (al-shajara al-mub:raka), and the ‘lote tree of the furthest
boundary’ (sidrat al-muntah:)—to see how he develops his unique the-
ory of the blessed tree. In the conclusion, we will consider how this
reading of the blessed tree contributed to later readings by Ibn 6Arab;
and his school.
IBN BARRAJ2N’S SUFI METAPHYSICS AND

EXEGETICAL METHOD
Our author Ab< al-Eakam 6Abd al-Sal:m b. 6Abd al-RaAm:n b. Barraj:n

MuAammad b. 6Abd al-RaAm:n al-Lakhm; al-Ifr;q; al-Ishb;l; was likely
born in the Andalusian city of Seville sometime around 450/1058 during
the 3:8ifa period.3 While the biographical literature provides few details
concerning his education or background, it seems that he was born into a
relatively prominent family and received a comprehensive religious edu-
cation.4 He became a well-known teacher in the Islamic West of both the
inward and outward sciences. His works represent the culmination of a
unique Andalusian school of mysticism centred on the notion of i6tib:r,
or ‘crossing over’ from the visible to the unseen. Ibn Barraj:n authored
two Qur8:n commentaries. The first, titled Tanb;h al-afh:m il: tadabbur
al-Kit:b al-Aak;m wa-ta6arruf al-:y:t wa-l-naba8 al-6aC;m (‘Alerting
intellects to meditate on the wise Book and to recognize the signs and
the tremendous tiding’) is supplemented by a second, Ī@:A al-Aikma f;
aAk:m al-6ibra (Wisdom Deciphered, the Unseen Discovered).5
3
Yousef Casewit, The Mystics of al-Andalus: Ibn Barraj:n and Islamic
Thought in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2017), 92–3.
4
Ibid, 5, 104.
5
Ibn Barraj:n’s major tafs;r exists in three editions: Tanb;h al-afh:m il: tadab-
bur al-kit:b al-Aak;m wa-ta6arruf al-:y:t wa-l-naba8 al-6aC;m, al-ma6r<f bi-Tafs;r
Ibn Barraj:n (ed. F:tiA Eusn; 6Abd al-Kar;m; Amman: D:r al-N<r al-Mub;n, 5
vols., 2016); Tafs;r Ibn Barraj:n: Tanb;h al-afh:m il: tadabbur al-kit:b al-Aak;m
Structurally, these works are not verse-by-verse running commentaries
but rather tend to focus on s<ras and clusters of verses that are important
to Ibn Barraj:n’s mystical worldview. In the Ī@:A, he tends to be more
selective in his approach and often focuses on the inward dimension of
the Book. Viewing the created world as an ‘unfolding’ of the higher

planes and realities of the cosmos, Ibn Barraj:n places a high degree
of value on even the most mundane phenomena. All things trace their
origin back to loftier, more condensed, and more primordial realities.
Conversely, by tracing the cosmological threads that link worldly phe-
nomena to their heavenly origins, the contemplator (mu6tabir) can use
anything to accomplish his or her crossing-over into the unseen. The
style of his exegetical discussions can thus be characterized as purpose-
fully irregular, inspirational, and theophany-driven. Both the Tanb;h and
the Ī@:A are highly unique exegetical works guided by a set of hermen-
eutical principles which differ from the broader range of Sunni Muslim
exegetical works of the period.6
Ibn Barraj:n’s writings occur at an important crossroads in the history
of Islamic mysticism. On the one hand, they represent the culmination of
a long line of Ibn Masarra-inspired Andalusian mystical thinkers who
sometimes self-identified as Mu6tabir<n, or contemplators of the unseen,
before the rise of Almohadism largely eclipsed the tradition. On the
other hand, Ibn Barraj:n also wrote his major mystical-exegetical works
only about a half-century before Ibn 6Arab;, another native-born
Andalusian, largely overran the Eastern Muslim world’s mystical scene
with his highly influential writings. Ibn Barraj:n’s exegetical works
therefore not only grant us a valuable glimpse into the workings of
Andalusian mysticism in its heyday, but also open windows of insight
into some of the possible intellectual influences on Ibn 6Arab; during his
formative years as a youth in al-Andalus and North Africa. Through Ibn
6Arab;’s enduring influence, some of Ibn Barraj:n’s ideas left a lasting
mark on Islam’s mystical traditions.
wa-ta6arruf al-:y:t wa-l-naba8 al-6aC;m (ed. AAmad Far;d al-Mazyad;, Beirut: D:r
al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 5 vols., 2013); and al-Tafs;r al-B<f; li-l-Qur8:n li-Ab; al-
Eakam b. Barraj:n: aw Tanb;h al-afh:m il: tadabbur al-kit:b al-Aak;m wa-ta6ar-
ruf al-:y:t wa-l-naba8 al-6aC;m (ed. MuAammad al-6Adl<n;, Casablanca: D:r
al-Thaq:fa, 2 vols., 2011 [incomplete, Part 2, S<ras 17–114]). For the minor tafs;r,
see A Qur8:n commentary by Ibn Barraj:n of Seville (d. 536/1141): Ī@:A al-Aikma
bi-aAk:m al-6ibra (Wisdom Deciphered, the Unseen Discovered) (eds. Gerhard
Böwering and Yousef Casewit; Leiden: Brill, 2016); hereafter cited as Ī@:A.
6
For more on this see Yousef Casewit, ‘The hermeneutics of certainty: har-
mony, hierarchy, and hegemony of the Qur8:n’ in The Mystics of al-Andalus:
206–45.
N
Despite Ibn Barraj:n’s at times confusing style there are a number of
carefully adhered to and precise hermeneutic principles and mystical theo-
ries that can be discerned from his texts. Foremost among these is his in-
sistence on the theory of Qur8:nic harmony (naCm), i.e., that every part of
the Qur8:n is both interconnected (waBl) and thematically consistent with

every other part of the revelation. Thus, one finds in his exegesis a careful
effort to maintain thematic consistency throughout his interpretation of
entire s<ras, no matter how disconnected the :ya within a s<ra may appear
at first glance. This ‘harmonized’ approach to exegesis provides Ibn
Barraj:n’s work with an internal logical coherence. Additionally, Ibn
Barraj:n has a tendency to draw mystical theories from the Qur8:n based
on an adherence to the plain surface meaning of the text. He interprets
many of the apparently metaphorical passages of the Qur8:n in a literal
manner in order to elaborate upon his cosmological doctrines. These prin-
ciples, as we will see, play an important role in the way Ibn Barraj:n
ultimately conceives of the blessed tree.
One important and illustrative example of Ibn Barraj:n’s esoteric literal-
ism is his cosmological doctrine of the universal servant (al-6abd al-kull;).
Ibn Barraj:n operates within a hierarchical cosmological schema which has
its origins in the writings of the Brethren of Purity. At the highest level of his
order of beings we find God, the One. Standing between God and the
created world, Ibn Barraj:n posits two meta-cosmic entities. The first of
these is the universal servant which is created in the ‘form’ (B<ra) of God
and stands closer to the Divine than to the world of creation. According to
Ibn Barraj:n, this divine form is Qur8:nically referred to as kull shay8—
usually interpreted as ‘every thing’—but is read by Ibn Barraj:n as ‘the All-
Thing’ or the universal servant.7 ‘He created the All-Thing (kull shay8) and
measured it out with a measuring’ (25:2). This seemingly straightforward
verse thus provides Ibn Barraj:n with Qur8:nic inspiration for his meta-
physical doctrine. Although Ibn Barraj:n’s terminology is not as developed
or precise as the cosmological language found in the more philosophically-
inflected writings of Ibn 6Arab; and his students, the universal servant is
cosmologically comparable to the Neoplatonic First Intellect in that it is the
first descent from the Godhead. As the first all-encompassing creation of the
Creator, it is the means through which multiplicity in creation emerges from
absolute unity.8
The blessed tree which we will explore in this article is, in many
respects, the physical representation not of the universal servant, but
of the second meta-cosmic entity of Ibn Barraj:n’s system. This second
7
Ibn Barraj:n, Ī@:A, x368 (310).
8
For further readings on the universal servant, see Casewit, Mystics of al-
Andalus, 172.
meta-cosmic entity, which Ibn Barraj:n dubs ‘The reality by which cre-
ation is created’ (al-Aaqq al-makhl<q bi-hi al-khalq; henceforth:
EMBK), stands closer to the created realm and appears to be a unique
contribution by Ibn Barraj:n to Islamic metaphysics with some prece-
dent in the earlier tradition of the Brethren.9 Unlike the correlation be-

tween the universal servant and the First Intellect, the EMBK does not
directly correlate with what Ibn 6Arab; and his students call the universal
soul (al-nafs al-kulliyya). For Ibn Barraj:n, the EMBK is not some
Platonic Receptacle wherein all animate forms are created, but is rather
the sum-total of God’s presence in the world through His signs (:y:t)
and traces (:th:r) which are enfolded within the universal servant. It is
the active and actualized display of God’s signs and qualities through the
universal servant. These divine qualities across creation prefigure God’s
eschatological disclosure on Judgment Day, and impart order and struc-
ture to the cosmos.10 To better express the relationship between the
universal servant and the EMBK, we might compare the latter to a
rose-seed in which the reality of a rose exists in embryonic unity, and
the former to the fully-matured rose bush which emerges and manifests
the seed’s potentialities. The EMBK is, in other words, a perfectly har-
monious reality that manifests the even more perfect divine form
bestowed upon the universal servant. Ibn Barraj:n derives his scriptural
understanding of EMBK from the verse, ‘We did not create the heavens
and the earth [. . .] except by [or through] the Aaqq’ (44:38–9). In Ibn
Barraj:n’s writings, the EMBK plays an important role as the supreme
object of contemplation for the mystic in his ascent back to the divine,
and it is the traces of EMBK in the universe that make this ascent pos-
sible in the first place. Following these two super-entities—the universal
servant and the EMBK—Ibn Barraj:n’s hierarchical ontology continues
into many further ranks of existence, each of which can generally be
understood as ‘unfolding’ or ‘emerging out of’ the loftier levels preceding
it.11
9
See Michael Ebstein, Mysticism and Philosophy in al-Andalus: Ibn Masarra,
Ibn al-6Arab;, and the Ism:6;l; Tradition (Brill: Leiden, 2014), 46, 55–6, 72, 116,
161.
10
For further readings on the EMBK, see Casewit, Mystics of al-Andalus, 181.
11
Ibn Barraj:n’s theophany-driven method of composition gives rise not only to
the aforementioned cosmological theories but also to the rich use of mystical alle-
gory. Natural phenomena such as stars and water inform his ontological world-
view. For instance, he figuratively likens the moon to a similitude of God’s being the
‘Light of lights’ in Tanb;h al-afh:m (ed. al-Mazyad;), i. 297. Water appears as a
prominent ‘sign’ of the active principle and source of life in ibid, i. 303 and v. 246.
Another sign is the number one, which represents divine unity. See Ibn Barraj:n,
Ī@:A, x48 (100–1).
N
THE BLESSED TREE (AL-SHAJARA AL-

MUB2RAKA) AND ITS INTERPRETERS
In this section we will provide a general overview of the exegesis of the

Light Verse. Our goal here is not an exhaustive overview of the subject,
but rather to place Ibn Barraj:n’s unique interpretation of the Light
Verse in context by tracing some of the larger interpretive themes recur-
rent across the exegetical tradition. We will also see how some interpre-
tations of the Light Verse previously assumed to feature early on in the
tradition most likely did not emerge until the twelfth–thirteenth centu-
ries, with the Andalusian intellectual circles to which Ibn Barraj:n
belonged.
In turning to the subject, it is worth noting that the English word
‘tree’, which is generally used as a translation for the Arabic shajara,
is not entirely accurate. According to the Lis:n al-6arab, shajara means
simply ‘that which supports itself on a stem, trunk, or stalk’ (m: q:ma
6al: s:q) or, alternatively, ‘anything that rises by itself’ (kull m: sam: bi-
nafsihi).12 The word shajara appears in the Qur8:n in numerous con-
texts, often as a mundane reference to nature or to God’s creative power
and not always exclusively to trees. We may take, for example, verses
16:10–11 about the vital importance of water to vegetal, animal, and
human life:
He it is Who sends down water for you from the sky out of which you drink
and out of which grow the plants (shajar) on which you graze your cattle (10)
and by virtue of which He causes crops and olive trees and date-palms and
grapes and all kinds of fruit to grow for you. Surely in this there is a great sign
for those who reflect (11).
In the first verse (16:10) the plural form shajar is used to indicate the
creation of the plant life ‘on which you graze your cattle’, which suggests
grasses and shrubs. In the following verse (16:11) the Qur8:n goes on to
mention palm and olive trees and grapes and crops (zar6).
In addition to referring to ordinary plant life that sustains humans and
cattle in this world, the word shajar is used in the Qur8:n to denote
unique and supernatural trees that serve various functions in the here-
after. The shajarat al-zaqq<m (37:62), for instance, feeds the inhabitants
of hell, and its fruit is described as being shaped like the heads of devils
(37:65). Other ‘trees’ include the tree in the Garden that was forbidden
to Adam and Eve (7:20), which has been widely interpreted as ‘the tree
12
MuAammad Ibn ManC<r, Lis:n al-6Arab (Qom: Adab al-Eawza, 15 vols.,
1984), iv. 394.
of eternity’ (shajarat al-khuld) (20:120); the lote tree of the furthest
boundary (sidrat al-muntah:) (53:14) which stands at the furthest end
of the created realm; the blessed olive tree which stands as a parable of
God’s light (24:35); and the tree of beatitude (3<b:) which grows in the
Garden (13:29); and the ‘good tree (shajara 3ayyiba) which is as a good

word’ (14:24). Each of these trees has unique features, and often they
appear in Islamic literature representing religious, mystical, philosoph-
ical, and even mythical themes.13 The Persian mystic al-Suhraward;
(d. 1191) for instance creatively blends Islamic, philosophical, and mytho-
logical topoi to describe the 3<b: tree of paradise as the resting place of
the S;murgh, the phoenix of Persian legend and a symbol of divine unity in
Persian mysticism, while likening its fruits to the archetypes.14
While drawing on several of these trees to construct his theory, Ibn
Barraj:n ultimately names and conceives of the blessed tree after the
shajara al-mub:raka described in the Light Verse of 24:35. This verse
reads:
God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The likeness of His Light is as a
niche within which is a lamp, the lamp within a glass, the glass as a glittering
star lit from a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west. The oil
well-nigh glows though untouched by fire. Light upon Light. God guides to
His Light whomever He wills [and thus] does God strike examples for man-
kind, and He is the Knower of all things.
The symbolic nature of this verse presents many difficulties to its

interpreters.15 A useful overview of discussions about God as light can
be found in Gerhard Böwering’s (2001) study, ‘The light verse: Qur’anic
text and 4<f; interpretations’. The two most common themes which
13
Though, as David Waines points out, in the case of the shajarat al-3<b: and the
sidrat al-muntah:, which are both said to grow in heaven, their common character-
istics sometimes cause confusion and conflation. David Waines, ‘Tree(s)’ in Jane
Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Qur8:n (Leiden: Brill, vol. 5, 2006):
358–62, at 361.
14
Mehdi Amin Razavi, Suhrawardi and the School of Illumination (London:
Routledge, 2014 [Richmond: Curzon, 1997]), 64.
15
A trace of hermeneutic uncertainty is even detectable in modern Western
commentators like W. Hartner and T. J. de Bower, who suggest that while it is ‘clear
that we have here traces’ of gnostic imagery in this description of God’s Light,
nonetheless ‘those rationalist theologians, who—whether to avoid any comparison
of the creature with God or to oppose the fantastic mystics—interpreted the Light
of God as a symbol of His good guidance, probably diverged less from the sense of
the qKur’:n than most of the metaphysicians of Light’. W. Hartner and T. J. de Bower
art., ‘N<r’, EI2, Brill Online: 1–6, at 4, https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/
entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/nur-COM_0874. (Last accessed 25 July 2022.)
N
emerge from Böwering’s overview are, 1) God’s Light as a metaphor for
guidance and its concomitants such as religious knowledge, gnosis, and
spiritual illumination; 2) God’s creation of physical light in the universe
by way of the sun, moon, stars, and other heavenly bodies. The early Sufi
Junayd (d. 910), for instance, offers three possible interpretations for the

Light Verse: a) that God illuminated the hearts of the angels such that
they fell prostrate before Him; b) that He illuminated the hearts of the
prophets so that they knew Him with direct knowledge; and c) that He
illuminated the hearts of the believers by granting them religious know-
ledge and directing them to His worship.16 None of these interpreta-
tions, however, deal with the question here of what is meant by a
blessed tree in these verses. Referring to earlier studies by J. Horovitz,
H. Speyer, and A. J. Wensinck of the Jewish, Christian, and pre-Islamic
traditions more generally, Böwering notes merely that the concept of a
‘heavenly tree’ was commonplace in the pre-Islamic Middle East, though
it was usually placed in Jerusalem rather than Sinai as the Qur8:n sug-
gests.17 In Böwering’s words, ‘The general conclusions of all these stud-
ies. . .point to an understanding of the olive tree as a tree of heavenly
rather than terrestrial origin, whose oil is a source of both life and
light’.18
A more detailed analysis is offered by Wensinck in his aforementioned
Tree and Bird. In this study, he traces the common occurrence of a tree
representing light, life, and the divine across the whole of Middle Eastern
and Western Asian history. Wensinck notes that this motif occurs as early
as the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh, wherein the fabled king is said
to reach the eastern most point of the earth and discover a supernatural
tree composed of precious jewels, or only slightly later in the Phoenician
myth of the ever-burning olive tree in the floating city of Tyre.19
Wensinck notes similar representations of a heavenly tree of light and
life in other traditions, most often, as Böwering says, in the form of a
heavenly olive tree. Within the Jewish tradition we find this motif plainly
expressed in Zechariah 4:1–14, where the author describes a vision of a
lampstand with a gold bowl at the top, seven lamps, and two olive trees
to either side, seemingly representing the seven heavens and God.
Wensinck points out this motif also in later Arabic Christian commen-
taries on the Pentateuch where it is said that God planted the tree of life
16
Gerhard Böwering, ‘The light verse: Qur8:nic text and 4<f; interpretation’,
Oriens, 36 (2001): 113–44, at 133.
17
Ibid, 121.
18
Ibid, 121.
19
Wensinck, Tree and Bird, 3, 19.
of paradise in the east because that is where God’s Light shines most
brilliantly.20
Finally, within the Islamic tradition, while noting that the tree in ques-
tion appears to have moved to the ‘centre’ of the world rather than to the
‘east’, Wensinck nonetheless argues for the presence of the same motif in

the form of the blessed tree and the lote tree of the furthest boundary,
which he understands generally to refer to the same tree. Wensinck
points out that the lote tree/blessed tree is described as being composed
of precious jewels and metals in a fashion very similar to the tree from
the epic of Gilgamesh.21 Wensinck argues quite uniquely that, much like
the inverted tree of life described by the Zohar of Kabbala, the lote tree is
best understood as an inverted tree that grows downward toward the
world of mankind, just as the tree of zaqq<m grows upward from hell—
effectively trapping the world of man between two cosmological trees.22
Wensinck’s appraisal is at times difficult to link back to corroborating
original sources from the Islamic tradition. For instance, he provides no
source for his proposition that the lote tree of the Qur8:n is considered to
be inverted like the Tree of Life of the Zohar. Rather, Wensinck refer-
ences a prior study in German by M. Wolff while at the same time
admitting that this idea emerges ‘[i]n some traditions the origin of which
is not known to me’.23 Furthermore, while both Böwering and Wensinck
agree that the blessed tree is probably a heavenly one, a review of the
original sources shows that the mainstream Sunni view which appears to
persist throughout most works of tafs;r is that God’s being ‘the Light of
the heavens and the earth’ means simply that He creates light, while the
blessed tree symbolically refers to a centrally-positioned terrestrial olive
tree that absorbs sunlight for the entire length of the day.24 This opinion
is repeated in nearly all the mainstream Sunni tafs;rs, as well as Sufi and
20
Ibid, 5.
21
Wensinck refers here to a tradition found in al-Fabar;, related from Anas b.
M:lik. ‘‘I reached my terminus at the lote tree and verily its fruits were as jugs (al-
jir:r), its leaves as the ears of elephants (:dh:n al-fiy:la), and when it was enveloped
by that which by the command of God eveloped it it transmuted into ruby (y:q<t),
emerald (zumurrud), and the like.’’ See al-Fabar;, Tafs;r al-Fabar;: J:mi6 al-bay:n
6an ta8w;l :y al-Qur8:n (ed. 6Abd All:h b. 6Abd al-MuAsin al-Turk;; Cairo: Markaz
al-BuA<th wa-l-Dir:s:t al-6Arabiyya wa-l-Isl:miyya bi-d:r Eajar, 26 vols., 2001),
xxii. 36.
22
Wensinck, Tree and Bird, 33–5.
23
Ibid, 33.
24
The editors of The Study Quran, like Böwering and Wensinck, also suggest
that the most common view is of a ‘heavenly’ tree. Cf. Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al.,
The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary (New York:
HarperCollins, 2015), 878.
N
Shi6i ones. Of the famous early Sunni scholars the closest one finds to a
‘heavenly tree’ doctrine is in the Qur8:n commentary of Sahl al-Tustar;
(d. 896) who explicitly likens the lote tree of the furthest boundary to his
theory of the primordial MuAammadan Light, describing it as being
‘from the n<r of MuAammad’.25

A general survey of the other Sunni exegetical texts from this period
shows that aside from al-Tustar;’s tafs;r, cosmological interpretations of
the blessed tree are generally absent. Al-Fabar; (d. 923) writes simply
that this verse must refer to a tree located somewhere on the earth in
such a way that it is both fully illumined by the sun’s light as it rises from
the east in the morning and sets in the west in the evening.26 Writing a
little over a century after al-Fabar;, the Ash6ar; Sufi exegete al-Qushayr;
(d. 1074) also insists that the tree referred to in the Qur8:n as being
neither of the east nor west refers to a tree exposed to sunlight the entire
length of the day such that it produces the purest and highest quality of
oil. Al-Qushayr; does offer an additional allegorical interpretation
whereby the light upon light referred to in this verse may represent the
heart of MuAammad and the Tree, the prophet Abraham from whom
MuAammad descends and whose primordial religion he follows.27
However, this interpretation is merely allegorical, and not cosmological.
Both of these interpretations by al-Qushayr; reappear a century later in
the exegesis of the renowned theologian Fakhr al-D;n al-R:z; (d. 1210)
who like al-Qushayr; suggests in his Tafs;r al-kab;r that the blessed tree
represents either a tree situated in such a way that light from both the
east and the west strike it equally or that it metaphorically represents the
prophet Abraham, who belongs neither to the east nor the west (i.e., is
neither Jew nor Christian).28 Al-Makk; b. Ab; F:lib (d. 1045), the
25
Sahl al-Tustar;, Tafs;r al-Qur8:n al-6aC;m (eds. F:h: 6Abd al-Ra8<f Sa6d and
Sa6d Easan MuAamm:d 6Al;; Cairo: D:r al-Earam li-l Tur:th, 2004), 262.
26
al-Fabar;, Tafs;r al-Fabar; min kit:bihi J:mi6al-bay:n 6an ta8w;l :y al-Qur8:n
(eds. Bushsh:r 6Aww:d Ma6r<f and 6IB:m F:ris al-Earist:n;; Beirut: Mu8assasat al-
Ris:la, 1994), v. 427.
27
6Abd al-Kar;m al-Qushayr;, Tafs;r al-Qushayr; al-musamm: La3:8if al-
ish:r:t (eds. 6Abd al-La3;f Easan 6Abd al-RaAm:n; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-
6Ilmiyya, 2 edn., 3 vols., 2007), ii. 368. Al-Qushayr; does offer a further interpret-
ation, that the blessed tree may mean simply the heart of the true Sufi, which is
neither of the ‘East nor the West’ in the sense that it is overwhelmed neither by hope
nor fear, nor does it rest in either the East or the West, among men or jinn, but yearns
only for its return to the Beloved. Ibid.
28
Fakhr al-D;n al-R:z;, al-Tafs;r al-kab;r aw Maf:t;A al-ghayb (ed. Sayyid
6Umr:n; Cairo: D:r al-Ead;th, 16 vols., 2012), xii. 248. Al-R:z; also relates an
opinion whereby the blessed tree is understood to be heavenly. Yet he ascribes this
view not to the majority of exegetes but merely to one ‘al-Easan’ (probably al-
author of al-Hid:ya il: bul<gh al-nih:ya (‘Guidance to attaining the
utmost-degree’), a highly popular tafs;r circulating in al-Andalus prior
to Ibn Barraj:n, also references both of these opinions.29 The latter view,
however, he calls an ‘unusual opinion’ (qawl ghar;b).30 Another
Andalusian author and contemporary of Ibn Barraj:n, Ibn 6A3iyya

(d. 1147), also inclines to the view of a centrally placed olive tree in
his influential tafs;r work, al-MuAarrar al-waj;z f; tafs;r al-Kit:b al-6Az;z
(‘The correct and concise composition in exegesis of the Mighty
Book’).31
The dominant Sunni interpretation of the blessed tree which persists
into the following centuries in works such as Tafs;r al-Qur8:n al-6AC;m
by the Syrian historian Ibn Kath;r (d. 1373) and the Tafs;r al-Jal:layn of
the fifteenth-century Sunni reviver Jal:l al-D;n al-Suy<3; (d. 1505) is that
of the centrally-placed olive which absorbs light the length of the day.32
BaBr;). Furthermore, al-R:z; derides the view as ‘weak’ (@a6;f) on the grounds that
the Light Verse evokes common everyday imagery (a lamp, niche, glass, etc.) that
everybody has seen at some point in their life, yet, no living person has ever seen one
of the trees of paradise. See ibid, xii. 247.
29
Ab< MuAammad Makk; b. Ab; F:lib, al-Hid:ya il: bul<gh al-nih:ya (Sharja:
J:mi6a al-Sh:riqa, 2008), 5105–10.
30
Ibid, 5109.
31
Ab; MuAammad Ibn 6A3iyya, al-MuAarrar al-waj;z f; tafs;r al-Kit:b al-6Az;z
(ed. 6Abd al-Sal:m 6Abd al-Sh:f; MuAammad; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 6
vols., 2001), iv. 185. Adday Hernández López describes this work as a summary of
all the Andalusian exegetical works before it, and notes that it went on to become
one of the most influential tafs;r works in all North Africa. Adday Hernández
López, ‘Qur’anic studies in al-Andalus: an overview on the state of research on
qir:8:t and tafsir’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 19/3 (2017): 74–102, 82.
32
Ibn Kath;r records a number of other interesting views in his commentary as
well, such as that the blessed tree may be a tree growing in the desert where there are
no obstructions to its light or, conversely, in the middle of a forest where the light of
neither the rising nor setting sun reaches it. See Isma6;l Ibn Kath;r, Tafs;r al-Qur’:n
al-6aC;m (ed. S:m; b. MuAammad al-Sal:ma; Riyadh: D:r Fayyiba li-l Nashr wa-l
Tawz;6, 8 vols., 1997), vi. 59-60. For al-Suy<3;, see Jal:l al-D;n al-Suy<3;, Tafs;r al-
Jal:layn (ed. MuAammad 6Abd al-La3if MuAammad al-Jam:l; Mansoura: D:r al-
Far<q, 2013), 594–5. Writing as late as the nineteenth century, the Iraqi scholar
MaAm<d al-2l<s; (d. 1853) also affirms the interpretation of a centrally placed
olive that is ‘[completely] exposed to the sun (@:Aiyya li-l-shams), not shaded by a
mountain or [another] tree nor veiled from it by anything from the moment that it
rises to the moment that it sets, that being the best [conditions] for its oil’.
Interestingly, al-2l<s; suggests that the minority view of a heavenly tree arises
from a misunderstanding of Easan al-BaBr;’s commentary. While Easan al-BaBr;
did reject that the blessed tree refers to a tree on earth, as al-2l<s; reports, that is
because al-BaBr; held that the blessed tree exists purely as an allegory (mathal) used
N
Shi6i interpretations of the Light Verse from this period closely parallel
those of their Sunni colleagues. Where these do diverge, predictably they
do so in ways that serve to emphasize the preeminence of the Prophet’s
family. The Shi6i exegete 6Al; ibn Ibr:h;m al-Qumm; (d. 919) for instance
interprets the ‘niche’ to represent F:3ima, the ‘lamp’ Easan and Eusayn,

and the ‘light upon light’ the succession of Im:ms after them. As for the
blessed tree itself, al-Qumm; reaffirms the interpretation of al-Qushayr;
and al-R:z; that it is a metaphor for the prophet Abraham, who is
‘Neither of the east nor the west’, i.e., neither Christian nor Jewish.33
Writing five centuries later, the Shi6i scholar NiC:m al-D;n al-N;s:b<r;
(d. 1328) so closely follows al-R:z;’s exegesis of the Light Verse that his
opinion at times seems copied over from the latter’s text.34
It is not until we turn to the works of Islamic philosophers that we
encounter novel interpretations of the Light Verse which fall outside
these themes, and which appear to provide the backdrop to Ibn
Barraj:n’s own reading of it.35 A cosmological reading of the Light
Verse appears for instance throughout the Epistles of the Brethren of
Purity, where God’s Light assumes a more direct role as the creative
energy of the Universal Soul.36
As to His saying ‘. . . the likeness of His Light’—that is, [the light of] the Active
Intellect, namely, the first originated being [He] originated (awwal mubda6
abda6ahu)—‘is as a niche’—the Universal Soul proceeding (al-munba6atha)
from Him, enlightened (al-mu@;8a) by the Intellect’s light just as the niche is
by the Qur8:n. See MaAm<d al-2l<s;, R<A al-ma6:n; f; tafs;r al-Qur’:n al- 6AC;m
wa-l-sab6al-math:n; (Beirut: D:r IAy:8 al-Tur:th al-6Arab;, 30 vols. in 15, 2nd edn.,
ca. 1970), xviii. 168.
33
6Al; ibn Ibr:h;m al-Qumm;, Tafs;r al-Qumm; (ed. Fayyib al-M<s:w; al-
Jaz:8ir;; Qom: Mu8assasat D:r al-Kit:b li-l-Fib:6a wa-l-Nashr, 2 vols., 3rd edn.,
1967), ii. 104.
34
Like al-R:z;, al-N;s:b<r; notes the opinion of al-Easan al-BaBr; that the bless-
ed tree is heavenly before refuting this as ‘weak’ on the grounds that no one has ever
seen a tree of paradise, while the verse generally refers to common items people are
familiar with. See NiC:m al-D;n al-N;s:b<r;, Tafs;r ghar:8ib al-Qur8:n wa-ragh:8ib
al-furq:n (ed. Zakariyy: 6Umayr:t; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 30 vols. in 6,
1996), v. 196.
35
As late as the twentieth century, the modern Shi6i scholar MuAammad al-
Fab:3ab:8; (d. 1981) reaffirms the view that the blessed tree is a centrally-placed
olive and explicitly rejects the view of it being heavenly as not following from the
context of the verse. MuAammad al-Fab:3ab:8;, al-M;z:n f; tafs;r al-Qur8:n
(Beirut: Mu8assasa al-A6lam; li-l Ma3b<6:t, 22 vols., 1997), xv. 124.
36
Carmela Baffioni, ‘Metaphors of light and the ‘‘Verse of Light’’ in the Brethren
of Purity’ in Peter Adamson (ed.), In the Age of al-F:r:b;: Arabic Philosophy in the
Fourth/Tenth Century (London: Warburg Institute, 2008): 163–77, at 168.
illuminated by the light of the ‘lamp’ irradiated (al-mushriq) by God’s Light;
and the ‘glass’ is the First Matter, diaphanous, illumined (al-mu@;8a) from the
Soul’s emanation (fay@) onto it, diffused (yasr;) in it like the Intellect’s eman-
ation on to the Soul, ‘as it were a glittering star’, [namely] the abstract form,
rendered a star (al-mukawkaba) by the essential lights, ‘kindled from a Blessed

Tree, an olive that is neither of the East nor of the West’, [namely,] the
Universal Soul, endowed with the three factions (fur<6), giver of life and move-
ment to all the existing beings. . ..37
The cosmological interpretation of the Brethren parallels in many

respects Ibn Barraj:n’s own later exegesis, which suggests some influence
given that Ibn Barraj:n is known to have read their Epistles. In correlating
‘light’ to ‘intellect’ the Brethren follow in the footsteps of al-Kind; (d. 866)
and the Aristotelian tradition.38 Not surprisingly, the chief of the Islamic
philosophers, Ibn S;n: (d. 1037), continued in this vein by concluding that
the Light Verse is a metaphor for the intellect. The ‘niche’ represents the
material intellect (al-6aql al-hay<l:n;), God’s light the actual intellect (al-
6aql bi-l-fi6l), the ‘lamp’ the acquired intellect after it has been actualized
(al-6aql al-mustaf:d bi-l-fi6l), the ‘glass’ an intermediary rank between
these, and the ‘blessed tree’ the cogitative faculty (al-quwwa al-fikriyya)
which animates all the prior intellectual activity.39
37
Ibid, 174.
38
Aristotle in the De Anima speaks of an intellect that ‘makes all things [panta
poiein]’ in the same way that light makes potentially existing colours actual. For al-
Kind;’s view, see Jules Janssens, ‘Al-Kindi: the founder of philosophical exegesis of
the Qur’an’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 9/2 (2007): 1–21, at 12. For al-Kind;’s
reading of the relevant sections of De Anima, see Peter Adamson, Al-Kind; (New
york: Oxford University Press, 2007), 119–20.
39
Ibn S;n:, Tis6 ras:8il f; al-Aikma wa-l-3ab;6iyy:t (Cairo: Ma3ba6a Hindiyyah,
1908), 126–7. It is also worth noting that in an alternate manuscript purportedly by
Ibn S;n:, of which only one copy survives, the author likens the blessed tree to the
body (jism) of the Prophet in language more commensurate with the prevailing
orthodox interpretation. See Easan 62B;, al-Tafs;r al-Qur8:n; wa-l-lugha al-B<fiyya
f; al-falsafat Ibn S;n: (Beirut: al-Mu8assasa al-J:mi6iyya li-l-Dir:s:t wa-l-Nashr
wa-l-Tawz;6, 1983), 87. For an overview of Ibn S;n:’s exegesis of the Light Verse
throughout both treatises, see Jules Janssens, ‘Avicenna and the Qur’:n: a survey of
his Qur’:nic commentaries’, MIDEO, 25–6 (2004): 177–92, at 183. See also
MuAammad 6Abd al-Haq, ‘Ibn S;n:’s interpretation of the Qur:n’, Islamic
Quarterly, 32/1 (1988): 46–56; and Daniel De Smet and Meryem Sebti,
‘Avicenna’s philosophical approach to the Qur’an in the light of his Tafs;r S<rat
al-Ikhl:B’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 11/2 (2009): 134–48. Likely drawing on
Ibn S;n:’s interpretation, al-Ghaz:l; (d. 1111) also offers a similar view in his
well-known treatise dedicated to the Light Verse, the Mishk:t al-anw:r (Niche
for Lights), where he takes divine light to denote the intellect and each
N
As Godefroid de Callatäy has shown, the theme of ‘upside-down
plants’ occupies a distinctive place in the Epistles of the Brethren of
Purity, even though they do not explicitly link the idea to their exegesis
of the Light Verse.40 Most likely the Brethren adopted this theme from
Aristotle, who argues that the downward-growing motion of plants is

due neither to the element of fire nor earth in them, but rather the power
of the soul.41 Just as the human being’s mind and soul stretch upward to
heaven, the plant’s soul and mind rests in its roots which, conversely,
grow downwards away from heaven. For the Brethren in their Epistles,
this downward-motion of the vegetative-soul is the ‘Inverted Path’ (Bir:3
mank<s), which is among the first rungs to be climbed in the soul’s ascent
along the Cosmic Ladder.42 Possibly influenced by the Brethren, this
theme also makes its way into the ‘Treatise on Contemplation’
(Ris:lat al-i6tib:r) of Ibn Masarra, a definite precursor to Ibn Barraj:n.
Here, Ibn Masarra argues that the letter alif corresponds to the upright
posture and spiritual superiority of the human being, the letter w:w to
exemplification of the Light to be a level of consciousness, the ‘Tree’ being the

ratiocinative spirit, and its ‘oil’ the knowledge of the prophets and saints which
almost shines forth innately from them. See Ab< E:mid al-Ghaz:l;, Mishk:t al-
anw:r f; tawA;d al-Jabb:r (ed. Sam;A Dughaym; Beirut: D:r al-Fikr al-Lubn:n;,
1994), 85. Al-Ghaz:l;’s tafs;r of the light verse is examined in depth by W. H. T.
Gairdner, from whom we also borrow the phrase ‘ratiocinative spirit’ as a transla-
tion for the Arabic term al-r<A al-fikr;. See al-Ghazz:l;’s Mishk:t al-anw:r: The
Niche for Lights (transl. W. H. T. Gairdner; first published as Monograph Vol. XIX
by the Royal Asiatic Society; London: 1924), 152–4, www.ghazali.org/books/mis
hkat/msh18.htm. (Last accessed 25 July 2022) Gairdner also discusses the critical
accusation leveled at al-Ghaz:l; by Ibn Rushd, that his view is the same as al-F:r:b;
and Ibn S;n: in W. H. T. Gairdner, ‘Al-Ghaz:l;’s Mishkat al-Anw:r and the Ghaz:l;
Problem’, Der Islam, 5 (1914): 121–53, at 133, www.ghazali.org/articles/
Gairdner.PDF. (Last accessed 25 July 2022.) This accusation of a double epistem-
ology which Gairdner dubs ‘the Ghazali problem’ is discussed in a much more
recent work by Alexander Treiger where the author convincingly demonstrates
the strong similarities between al-Ghaz:l; and Ibn S;n:’s handling of the Light
Verse, suggesting that the former borrowed from the latter. See Alexander
Treiger, Inspired Knowledge in Islamic Thought: al-Ghaz:l;’s theory of Mystical
Cognition and Its Avicennian Foundation (London: Routledge, 2012), 75–7.
40
See Godefroid de Callata€y, ‘Philosophy and B:3inism in al-Andalus: Ibn
Masarra’s Ris:lat al- I6tib:r and the Ras:8il Ikhw:n al-Baf:8’, Jerusalem Studies
in Arabic and Islam, 41 (2014): 261–312, at 276–7.
41
Aristotle, De Anima, II.4, 415b28–416a9 (Parva naturalia: on breath, ed. and
transl. W. S. Hett; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957). Quoted in
Godefroid de Callata€y, ‘Philosophy and B:3inism’, 276–7.
42
Ibid, 278.
the curved posture and middling-status of the animal soul, and the letter
y:8 to the vegetative soul which bows its head solely to the earth (li8anna
ra8sahu mimm: yal; al-ar@ faqa3), like plants.43
Yet even for the Brethren and these other philosophical authors, we
can see that the blessed tree is still heavenly only in an abstract and

metaphorical sense as a symbol for the Active Intellect, and not yet as
an actual cosmological tree (inverted or otherwise) as Wensinck
describes.44 While the blessed tree as ‘heavenly’ does not generally ap-
pear to represent a common view before the twelfth century, the doctrine
of a heavenly tree does emerge from the esoteric fringes of the Islamic
tradition beginning after the thirteenth century. Wensinck already men-
tioned one important source for this, being the inverted tree of life
described at length in the Zohar and later to become one of the major
mystical symbols of Judaism. While admittedly the Zohar is a major text
of Jewish mysticism and not, strictly speaking, Islamic, it is still signifi-
cant that its author Moses de León (d. 1305) hailed from the Iberian
Peninsula where he would presumably have come into contact with
Islamic mystical thought.45 The theme of a heavenly tree also features
prominently in the writings of Ibn 6Arab; (d. 1240), as we will discuss
more in detail later. Ibn 6Arab; discusses this motif in at least two texts,
Shajarat al-kawn (‘The tree of the cosmos’) and Ris:lat al-ittiA:d al-
kawn; (‘A treatise on cosmic unification’). In the former for instance
he writes:
I looked to the cosmos (kawn) and its fashioning, as well as the concealed
realm (makn<n) and its composition (tadw;n), and I saw that the cosmos in its
43
Pilar Garrido Clemente, ‘Edición crı́tica del K. Jaw:BB al-Aur<f de Ibn
Masarra’, Al-Andalus-Magreb, 14 (2007): 51–89, at 67, ll. 2–5. Quoted in
Godefroid de Callata€y, ‘Philosophy and B:3inism’, 282.
44
Even in works of popular cosmology from this period, such as Zakariyy: al-
Qazw;n;’s (d. 1283) 6Aj:8ib al-makhl<q:t wa-l-Aayaw:n:t wa-ghar:8ib al-
mawj<d:t (‘The marvels of created things and oddities of existent beings’) in which
myriad supernatural and fantastical entities are described, we do not find any hint
of the doctrine of a heavenly tree. Al-Qazw;n; merely praises the olive tree for being
called blessed (mub:rak) by the Qur8:n in his section on plants, in keeping with the
more mainstream exegeses of the light verse. Al-Qazw;n;, 6Aj:8ib al-makhl<q:t wa-
l-Aayaw:n:t wa-ghar:8ib al-mawj<d:t (Beirut: Mu8assasat al-A6l: li-l-Ma3b<6:t,
2000), 213.
45
For more on the cross-semination of Andalusian Islamic and Jewish mystical
thought see Avishai Bar-Asher, ‘The ontology, arrangement, and appearance of
paradise in Castilian kabbalah in light of contemporary Islamic traditions from
al-Andalus’, Religions, 11 (2020): 41-52. Online: https://doi.org/10.3390/
rel11110553. (Last accessed 25 July 2022.)
N
entirety was a tree (shajara), and that the source of its light was the ‘seed’
(Aabba) [of the divine command] ‘Be!’46
Emerging from the same Andalusian context and drawing on these
earlier themes by the Brethren, it would appear that Ibn Barraj:n was

among the earliest authors to shift from the discussion of a terrestrial
olive tree in Syria to a heavenly tree of cosmological import. Yet in his
approach to the Light Verse Ibn Barraj:n also significantly differs from
the other authors we have seen. Unlike Sufis such as al-Qushayr; who
offered their esoteric interpretations in complement to the standard exo-
teric reading, Ibn Barraj:n altogether rejects the prevailing interpretation
of the blessed tree as referring to a terrestrial olive. Again unlike philo-
sophical exegetes such as the Brethren or Ibn S;n:, Ibn Barraj:n is averse
to interpreting the text in a purely metaphorical manner. He proposes
instead a wholly different reading of the text aligned with his mystical
and exegetical theories, at the conclusion of which the blessed tree is
reconfigured as a real cosmological tree representing the EMBK. In so
doing, Ibn Barraj:n largely prefigures Ibn 6Arab;’s own mystical turn. To
better understand how Ibn Barraj:n accomplishes this, in the following
sections we trace his thought process as he applies his unique hermen-
eutic theories across three separate Qur8:nic trees: the good tree (al-
shajara al-3ayyiba), the blessed tree (al-shajara al-mub:raka), and the
lote tree of the furthest boundary (sidrat al-muntah:).
THE GOOD TREE (AL-SHAJARA AL-FAYYIBA)
To follow Ibn Barraj:n’s line of thought as he constructs this theory of

the blessed tree it is useful to begin with his exegesis of a ‘good tree
which is as a good word’ introduced in Qur8:n 14:24–7. Whereas most
exegetes understand the good tree mentioned in 14:24–7 and the blessed
tree mentioned in the Light Verse as two independent entities, in keeping
with his hermeneutic principles of Qur8:nic harmony (naCm) and eso-
teric literalism, as well as his larger ontological system, Ibn Barraj:n
links these two verses together to paint a masterful and consistent por-
trait of a single cosmological tree rooted in the very heart of existence—
the EMBK. The Qur8:n introduces the allegory of ‘a good tree’ in
14:24–7:
46
Ibn 6Arab;, Shajarat al-kawn (ed. 6Abd All:h Riyy:@ MuB3af:; Beirut: D:r al-
6Alim, 2nd edn., 1985), 41–2. For discussion of the universal tree in the second text,
see Ibn 6Arab;, The Universal Tree and the Four Birds: Treatise on Unification (al-
Ittih:d al-kawn;) (transl. Angela Jaffray; Oxford: Anqa Publishing, 2006), 36–7.
Have you not seen how God strikes for you the example of ‘a good word’
(kalima 3ayyiba), whose likeness is as a good tree (shajara 3ayyiba), whose
trunk is firmly fixed (th:bit) and whose branches are in the sky? You consume
its fruits every moment (kull A;n) by the permission of your Lord, and verily,
God does strike examples so that perhaps mankind will remember.

By far the most prevalent interpretation of this verse which can be
found for instance in the commentaries of al-Suy<3; and al-Tustar;
describes the ‘good tree’ simply as a palm tree (nakhla).47 Al-R:z;
informs us in his Tafs;r al-kab;r quoting from Ibn 6Abb:s that the ma-
jority of commentators up to and including his time understood the
‘good tree’ in this way, with the ‘good word’ of this verse referring to
the proclamation of divine unity, l: il:ha ill: Ll:h.48 Beginning his own
commentary of these verses Ibn Barraj:n first acknowledges the plain
sense interpretation circulant among the broader tradition, admitting
that it easily follows from the several well-known Aad;ths in which the
Prophet likens the sincere believing Muslim to the palm tree on account
of the many positive attributes the two share.49 Ibn Barraj:n’s own view,
however, is that this interpretation falls short of the true purport of the
text. Noting that verse 14:25 concludes by exhorting mankind to ‘re-
member’ (yatadh:kkar<n), Ibn Barraj:n argues that if the intended tree
in this verse was the palm tree then what would have been sought of us
47
See al-Suy<3;, Tafs;r al-Jal:layn, 330; and al-Tustar;, Tafs;r al-Qur8:n, 176.
48
al-R:z;, al-Tafs;r al-kab;r, x. 111. A slightly more symbolic interpretation can
be found in tafs;rs like that of al-Qushayr;, who suggests that the tree here be
understood as a parable for gnosis (ma6rifa) and faith (;m:n), the roots being a
metaphor for a solid faith built on gnosis and intellectual proofs, and the ascending
branches a metaphor for the pious actions that occur as a result. This commentary is
incidentally strongly argued for by al-R:z;. See al-Qushayr;, Tafs;r al-Qushayr;,
122 and al-R:z;, al-Tafs;r al-kab;r, x. 110. Only one interpreter, al-Daylam;
(d. 1037), draws a correspondence between this good tree and the blessed tree in
the Light Verse. See Böwering, ‘The Light Verse’, 141–2.
49
Ibn Barraj:n, Tanb;h (ed. al-Mazyad;), iii. 235. As for these Aad;ths, one
occurs for example in 4aA;A al-Bukh:r;, where Ibn 6Umar narrates that ‘God’s
Messenger said, ‘‘Amongst the trees, there is a tree, the leaves of which do not
fall and is like a Muslim. Tell me the name of that tree’’. Everybody started thinking
about the trees of the desert areas. And I thought of the date-palm tree but felt shy to
answer the others then asked, ‘‘What is that tree, O Messenger of God?’’ He replied,
‘‘It is the date-palm tree’’ ’. MuAammad al-Bukh:r;, 4aA;A al-Bukh:r; (transl.
Muhammad Muhsin Khan; Riyadh: Darusallam Publishers and Distributors, 9
vols., 1997), i. 90. It is also worth noting that from the perspective of this inter-
pretation, the good tree has an opposite—the cursed tree (al-shajara al-mal6<na) —
mentioned in vi. 192. Ibn Barraj:n interprets this tree as Ibl;s. Ibn Barraj:n, Tanb;h
(ed. al-Mazyad;), iii. 402.
N
in this verse is to ‘know’ (6ilm) and not to ‘remember’ (tadhakkur). He
offers by way of example for this distinction the Aad;th often referenced
by other exegetes when interpreting 14:25, wherein the Prophet states to
his Companions that there exists a tree whose likeness is as the believer
and asks them to inform him which one it was (to which they correctly

replied, ‘the date-palm’). In this instance, Ibn Barraj:n argues, the
Prophet acted as an instructor who tests his Companions’ knowledge
(6ilm) and understanding (fahm).50 Yet unlike in this Aad;th, 14:25 clear-
ly states that God wishes mankind to ‘remember’ (la6alla al-n:s yatad-
kakkar<n) and not merely to ‘know’. The difference, in Ibn Barraj:n’s
view, is that the act of remembering (tidhk:r) is more closely synonym-
ous with the mystical act of contemplation or crossing-over (i6tib:r).
Thus, the parable in this verse must refer to loftier forms of knowledge
of the unseen world and not merely to material forms like the
date-palm.51
Following this rebuttal Ibn Barraj:n concludes that the likeness of this
good tree is none other than the EMBK.52 He reasons that while God
does proclaim that ‘[The good tree’s] root is firmly fixed and its branches
are in the sky’, He does not specifically say that ‘its roots are firmly fixed
in the earth’. This suggests that its origin is in fact from His side (min
ladunihi), from His Names and Attributes. Rather than an earthly date-
palm, Ibn Barraj:n concludes that this tree, like the blessed tree, is nei-
ther of the east or the west, nor of the north or south. Rather it is the
very ‘Tree of Truth’ (shajarat al-Aaqq)— a heavenly entity that branches
out (al-mutafarri6a) into all that the EMBK itself brings into being. If the
date-palm is the likeness of the common believer, then in Ibn Barraj:n’s
view this good tree represents both the Tree of Truth and the human
being intended in the verse, ‘verily, we have created man upon the best
form’ (95:4) or in the Prophet’s saying ‘God created Adam in the form of
the All-Merciful’.53 It is directly connected to the command of God, the
Creator of the heavens and earth, and it is also His Light in the heavens
and earth.54 As Ibn Barraj:n explains:
50
Ibid, 237.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid, 238.
53
Ibid.
54
It is important to note that this last quote does not feature in the Mazyad;
edition of the text and only occurs in the F:tiA Eusn; 6Abd al-Kar;m edition, where
Ibn Barraj:n offers a slightly different account centring on an apparent dual inter-
pretation. Ibn Barraj:n opens the section (faBl) in this edition by arguing that the
good tree refers not to the EMBK but to the Tree of Beatitude (3<b:) and the other
lesser-ranking trees of paradise. However, Ibn Barraj:n also argues that ‘in relation
This is the blessed tree, whose roots God established in the innate human
disposition (fi3ra), whose branches He manifested in the revealed Law, whose
realities He firmly affixed within the deepest part of the heart through faith
and submission, and whose uppermost parts He raised into the heavens
through [the believer’s beautiful] deeds and obedience, such that it connects

with the Clear Truth (al-Aaqq al-mub;n) [i.e., God’s full disclosure on
Judgment Day] and sanctified (taqaddasat) His Attributes and Names. For
that reason, He said ‘and God strikes parables for mankind so that they might
remember’ (14:25) meaning, that they might remember the source (al-mun-
ba6ath) [of the blessed tree, i.e., God Himself].55
When we pay close attention to the precise terminology that Ibn

Barraj:n uses in his exegesis of the good tree—such as his assertion
that the good tree is ‘neither of the East nor the West’ and that it is
God’s highest Light—it is clear that he reads this parable in 14:23 in light
of the Light Verse (24:35). The exegesis of the former is arrived at by Ibn
Barraj:n by assuming a link (waBl) between the two verses based on the
common theme (i.e., principle of thematic harmony discussed earlier) of
a heavenly tree.
THE BLESSED TREE (AL-SHAJARA

AL-MUB2RAKA)
Ibn Barraj:n’s commentary on 24:35 itself is lengthy, inspired as he un-

doubtedly was by the Light Verse’s allegorical richness to offer a number
of different interpretations for the symbols therein. What is apparent
overall from Ibn Barraj:n’s discussion is that he bases his corres-
pondence between the blessed olive tree of this verse and the EMBK
of his own cosmological programme on a literal reading of it in the
opening line of this verse: ‘God is the Light of the heavens and the earth’.
to existence’ (al-wuj<d) the good tree does refer to the EMBK and is directly
connected to the command (amr) of God. Strangely, this edition of the text retains
the argument that since the Qur8:n does not specify where the good tree is firmly
established we should assume its roots are planted in the Divine Presence—a thesis
which seems to preclude the good tree being one of the trees of paradise. It is
possible, in light of this contradiction, that this edition’s dual-interpretation is a
later interpolation. Alternatively, we may also reconcile this seeming contradiction
if we consider (as we will see in the coming sections) how many of the Qur8:nic trees
ultimately collapse in Ibn Barraj:n’s theory into the same cosmological tree, and
assume that the tree of beatitude is also one of these. See Ibn Barraj:n, Tanb;h al-
afh:m (ed. 6Abd al-Kar;m), iii. 1299–1301.
55
Ibid, 1301.
N
While this can be interpreted to mean simply that He is the One who
illuminates the heavens and earth by creating sensory light sources like
the sun and allegorical light sources like prophecy, Ibn Barraj:n ultim-
ately derives his exegesis by affirming quite literally that God is the Light
of this world, and the light source for all other lights that appear in the

created universe.
Just as God has a garden in paradise from which the gardens of earth
descend, Ibn Barraj:n explains that the traces or effects (:th:r) of His
Light descend to the heavens and the earth where it indwells in the plants
and animals.56 In the course of his exegesis of these light metaphors,
light itself inevitably takes on existential implications. As Ibn Barraj:n
explains,
Just as He is the Creator of the world, and no creator exists besides Him, and
is the Lord of lords, and no such Lord exists other than Him, and is the God of
all things besides which there is no god—likewise, He is the Most Sublime
Light (al-n<r al-a6l:), the Light of light and Light of [all other] lights. Thus, all
that illumines the luminous things (an:rat al-nayyir:t) is gathered together
within His Light, and it is He who illumines all the higher and lower lights by
the Light of His Sublime Existence (wuj<duhu al-6al;) . . . There is no light or
existence other than His, and on account of that He is the First in all existent
things, as well as the Last in them, the Manifest (C:hir) and the Nonmanifest
(b:3in). He is the One that upholds all things by His Sublime Light (al-qayy<m
6al: kull shay8 n<ruhu al-6al;) and stretches out every light [from His own].
From Him originates every light, level after level, from the great divine Throne
(al-6arsh) to the very end of existence, the high and the low [from these lights].
‘Those who lied about Our signs, they are deaf, dumb, and blind, in darkness.
Whosoever God wills He leads astray and whosoever He wills, He places him
upon the straight path’ (6:39).57
In spite of the apparent monism suggested by his interpretation in

these verses, in the final analysis Ibn Barraj:n is no monist—at least,
not in the pantheistic sense that critics often attribute to Ibn 6Arab; and
the school of the Oneness of Being. Unlike those Sufis who thought
largely within the framework of Ibn 6Arab;’s teachings, Ibn Barraj:n is
keen to maintain a clear divine/created dichotomy. In this spirit, the
pivot of his cosmology is the EMBK, which acts as the intermediary
between the Divine and creation, existing on the form of the former
while engendering the latter upon its own reality (Aaqq). While Ibn
Barraj:n writes that God does indeed ‘unite’ the light of all beings
56
Ibn Barraj:n, Tanb;h (ed. al-Mazyad;), iv. 91–2.
57
Ibid, 149.
with His own Light, ultimately, he is careful to affirm that this is only
done through the mediation of the EMBK. As Ibn Barraj:n writes,
[Furthermore,] it is understood from His saying, ‘God is the Light of the
heavens and the earth’ a verification of God’s unification through the light

of all existent things. God says: ‘Praise be to God who created the heavens and
the earth’, meaning: He created them and everything in between according to
the Eaqq, just as He created everything that rises above and everything that
sinks below to the furthest boundary. He created all of that according to the
Eaqq, and brought it into existence for the Eaqq.58
Thus, at the conclusion of this elaborate cosmological discourse in
which numerous verses are brought into play according to the aforemen-
tioned principles of waBl, interconnectivity and naCm, thematic har-
mony, as well as interpreted along hyper-literal lines, Ibn Barraj:n
establishes that what is meant by ‘His Light’ in these verses is none other
than the EMBK. This move opens the doors of interpretive licence for
Ibn Barraj:n to creatively establish the correspondence between the
EMBK—represented by God’s Light in this verse—and the blessed tree
as the ultimate source of divine Light within a hierarchy of exemplifica-
tions of Light in the form of the niche (mishk:t), the lamp (miBb:A), the
glass container (zuj:ja), and the blessed olive tree (shajara mub:raka
zayt<na). Ibn Barraj:n offers a range of interpretations for this hier-
archy, most of which pivot on the central idea that the likeness (mathal)
of the oil of the olive tree and the olive tree itself are the EMBK. For the
EMBK’s root (aBl) is fixed in a place that transcends spatial direction-
ality; it is neither of the east nor the west, just like the olive tree. As for
the EMBK,
Its branches are dispersed across the farthest regions of the cosmos, and it
encompasses the worlds of creation and the command (al-khalq wa-l-amr),
‘bringing forth fruit every moment by the permission of its Lord’ (Q. 14:25)
each time the discerning individual reflects upon it, the rememberer remem-
bers it, or acts in fulfillment of what God commanded in the Book and the
Sunna of the Messenger.59
To give an example of one of these other interpretive standpoints, Ibn

Barraj:n likens God’s Light to the blessed tree itself, while considering
the oil within the blessed tree as an analogy for prophecy and revela-
tion.60 For prophecy functions as an oil in the sense that ‘its oil well-nigh
58
Ibid, 148.
59
Ibid. 149–50.
60
Ibid, 465–7. A similar discussion of the blessed tree’s relationship (or equiva-
lency) with the intellect (6aql) can be found in Ibn Barraj:n’s commentary on the
N
casts lights, even if it has not been touched by fire’. The EMBK similarly
dazzles the sight and confounds the seers even if their thoughts do not
touch it with the flames (n;r:n) of their intellects—and it (the EMBK) is
something only lighted upon (yustakhraj) after hard work and effort.
Likewise, one does not comprehend the meanings of what was revealed

through prophecy, nor encompass the lights of Truth in the EMBK,
except after expending much thought, traversing the crossing points
(i6tib:r al-6ibar), and utilizing one’s intellect and remembrance. This par-
able is further expanded in a later section, where Ibn Barraj:n writes that
if we consider God’s guidance, signs, and evidences, then He is the Light,
and the world in its entirety is like a house filled with lamps (sing. sir:j),
lights (a@w:8), and luminous things (nayyir:t), by which the entities
within the house are made visible.61 Ibn Barraj:n suggests that we im-
agine the oil by which the Lamp (sir:j) is lit as the source (munba6ath) for
these other lights and the blessed olive tree as an exemplification
(mathal) of the EMBK. After all, ‘guidance is one of the functions’
(af:6;l) of light.
For Ibn Barraj:n the Light Verse takes on multiple layers of meaning,
the most important of which emerge from a literal reading. Other inter-
pretations of the metaphorical kind are also embraced by Ibn Barraj:n—
so long as they do not impinge upon the overarching thematic harmony
which underlies the Qur8:nic text. For these additional metaphorical
interpretations, Ibn Barraj:n’s exegetical principle of interconnectivity
(waBl), as well as his general tendency to weave Qur8:nic themes into his
greater cosmological system, continue to play fundamental roles. The
correspondence between guidance and light in Ibn Barraj:n’s thought,
for instance, which parallels the more mainstream interpretations of this
verse considered earlier, is expanded in Ibn Barraj:n’s exegesis to include
a discussion of the Qur8:nic ‘straight path’ (al-Bir:3 al-mustaq;m) as
being a part of the EMBK. Ibn Barraj:n suggests that the ‘straight
path’ is synonymous with the blessed tree, which is ‘connected to the
reality of the Real (Aaq;qat al-Aaqq) both in this world and the next’. Its
roots—that of the Bir:3 al-mustaq;m and the shajara mub:raka—are in
divinity (al-ul<hiyya), and its branches are dictates (muqta@ay:t) of the
Names which are dispersed across existence (tafaBBalat f; al-wuj<d).62 In
one last act of interconnecting (waBl) Ibn Barraj:n redirects his discourse
Divine Names. See Ibn Barraj:n, SharA asm:8 All:h al-Ausn: (ed. AAmad Far;d al-
Mazyad;; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 2 vols., 2010), i. 357. Trees as mystical
symbols are discussed elsewhere in this text as well. On trees and the human body,
see ibid, 75. On trees as an articulation of unity and plurality, see ibid, 263.
61
Ibn Barraj:n, Tanb;h (ed. al-Mazyad;), iv. 146.
62
Ibid, iii. 222.
more personally to the believers by comparing the light of the Tree to the
light of pure God-consciousness (taqw:). As the Qur8:n declares in
24:34, the verse immediately preceding that of light, such parables are
offered for the benefit of the truly God-fearing: ‘And We have certainly
sent down to you distinct verses and examples from those who passed on

before you and an admonition for the God-conscious (maw6iCatan li-l-
muttaq;n)’. On this, Ibn Barraj:n writes,
For the spirit (r<A) of the God-conscious person contains a spiritual force that
revives the life of faith. By virtue of their piercing inner vision and the purity of
their inner reality, He illuminates for them the existence of existent things.
This is because of the conjoining of the light of the Real, through which
existent things exist, with the lights of their inner reality, along with the
conjoining of the illuminating rays of their reflective powers, drawn from
the fuel of their faith-lamps. The fuel, for its part, is created from the pure
oil of the blessed olive tree, the tree of the reality upon which they are created,
and upon which the heavens and the earth and everything in between were
created, and which subsists between just balance and divine bounty, with its
roots fixed in no-where, ‘neither of the East nor the West’. [. . .] ‘Its oil almost
shines’ in the purity of the glass containers (zuj:j:t) of their hearts, on account
of their piercing intelligence, burning alight, without touching the flames of
their conscious thoughts due to the strength of their faith-lamps in the cham-
bers of their breasts. For these themselves are lit by the suns of certainty, which
illuminate the inner chambers of their hearts and their exterior limbs.63
THE LOTE TREE OF THE FURTHEST

BOUNDARY (SIDRAT AL-MUNTAH2)
The final Qur8:nic tree that is important to consider in Ibn Barraj:n’s

construction of his theory of the blessed tree is the lote tree of the fur-
thest boundary (sidrat al-muntah:) introduced in Q. 53:14. Surprisingly,
despite the lote tree’s preeminently cosmological character Ibn Barraj:n
makes no reference to it in his commentary on the Light Verse’s blessed
tree. When we consider his commentary of the lote tree itself, however,
we are left with good reason to believe that for Ibn Barraj:n the lote tree
is also synonymous with the blessed tree and therefore the EMBK.
While he focuses very little on the lote tree in his earlier work the
Tanb;h, discussing instead the broader context of the Prophet’s night
journey and heavenly ascent (al-isr:8 wa-l-mi6r:j), a much more robust
63
Ibid, iv. 144–5.
N
discussion of the lote tree can be found in Ibn Barraj:n’s later commen-
tary, the Ī@:A. Here, the lote tree features as a symbol for both God’s
self-disclosure (tajall;) and the ultimate degree of knowledge that can be
achieved in the created realm.
Like most exegetes, Ibn Barraj:n understands the lote tree as standing at

the very edge of the universe—hence its moniker, of the furthest boundary.
Below it stand the seven heavens that comprise the malak<t and above it,
the realms of the spirit (al-r<A) and the command (al-amr), which give way
finally to the invincible realm of the attributes (jabar<t) and the Holy
Cloud (al-saA:b al-quds).64 Ibn Barraj:n also takes the root of the word
sidra to be the Arabic Badr, meaning source or origin. In terms very sug-
gestive of the role played by the EMBK in his cosmogenesis, he writes, ‘its
name comes from ‘the origin’ (Badr), and from it originates (yaBduru)
everything that descends from on high and ascends from below’.65
While the context here seems to allude to the lote tree being more generally
the origin of ‘everything’ below it, Ibn Barraj:n explains the lote tree’s
primal role as origin in relation to at least the two rivers said to originate at
its base, the Nile and the Tigris.66 Perhaps most importantly for our study,
however, is the relationship that he describes between the lote tree and the
divine self-disclosure. According to Ibn Barraj:n’s reading, the lote tree is a
locus of a full self-disclosure of the Divine, of the same nature given to the
mountain and Moses in the well-known passage of the Qur8:n (7:143).
While in the latter instance, however, the mountain is described as being
utterly annihilated by the divine disclosure and Moses as falling into a
swoon, the lote tree is unfazed by the intensity of God’s full self-disclosure.
[As for Moses’ falling into a swoon] that is because God did not aid the
mountain and Moses with an aid from Him. Furthermore, the mountain is
MuAammad, esoterically speaking (ta8w;l), and in lieu of the mountain he was
given the lote tree of the Furthest Boundary; the blessed tree (al-shajara al-
mub:raka) to which the One-to-Whom-is-the-ultimate-end disclosed Himself,
and beyond Whom there is no further object (marm:). Knowledge, all of it,
ends with Him.67
In this passage, Ibn Barraj:n clearly equates the lote tree with the same
blessed tree mentioned in the Light Verse. Not only does it represent a
similar combination of knowledge, divine revelation, and life by being
the primal source of Qur8:nic water—which is the active principle of ex-
istence and the source of all multiplicity whose archetypal reality is
64
Ibn Barraj:n, Ī@:A, x871 (691), x876 (693).
65
Ibid, x898 (704).
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid, x899 (706).
cosmologically situated beneath the divine throne68—and the ‘origin’ of
what comes below, but it is also the site of the fullest divine self-
disclosure. While he does not overtly call it the tree of light, he does connect
it to God’s light and highest self-disclosure. In his discussion of the rivers
that flow from it—the Nile and the Tigris—Ibn Barraj:n suggests that their

‘light will be dispelled from them’ until eventually they return to their origin
at the lote tree.69 Water itself, then, in Ibn Barraj:n’s view, seems to be
intimately linked to light just as it is intimately linked to life, making the
lote tree—the primal origin of these waters—a tree of both light and life.70
While the lote tree may be said to be neither of the East nor the West in the
sense that it grows at the summit of heaven, it may also be a tree whose
traces flow up–down and down–up, such that they still permeate the entir-
ety of the cosmos imparting to it light and life.
In the Ī@:A, Ibn Barraj:n maintains the interpretation that the blessed
tree is a symbol for prophecy and the EMBK. The good tree, moreover, is
briefly discussed as a parable for a tree of paradise rather than the blessed
tree.71 As for the tree of beatitude (3<b:), Ibn Barraj:n describes it as
‘mother’ to the other noble trees of Paradise (umm li-l-mukarram min
shajar al-janna) with a branch or part in every single abode in which a
believer is to be found.72 It is not entirely clear from Ibn Barraj:n’s analogy
whether the multitudinous branches of the tree of beatitude each appear as
their own tree or whether these branches merely proliferate the tree’s fruit.
In the latter case, it is possible to understand that Ibn Barraj:n intends
something of a hierarchy between these different expressions of the blessed
tree. So, for instance, the lote tree might occupy a pinnacle position as the
68
See Casewit, The Mystics of al-Andalus, 203–4.
69
70
This section of the Ī@:A expands on themes found already in the Tanb;h, where
water and life are correlated by Ibn Barraj:n without the intermediary of light. See
Ibn Barraj:n, Tanb;h (ed. al-Mazyad;), iv. 461–6. Here, Ibn Barraj:n writes that in
his view life is innately latent in seemingly dead things just as death is latent in living
things, waiting to be expressed. Otherwise, their revival would not be possible.
‘And it is a sign for them, that we revive the dead earth and bring out from it grain
that they eat’ (36:33). Rainwater is sent down from the sky carrying the power of
life and revives the dead earth after contacting the traces of life already inherent
within it and all things. Ibid, iv. 465.
71
72
It’s counterpart in the Ī@:A is the tree of Zaqq<m, which is likewise mother to
all of the infernal trees of hell. See Ī@:A, x1019 (790). In the Tanb;h, Ibn Barraj:n
explains this tree by reference to a Aad;th from the night journey where the Prophet
passed by a tree ‘that a rider could traverse a hundred years [riding] in its shadow,
and still not traverse it’, which may be a veiled allusion to the lote tree since similar
narrations exist as to its size. See Ibn Barraj:n, Tanb;h (ed. al-Mazyad;), iii. 205–6.
N
source of all life, the tree of beatitude next as the source of heavenly vege-
tation, the good tree third as its individual offshoots in the heavens, and
earthly trees last as the dimmest, most remote expression of this reality.
It is also worth noting that Ibn Barraj:n’s discussion of the lote tree bears
some similarities to the text of Zechariah 4:6–7. Given Ibn Barraj:n’s ten-

dency to use the Bible as a tool for exegesis of the Qur8:n,73 it is possible
that this verse had some impact on his thought process. The verse in ques-
tion follows the aforementioned vision of a gold lampstand with seven
lamps and two olive trees to either side and reads,
So he said to me, ‘This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might
nor by power, but by my Spirit’, says the Lord Almighty.
What are you, mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground.
Then he will bring out the capstone to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’
The angelic speaker clearly refers to Zechariah’s vision (of which the
olive trees are part) as a representation of God’s Spirit, much like how
Ibn Barraj:n reads the blessed tree as representing the EMBK. We may
also note here the Bible’s mention of a mountain becoming ‘level ground’
before the king Zerubbabel, who is aided by this Spirit. All of this strikes
clear parallels to the way that Ibn Barraj:n connects the lote tree to the
story of Moses and the mountain that was annihilated before God’s self-
revelation because they were not aided by an ‘aid’ from Him. 74
CONCLUSION
Many of the supernatural trees mentioned in the Qur8:n appear to be

thematically linked in Ibn Barraj:n’s writings to his overarching theory
73
See Roy Michael McCoy III, Interpreting the Qur8:n with the Bible (Tafs;r al-
Qur8:n bi-l-Kit:b): Reading the Arabic Bible in the Tafs;rs of Ibn Barraǧ:n and al-
Biq:6; (Leiden: Brill, 2021). See also Yousef Casewit’s ‘A Muslim scholar of the Bible:
prooftexts from Genesis and Matthew in the Qur’an commentary of Ibn Barraj:n of
Seville (d. 536/1141)’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 18/1 (Feb. 2016): 1–48.
74
Elsewhere, Ibn Barraj:n attempts to synthesize the Qur8:nic and Biblical gen-
esis stories by resolving the discrepancy in the number of Trees mentioned by each.
Ibn Barraj:n offers three possible resolutions for this apparent contradiction. First,
that these names were falsified by the Jews (taAr;f). Second, that the trees were so
named by Satan, not God, in order to lure Adam and Eve into disobeying God’s
command in Genesis 3:4–5. Third, that the two trees can be allegorically inter-
preted (ta8w;l) to denote the divine command (amr) which when obeyed leads to
paradise and prohibition (nahy), which, when transgressed, results in punishment
in the hereafter. See Casewit, ‘A Muslim scholar of the Bible: prooftexts’, 14, 20–3.
of the blessed tree. Given the strong correspondence that he draws be-
tween the blessed tree and the EMBK, we find that the blessed tree of
Ibn Barraj:n’s mystical system takes on remarkable cosmological im-
port. It is at once a tree of light, rooted at the summit of the seven
heavens and the furthest edge of the universe, growing downward

such that its branches pass through the entirety of creation, as well as
the ‘root’ for what is below. The blessed tree is not only the root of light
but also of material things like water and life. Finally, it is the locus of a
complete divine self-disclosure, and it withstands this self-disclosure
even as the mountains cannot. Symbolically, it represents prophecy
and the perfected prophetic station of the messenger, MuAammad,
who also receives this self-disclosure in his night journey. More generally
speaking, it represents gnosis, prophecy, the reality of the Qur8:n, and in
many senses the end goal of the mystical path to God.
As for Ibn Barraj:n’s method of arriving at these conclusions, his
doctrine of the blessed tree is a clear case of his hermeneutic principles
of naCm, thematic harmony, and waBl, interconnectivity, at work. Ibn
Barraj:n constructs his theory by connecting three different Qur8:nic
trees—the blessed tree, the good tree, and the lote tree—and interweav-
ing their meanings together, thereby largely using the Qur8:n to interpret
itself. It is possible, as we have seen, that Ibn Barraj:n constructs this
theory in part by considering certain verses from the Bible. All of these
texts are interwoven and reinforced by a literal reading of the Qur8:n
that supports his esoteric doctrine. Remarkably, Ibn Barraj:n accom-
plishes all of this while still not fully departing from the more main-
stream understanding of God’s Light in these verses as referring to
guidance, faith, and the intellect. Even as he expands on these under-
standings, we find something still comfortably Qur8:nic in the way that
Ibn Barraj:n represents himself—a quality that partly explains the popu-
larity of his intriguing works.
As for the afterlife of Ibn Barraj:n’s doctrine of the blessed tree, it
seems evident that Ibn 6Arab;’s writings belong to an Andalusian current
of mystical thought that Ibn Barraj:n was deeply immersed in. Ibn 6Arab;
makes extensive reference to the doctrine of a heavenly tree in his writ-
ings. We have already seen that in Ibn 6Arab;’s treatise titled Shajarat al-
kawn (‘The tree of the cosmos’) he writes:
I looked to the cosmos (kawn) and its fashioning, as well as the concealed
realm (makn<n) and its composition (tadw;n), and I saw that the cosmos in its
entirety was a tree (shajara), and that the source of its light was the ‘seed’
(Aabba) [of the divine command] ‘Be!’75
75
Ibn 6Arab;, Shajarat al-kawn, 41–2.
N
In another work, Ris:lat al-ittiA:d al-kawn; (‘A treatise on cosmic
unification’), Ibn 6Arab; composes a long mystical parable about his as-
cent to the sidrat al-muntah:, which he calls the Universal Tree.
Engaging it in conversation, the sidra describes itself as

the Tree of Light, speech, and the eye-balm of Moses . . . Assisted by the
powers and ennobled by the One who is seated on the Throne, I have become
like prime-matter, receiving all forms in the afterworld and the present one. . . I
am the source from which issues the lights, the synthesis of the divine words.76
Noticeably, Ibn 6Arab; describes this tree as one whose roots are firmly
planted, and whose branches are in the heavens—making this ‘Universal
Tree’ at once the burning bush of Moses, the lote of the limit, the blessed
tree of the Light Verse, and the good tree mentioned by the Qur8:n, as
well as a metaphor for the reality of the Perfect Man.77 In the centuries
following Ibn 6Arab;’s composition of this text the doctrine of a
Universal Tree spread rapidly. The Shi6i exegete and commentator on
Ibn 6Arab;, Eaydar 2mul; (d. 1385), embraces this doctrine of a univer-
sal tree and expands it to encompass the tree of eternity forbidden to
Adam in the Garden.78 A few generations later, we find what appears to
be an explicit reference to the doctrine of an inverted cosmological tree
in the poetry of a popular Ottoman author, Mehmed Yazıcıoğlu, who in
1449 writes in MuAammediye (‘The book of Muhammad’),
Thence ordained is Heaven’s order free from every grief and care.
In its courtyard’s riven center, planted he the Tuba-Tree;
That is a tree which hangeth downward, high aloft its roots are there:
Thus its radiance all the Heavens lighteth up from end to end,
76
Ibn 6Arab;, The Universal Tree and the Four Birds, 35–7.
77
Ibid, 34–5. For more on the role of light in Ibn 6Arab;’s thought, see Robert J.
Dobie, Logos & Revelation: Ibn 6Arabi, Meister Eckhart, and Mystical
Hermeneutics (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press,
2010), 33–4. Scattered references to the Light Verse can also be found directly in
the Fut<A:t. See, for example, Ibn 6Arab;, al-Fut<A:t al-Makkiyya (ed. AAmad
Shams al-D;n; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 9 vols., 1999), iv. 473. Finally, it
is also worth noting here that Ibn 6Arab;’s inclusion of the burning bush of Moses
synthesizes long-running mystical themes of the bush as a symbol for union and
divine self-revelation. See Annabel Keeler, Sufi Hermeneutics: The Qur’an
Commentary of Rash;d al-D;n Maybud; (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006), 245, 255–8.
78
Eaydar 2mul;, J:mi6 al-asr:r wa-manba6 al-anw:r (Beirut: Mu8assasat al-
T:r;kh al-6Arab;, [1969] 2005), 273–4.
Flooding every tent and palace, every lane and every square.79
By the time we reach the sixteenth/seventeenth century, Mull: 4adr:
(d. 1640) speaks of the development of a dual interpretation of the
blessed tree, whereby exoteric scholars continue to posit a centrally

placed Syrian olive tree and the gnostics, following in Ibn 6Arab;’s foot-
steps, relate it to either the tree of beatitude, the lote tree, or the tree of
Moses (i.e., the burning bush).80 Alternatively, as with al-Qushayr; and
al-R:z;, later Islamic scholars occasionally represented both views in
their works of Qur8:nic commentary in order to pay respect to the
dual dimensions of scripture, the esoteric and the exoteric. The
Moroccan Sufi exegete Ibn 6Aj;ba (d. 1809) in his al-BaAr al-mad;d f;
tafs;r al-Qur’:n al-Maj;d (‘The immense sea of the interpretation of the
glorious Qur’:n’) for instance suggests that the blessed tree is a centrally-
placed olive tree in Syria.81 Yet Ibn 6Aj;ba also extolls the cosmological
role of the sidrat al-muntah: as the summit of gnosis in his commentary
on S<ra al-Najm, explicitly referring to it as the tree of the cosmos
(shajarat al-kawn) in language that likely hearkens back to Ibn 6Arab;.82
A heavenly tree motif is clearly visible in the writings of these later
exegetes, although it never totally replaces the more mainstream inter-
pretation of the blessed tree as referring to a centrally placed olive. If we
trace the early discussions of this heavenly tree doctrine, it seems likely
that it develops in al-Andalus in the writings of Ibn Barraj:n and Ibn
6Arab; on the one hand, and the Zohar on the other. Ibn 6Arab;’s discus-
sion of a Universal Tree that both represents many of the trees mentioned
by the Qur8:n and the highest level of spiritual realization finds many
echoes in Ibn Barraj:n’s writings. Given the established links between
Ibn 6Arab; and Ibn Barraj:n’s writings and students there seems little
reason to doubt such theories were partly informed by his teachings.
79
From Charles F. Horne (ed.), The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the
East (New York: Parke, Austin & Lipscomb, 14 vols., 1917), vol. vi. (Medieval
Arabic, Moorish and Turkish), 277–9, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/
turkishpoetry1.asp. (Last accessed 25 July 2022.)
80
Mull: 4adr: Sh;r:z;, On the Hermeneutics of the Light Verse of the Qur’:n
(Tafs;r 2yat al-N<r) (transl. Latimah Parvin Peerwani; London: Islamic College for
Advanced Studies, 2004), 72. For an overview of the secondary literature on Mull:
4adr:’s tafs;r of the light verse, see Mohammed Rustom, ‘Approaching Mull: 4adr:
as scriptural exegete: a survey of scholarship on his Quranic works’, Comparative
Islamic Studies, 4/1–2 (2008): 75–96, at 80–3.
81
AAmad Ibn 6Aj;ba, al-BaAr al-mad;d f; tafs;r al-Qur8:n al-maj;d (ed. AAmad
6Abd All:h al-Qurash; Rasl:n; Cairo: al-Hay8a al-MiBriyya al-62mma li-l-Kit:b, 5
vols., 1999), iv. 42.
82
Ibid, v. 504.
N
Given the established links between Ibn Barraj:n and the Brethren of
Purity, it seems further reasonable to assume that Ibn Barraj:n was at
least in part inspired by several themes prevalent in their Epistles, such as
the themes of inverted plants and the blessed tree as a metaphor for the
Universal Soul. A highly creative author in his own right, Ibn Barraj:n

borrowed these themes and reconfigured them according to his own
unique exegetical and cosmological principles. Through Ibn 6Arab;’s
enduring influence, Ibn Barraj:n’s insights were further elaborated
upon and attracted a wide readership in the Islamic world, helping define
the manner in which later scholars influenced by the Ibn 6Arab; tradition
interpreted the Light Verse.

Ibn Barrajan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ibn Barrajan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published online 13 May 2023

Journal of Islamic Studies 34:3 (2023) pp. 371–401 https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/etad015

THE BLESSED TREE IN THE WORKS OF IBN

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

*Authors’ note: The authors are grateful to Muhammad Ridwaan of Qalam

Mystical representations of trees as symbols of life, light, and divinity are

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

IBN BARRAJ2N’S SUFI METAPHYSICS AND

Our author Ab< al-Eakam 6Abd al-Sal:m b. 6Abd al-RaAm:n b. Barraj:n

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

THE BLESSED TREE (AL-SHAJARA AL-

In this section we will provide a general overview of the exegesis of the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

The symbolic nature of this verse presents many difficulties to its

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

The cosmological interpretation of the Brethren parallels in many

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

exemplification of the Light to be a level of consciousness, the ‘Tree’ being the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

THE GOOD TREE (AL-SHAJARA AL-FAYYIBA)

To follow Ibn Barraj:n’s line of thought as he constructs this theory of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

When we pay close attention to the precise terminology that Ibn

THE BLESSED TREE (AL-SHAJARA

Ibn Barraj:n’s commentary on 24:35 itself is lengthy, inspired as he un-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

In spite of the apparent monism suggested by his interpretation in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

To give an example of one of these other interpretive standpoints, Ibn

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

THE LOTE TREE OF THE FURTHEST

The final Qur8:nic tree that is important to consider in Ibn Barraj:n’s

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Many of the supernatural trees mentioned in the Qur8:n appear to be

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jis/article/34/3/371/7161754 by University of Westminster user on 22 August 2023

You might also like