This study focuses on a re-examination and clarification of the place of Aḥadiyya (Divine Oneness) within Ibn ʿArabī’s ontological system and its relation to the level of Ulūhiyya (Divinity), a question that has long been controversial among commentators due to Ibn ʿArabī’s seemingly paradoxical statements about Aḥadiyya. On the one hand, he describes Aḥadiyya as identical with the utterly transcendent Divine Essence (al-Dhāt), beyond all relations, attributes, and determinations, and therefore completely removed from any form of manifestation or cognition. In this sense, Aḥadiyya is linked to expressions such as absolute Haqīqa, Huwiyya (He-ness), the absolute Unseen, and the “darkness” of the Essence. On the other hand, in numerous passages he speaks of the first degree of manifestation in the realm of Ulūhiyya and of the relation of Aḥadiyya to the Divine Names and Acts, employing terms such as Aḥadiyyat al-Dhāt, Aḥadiyyat al-Ulūhiyya, and Aḥadiyyat al-Kathra (Oneness of Multiplicity) in connection with different levels of the invisible and visible worlds. This duality on the surface of his formulations has led interpreters into two main camps: those who posit a real ontological distinction between the station of the Essence and the first determination of Aḥadiyya, and those who regard Aḥadiyya as nothing other than the Essence itself, not a descending level beneath it.The principal aim of the present research is to move beyond this apparent dichotomy and to demonstrate that Ibn ʿArabī’s diverse expressions concerning Aḥadiyya are not signs of theoretical incoherence, but rather the result of a deliberate two-aspect approach to the levels of being. In this approach, each level is analyzed in terms of its relation to the Essence (the essential aspect) and its relation to creation (the creational aspect). On this basis, one subsidiary aim of the study is to reconstruct the conceptual network surrounding Aḥadiyya—including such notions as Huwiyya, ʿAmāʾ (the “Cloud”), Wāḥidiyya (Unity as the realm of Names), Rubūbiyya (Lordship), and the Divine Names themselves—and to articulate their inner relations within a coherent conceptual framework. Through this reconstruction, the study seeks to locate the roots of Ibn ʿArabī’s apparent verbal contradictions at a deeper level in the logic of his twofold perspective.Methodologically, the research is qualitative and relies on document-based analysis. In the first stage, Ibn ʿArabī’s principal works—especially the Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam, and relevant treatises—form the basis for the extraction and classification of his usages of Aḥadiyya, such as Aḥadiyyat al-Dhāt, Aḥadiyyat al-Ulūhiyya, Aḥadiyyat al-Kathra, ʿAmāʾ, and Huwiyya. In the second stage, major commentaries and expositions from the Akbarian tradition (including figures such as Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī, Saʿd al-Dīn al-Farghānī, Dāwūd al-Qayṣarī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī, Khwārazmī, Jandī, Abū al-ʿAlāʾ ʿAfīfī, and others) are examined in order to gather and systematize their various approaches to the relations among the Essence, Aḥadiyya, Wāḥidiyya, and Ulūhiyya. In a further step, by means of conceptual content analysis, the study attempts—through comparison between Ibn ʿArabī’s own texts and these interpretive traditions—to reconstruct the underlying pattern that Ibn ʿArabī presupposes when speaking of Aḥadiyya.The findings suggest that the distinctions among Aḥadiyyat al-Dhāt, Aḥadiyyat al-Ulūhiyya, and Aḥadiyyat al-Kathra are best understood as reflections of attributing both essential and creational aspects to the levels of the invisible realms. In its essential aspect, Aḥadiyya appears as a simple and absolute reality, parallel to the station of the Essence and beyond all relation and correlation; manifestation and cognition are therefore impossible at this level.

In its creational aspect, however, the same reality, in relation to the Divine Names, Attributes, and Acts, appears within the modes of Ulūhiyya and Rubūbiyya as the locus of the pervasion of unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity. From this perspective, many of Ibn ʿArabī’s paradoxical statements, when read within this twofold framework, no longer negate one another, but rather articulate two different registers of discourse concerning a single reality.The study concludes that, within the framework it proposes, Aḥadiyya is neither merely another name for the Essence nor only the first determination after the Essence, but instead comprises multiple modes of the Presence of the Essence in the invisible realms. In its relation to Ulūhiyya, Aḥadiyya thus opens a new horizon for understanding Divine Unity, the relation between God and the world, and the overall pattern of manifestation in Ibn ʿArabī’s theoretical mysticism.