At the level of analysis, I am not sure why appeals to mas·lah· a and maqas·idal-sharı ‘a necessarily have to entail entanglement in medieval presuppositions andaffirmation of the validity of the h· udud. That they do in the case of someone like TariqRamadan does not necessitate that they must in all cases, especially as the terms couldbe taken as little more than indications of a teleological approach to ethics and legaltheory. With regard to the h· udud, what particular Muslim scholars take to be thenon-negotiable content of the revealed law is perhaps more critical than the legaltheories they deploy to justify it.

At the level of history, Emon does not take sufficient account of a more substantivestream of legal thinking found among soft naturalists. He treats al-Qarafı together withal-Razı and thereby misses the substantive aspects of al-Qarafı’s legal rationality as hemoves away from al-Ghazalı’s limitation of the mas·lah· a mursala to necessities in rulemaking. Emon does acknowledge that al-T· ufı takes a more expansive approach, but heonly too briefly mentions Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (p. 187), and he does not take note ofIbn Taymiyya’s criticism of the medieval mas·lah· a — maqas·id scheme. These variousfigures sought to skirt the kinds of formalism that Emon identifies in al-Ghazalı andal-Razı, and thus the historical disconnect between medieval and modern juristsappealing to mas·lah· a may not be as great as Emon thinks.

Emon’s book is a valuable contribution to the literature on Islamic legal theory. It isnot particularly easy to read, and some turns of phrase and unusual terms can bedistracting. Take for instance the rending of God’s sunna or custom in creation as God’s“style.” Yet, the book is a salutary and welcome reminder of the complexity of medievalIslamic thought and the need to appreciate it through diverse analytical lenses.

Jon HooverUniversity of Nottingham

Ibn ‘Arabi and the Contemporary West: Beshara and the Ibn‘Arabî Society

By Isobel Jeffery-StreetSheffield: Equinox, 2012.266 pp. ISBN: 978-1-84553-671-8

It is well established that the legacy of the Andalusian Shaykh Muhyi al-Dîn Ibn‘Arabî (1165–1240 CE) had a tremendous impact on the direction and development of theIslamic tradition before the colonial period (p. 133). Ibn ‘Arabî wrote hundreds oftreatises on various subjects (p. 5), and his unique spiritual and philosophical formula-tions contributed to the rejuvenation of Islamic civilization following the Mongolinvasions (p. 133). An allusion to contemporary echoes of this influence is therefore

bs_bs_banner

Book Reviews

425© 2013 Hartford Seminary.

highly significant (p. 1). An apparent correspondence of Ibn ‘Arabî’s metaphysicaldoctrine to the particular needs of modernity has contributed toward what author IsobelJeffery-Street identifies as a significant “creative reception of Ibn ‘Arabî’s ideas in thecontemporary West” (p. 1).

Focusing on the Beshara School and its Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabî Society, Ibn ‘Arabiand the Contemporary West is a case study within this broader framework (p. 5).Jeffery-Street’s introduction contextualizes her analysis, while tracing the developmentof Beshara. The first two chapters detail the lives of Bulent Rauf and other formativefigures. Spiritual workshops and coursework follow in chapters three and four. In five,six and seven the author transitions from a historical to an experiential approach towardsexplaining Beshara’s notion of an “esoteric education.” Objectives and motivations arepresented along with students’ recollections of shrine visits during Beshara’s annualpilgrimage to Turkey. Chapters eight and nine detail outreach and development of theIbn ‘Arabî Society.

Jeffery-Street’s phenomenological approach weaves historic narrative in with per-spectives from Beshara members (p. 31). There are no coincidences in this story;Beshara, drawing from its reading of Ibn ‘Arabî, is a vehicle for the providential currentof history toward a final, spiritual horizon wherein Reality can be known directly,making religion no longer necessary (p. 65).

This story begins with the life of Bulent Rauf. An Ottoman aristocrat who lost hisriches after the revolution in Egypt of 1952, he found himself in London and amongstorganizers of spiritual workshops and study groups who soon came to appreciate hisprofound insights on Sufism (p. 42). Rauf became the primary consultant of the BesharaTrust from its inception until his death in 1987 (p. 35), but he claimed no formal positionof authority, preferring instead to describe himself as “pointing the way” for others(p. 44); he was followed by no successor (p. 51). While insisting that he was not a Sufimaster (p. 44), he nevertheless gave spiritual instruction and formulae to students (p. 44).His outstanding religious manners and spiritual insights (p. 49) earned him a saint-likereverence amongst followers (p. 51–52). Jeffery-Street relates Bulent’s preference forprivate, interpersonal relationships (p. 56) to the Malâmatî spirituality characteristic ofIbn ‘Arabî’s legacy in Turkey (p. 39). This may account for Beshara’s dissociation frominstitutional intermediaries, as well as from identifying as a tarîqa (p. 41).

The already highly diverse interest in Sufism in the West, facilitated by this lack ofhierarchical authority, brought about a wide range of influences on early Beshara.Jeffery-Street’s second chapter introduces us to a network of influences and associationsranging from Pir Vilayat Khan’s (p. 60) “Sufi Order in the West” to the Traditionalistschool of René Guénon (p. 67). The adaptation of Ibn ‘Arabî’s texts initially reinforcedthe latter influence yet led to Beshara’s later distinguishing itself from other communitiesand their perspectives (p. 73). Naturally, certain rivalrous sentiments grew, withoutwhich any historical narrative of Western esotericism could unlikely be told. It wasBulent’s leadership in particular which led to the development of the school’s uniquepedagogical approach and mysticism, formalized in the development of two key

The Muslim World • Volume 103 • JULY 2013

426 © 2013 Hartford Seminary.

instructional texts (p. 61). These included The Twenty-Nine Pages, a document compiledby Bulent in the late 1960s, consisting of highlights, implying selective omissions, fromA. A. Affifi’s The Mystical Philosophy of Muhyi al-Dîn Ibn ‘Arabî (p. 61) and Beshara’stranslation of Titus Burckhardt’s partial translation into French of Ibn ‘Arabî’s Fusûsal-Hikam (p. 67). These texts formed Beshara’s foundation and spiritual instruction.

Chapters three and four detail the structured, residential coursework, focusing ontexts and teachings respectively (p. 77). Achievement of human perfection as articulatedin Ibn ‘Arabî’s metaphysics is shown to form the basis of Bulent’s pedagogical objectivesand techniques. He encourages students to “align themselves with that which they reallyare and thereby to know what their relationship to Reality really is” (p. 78). Theuniversality of Ibn ‘Arabî’s perspective is stressed, Beshara participants insisting upon a“spiritual” rather than explicitly religious approach. From this point of view, his originsin an Islamic cultural background are interpreted nonessentially. Beshara emphasizes anunyielding universalism in their interpretation, preserving Ibn ‘Arabî’s metaphysics fromthe adulterating limitation of any particular creed (pp. 78–79). Jeffery-Street furthermoregives a historical overview of the acquisition of study spaces as well as that of the coursestructure and its emphases on such aspects as meditation, zikr, study, service, and strictbehavioral codes. Despite the insistence on understanding these practices from auniversalist point of view, she notes that there is a “considerable extent of Islamic andtraditional Sufi influence within the content” (p. 88).

Chapter four is the longest in the book and summarizes in detail the metaphysicalworldview of Ibn ‘Arabî as studied by the Beshara School. Included is analyticalassistance from William Chittick’s work (p. 89). A reader unfamiliar with Ibn ‘Arabî cancultivate a thorough theoretical understanding of key concepts from this section. Othersmay skim through it, except for pages 116–126 which nicely outline several specific textsused by Beshara and not mentioned elsewhere in the book. Especially crucial to Besharais Ibn ‘Arabî’s understanding that every created thing owes its existence to the primordialparticularization of God’s own Essence by way of the divine names which are“prototypes” for their individual being (p. 97). This is significant in the comparativedimensions of the Beshara pilgrimage, discussed in Chapter 7.

The next three chapters move away from historical narrative and the phenomeno-logical approach becomes the central analytical tool (p. 27); the fifth and sixth chaptersparallel the third in the ongoing question of pedagogy, here probing the ambitions of theBeshara School from the perspective of participants’ experiences. Beshara’s objectivesare related to a widespread perception of an “obvious need” for “global spiritualevolution,” and that Beshara plays a key role in humanity’s transition (p. 137). A centralinquiry throughout these chapters is the meaning of an “esoteric education” and the roleof the individual student therein. Intuition and realization are stressed above intellectualability by Beshara administrators, although Jeffery-Street notes that the latter seemsnecessary to penetrate the complex material (148–149).

This education, drawn from traditional metaphysics, leads to living a way of lifebeyond the mode of “egocentric” existence (p. 149) and creates a greater understanding

Book Reviews

427© 2013 Hartford Seminary.

of the self (p. 149). Students follow intensive schedules, share bedrooms, and have noprivacy except during planned periods of secluded contemplation; this contributes tonearly universal frustration later recalled as an important transition point (p. 150).Significant emphasis is put on striving toward perfection and acting in the most propermanner in all aspects of daily life (p. 159). Finally, some of the most creative aspects ofJeffery-Street’s research and the climax of her methodological framework occur on pages160–175, where she retells the experiences of participants in the Beshara School from thepoint of view of their relevance to their particular careers or disciplines.

Chapter seven concerns the voyage to Turkey, which is understood as a spiritualpilgrimage. Jeffery-Street’s main interest is once again the perception and experience ofthe travelers (p. 183), presenting in such a way that they can “speak for themselves” (p.202). She explains that a journey is understood to be “for the students to have a true tasteof what Reality really is and to come to realize what is truly the essence of their ownbeing,” in this way inseparable from Beshara’s esoteric education as a whole (p. 189).This is confirmed by participants who describe their experiences at various points duringthe pilgrimage as recollections of previously present but unaccessible insights (p. 192).One is reminded that in Ibn ‘Arabî’s metaphysics, Mary is associated with the “feminineprinciple that is present in all levels of existence” (p. 193). This allows for the derivationof conceptual parallels between different traditions, revealed as students visit pagantemples, churches, mosques, museums (p. 183), and particularly the House of the VirginMary at Ephesus (p. 178). A great deal of published precedent aids the analysis here,including Hoffman’s and Ewing’s works on saints and shrine visitations as well aspsychological theory (p. 203).

The phenomenological analysis is followed by two additional chapters pertaining tohistoric narrative. The eighth chapter examines Beshara’s international expansion,communications, publications, and affiliate programs (p. 223). As Jeffery-Street says, “animportant emphasis in Beshara is that esoteric knowledge should take practical,effective, exoteric expression” (p. 217). The ninth and final chapter of the book gives anoverview of one such development in the form of the Ibn ‘Arabî Society. Thisorganization was established by Bulent Rauf and others at Beshara in the mid-1970s tocontinue to promote knowledge of Ibn ‘Arabî and his works in the West (p. 231).Jeffery-Street also discusses the development of the Society’s journal and annualsymposiums in the United Kingdom and the United States as well as some points ofconversation that have arisen in the journal related to general points of interest in thebook.

One insightful and interesting point implicitly addressed throughout the book couldhave received more explicit attention than it did. This is the matter of the “unbridgeablegap” between academic and mystical knowledge (p. 242). The gap in question,Jeffery-Street informs us, was critiqued in an article published by Beshara Principal PeterYoung titled “Between the Yea and the Nay.” Young related this question to the famousencounter between Ibn ‘Arabî and Averroes as to whether the ways of mysticism andreason might attain to the same ends (p. 242). He makes an allusion to the study of logic,

The Muslim World • Volume 103 • JULY 2013

428 © 2013 Hartford Seminary.

wherein total detachment from subjecting oneself to the rules of the object of study is byno means demanded by the methodology of the discipline. He asks if the same might notbe applied to mysticism (p. 243). Jeffery-Street indicates that the barrier dividing thesetwo kinds of knowledge appears to receive popular critique on one level or another inthe Society. She points to the atmosphere of the symposiums in the United States. Theseare characterized by an easing of rigidity in this distinction in much of the discussionsurrounding the otherwise strictly academic framework of the papers themselves(p. 224).

While it is interesting to note the possibility of an academic acknowledgment thatreason is unequipped to grasp the totality of all knowledge (p. 243), this in itself moreaccurately suggests the possibility of a complementary relationship with a barrier only allthe more clearly defined. It does not address any methodological question in theconstruction of an academic discipline supposedly equipped to confirm the veracity ofmystical questions. To say that such a barrier, however imaginary it could be on anontological level, must remain due to the disciplinary precision or limitation indispen-sable to academic inquiry does not seem controversial. Furthermore, the very removalof this boundary in order to grant said academic inquiry the capacity to affirm themystical would also, conversely, grant academic authority to its denial. As for suggesting,however, that the mystical experience can complement and somehow enlighten aparticular academic discipline’s analysis of mysticism, this seems not only hypotheticallypossible but is confirmed by the invaluable benefit of the very methodology employedby Jeffery-Street herself, who allows the religious experiences of Beshara participants to“stand on their own” (p. 176).

Furthermore, the author insightfully attends to the school of René Guénon and TitusBurckhardt regarding its influence in the formative period of Beshara (p. 67–71) and inthe circles of Ibn ‘Arabî’s “earlier interpreters” in the West in general (p. 233). On theother hand, some attention could have been given to the question of its contemporaryrelationship with Beshara or the Ibn ‘Arabî Society. The question seems pertinent toaddress as allusions are made to a relationship (pp. 235, 240) between the Ibn ‘ArabîSociety and the Sophia Perennis journal despite an apparently significant disagreementbetween the exponents of the latter and the Beshara School as regards the interpretationof Ibn ‘Arabî’s metaphysics, his connection to the Islamic tradition, and the implicationsof his universalism (p. 248).

Drawing their interpretation from the notion that a gnostic “cannot stay tied to oneform of belief” (p. 119), Beshara took a decidedly “non-credal” approach in which theyadvocated the avoidance of adhering to a particular religious tradition (p. 71) in favor ofengaging Reality “face to face” (p. 25). This contrasts with the approach of theGuénonian or Traditional school, wherein “practical faithfulness” (p. 67) to one traditionremained a necessity while mutually affirming the veracity of all others in their“transcendent unity” (p. 68). From that point of view, the ultimate oneness of Realitydoes not seem to imply the abandonment of distinct traditions on their practical level anymore than seekers of Reality should strive immediately to reverse their individuation into

Book Reviews

429© 2013 Hartford Seminary.

distinct human bodies in the physical world. Jeffery-Street seems to imply that while theTraditional school’s emphasis on Ibn ‘Arabî’s Islamic traditional background in theirreading thereof puts it at ideological odds with the Beshara School, such is not the casewith the more academically oriented Ibn ‘Arabî Society as it has developed (p. 248).

This volume is based on Jeffery-Street’s PhD dissertation, and comprehensivefootnotes and an extensive bibliography are provided. Included is a reference to SuhaTaji-Farouki’s Beshara and Ibn ‘Arabî: A Movement of Sufi Spirituality in the ModernWorld1, the other major publication on this subject matter, which while published beforethis book appears to be preceded by Jeffery-Street’s original research ( Jeffery-Street 265,Taji-Farouki 255). Both of these volumes are important because, as Taji-Farouki notes,almost all publications that describe Beshara have been produced “under its ownauspices” and these works provide two notable exceptions (Taji-Farouki 255). Meth-odological and analytical approaches distinguish the two volumes, includingJeffery-Street’s emphasis on Beshara as a case study within the emerging contemporaryinterest in Ibn ‘Arabî in the West; this contrasts with Taji-Farouki’s broader interest inSufism and modernity. Also distinguishing Jeffery-Street is her multidisciplinary, signifi-cantly psychological, and consistently phenomenologically oriented perspective. Thiscontrasts with Taji-Farouki’s almost exclusively historical analysis and lengthier attentionto certain topics given peripheral attention by Jeffery-Street, and quite minimal emphasisif any on the mystical experiences of Beshara participants.

Jeffery-Street employs the tools of the phenomenology of religion throughout herstudy; this is an interesting, useful, and insightful approach despite certain limitationswhich at a few points leave the reader wishing for the possibility of other levels ofanalysis. Inspired by a methodology advocated by Richard C. Martin, Jeffery-Streetapplies this approach pluralistically, interweaving it not only with historic narrative butalso with the methodologies called for by each particular case study (Taji-Farouki 265).This method of applying experiential analysis to participant observation contributestoward an original study which will be of interest to sociologists and psychologists ofreligion interested in Islamic spirituality as well as new religious movements. It is alsoaccessible to a non-technical audience and provides a useful explanation and demon-stration of the phenomenology of religion for those unfamiliar with it. Most importantly,it strives to explain and contextualize the revival of Ibn ‘Arabî’s metaphysics in one of itsmodern vehicles. As Jeffery-Street explains:

This study provides a contribution to the consideration of the recent expansion ofthe influence of the teachings of Ibn ‘Arabî in the West, because by focusing on oneparticular area of his influence, possible explanations for the ready adoption of hisideas can be concretely examined. Of the many conceivable reasons for thisinfluence, a primary suggestion is that his central metaphysical idea of one unifying

1 Taji-Farouki, Suha. Beshara and Ibn ‘Arabi: A Movement of Sufi Spirituality in the Modern World. AnqaPub, 2007.

The Muslim World • Volume 103 • JULY 2013

430 © 2013 Hartford Seminary.

Reality as the foundation of all being contributes to the ability of diverse religioustraditions to relate to each other and to understand other perspectives withoutgreat conflict and resistance. (p. 264)

By employing phenomenological and at times psychological theory in the analysis of herfield research, Jeffery-Street is able to successfully account for the deeply personal natureof “intimate religious experiences” as objects of study in their variety as well as similarity(pp. 27–28). While one wonders if the parameters established for her analysis would notallow at times for a more critical engagement with her contemporary subjects and theirreception of pre-modern metaphysics, Jeffery-Street successfully employs an analysis ofreligious or mystical “experience” as an investigative category toward a heightenedunderstanding of the Western emergence of a purported second wave in history of Ibn‘Arabî’s enormous spiritual influence.

Ryan T. SawyerHartford Seminary

Book Reviews

431© 2013 Hartford Seminary.