RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY LINSTITUT DE PHILOSOPHIE DE LACADEMIE DES SCIENCES DE RUSSIE

IRANIAN INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY INSTITUT IRANIEN DE PHILOSOPHIE

ISLAMIC CULTURE RESEARCH FOUNDATION FONDATION POUR LA RECHERCHE DE LA CULTURE ISLAMIQUE

Illumination

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY IRANIAN INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY ISLAMIC CULTURE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Ishraq

Islamic philosophy yearbook3 201 2

Moscow Vostochnaya Literatura Publishers 2012

3 201 2

2012

1(091) 87.3(5) 97

/ Editor ( ) Yanis Eshots (University of Latvia)

: : 2012. 3 = Ishraq : Islamic Philosophy Yearbook : 2012. No. 3. . : . ., 2012. 654 . : . ISBN 978-5-02-036503-2 ( .) () 40 , , . The third issue of the yearbook of Islamic philosophy Ishraq (Illumination) contains some forty articles in Russian, English and French, devoted to a wide range of issues, current in Islamic philosophical thought, written by the leading Russian and foreign experts in the field.

ISBN 978-5-02-036503-2

, 2012 , 2012 , 2012

( , )

( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( . , ) ( , ) (, ) ( , ) ( , -, ) (, ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( V, ) ( , ) ( , ) ( . , ) .. ( , ) .. ( , ) ( , ) .. ( , ) ( , ) . ( , ) .. ( , ) .. ( , ) .. ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) - ( , ) . ( , ) ( , )

EditorYanis Eshots (University of Latvia, Latvia)

Editorial BoardGholamreza Aavani (Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Iran) Carmela Baffioni (The Oriental University of Naples, Italy) Gerhard Bowering (Yale University, USA) William C. Chittick (Stony Brook University, USA) Farhad Daftary (Institute of Ismaili Studies, UK) Hans Daiber (Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany) Daniel De Smet (CNRS, France) Gholamhossein Ibrahimi Dinani (Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Iran) Evgenia Frolova (Institute of Philosophy, RAS, Russia) Pilar Garrido Clemente (University of Murcia, Spain) Denis Gril (University of Provence, France) Hamid Hadavi (Islamic Culture Research Foundation, RAS, Russia) Souad Hakim (Lebanese University, Lebanon) Hassan Hanafi (Cairo University, Egypt) Mehdi Imanipour (OCIR, Iran) Shigeru Kamada (University of Tokyo, Japan) Seyyed Muhammad Khamenei (SIPRIn, Iran) Abd al-Hosein Khosrowpanah (Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Iran) Mahmud Erol Kilic (Marmara University, Turkey) Hermann Landolt (McGill University, Canada) Oliver Leaman (University of Kentucky, USA) Mohamed Mesbahi (Mohammed V University, Morocco) Mehdi Mohaghegh (Tehran University, Iran) James W. Morris (Boston College, USA) Seyyed Hoseyn Nasr (George Washington University, USA) Ilshat Nasirov (Institute of Philosophy, RAS, Russia) Vitaliy Naumkin (Institute of Oriental Studies, RAS, Russia) Shahram Pazouki (Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Iran) Nasrollah Pourjavady (Tehran University, Iran) Stanislav Prozorov (Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, Russia) Sajjad H. Rizvi (Exeter University, UK) Sabina Schmidtke (Freie Universitt Berlin, Germany) Andrey Smirnov (Institute of Philosophy, RAS, Russia) Marietta Stepanyants (Institute of Philosophy, RAS, Russia) Josef van Ess (Tubingen University, Germany) Hossein Ziai (UCLA, USA)

* CONTENTS

..................................................................................... From the Editor ..................................................................................................

11 12

I : - * Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School - . -. . ........................................................... William C. Chittick. Wadat al-Wujd in India ................................................. .. . -- : - ............. . .. ............................. . [] , []. (-\ -). .. ............................ Bernd Radtke. The Ascent to God and the Return from Him in Islamic Mysticism .................................................................... Gerhard Bwering. Ibn al-Arabs Concept of Time ....................................... . -. . ...................................... Hamid Algar. Jm and Ibn Arab: Khtam al-Shuar and Khtam Al-Awliy .............................................. Gholamreza Aawani. The Transcendent Unity of Religion in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi .......................................................................... Mohamed Mesbahi. Equivocity of Unity of Being in Jalluddn Rm ......... Mohammed Chaouki Zine. Guerre et paix intrieure chez Ibn Arab ............... . - . ........................................................... Juan Antonio Pacheco. Ibn Arab and Aristotelian Logic ................................ Recep Alpyagil. Trying to Understand Whitehead in the Context of Ibn Arabi .................................................................................................

13 29 41 62

77 98 108

124 138 159 167 176 187 201 220

8

Abulfadhl Kiashemshaki. The Universal Degrees, Manifestations and Presences of Existence in Ibn Arabis School of Mysticism ............... - . - - ............ .. . : .......................................................................

230 247

252

II : * Sufism and Irfan: Non-Akbarian Schools-. - () , .. .......................................................................... Mojtaba Shahsavari. Ab Nar al-Qushayr and His Kitb al-Shawhid wa-l-Amthl ..................................................... Firoozeh Papan-Matin. Ayn al-Qut al-Hamadhns Persecution in Baghdad or the Exile of the Soul ................................................................................ Natalia Prigarina. Sarmad: Life and Death of a Sufi ........................................ -. ........................................................ . - .. ............................

264 279 301 314

331 353

III : * Arab Peripateticism: from Cordoba to BukharaJoaqun Lomba. Le sens du Kitb al-nafs dans la pense et luvre d Ibn Byya ............................................................................... . (). , .. .......................................................................................... Ricardo Felipe Albert Reyna. Ibn Tufayls Theory of Knowledge Revisited ... Jules Janssens. Al-Birr wa l-ithm, Piety and Sin: Possible Farabian Influences on the Young Ibn Sn ................................................................................. 365

380 408 412

9

IV : * Ishraqism: Suhrawardi and His SchoolSeyyed Hossein Nasr. The School of Azerbaijan and Its Pertinence in the Islamic Philosophical Tradition ......................................................... . . ........................................................... Shaheen Aawani. The Station of Man in Suhrawardis Philosophy Translated from Persian by S. Khojaniyozov .............................................. . - . ................................................ . . ........................................................... 423 435 452

465 485

V * Philosophy of Law.. . : .......................................................... 494

VI * LogicAndrey Smirnov. Logic of Sense. Chapter II: The Key Exemplifications of Logic-and-Meaning Configuration in Arabic Philosophy .................................................................................... 514 -. . . ( ) , .. .................................. 547

VII * Philosophy of Religion and Kalam . - -. - . , .. ....

573

10

VIII * Polemic.. . : . ? ..................... In memoriam. ............................................................................... ................................. Summaries of the Russian articles ..................................................................... ...................................................... The List of Contributors of the Third Issue ....................................................... 601 635 638 646 653 654

Guerre et paix intrieure chez Ibn Arab

11

, , . , , , . . . , . , . : 1. () , 2. , , , , . . : , , , . * * * , , - . (www.iph.ras.ru/ishraq1.htm www.iph.ras.ru/ishr2.htm). * * * , , .

1 , , . . 2 , ( , ) -.

12

From the Editor

FROM THE EDITORThe central theme of the current issue as the reader must have already noticed is Ibn Arabi and His School. It is our immense pleasure that many outstanding experts in the Akbarian thought have kindly contributed their materials, so the section is particularly large and occupies approximately one third of the total volume. Along with research articles, it includes several new translations of Ibn Arabis texts. The second section is devoted to non-Akbarian trends of Sufism. It includes several articles on less known Sufi figures who, nevertheless, have played an important role in the history of Sufism. It is followed by a section on Arab Peripateticism. It is by no means out of place: many Sufi authors including Ibn Arabi did read the works of Peripatetics and were inspired by them.1 The imagined incompatibility of Sufism and Peripateticism (falsafa) only existed in popular opinion and, even there, it was not infrequently questioned, as certain popular legends testify.2 The section on Suhrawardi and the philosophy of Illumination includes several articles, which we initially intended to publish in the second issue, devoted mostly to the Shaykh al-Ishraq. For technical reasons, we had to move them to the current issue. The three following sections are much smaller as regards their volume but by no means less significant, since, just like the bigger ones, they consist of contributions of first-rate specialists in their particular fields. * * * The main theme of the fourth issue, as it was already announced, will be the Ismaili philosophy and the philosophical thought of Nasir al-Din Tusi. The contents of the first two issues are now also available electronically (www.iph.ras.ru/ishraq1.htm and www.iph.ras.ru/ishr2.htm). * * * In conclusion, on behalf of the editorial board, the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Iranian Institute of Philosophy and the Islamic Cultural Research Foundation, I would like to sincerely thank all authors of the current issue for their most valuable contributions.

1 For example, Ibn Arabis works and, indeed, his very terminology testify to his intimate acquaintance with the thought of Ibn Bajja. I intend to discuss this in detail in a separate article. 2 I have in mind here, in particular, the well-known (and well-invented) tale of the three day long meeting, which allegedly took place between Ibn Sina and Abu Said Abu l-Khayr.

-

13

I : - * SUFISM AND IRFAN: IBN AL-ARABI AND HIS SCHOOL

- ( , )

-1 (- ): , , , , ( - )? , , , . , , , , , , , . , , , , , (- - ), () (), , , . , ,1 : .. - - // - . 26, . 100110.

14

* -

, , . - , , . -, , , , , , . ( ) , . , , , . - , , 2 : , , , , . - , - , , . - - , , , , , 3. - - , , , , . , () (.. . .) . , , , , , , , , , , , . - -. -. ( ), [..]. . 91. 3 , . , , , , , .2

-

15

, ( -) ( , ) - , , , , , , , (53:9). , , , ; , . , , , , , , : , , , , () . , , : () , : , (2:118), , [ : ! (7:142)], , . . , , . . , , 4. . , , [ ], ,4 - -. - -. . . . : , 1371 .. . 301302.

16

* -

, , , . (53:9). (= ) . [] , . * * * , -, (= ) , , -, [] , [ ] , , , , , . , . [ (?)], [], , , , , , , . * * * - . , ( . .) () ( [] . .) (). , , , . , , , , , ,

-

17

, , . , , , , . , , , , , . , . * * * . , . , , , , : , , - , , , , . , , , (, , ) , - , ? , , , , () , , , 5.5 , , (25:23). , . , , [ - ], . , , , , , , -

18

* -

*

*

*

, , . , , . , , , , , , , . , , , (). , , , . , , : , (: . .) , , , ; , 6. ( . .) () [ ]. (), , , , . , , , , , , , , ( , ) . 6 -. -. . . . : -, 1370 .. . 62. ( : : - -, 1946.) . .. : .. : . .: , 1993. . 158.

-

19

, , . , , , , , . - : ?7. () , , , , . : , , . [ ] ( , ); . (: . .) . [] : []. , , . - , , , , . , , , , (- ) ( 7 : -? : : , . , , . , [ ], , , . , , (25:45). , : . , , , .

20

* -

), , , , , , , , . , , , , . , , , 8. , , , , - . , , , , . , , , , , . , . , , . , . , (= ). . - . , , , ( -), , , . , , , , -, , . . , . 8

-

21

*

*

*

- : ; . , , , , , 9. , , , . , (- ) , [ (?)] , , , , . , , , , , . , , , . * * * - , . , , , , , , , , . . , , , . . , . 9 -. , . 62. . .. : . , . 158.

22

* -

, , , , , . , , , , . , , (- -), . , , , . ? , , , . , . -, -, . : , , , . , , , 10 . , , 11. , , , . , . , , , . .10 11

-. - -. -: , [..], . 1, . 6, . 119. , , , , , .

-

23

*

*

*

, [] . , (), , , , . , . , [] , [] , , , , . , , . , , [] , , , , , - , . : , , [] , , , , (. .), , , , 12. , , , . - , () (). . , , [] .12

-. - -, . 3, . 6, . 514515.

24

* -

, , , , : 13 , (, , ). [] , , , , 594 . 14 , 15, , , , - : , . , 16 , , . , , () . , , , . -, , , , , , . . , , , , , , (58:22). , , , , , , , . , . 14 -. - -, . 2, . 49. - , , . . . 15 -. - -, . 2, . 26. 16 (- ), .13

-

25

, (48:2) . - : , , , , . , , , . , (21:69) - , . , . , . , , , , , , , . (), , : , , (), . , , , , , . , , .

, , , ( ), ( , , ). , , , , []

26

* -

. . : , , . ( ) : , . , , , . - - . , 17 18. , , , , . , , , , ... . . , . , , () () , , , , , , - , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , , -, () , . , , , , , . ; ! . , , , , , . , , , , , ( , , , , , ), . - , , , .18 17

-

27

: . , , . -, (- ) , , . , , , , , . , , , ( , ) . , , , , : , , , . , , , . , , . . , ( , , ). , . , , . , , , . : - , - , , . , , . : , , , , , , - , , , , , . , , -

28

* -

, , . , , , , , . - , . : , , , , , , , . , , . * * * - . , , . , , . , , - -. . (- ) : . .

Wadat al-Wujd in India

29

William C. Chittick(Stony Brook University, United States)

WADAT AL-WUJD IN INDIA

A few years ago I published an article explaining why it is misleading to associate the expression wadat al-wujd with the name of Ibn Arab.1 The habit of doing so has been deeply ingrained in the secondary literature since about the tenth/sixteenth century. Specialists now acknowledge that Ibn Arab never used the expression, but it is still largely taken for granted that he believed in it, especially in Muslim countries. I take the present opportunity to review some of the reasons why the uncritical association of the term with his name can only distort his legacy. In itself, wadat al-wujd does not designate any specific doctrine. Over history, it came to have a variety of meanings depending on who was using it.2 Certainly, when it came to be controversial, Ibn Arabs name was usually mentioned. Nonetheless, there is no doctrine that he or any of his early followers called wadat al-wujd. What the term really tells us is that Ibn Arabs writings mark Sufisms massive entry into theoretical discussions of the meaning and reality of wujd. Before him, such discussions had largely been the preserve of the philosophers and to some degree the mutakallimn. It is certainly true that Ibn Arab, along with everyone else, maintained that the Real Wujd, namely God, is one. But why should this statement be singled1 Rm and Wadat al-wujd, in Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The Heritage of Rm, edited by A. Banani, R. Hovannisian, and G. Sabagh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). P. 70111; reprinted in Chittick, Quest for the Lost Heart (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2012). P. 7199. See also Chittick, Wadat al-Shuhd, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 10 (2000). P. 3739. 2 I mention seven meanings that have commonly been ascribed to the term in Rm and Wadat al-wujd. In modern Persian, the problem is complicated by the fact that wadat-i wujd is often employed to translate the highly problematic term pantheism and is then freely ascribed to philosophers and mystics in every period and from various traditions. Typically, however, no attempt is made to justify this translation; in this usage, Ibn Arab appears as one of many exponents of the idea. A good example is provided by the excellent book of Qsim Kk, comparing Ibn Arab with Meister Eckhart: Wadat al-wujd bi riwyat-i Ibn-i Arab wa Mystir Ikhrt (Tehran: Hirmis, 1381/2002). As part of the historical background, Kk ascribes belief in wadat al-wujd to a whole series of Sufis, from Rbia down to Ar, not to mention various Christian and Hindu figures.

30 Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School * William C. Chittick out and called wadat al-wujd in his case? Moreover, if we look at his actual writings and focus on his numerous discussions of the relationship between wada and wujd, we will surely conclude that this is one issue among many and not necessarily the most important. Why then have we decided that wadat al-wujd is uniquely significant? Anyone who wants to claim that Ibn Arab believed in wadat al-wujd should first justify using this specific expression and then offer a definition of the expression that corresponds to his position. But what exactly is his position? To establish this, we cannot simply quote a passage or two from Fu al-ikam. Rather, we would need to analyze a broad range of passages addressing the issues of wada, wujd, and their relationship drawn from all of his writings, especially al-Futt al-makkiyya. This in itself would be a major undertaking, and no doubt scholars who actually look at the texts would not agree on the result. Trying to pin Ibn Arab down on any given issue can be rather hopeless, given that he typically offers multiple ways of dealing with it. The relationship between wada and wujd is a prime example. If we were able to establish a clear statement of Ibn Arabs doctrine of wadat al-wujd, we might see that our statement has little to do with what was being debated by later Muslims, notably in the case of Shaykh Amad Sirhind and his notion of wadat al-shuhd.3 Certainly, the expression wadat al-wujd was widely employed as an emblem for a doctrine that was attributed to Ibn Arab, but the reasons for this lie not in his writings per se, but in a lengthy historical process: first the appearance of the expression as a recognizable technical term, second its ascription to Ibn Arab and others, and third the debates over its legitimacy. * * * In order to understand what wadat al-wujd means in the texts, we need to find instances of its usage, and this is not easy before it becomes controversial in India. It is now well known that the expression plays no role in Ibn Arabs writings, nor is it found, except in one or two instances, in the writings of his immediate disciples (specifically adr al-Dn Qnaw).4 It is not until Sad al-Dn Farghn, an important student of Qnaw, that wadat al-wujd comes to be used in something like a technical meaning, though this specific meaning is hardly picked up in the later literature. No one ascribes wadat al-wujd to Ibn3 In fact, if we do want to characterize Ibn Arabs perspective by a single label, it will be difficult to do so, especially if we want a label justified by his own writings. My own favored term is taqq, realization, not least because Qnaw, in several places (such as his correspondence with Nar al-Dn s and al-Nu) refers to his own school of thought and that of his master as mashrab al-taqq. On the importance of taqq, see the introduction to Chittick, Self-Disclosure of God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998). 4 It comes up in passing, in a discussion of the unity of the Real, in a way that shows it has no special significance for him. See Chittick, Rm and Wadat al-wujd.

Wadat al-Wujd in India

31

Arab himself before Ibn Taymiyya, who tells us that it is a heresy equivalent to ittid (unificationism) and ull (incarnationism).5 It is worth noting that Ibn Taymiyyas hostile reading of wadat al-wujd gave it a specific meaning that is not suggested by its literal sense, nor by the manner in which Farghn used the term. Whether or not wujd is one depends on how we define it. There can be no question of Gods wujd or of the fact that God is one. It follows that Gods wujd is one. Thus, wadat al-wujd can simply mean wada wjib al-wujd, the oneness of the Necessary Being, and this is what I would presume it to mean if Ibn Arab used it. In this sense, it simply asserts the unity of God; in other words, it expresses tawd, the first axiom of Islamic thought. In other words, the expression is completely unobjectionable. Ibn Taymiyya criticized wadat al-wujd because he understood it in a completely different meaning. In Arabic, wujd is attributed not only to God, but also to the universe and everything it contains. If we attribute wujd to God and simultaneously to the world, we need to distinguish between two different sorts of wujd. Ibn Sn and other philosophers, Ibn Arab, and most of Ibn Arabs followers do in fact make this distinction. Wujd in its original and real sense belongs strictly to God. In its derivative, metaphorical, and unreal sense it belongs to everything other than God. Although Ibn Arab and his followers distinguished between two sorts of wujd, they also delighted in poetic and allusive language. They did not think that the strictly rational analyses of the philosophers and theologians were adequate to express the nature of things. In their view, language, which appears in the realm of unreal existence, cannot properly express Real Existence. Much like Zen masters, they held that in order to grasp the way things are, seekers need to come face to face with the paradoxes that fill the universe. These paradoxes can aid in the process of transcending the realm of conceptual thought and arriving at a vision of the contingent nature of everything other than God. It is these allusive and poetical passages in Ibn Arabs writings that tended to stir up the anger of theologians like Ibn Taymiyya. Whatever the reasons for Ibn Taymiyyas negative reaction to Ibn Arab and others who took similar positions, it was precisely his outrage that began the process of associating Ibn Arabs name with wadat al-wujd. Merely on the basis of Ibn Arabs writings, or the writings of his disciples and followers such as Ibn Sawdakn, Qunaw, Aff al-Dn Tilimsn, Farghn, Muayyid alDn Jand, Abd al-Razzq Kshn, and Dwd Qayarthere is no reason to suspect that the expression wadat al-wujd would be singled out as the characteristic doctrine of Ibn Arabs school of thought. Once Ibn Taymiyya brought the term to the fore, it came to be interpreted in ways that were congenial with5 Ibn Taymiyya may have picked up the term from Ibn Sabn, who uses it a few times in his writings though not in a clear technical sense. See ibid.

32 Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School * William C. Chittick Ibn Arabs teachings, even though it also continued to be interpreted in ways that flatly contradicted what he was saying. Why, however, did the expression wadat al-wujd become famous in India? I suspect that here we are indebted largely to the most influential proponent of Ibn Arabs teachings in the eastern lands of Islam, namely Abd al-Ramn Jm (d. 898/1492), who often used the expression to designate Ibn Arabs position.6 Jm was not only a first-rate scholar and the author of one of the most important Arabic commentaries on the Fu, but he also propagated Ibn Arabs teachings in his widely read Persian prose and poetry. In India, where most works written on Sufi teachings were composed in Persian, Jm was one of the favorite sources of guidance for those who wanted to understand Ibn Arabs ideas.7 * * * Many theoretical and practical reasons led Sirhind to react against the expression wadat al-wujd, which, by his time, following in the line of Jm, was held up as the epitome of Ibn Arabs perspective and the essence of the Sufi outlook. One theoretical reason in particular has not received the attention it deserves, so I would like to give a brief account of it here. It has to do with the two basic meanings of the word wujd and the fact that one of them had come to dominate Sirhinds understanding. If not for his one-sided reading of the word, he would have found it difficult to raise many of his objections. The underlying issue in debates over wadat al-wujd is how Islams first principletawd, or the assertion that there is no god but Godis to be understood. Sirhind makes this explicit in the very language that he employs. He uses wadat-i wujd as a synonym for tawd-i wujd and wadat-i shuhd as an equivalent for tawd-i shuhd. In Islamic philosophy, the specific form taken by discussion of wujd goes back to the early adoption of the word to render the Greek idea of being or existence. However, the literal sense of the word wujd is to find, as exem6 Jm frequently mentions al-qiln bi-wadat al-wujd, those who speak for the Oneness of Being, meaning Ibn Arab and his followers. Moreover, it is Jm who tells us in Nafat al-uns (completed in 883/1484) that the exchange of letters between Al al-Dawla Simnn and Abd al-Razzq Kshn in the early eighth/fourteenth century had to do with wadat al-wujd. In fact, the letters offer no internal evidence to think that this is socertainly the two authors do not mention the expression, neither in the letters, nor, so far as I have been able to find, in any of their other writings. Jms statement has led modern scholars to treat the debate as having to do with wadat al-wujd. See, for example, H. Landolt, "Der Briefwechsel zwischen Ksn und Simnn ber Wadat al-Wugd," Der Islam, 50 (1973). P. 2981. 7 In Persia itself, Jm was well known but far less influential, at least partly because he was a Sunni, a fact that made him less popular in Safavid times than he might have been. Nonetheless, Fay Kshna disciple of Mull adr and a major muaddith and faqhbased a good deal of his Kalimt-i maknna on Jms theoretical writings, including Naqd al-nu, Lawi, Ashiat al-lamat, and Shar-i rubiyyt.

Wadat al-Wujd in India

33

plified by the frequent usage of the verb in the Koran (e.g., And indeed We found most of them ungodly, 7:102; He finds God, 24:39). It is this primary meaning that predominated in the early Sufi usage. The authors of the manuals such as Qushayr, Sarrj, and Hujwrhad the Koranic meaning in mind when they discussed wujd along with wajd and tawjud. They considered wujd a stage on the path to God in which the finder (wjid) perceives only God. Notice also that finder was often listed among the most beautiful names of God, as in Ghazls al-Maqad al-asn. Gradually, wujd in the philosophical sense entered the Sufi vocabulary. We see many examples of this in the writings of Muammad and Amad Ghazl and their contemporaries Amad Samn, Rashd al-Dn Maybud, and Ayn alQut Hamadn. It is not always clear, however, which sense of the term finding or existencea given author had in mind, and many authors used the term in both meanings simultaneously. The dual meaning of wujd is implicit in much of what Ibn Arab says about wujd, and it was not altogether forgotten by the philosophers, even though they had established the term in its secondary meaning. A striking example is provided by Ibn Arabs contemporary Afal al-Dn Kshn (d. 1210), who wrote his works mainly in Persian. He highlights the two meanings in order to explain that wujd designates a reality that has a number of degrees. The lower degrees pertain merely to existence or being (Persian bd, hast), whereas the higher degrees also embrace finding (Pers. yft), a word that he takes as a synonym for awareness (gah), perception (idrk, daryft), and consciousness (b-khabar). In the writings of Ibn Arab, the meaning of wujd as existence often predominates over its meaning as finding and perceiving, but certainly not when he discusses it as a technical term among Sufis. Then, for example, he defines it as finding the Real in ecstasy (wijdn al-aqq fl-wajd).8 Wujd in this sense is often difficult to differentiate from fan or annihilation of the self in God. In the Sufi discussions of the word wujd, the term shuhd or witnessing frequently plays a significant role. It is often not clear that shuhd means anything other than wujd. For example, in listing various definitions of wujd offered by Sufi teachers, Qushayr provides an early example of the many poems that use the two words as rhymes: My wujd is that I absent myself from wujd / with what appears to me through shuhd.9 In the context of Qushayrs several definitions of the word, it is obvious that wujd here means finding: it designates the poets consciousness of himself and others. As for shuhd, it means seeing God face to face. The poet means to say that true awareness is to be unaware of oneself and aware only of God. However, we can also read it with theIilt al-fiyya in Rasil Ibn Arab (Hyderabad, 1948), 5; also al-Futt almakkiyya (Cairo, 1911). Vol. II. P. 133 line 12; P. 538, line 1. 9 Risla (Cairo, 1972). P. 249.8

34 Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School * William C. Chittick philosophical meaning of wujd in mind. Then it means that no one achieves true awareness until the existence of the individual self has been annihilated through witnessing God. In either case, true wujd is achieved in shuhd, so the two are essentially identical.10 Early authors frequently discuss the word kashf or unveiling as a synonym for shuhd, and Ibn Arab often employs both kashf and shuhd as synonyms for wujd.11 In his writings it is sometimes impossible to make any distinction between wujd and shuhd. In short, when we look at the Sufi use of the term wujd down to Ibn Arab, we see that its primary meaning makes it a virtual synonym for shuhd. Only if we stress wujds philosophical sense can we understand it in another meaning. Even in the philosophical context, wujd can mean awareness and finding along with existence, as shown by the writings of Afal al-Dn Kshn. * * * I mentioned earlier that we do not find the expression wadat al-wujd used as anything like a technical term among Ibn Arabs disciples or early followers except in one instance. Sad al-Dn Farghn employs it many times in both the Persian and the Arabic versions of his commentary on the Tiyya of Ibn alFri. He discusses it as the complement of kathrat al-ilm or the manyness of knowledge. His purpose in contrasting the two expressions is to explain the divine origins of both unity and multiplicity. It was clear to everyone that unity is Gods attribute, but it was not so obvious that all multiplicity also goes back to Gods very self. According to Farghn, Gods oneness lies in wujd. To say that there is no god but God means that God alone has true, real, and necessary wujd. The wujd of everything else is derivative, unreal, and, to use the philosophical term, possible or contingent (mumkin). Moreover, the One, Necessary, Eternal God knows all things, and he knows them for all eternity. This means that the objects of Gods knowledge are many for all eternity, even though these objects enter into existence only within the matrix of time. Hence, God is one in his wujd and many in his knowledge. The oneness of his wujd and the manyness of his knowledge are the two principles that give rise to the cosmos.12 Ibn alArab has the same point in mind when he refers to God as the One, the Many (al-wid al-kathr).10 The similar meanings of wujd and shuhd in the early texts is confirmed by Junayds definition of mushhada, a word that is often used interchangeably with shuhd: It is finding the Real while losing yourself (wujd al-aqq ma fuqdnika). Risla. P. 279. 11 See indexes of Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), and of idem, Self-Disclosure of God. 12 Mashriq al-darr (Tehran, 1979). P. 344; Muntahl-madrik (Cairo, 1293/1876), Vol. I. P. 357; also edited by im Ibrhm al-Kayyl (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya), 2007. Vol. I. P. 478.

Wadat al-Wujd in India

35

Having explained the origin of the universe in terms of wadat al-wujd and kathrat al-ilm, Farghn sets out to explain how these two principles determine the constituents that make up Gods form (ra), which is the human being. When God created Adam, he blew of his own spirit into Adams clay, and Adam came into existence composed of three basic levelsbody, spirit (r), and soul (nafs), which is the intermediary between spirit and body. Because of the souls close association with the multiplicity of bodily clay, it manifests the manyness of knowledge. In contrast, the spirit, which derives from the one divine breath, manifests wadat al-wujd.13 In this discussion, Farghn is careful to point out that the word wujd does not mean simply existence. It also means the habitude (malaka) of wajd, that is, the deeply rooted and permanent finding (yft) of ones inner connection to the world of the spirits oneness.14 In the Arabic text that corresponds to the Persian passage that I just summarized, Farghn offers what is perhaps the earliest significant example of the term wadat al-shuhd, though clearly not as a technical term. He tells us that when the traveler finds his own spirit, he is attracted to the world of the oneness of true witnessing (wadat al-shuhd al-aqq).15 In continuing his discussion of the spirits oneness and the souls manyness, Farghn tells us that when the traveler reaches the point at which his soul undergoes fan or annihilation, the manyness of knowledge is eliminated from his awareness. Then he experiences subsistence (baq) in the shuhd of wadat al-wujd. But, this subsistence is not yet the final stage of the path, because his spirit, which manifests wadat al-wujd, has not yet reached annihilation. Once the spirit is annihilated, the corresponding subsistence allows the traveler to have a shuhd of kathrat al-ilm. Having achieved subsistence in both wadat alwujd and kathrat al-ilm, the traveler reaches the stage of jam, gathering or togetherness, a term that had long been discussed in the Sufi manuals as the correlative of farq, separation or dispersion.16 Two further stations of spiritual progress remain after the station of gathering. First comes jam al-jam, the gathering of gathering, in which the two earlier stationswhich correlate with wadat al-wujd and kathrat al-ilmare harmonized. This is the highest station achieved by the greatest of the prophets and saints. Finally comes the station of aadiyyat al-jam, the unity of gatherMashriq. P. 359; Muntah (1293). Vol. II. P. 17; (2007). Vol. II. P. 21. Mashriq. P. 364365. 15 Muntah (1293). Vol. II. P. 21; (2007). Vol. II. P. 27. 16 It is not without relevance that both Ibn Arab and adr al-Dn Qnaw sometimes use gathering in close association with wujd, as in the expression ahl al-jam wal-wujd (the folk of gathering and finding), those who have achieved the highest stations on the path to God.14 13

36 Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School * William C. Chittick ing, and this belongs exclusively to the prophet Muhammad. Here wadat alwujd and kathrat al-ilm are seen to be identical.17 What is especially significant in Farghns use of the expression wadat alwujd is that it has not yet reached the status of a technical term. The evidence for this is that Farghn often uses it in the Persian version of the book and then fails to carry it over into the Arabic version of the same passage. If it were a technical term of significance, he surely would have preserved it in the later, thoroughly revised Arabic text. * * *

Sirhinds reaction to wadat al-wujd occurred in the context of its newly found fame and its general ascription to Ibn Arab. He objected to it, he says, because a large number of his contemporaries were employing it as a pretext to avoid observing the rulings of the Shariah.18 It is clear that many of those who spoke of it in his timelike many of those who speak about it todayhad no acquaintance with Ibn Arabs writings. Instead, they had a vague and sentimental notion of mystical unity, and they used it to invoke Ibn Arabs support for their own deviations from normative Islamic teachings and practices. When Sirhind explains the meaning of wadat al-wujd, he demonstrates little acquaintance with the writings of Ibn Arab or his major followers. By insisting that it was an inadequate expression of the nature of things and that it needed to be supplanted by wadat al-shuhd, he was taking for granted that it was the teaching of Ibn Arab and that wujd was being used in the philosophical sense. He seemed not to recognize that Ibn Arab used it to mean finding and witnessing as well as being and existence. So, at least partly because Sirhind was oblivious to the meaning of wujd as finding and perceiving, he felt it necessary to insist that seeing God in all things goes back to the viewer. The unity achieved on the path to God, he claimed, is that of shuhd, not that of wujd. But, for Ibn Arab and many of his followers these two words meant the same thing. So Sirhind not only ascribes a doctrine to Ibn Arab that he does not professwadat al-wujdbut he also understands wujd in a way that is not compatible with Ibn Arabs use of the word. * * *

This brings me to my final pointhow the significance of Sirhinds objections to wadat al-wujd has been perceived in the later Sufi tradition and in modern times. When I spent eight months in Indian libraries in 1988 investigating the influence of Ibn Arabs school of thought with special regard toMashriq. PP. 186; 395396; Muntah (1293). Vol. I. P. 226; Vol. II. P. 45; (2007). Vol. I. P. 301302; Vol. II. P. 5859. 18 E.g. Maktbt (Delhi, 1964). # 43.17

Wadat al-Wujd in India

37

Sirhinds objections to wadat al-wujd,19 I was surprised to find that, except among a small minority of authors connected with Sirhinds own Naqshband Order, few Sufi writers took notice of his objections, and those who did frequently dismissed them as misguided and self-inflating. Even some of the later masters of Sirhinds branch of the Naqshbands felt it necessary to distance themselves from his criticisms. The most famous example here is Shh Wal Allh, who explains in his well-known Fayala wadat al-wujd wal-shuhd that there is no essential difference between the position of Ibn Arab and that of Sirhind. I do not want to suggest that Sirhind was simply ignored, but his influence on Indian Sufism was certainly much less pervasive than one might suspect by looking at the secondary literature. Most Sufi scholars continued to consider Ibn Arab Shaykh-i Akbar, the greatest master, and, to the extent that they took notice of wadat al-wujd as a doctrine specific to him, they interpreted it in ways that respected his positions and those of his major followers. Here again, Jm was especially influential. One of the more interesting examples of scholars who dismissed Sirhinds criticisms of wadat al-wujd was Khwja Khurd, one of the two sons of Bq Billh, Sirhinds own Naqshband shaykh. In his History of Sufism in India Rizvi tells us that although Bq Billh had entrusted the upbringing of Khwja Khwurd and his brother Khwja Kaln to Sirhind, the two distanced themselves from him and established their own Naqshband center in Delhi, where they continued to teach wadat al-wujd.20 In one of his treatises, the Arabic Fawi (a title probably inspired by Jms famous Lawi), Khwja Khurd points out that wujd is essentially synonymous with shuhd, so it is wrong to suggest that wadat al-shuhd is a corrective to wadat al-wujd. He writes, A group has supposed that tawd lies in shuhd and not in wujd, but they have not reached the reality of the station. Another group has verified that wujd is the same as shuhd and that the shuhd opposed to wujd is of no account.21 Another interesting example of the dismissal of Sirhinds position comes from Shaykh Abd al-Jall of Ilhbd, who also seems to have been a contemporary. In a treatise that records a visionary conversation with Ibn Arab, he asks about a recent Sufi who says that Oneness is in shuhd, not in wujd. Ibn Arab replies that everything such critics have written he has already said in the Futt, because there he presents all legitimate points of view. The problem lies in the critics inability to see beyond their own limitations. Whether this conversation records an actual vision or is simply a literary device, it suggests19 For a summary of this research, see Chittick, Notes on Ibn al-Arabs Influence in India, Muslim World 82 (1992). P. 218241. 20 S.A.A. Rizvi. A History of Sufism in India (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978 1983). Vol. II. P. 249250. 21 I copied the text by hand from two manuscripts: The Maulana Azad Library of Aligarh Muslim University, Subhanullah 297.7/34; Khudabakhsh Library (Patna) 3997.

38 Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School * William C. Chittick quite rightly the vast range of legitimate positions that Ibn Arab discusses in the Futt and the common perception that Sirhind had nothing to add. Abd al-Jall has another treatise presenting a similar visionary conversation, but this time the two participants are the spirit and the soul. I have summarized the contents of this treatise elsewhere,22 but I did not mention its full relevance to the issues that are raised by Sirhinds appeal to wadat al-shuhd. The treatise offers a subtle analysis of the different perspectives represented by soul and spirit in a manner reminiscent of Farghns depiction of the souls manyness and the spirits oneness. The soul speaks as someone who has undergone the annihilation of the distinctions demanded by the manyness of knowledge and who has lost the ability to discern right from wrong. In contrast, the spirit speaks as someone who has moved on to a stage in which all the distinctions demanded by the manyness of knowledge are preserved. In Abd al-Jalls account of the debate, the soul offers various misinterpretations of Ibn Arabs position similar to those criticized by Sirhind when he identified wadat al-wujd with the Persian expression hama st, All is He. In contrast, the spirit is depicted as seeing all things in their proper places, which is held up as the position of the prophets. Nonetheless, Abd al-Jall does not stop at differentiating between the vision of the oneness of wujd and the manyness of knowledge. Eventually the debate leads to the integration of these two perspectives into various higher stages of complementary understandingagain, much like Farghn. Other Indian Sufi teachers were perfectly aware that Ibn Arabs teachings were prone to misinterpretation. Nonetheless, few of them thought it necessary to critique them or question his spiritual stature. One of the most notable was Sirhinds contemporary Shaykh Muibb Allh, who, like Abd al-Jall, was from Ilhbd. He has been called a second Ibn Arab because of his mastery of Ibn Arabs works, his own voluminous writings, and his fervent defense of Ibn Arabs status as the Greatest Master. When he mentions him in his Persian writings, he often does so with the rhyming expression, Ibn Arab, az wajd u l bar, that is, Ibn Arab, free of ecstasy and states. By mentioning ecstasy and states, he is referring to the elation that can be induced by Sufi practices and hence to an emotional and experiential side of Sufism that is commonly criticized by both ulama and Sufi teachers. By calling Ibn Arab free of such things, Shaykh Muibb Allh wants to stress his mastery of the stations (maqmt) on the path to God. Indeed, Ibn Arab often tells us that the great Sufis avoid states at all cost, because these are passing gifts that have no ultimate significance. On22 On Sufi Psychology: A Debate between the Soul and the Spirit, Consciousness and Reality: Studies in Memory of Toshihiko Izutsu, edited by S.J. Ashtiyani, H. Matsubara, T. Iwami, and A. Matsumoto (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1998). P. 341366; reprinted in Chittick, Quest for the Lost Heart.

Wadat al-Wujd in India

39

ly stations, which are permanent acquisitions of the soul and deep-rooted transformations of the very substance of its reality, have any real worth. In saying that Ibn Arab was free of ecstasy and states, Shaykh Muibb Allh obviously wanted to distance him from those who understood wadat alwujd as an emotional experience of the mystical type. Anyone familiar with the history of Sufism knows that Sufi practices have occasionally degenerated into the search for mystical experience for its own sake. Perhaps India, with its vast medley of religious possibilities, had more than the usual share of Sufi paths that were considered deviant by those who kept to the normative standards of the tradition. * * * Finally, let me say something about Sirhinds fame and the importance that has been given to wadat al-shuhd in the modern literature. The underlying reason for all the attention seems to be the growing sense of Muslim nationalism in the subcontinent. This of course was stimulated by British rule, exacerbated by partition, and sustained and intensified by the increasingly secular outlook on human nature and society that has accompanied modernity. Islamic nationalism, first in India and then in Pakistan, needed founding fathers, and Sirhind seemed to fill the bill. His proto-Islamism was seen as opposing the universalizing tendencies of Akbars legacy and understood as a prelude to the anti-Hindu policies of Awrangzb and a corrective to the dangers inherent in Dr Shukhs openness to the Hindu tradition. Sirhind provided a convenient figurehead who could be read as an ideologue in the Muslim struggle for autonomy. At the same time, wadat al-wujd could be depicted as representing all the forces threatening Islamic identity from both outside and inside. Those who believed in wadat alwujd could be accused of denigrating the Shariah and following non-Islamic teachings, leading to the decline of Islamic civilization.23 In short, wadat al-shuhd was held up as the proper Islamic perspective, and wadat al-wujd as a corrupt vision of things. This was perfect for nationalistic purposes, but it played havoc with the historical record, not to mention the appreciation of Ibn Arabs actual standpoints on issues of faith and practice. This reading of Ibn Arabs legacy then coincided nicely with the hostility of certain Orientalists. For example, when Louis Massignonwho was one of the most sympathetic Western scholars of Sufismheard about wadat al-shuhd, he was23 It is only this sort of understanding that could have led Fazlur Rahman, one of the Pakistani scholars who built up Sirhinds image, to tell us that wadat al-wujd gravely endangered the position of the Shariah. He writes, A thoroughly monistic systemby which he means the wadat al-wujd of Ibn Arabcan not, by its very nature, take seriously the objective validity of moral standards. This may well represent Sirhinds understanding of wadat al-wujd, but in no way does it correlate with the understanding of more perceptive and less politically inclined Muslim thinkers, such as Abd al-Jall and Muibb Allh. See Chittick, Sufi Path of Knowledge, 289ff.

40 Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School * William C. Chittick able to take it as a confirmation of his own personal antipathy toward Ibn Arab. He read it as supporting his own belief that Ibn Arab had no insight into the experiential side of Sufism, a side that could be nicely designated by the word shuhd. In Massignons eyes, Ibn Arab helped to submerge Sufisms spirituality into the Greek heritage and to transform true mysticism into sterile philosophy. I can summarize my points as follows: the expression wadat al-wujd appeared rather late in the history of Sufism, a century after Ibn Arab. It became controversial for reasons having little to do with Ibn Arabs own teachings. Sirhind criticized it not least because he stuck to one meaning of the word wujd and ignored the other. Many of the Sufi scholars of India had a much better understanding of Ibn Arabs teachings, so they did not take Sirhinds criticisms seriously. Sirhind does not owe his modern fame to the supposed importance of wadat al-shuhd as a corrective to wadat al-wujd, but rather to the need of Islamic nationalism in India for founding fathers who could be called upon to justify the break with a long tradition of co-existence.

--

41

( )

..

-- : -

. , 1993 , , . , , , , . , ; , , , . , . , , . - . . , . , ( ), () , ( ). () ( ). . , , , , . ? ( , ) , , () .

42 : - * .. ( ), (), , . , () , ( -), . , ( ) . -- . -- ( - , - ), ( -); . , --, .. , , , . , . , , , , . , . , - , .. . , , . , , . () , : -, . , . , , , .. -. , . --, , . -, , . -, ,

--

43

, . , . ( ), - . . , , (, , ) . , , , . , , . (- - ) --1. , , , . , . . , , . , , . , , ( 112:1: : ). ; (, , . 11 27 ) , , (). , , , : --, -- , --, -. [ 2010] , .1

44 : - * .. . : , , (), , . , , . -. , : : , ( ). , (), (). . () , . , , (), (). , (). (). , (). [ ] , (), , . (, .. . ..) [] . () , (). , () (. ..) () () [, 1:485]. , () . ( , (), ; , ). , , . , , , (), (). , : , (), .. , 2: 2

. . 24 .

--

45

, , . ( ) . : , . - - 5 (. [, 1980, 81]), () , [, 1980, 91]. , () [, 1980, 147]. . , , , - ( ): , -3 . , , . : . , [, 1980, 147]. , - , , 3 : , , , . , , , [, 1375, 895]. : , , . , , -, , ; , . : [, 1381, 549] ( -) [, 1382, 535] ( ), ( , -) [, 1378, 606], -; [, 1413] [, 1370] . , , , (), .

46 : - * .. , : -- , . - , , , , , ( , -- ). . -, , (), , , .. , [, 1372, 8:322]. , , -. , 20 . , , [, 1:398, 2:292] . ( ), , , , . , : / -- . , -- -- , , . () ? ( ) : , , , [, 1980, 91]. , (), , ( ) . , : , --, -

--

47

-, , , , , , , [, 1980, 67]: --? : ( ) . , - . , , , -, . , . -- , . : , --, , . -, --, , , . , , ; , , .. . --, , , . , - -- ( , ). , ( ) , ( ) - , : , () () , , (. ..) (); , . , , ( - -), () . -

48 : - * .. , . , . , , , , , ; , ( -), , , [, 1980, 53]. - --. : , (. . 27 ). -- - : , , . - , ( ), , , , ( -). , () , : (). , ( , , ), , , . , , ( , - ), , . - , . , , . , , -

--

49

: , , . --, , --. , --; , -, ? . , , , , ( ) . , ( ) -- . , . , . , --, , . ( - ; .) , - . ( ): ; , , - . ; , ( ) --/ , . - , , . , . , , , , . : (), (). ()

50 : - * .. . , [] . , ( [], ), . ( -), () (), (). , , , [, 3:199]. . , . , () , ; . , , , . , , . , : (), , , ; ( . ..). , , (), . , , . () (): . , : , , , , ; . . , [] . (- -), . [ ] ; , () . ( -), . , , , [] (), (), (). , , () , , [, 2:433].

--

51

, () . , , , , . . , , . , . ; ( ). , , , . , . , , (-), , , , , .. . , , .. : [, 1980, 49], , [, 3:198], () -. , , .. , , . , , , , , , . , , . , - , , --: , -, () [ ], , , (), (), , [] (). , , [] [] . , () (). ,

52 : - * .. ( ), , . . . , , , , . (), (). , , , !. ( ) (- -), . ( - -), , , , . , , ( ) ( ). , , , . , : , , , ( ), ( ). , , , [, 1:77]. . , () ( ) , . , , , , , , , . ( -/-) , , , , , . - : . , . , , , :

--

53

, , . , . : . , , , , , . , , , , , . , . , , , . ( ). , . ; , ; , , , , , . , - : , . , . - , -- . , - : , -, , , , - . - , -, . , .

54 : - * .. , () , ( , [] ..). 4: , ( ) , .. . , , ( , ) , . -- , () -- , . , , (. . 1); , .. 1

, , : , . , , , ; , , --/ , .4

--

55

() . , ; , (- -) . , , , , , , . , , (), [, 4:311]. , : , ! . : ( - ), , , . . : (- -), . (. [, 1996, 16 ]), , , [, 1996, 18]. [, 1996, 18], - - , , . , , (), [, 1996, 16]. , , [, 1996, 18] , [, 1996, 17 .]. , . (, , ), , . ? , () ; --, . , . , , .. , - 5. , , , , .5

56 : - * .. () , .. . , : , , . : , , , ( ). ( -), [] ( ) [, 3:199]. () () : ( ) ( -- , ), , , , --, . , : - , ? , , . , ? , . - , , , . , , . , ---- , , .. -- . , , () , --, , , . (---), (--). , (), [, 1980, 103], , [, 1980, 104] ..: , , .

--

57

, . , , , --, , . : , , - -- . , . . , , , . , , , -, ; , , .. , . , . , -. - , - - . , , , , . , . , , , --- --6. , , ( ), , , .. , , [, 1995, 26].6

58 : - * .. 7. , , : , , , , , . , [, 1980, 67]. , , - , --- ( ) , , ---, (). , , (= ), -- (= ), , ( ). - ( , ), , , . , - , . : . , ; , ? -- . , , . , , . , , , .7

--

59

, . , , . , , , , , 8. , , , - , : , , . , , -- . , , , , : , , . ? , , , . , , -/ . : , , , ( , ) , , , . , , . 8 - , ; (: , -) , ( -): , .

60 : - * .. . , - -, , , - , . , - (-- ), . , , ( ). , , - . , , . , : , , , , , 9. , 1370. , -. - - (, ) / . - . 2- . : - - , 1370 .. , 1381. -, -. - ( ) / . - . []: - , 1381 ..9 .. , , - : , , , ( ) , , , [, 1995, 26]. , , , , , .

--

61

, 1996. Ibn Arab. La Production des Cercles. Kitb insh ad-dawir alihtiyya. Traduit de larabe, prsent et annot par Paul Fenton & Maurice Cloton, texte arabe tabli par H.S. Nyberg. Paris: ditions de lclat, 1996. , 1375. -, . - - ( ) / . . 1- . : - - , 1375 .. , 1995. .. // -. (- -). .: , 1995. , 1413. -, -. - ( , [ ]) / . . : , 1413 . (=1371 ..). , 1372. -, . - - - ( ). : -, 1372 . ( 20 ). , 2010. .. // : / . . .. . .: , 2010, . 15123. , 1378. , -. - ( ) / . . : , 1378 .. , 1980. . - ( ) / . . - . 2- . 2- . : - -, 1980. . . - - ( ). . 14. : , .. , 1382. , - . - ( ) / . . : , 1382 [..].

62 : - *

\ *

1 ( !) , 2, () : ()3 ( ), ()4, 5, 6. , - , ; ()7, (), , , 8. ( !) ( )9 ()10, . () , 11 12. [] , ( -) 13 (), (), 14. 15 (), , 16. , , ; 17, 18. , ; 19 ( ) , 20 ( ). , * .. . [, 1980] : [, 1413], [, 1381], [, 1375], [, 1382], [, 1370], [, 1378].

63

() 21, , [] , [ ] , 22 ( ) ()23 ( )24, ( ), ( ) ( , ) , , 25. ( ); ( )26, ()27 , 28. [] ()29. , , . , : (), ( -) ()30. , 31. - (- -), - (- - -), - (- -)32. 33, , () . , , 34 . , , : , , , . , ( )35. , , , , , 36, () 37? (-) . , , , ( : 1

64 : - * ), . , , , . , : - , . /- -. ( ); - -. - - -. -- . 2 ( -) - . , , 99 , ; , . : - - , . . : , , (), .. () , () , - , () , , .. , , . 3 (. ) , , , - , . , . . , ( , ..), , . , , , , . -

65

(), () . , , , , . . , , , , . , .. , (), .. , . , , (), -. ( . ) , (= ) . , () ( ), , . . 4 (, ) , . , , , - (-/-), --, , , ( , ). , ; . 5 () , , , .. . 6 () (). -- . , (). - (818 896): (). , , : [, 1405, 1:208]. , .. -, ,

66 : - * , - . , , () , (). , . , , , , . : ( ) , , , , , . 7 () , . (. . 13); . (., [, 1980, 113]: ...). , . , . 8 () (), - () . -- ( ) . (. [, 1980, 6162, 6667, 78, 96, 184]). (. [, 1980, 112, 119, 143145, 155, 156, 187, 216, 218, 219]). 9 ( ) , ; . . , , . (), , . . , , .

10

67

, , ( ). () (, [, 3:199] . , . 25), , ( ), - ( : -). . ( ) , . , , : , , . 11 -. . 9, (. . 30). , ( ) , : (32:9). , , , , , - . , .. --. , : , , --, , . , : , --. 12 , : () (. ..) ( 32:9, . . ; . 15:29 38:72). 13 . , (. . 7). , , ( ), . 14 . . , , , , .

68 : - * - , . 15 . , . , () , .. , , . , (, , , ), , , , .. . 16 , , . , -, , -, . (), () (): , , , , . - (- -) (- -), : , ( ), ( ), ( ). - , , , , . ( . . 8, 18, 25). 17 11:123 (. . ..). 18 - . ; , . , - , , . ; , . -

69

. . 19 , , . , - , , [, 1950, 276]. : . 20 - , [, 1375, 340]. 21 ( ) : , , . . , , ( ) . , , . , . , , , ; . (), (; . [, 1980, 135]). (. [, 1980, 97, 98, 196, 205]). , [, 3:186]. . , , , , : . 22 . -, . 23 . 16 [, 1980, 153], , . ., . 24 , , . ( ), (). , ( ): , . , , , -

70 : - * () (). , , , .. , , , () . ; . , , (), () , , .. . , , ( ), , , ( ). : 1) 2) , . , () , , (). -- () (. [, 1980, 81, 119]), , , . -. , . --. , , , .. - (. . .). 25 , . , . , : , - . () , : --, , , , .

26

71

, , , ( ) , , ( , ) . , () , () , (. ). , , (. ) . 27 ( ), , - . , () , . , , - -- . , , (, ) , () . 28 - - -- . , . , , ( ) . ( ) -. . , , , , .. , . , () , [, 3:187]. 29 ( 2:30, . . ..). : ( ) , , , , . , : . 30 - . . ( ). -

72 : - * , , , : , . , , . () ; , ( , ), -: , () , (; -- . . 11). , , ; . , (.. ) (). , --, .. -. ( . . 26). 31 , , ( ): , ( ), ( ; ). - : (), .. ( -), , .. , .. , , . , , (); -: ( ), , [, 1375, 352]. , ( ): -- , , , , , .. , , , .. . () (), , - - (), (..

73

) , . -- ( ) () (-, -, -). 32 : . - , (), () (), [, 1413, 185]. . , , , , . , , - , . , , . (), , , , . , : , (. [, 2004]). : , , , , , , .. . -? : , -- , . , ( -), . , . - - , , - . --. . : ( ). , , - , , . , - (

74 : - * ) , .. , , . , , ( ), , -- . , , , : , ; , -- , . , , . 33 , , , - , , , : . , . -, , . -, , , , . , -, . . 34 , . , .. . - , , . () (), , : , . , . 35 ( , ) , . , . , . ( ) -- , .

36

75

. - , , , .. . , , , , ( ) , .. : -. : - , -. , , . - : , , - , --. 37 ( ) , --, , , , , , .

, 2004. Bashier S.H. Ibn al-Arabs Barzakh. The Concept of the Limit and the Relationship between God and the World. Albany: SUNY Press, 2004. , 1370. , -. - - (, ) / . - . 2- . : - - , 1370 .. , 1381. -, -. - ( ) / . - . []: - , 1381 .. , 1405. -, . - - ( ). 4- . : - -, 1405 . ( 10 ). , 1375. -, . - - ( ) / . . 1- . : - - , 1375 ..

76 : - * , 1950. -. - - - [] - ( , , ) // (). : -, 1950, . 270280. , 1413. -, -. - ( , [ ]) / . . : , 1413 . (=1371 ..) , 1378. , -. - ( ) / . . : , 1378 .. , 1980. . - ( ) / . . - . 2- . 2- . : - -, 1980. . . - - ( ). . 14. : , [..]. , 1382. , - . - ( ) / . . : , 1382 [..].

[]

77

\ [] , [] (- -)* (- -)1 (11651240), , (- -)2. () () , , . , , () , (), , ( ). . , , () . , * , .. . 1 . - -. 4- . : - - 1998. 2 . [] , []. ( -) // . . : , 2011. . 547567.

78 : - * , , [] ( ), , . , , , , , . : , . , , () ( ), . ? , , ? , , . : () (), . , , , , . , , . , . , . , . . , ( ), , . , , ( ) ( -), ,

[]

79

, , 3. , . , , ( ). , . () (), () () . , , . , , , , . , . , : , . . , 4. (, ) , , 5. , , . . 3 . - // Ibn Arabi. La production des cercles. P.: Editions de lEclat, 1996. P. 18. 4 .: . // . . .: , 1998. . 89. 5 () * , () ( . - -, . 1, . 342).

80 : - * , , - , , . () , () . , , - , (), , , , , , . , ( ) .

73 [] , []6 7 (), , ()? : ( . ..) ( . ..) , ( . ..) [] . [ ( . ..) ] [ ], ( . ..) [] . [ ( . ..) ] 8, [] . [ ( . ..) ] , , ( . ..) [] . ( . ..) ( . ..) (), ( ), , (): , 9. . - -, . 2, . 5135. . - -, . 2, . 6970. 8 , : (, 2:30, .). , . (.), .. (.) .-.. (.), . 9 ( ) ( , ): , 7 6

[]

81

()? ()10, ? ( . ..) (). [] , , , . ()11, , 12. , () ()13. ( . ..) : 14. , , (, 8:17, .). , , , . ? ( . ..) 15, ; , , , , . - -. - // Ali Abd al-Kader. The Life, Personality and Writings of al-Junayd. Norfolk, 1976. . 3334; . : . . , , . // . . .: , 1998. . 303. .: .. // . . . .. . .: , 1991. . 262 [: ]. 10 . , , , ( ) . 11 ( : ) 1) ; 2) (.: .. . .: , 1993. . 73). , - , , - (). () ( , ..) , , , ( . ..) , () (). -, ( ) (). (, ) , . , [] , () (.: . - -, . 1, . 341). 12 .: .. , . 73. 13 : , , , (, 13:27, .). 14 . . . 15 : , , , (, 13:39, .).

82 : - * , () (): , : (, 8:17), , : (, 8:17). () ( . ..) ( . ..) : [] (, 8:17). [ ] (-), ( )16 ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ). [] ( . ..) . ( . ..) ( . ..) () , [ ] (). ( . ..) (-), ( -), () , . ( . ..) ( !) ( ) , . () ( , !). : , (, 8:18, .). , . [ ]: : . [] , [], , , [] [, ], (-) (, 20:50, .). , . ( . ..) () , , ( ). , 16 ( ) . . , ( .. // . ., 2000. . 3. . 673 [: ]). ( ), .

[]

83

[ ], . , -, (), (), , . : (, 12:101, .). : [ ] , (, 21:30, .). [], . : () , . (, 30:30, .). , (), , : , 50:29, .), [ ], , . [ ] ( !) : (). [ ] ( ) ( ) (), , . [ ] , , , - , ( -), () . , , . , [] (), ( . ..) ( . ..). () () . ( . ..) [] 17, [] , [] () . . - [] , . , [ ] ( !) : , (17 , , , , , , , (.: . // , . 3, . 673).

84 : - * ) , [ ( . ..) ] . . , . []: (, 2:31, .). , . , ( . ..) , ( . ..), . ( . ..) , , : [] (), [ -] . () - , , , . , , . () [] , , () . , , , , , . , . , , , , , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , ! 18 ()? : (), () , : . : , , [, , ] []: , (, 35:1, .). : 18

. - -, . 2, . 70.

[]

85

(, 24:35, .). , , ( . ..) . [] : , ; , (, 17:105, .). (), . : (, 35:1). , [] , . (). ? : (, 7:172, .). . , . , ( . ..) . (-) - (-) . (), . , , ( . ..) , . 19 ( . ..) ()? : [ ()]20: , ? (, 38:75, .), ( ) []. , ( -) ()21 [] ( . ..) , 22. (), [] () [] (), , . , [] () [ ] (), [] (). , : [ ] (, 38:75) ( . - -, . 2, . 7071. (, ) , ( ), (: 38:7085). .: .. // , . 8182. 21 1) , , , ; 2) (-.); 3) . 22 .20 19

86 : - * ) , [] ( . ..), , [] , . , , , [ ] . , [] , [] . - , , () [], , . [ ] . [ ] , , [] (). , , (). (), ? ( ()23. ..) 24, ( . ..) , , (), : (, 19:17, .). : , (, 2:187, .). , . , : ! (, 2:117) ( ) ( ( ) . ..) [ (!) ] [] . [] [!] [] , [] [] , [] ( ) [] () , [] [] (!) (, 2:117), (!) (, 2:117) - () , - , , : (, 18:51, .). 23 , (), , . . (19). .: .. // , . 158. 24 : (, 19:17, .).

[]

87

[], [] , , , . [] , , [ , ], [] ()25. (), [] []. ( ) , , () [] ( . ..) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( . ..) [] (). ( . ..) , , . [], (), [] ( []). , : , , - ; , , , , : , (, 42:51, .). , [], () - [ ] ( . ..). [] , , , (). (), , , [ ] - , , , () (). [] . , [] () , , , , ( , .. ..), , . [] [], . - (-) [ ], , (= ). .. // , . 407.25

88 : - * ( . ..), . ( . ..) ( -) () () , , ( . ..) , . [], , , , [] ( !) : , (, 9:6, .), [ ], ( !). , ( !) ( ), ( !) : (, 42:51, .), ( . ..) ( . ..) ( . ..) , , , . : (, 42:51, .), () , , ( . ..) , . [ ]: - (, 42:51, .), - [] () , , , () , , . ( . ..) , [] () [] 26, , [ ]: ()! . , - 27, ( . ..) (). [] . , . [ ] [], , , [] , . ( (). ..)26 . .: , , , : ()! , (, 28:30, .). 27 - , : , , , , (, 28:29, .).

[]

89

, , . , . , [] (). , . (), ( . ..) 28. : (, 42:51, .) [] , (, 42:51, .) , , . [ ] : (, 42:51, .), () , ( (). ..) . , . (), () , , . ( (). ..) , , : (, 42:52, .) , , : (, 42:52, .), ( ), ( (). ..) , , [] . [] (), , . 29 () ()? : [] () ( ), - (-) () []. ( . ..) ( -). , (), ( -), . ( -), , , , - .28 . , , , , , , () ; () .. .: . // , . 2, . 197198. 29 . - -, . 2, . 108111.

90 : - * , , () , , , (). , . 1) ( ) () ( . ..), ( ). ( . ..) () ( . ..), () , , [-], [-] . 2) ( ), () () ( . ..) . 3) ( ) ( . ..) , ( . ..) : (, 5:54, .), ( . ..): () - (-). - (), (), , (), - . ( -. ..) , , , -. , , , () []. [] , . , , , , , , . : , ( . ..), [] . - (, . . ) [] [ -]: [] . : ( . ..) , , [ ] 30.- (, . . ) [] []: [] . : ( . ..) 30

[]

91

, . - , , , , , , ( . ..) . ( . ..) , ( . ..), , ( . ..), ( . ..) . , (), . [ ] : , . - -, : , . , . ( . ..) , , . , [] , , , . , [] , , , , . () (), (), , , , . , . . , . , . . , , , , , , - . , . ,, , [ ] . , . -. - -. : -, 1912. . 46.

92 : - * , ( ). , . () . 31 , [], : , , , 32. ( . ..) , . [] . , , . . () . , , 31 (, ; : ) ( ) ( ) . (. , ). . , . - (), () (). , . .: .. - // . . 214. 32 ( ), , (), . . .: , , , . : . : [] [] ( ), [] (), ( ) (). [ ] -, [-], - . - , [] : , (, 51:56, .), , , , ( ! ( . ..)). [ ] , [ ]: , , . , [ ] ( - -. -. : -, 1985. . 2. . 173).

[]

93

(), , . . ( ), , . , ( ). [] , [] [ ] [], . [], . , , , , , , . [] - , - (). [] , , () , , . [] - ( . ..). , , . , ( . ..) , . , [], , , (). [], (), . () ()33, . , . ( ), (-)34 [ ] (). , . 34 : [ ]? : (). [ ], ( ), : , (- -, . 2, . 111). . : ( -) ( -), .33

94 : - * ( -), () (), , []. , [] . () , , [] , ( !). , , , ( !), , . . () (), , , , () , , , , (). [ ] , , , , . , , [] . () , , - - (-) , ( . ..) . , , [] ( . ..), . () , . () (), ( . ..) ( . ..) (), () (). . - (-) , [], - [] . , , () . () . , ( . ..) (), , , , , , [- -

[]

95

]. - (), : (, 5:54, .), [] , : (, 5:54, .), - - - , - . ( . ..) . , [] , [ ] , , , , . , , . -35 : , . , , , . , . , . . 36, : , , . . , . , ! , , . , , . ( . ..) [] () , . , , [] . [] ()35 - ( 786 809 .) . - . .: .. . (6001258). .: , 1986. . 85. 36 , ( ).

96 : - * , , [] [] , [] [ , ] ( . ..). () . [] , : . [] , ( . ..). . ( !), , , , , . [] , . : - , . [] , . , . , , ( . ..) - . , , , . . , : , - , , - (-) -, , (). ( . ..), , () . , - (), 37. [], (), . , , [ ], [] - (-), []. , , , - , , . . , () , () . , (. ..), (.: . // , . 89).37

[]

97

38 () ()? : [ ] () , () (), () , , , [] (, 55:29, .). (, . . ) [ ] [] , . , , , , () - [ ] ()39 [ ] . , ( . ..) , . , , . . - (-), : , (, 2:186, .). , . , . [] (), , . ( . ..) () []. , [] [], [] () , [] , () , ( -). . .

. - -, . 2, . 111. () () () , ().39

38

98

Sufism and Irfan: Ibn al-Arabi and His School * Bernd Radtke

Bernd Radtke(Utrecht University, The Netherlands)

THE ASCENT TO GOD AND THE RETURN FROM HIM IN ISLAMIC MYSTICISM

Allow me to begin with a few personal remarks.1 Some of you may remember that fifteen years ago, in 1989, I gave a talk entitled A Forerunner of Ibn alArab: akm Tirmidh on Sainthood. The talk was in fact published in the Journal of the Ibn Arab Society 8 (1989). Now, in this regard, I have always said one author like al-akm at-Tirmidh2 is enough for a lifetime. By that I mean akm Tirmidh and his extensive uvre have proved to be so demanding that I havent really had any time left over for other figures. By other figures I particularly have in mind Ibn al-Arab and his huge work, and it has seemed advisable to keep well clear of him especially in view of what I have remarked elsewhere, that Ibn al-Arabs language is complicated and highly developed, at times even manneristic.3 Understanding his language presupposes years of familiarity with his uvre, as well as mystical, theological and philosophical literature. It is not something for beginners, and I have always felt myself to be a beginner in this regard. In this I was following the example of my teacher Fritz Meier,4 possibly the greatest twentieth-century scholar and researcher of Islamic mysticism, who scarcely wrote anything about Ibn al-Arab, because, as he said in all modesty, he had not fully understood him. An attitude which perhaps others as well should have been adopted. On the other hand, my friend Richard Gramlich, whose colossal work has unfortunately remained almost completely unknown in the English-speaking world,5 remarked to me twenty years ago I was forty at the time thatThis paper was read to the Ibn Arabi Society at Oxford in May 2004. He died around 300/912. For more informatiom see my article Some Recent Research on al-akm al-Tirmidh // Der Islam 83 (2006). P. 3989. 3 Cf. my remarks in OLZ 96 (2001). P. 745746. 4 Meier died in 1998. For his works see Meier F. Essays on Islamic Piety and Mysticism. Translated by John OKane with editorial assistance of Bernd Radtke. Leiden: Brill, 1999. P. xi ff. 5 Richard Gramlich died in September 2006, see ZDMG 159 (2009). P. 1f. For further information I give a short bibliography of Richard Gramlich: Die schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens. Wiesbaden, 19651981. Die Gaben der Erkenntnisse des Umar as-Suhraward.2 1

The Ascent to God and the Return from Him in Islamic Mysticism

99

I should make Ibn al-Arab my lifes work. After all, it must be possible to get at what the fellow really means. I did not follow his advice. It has sometimes seemed to me a mistake. In any case, allh bidabbir, as one says in Arabic. Two years ago a friend drew my attention to a German translation of Ibn al-Arabs Rislat al-anwr. I took a look at it and found it rather strange, in fact scarcely understandable.6 I realized it was completely impossible once I compared it against the Arabic original. I then found out that the German translation was based on an English translation by Rabia Terri Harris,7 and I also found that a Spanish translation from 1931 by Miguel Asn Palacios also existed8 and likewise that Michel Chodkiewicz offered a partial translation of the text in the final chapter of his book Le sceau des saints.9 A quick look in the 1948 Hayderabad edition of the Rasil Ibn al-Arab convinced me that I ought to undertake to produce a critical text edition with translation and commentary. With the help of friends and