Binyamin Abrahamov
Contents
Title page
====
Preface
Introduction
THE EARLIER SUFIS
- Al-Muḥāsibī
- Dhū al-Nūn al-Miṣrī
- Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī
- Sahl al-Tustarī
- Abū Saʿīd al-Kharrāz
- Al-Junayd
- Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī
- Al-Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj
- Ibn Masarra
- Abū Bakr al-Shiblī
- Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī
THE LATER SUFIS
- Al-Ghazālī
- Ibn Barrajān
- Ibn al-ʿArīf al-Ṣanhājī
- Ibn Qasī
- Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī
- Abū Madyan
- Abū al-ʿAbbās al-ʿUraybī
Conclusion
====
Bibliography
Copyright and publishing information
Also available from Anqa Publishing
====
Introduction
Every scholar of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s thought has been impressed by the wealth of his mystical and philosophical ideas, parables and poems. From the earliest research on Ibn al-ʿArabī’s thought, scholars have tried to trace his sources and to evaluate his originality.1
This is an extremely difficult task not only due to the huge quantity of his writings,2 but also with regards to the complexity of his theories. An analysis of the Greatest Master’s attitude toward the Sufis, both his predecessors and contemporaries, has not yet been accomplished, except for William Chittick’s discussion of three mystics.3 Such a work is needed to enhance our knowledge of the foundations of his thought and answer, at least as an initial step, the question of the measure of his originality.
The present volume examines Ibn al-ʿArabī’s attitude toward the Sufis and assesses the extent of their influence on him. A crucial
point is Ibn al-ʿArabī’s general acceptance or rejection of the Sufis’ views and practices. We do not pretend to be exhaustive, because
the basis of our research is mainly al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam and some of the author’s epistles. We believe that
these writings are representative of his thought and hence appropriate to serve as the basis of our investigation.
We assume that the recurring mention of a name in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s texts testifies to the importance the author ascribes to the indi-
vidual, whether the author learns from this individual or criticizes him.4 However, the possibility of a Sufi or other thinker influencing
Ibn al-ʿArabī without the author explicitly referring to him must not be excluded.5 A note should be made on Ibn al-ʿArabī’s criticism
of individuals and groups. On the one hand, he does not hesitate to censure individuals and groups regarding their approaches, while,
on the other, we discern a mild attitude toward opposing views. For example, he opposes the Ashʿarite theory according to which the
attributes are added to God’s essence. However, he says that his way is not to refute this opposing view, but to clarify it and its
sources, and to ask whether the view has any effect on the success of the Ashʿarite school of thought. The reason for this approach is
the vastness of the Divine (al-ittisāʿ al-ilāhī), or God’s infinite manifestations, among which the Ashʿarite position concerning the
attributes is included.6
One should bear in mind that throughout his life Ibn al-ʿArabī met many hundreds of people, both in the West and the East. He
learned from many of them, especially from the Sufi way of life.7 However, he had contacts not only with Sufis, but also with scholars
from other fields of thought, such as theologians,8 philosophers, grammarians and poets.9 For the present study I concentrate on
those Sufis who seem to me to have had the greatest influence on him.
It is impossible to include a detailed discussion of every Sufi who appears in this work. Hence, I confine my examination to the broad
lines of their teachings, in order to show how their ideas expressed the principal perceptions of Sufism. In other words, the Sufis of the
ninth and tenth centuries, often mentioned in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s writings, introduced the foundations of Sufism. We can generally point
to each individual’s specific contribution to Sufi thought and practice.
Dhū al-Nūn al-Miṣrī (d.860) established the scholarly nature of Sufism. His piety also served as a model of conduct for many Sufis.
He was the first to formulate the theory of gnosis (maʿrifa), that is, knowledge which comes to the Sufi from the divine source, and
differentiated this kind of knowledge from knowledge (ʿilm) acquired by the human being through his own efforts. He also taught the
Sufis the doctrines of annihilation (fanāʾ) and perdurance (baqāʾ) in God and the unique attributes of God’s beauty (jamāl) and
God’s majesty (jalāl), which are among the attributes of God’s self-manifestation.10
The Sufis used the theme of Muhammad’s ascension to heaven (miʿrāj) as a motif of the Sufi gradually coming close to God. Thus,
al-Bisṭāmī (d.874) discusses the miʿrāj in mystical terms. He also talks about the destruction of human selfishness with the ulti-
mate aim of becoming united with God. He was so overwhelmed by God’s presence that once he fainted after uttering the call for
prayer and at other times expressed ecstatic phrases (shaṭaḥāt), such as ‘Praise be to Me, how great is My Majesty’, and paradoxical
sayings. No doubt he may be considered a sound representative of intoxicated Sufism.11
The Sufi who, to the best of our knowledge, discussed psychological matters as part of spiritual training is al-Muḥāsibī (d.857). He
was so nicknamed because he analysed the nature of the human soul and the ways to achieve one’s purity. Opposing extreme asceti-
cism, such as complete reliance on God (tawakkul) to the point of refusing to earn a livelihood, he preferred inward piety. In addition,
his writings delved into the essence of the intellect and he was acquainted with Muʿtazilite doctrines and terms. His doctrines influ-
enced al-Ghazālī.12
It is very interesting that three Sufis – Abū Saʿīd al-Kharrāz (d.899), Sahl al-Tustarī (d.896), and al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d. between
905 and 910) – wrote about the phenomenon of the walāya (friendship of or proximity to God, or sainthood) during more or less the
same period. Annemarie Schimmel explains this as a wish to systematize mystical thought.13 However, it seems to me that this ap-
proach owes its existence to the Sufis’ awareness that prophethood should be explained in spiritual terms which are relevant to the Sufi
way, and to their growing conviction that they share certain traits with the prophets.
Sahl al-Tustarī wrote a commentary on the Quran which explains each verse according to a fourfold meaning. He is also characterized
by his emphasis on the importance of repentance (tawba) and the function of letters in the Sufi way, which supposedly influenced Ibn
Masarra (d.931).14 Sahl’s disciple, Ibn Sālim (d.909), is the eponym of the Sālimiyya school to which Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī (d.996), a
mystic and theologian who composed a comprehensive manual of Sufism, belonged.15 Sahl was a faithful representative of the Baṣra
school of Sufism. This school was characterized by conservatism and asceticism, while the Baghdad school of Sufism was more
speculative. Sahl believed that recollection of God (dhikr Allāh) enables the Sufi to relive the experience of the primordial covenant with
God mentioned in Quran 7:172. According to his belief, God is pure light from which derives the luminous essence of Muhammad, the
perfect archetype of the worshipper of God, who existed before creation.16
Al-Ḥakīm (‘the philosopher’) al-Tirmidhī is so called because he introduced Hellenistic philosophical ideas into Islamic mysticism.
Like Sahl, he also wrote a commentary on the Quran, in which he tried to find the esoteric meaning of the Sacred Text. But his fame, no
doubt, derives from his doctrine of sainthood as is developed in his book Sīrat al-awliyāʾ (The Way of the Saints). Also, he described
God as the only true entity; however, he believed that the human being can attain God through a gradual mystical process of ascension
which corresponds to the Sufi stations.17
Schimmel writes the following appraisal of al-Junayd (d.910): ‘The undisputed master of the Sufis of Baghdad was Abū’l-Qāsim al-
Junayd, who is considered the pivot in the history of early Sufism. The representatives of divergent mystical schools and modes of
thought could refer to him as their master, so that the initiation chains of later Sufi orders almost invariably go back to him.’18 Al-
Junayd represents sober Sufism, contrary to the intoxicated Sufism of al-Bisṭāmī, al-Ḥallāj (d.922) and others.19 He held al-
Muḥāsibī’s psychological perceptions in high esteem and regarded Sufism as a way leading to purity and mental struggle. He elabo-
rated on the primordial covenant mentioned by Sahl: according to him, the aim of the Sufi’s way is to find the origin of humanity in
God, that is, to attain the state of the primordial covenant of human beings with God, as attested in Quran 7:172 in which all human be-
ings witnessed the existence of their God before they were created. This state embodies the highest perception of God’s oneness,
which means the separation of the eternal from what is created in time.20
One of the most debated issues in Sufism was how to express Sufi mysteries and experiences. In al-Junayd’s view, the best way was
by speaking through allusions (ishārāt), so that people who were not qualified to deal with esoteric matters would not discuss them
and cause damage to the Sufis by distorting their teachings. This approach coincides with al-Junayd’s sober Sufism and contradicts the
intoxicated Sufism of figures such as al-Ḥallāj, which sometimes expressed itself by manifest and bold sayings.21 Had al-Ḥallāj, who
was al-Junayd’s disciple, not divulged his views and mystical experiences, he very probably would not have been executed. Al-Ḥallāj’s
central theme in his sermons and prayers was the love for God. He claimed to have reached perfect union with God. Instead of per-
forming the Pilgrimage, he advocated the performance of other commandments, such as feeding orphans and poor people. Such
teachings, in addition to his involvement in politics, contributed to his alienation from Islamic orthodox circles.22
Another important Sufi of the ninth and tenth centuries is Abū Bakr al-Shiblī (d.946), al-Ḥallāj’s friend, who was a high-ranking gov-
ernment official before his conversion to Sufism. Al-Junayd admired him, while other Sufis claimed that he did not properly interpret
the notion of God’s oneness, which was one of his favourite themes along with love for God. His ideas were frequently expressed in
paradoxes.23
Like al-Sarrāj (d.988), author of Kitāb al-Lumaʿ fī’l-taṣawwuf (The Book of the Essentials of Sufism) and al-Kalābādhī (d.990), author
of Kitāb al-Taʿarruf li-madhhab ahl al-taṣawwuf (The Book of Acquaintance with the Sufis’ School), Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī wrote a manual
on Sufism entitled Qūt al-qulūb (The Nourishment of the Hearts).24 This book can be characterized as a blend of Islamic law and mysti-
cism. Abū Ṭālib claims that Sufi teachings and ethics represent the ideas and customs of Muhammad and his Companions, which
were transmitted by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d.728) and preserved by the Sufis. In this respect, we can safely say that al-Makkī is the link be-
tween the earlier Sufis and al-Ghazālī (d.1111), who also contributed much to the synthesis between Islamic law and mysticism.25 Al-
Makkī also influenced ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (d.1166), the author of Kitāb al-Ghunya li-ṭālibī ṭarīq al-ḥaqq (That Which is Sufficient
for the Seekers of the True Path), who became the most popular saint in the Islamic world.26
However, the difference between al-Ghazālī and the earlier Sufis, including al-Makkī, is the former’s philosophical mysticism, which,
for example, discusses love for God in terms of intellectual reasoning27 and states that syllogism is the basis of all the mystical
tenets.28 Al-Ghazālī exerted some influence on Ibn Barrajān (d.1141), who was nicknamed ‘the al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus’.
This short survey of the earlier Sufis dealt with in the present work, along with mentions of some later Sufis, introduce the central fea-
tures of Sufism. These characteristics can be described by sets of opposing approaches: intoxication and sobriety, manifestation and
concealment, conservatism and revolutionism, practice (ethics) and thought, extremism (for example in asceticism) and
moderation,29 seclusion and involvement in society.30 Having been acquainted with all these Sufis, Ibn al-ʿArabī was well aware of
these traits, embracing some and rejecting others.
The question of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s originality seems at first glance very simple and easy to answer. Many scholars who know his writ-
ings would immediately state that he was undoubtedly an original thinker whose thought exceeds the boundaries not only of orthodox
Islam but also of Sufism.31 However, my point of departure is different and I do not take his originality for granted. I will examine his
approach in each of the essential foundations of his thought in order to evaluate his originality and its extent.
Regarding the question of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s originality, Affifi makes the following observation:
It is practically impossible to say that any particular philosophy or mysticism is the source of Ibnul ʿArabī’s whole system. Ibnul
ʿArabī had a foot in every camp, so to speak, and derived his material from every conceivable source. His system is eclectic in the
highest degree, but we can easily find the germs from which many parts of this system seem to have developed, in the writings of
older philosophies, Ṣūfīs, and scholastic theologians. He borrowed ideas from Islamic as well as non-Islamic sources, orthodox as
well as heterodox.32
The question of originality is not only about whether similar ideas are found in earlier and later sources, but also concerns the struc-
ture, arrangement and development of these ideas. M. Chodkiewicz uncovers an instance of pure originality in his proof that there is a
connection in terms of content between the waystations (manāzil) and the arrangement of the sūras in the Quran; each waystation
represents the beginning of a sūra, and the Sufi disciple (murīd) goes through 114 (the number of the sūras in the Quran) waystations
from the last sūra to the first.33 The arrangement of the waystations in such a way is unprecedented in earlier Sufism.
We shall see that Ibn al-ʿArabī has various ways of tackling his predecessors’ views. Sometimes he puts forward an earlier notion as
corroboration of his own thought; at other times he polemicizes against scholars, before finally accepting their view with some
modifications.34 Also, he does not hesitate to reject ideas introduced by famous Sufis. In my discussion, I show not only the influ-
ences exerted on Ibn al-ʿArabī, but also his attitude toward earlier authorities.
The present work is divided into two main parts:
1. Earlier scholars, finishing with al-Ghazālī.
2. Later scholars beginning with al-Ghazālī and ending with Ibn al-ʿArabī’s contemporaries, some of whom were his followers and
colleagues.
In general his contemporaries are mentioned in his writings mainly in the context of Sufi ethics and practice, whereas the earlier schol-
ars appear as those who express mystical and philosophical ideas.35 I have focused my attention on Sufis who appear in Ibn al-
ʿArabī’s writings several times, and those recognized as eminent Sufis. After analysing the material in this order, I conclude with the
question of whether Ibn al-ʿArabī was an original thinker. To the extent that the evidence points to an affirmative answer, I shall try to
assess the measure of his originality and the issues in which he distinguished himself as an exceptional Sufi figure.
The present work will not enter into the influence of great streams of thought such as Neoplatonism on Ibn al-ʿArabī, or the influ-
ence of particular philosophers,36 for these issues have been discussed by Affifi, who finds that Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Neoplatonism goes
back to the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity (Rasāʾil Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ), and by other scholars.37
