Ibn 'Arabī and his interpreters . Pt. 2 (conclusion), Influences and interpretations

20 Pages·2014·3.99 MB·English

Ibn ‘Arabī and his interpreters
. Pt. 2 (conclusion), Influences and
interpretations
Author: James Winston Morris
Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/4227
This work is posted on eScholarship@BC,
Boston College University Libraries.
Published in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 101-119, 1987
Use of this resource is governed by the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States" (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/)
IBN cARABI AND HIS INTERPRETERS
PART II (CONCLUSION): INFLUENCES AND INTERPRETATIONS
JAMES WINSTON MORRIS
INmTUTE OF IsMAIU STUDII!Sy PAaD
CoDCIudiDaour.urveyofmajorhistoricalteDdeDcic:IintbcinterpretationaDdreceptio ofIbn
CArtbi'swritinpinvarioustraditionsoflaterIslamictbouabt,asillustratedbyrecenttraDllatiODI
aDd related studies, this fiJIaJ leCtion deals with repraentati~ fiawa in the DlOI'e pbiIotopbie
"school"foundedbyQOnawT(KIIbIDI,1;1.AmulI,aDdmT);inmysticalpoeuy(JImI,clrlql,aDd
othen)aDdphilosophy(MulliSlldrlaadhisIUCCCIIOn);aadwitbthemorereceotSufiwritiapof
cAbdaJ-QIdiraJ-Jazl>id,whorecapitulatesandintcpatesmanyoftbclctraditiODlwhileretUl'llins
tothespiritual.ourcaandinteDtiODIuderlyinaIbncArabI'sownwortandtew:bin.
IV [Coat.] CAB» AL-RAZZAQ AL-KlsHlNI (d. ca. sor Pierre Lory's recent study of that frequcntly
736/(335) has almost certainly been the most widely reprinted work [UI ColfllnOllllirn elotlrique8 du
read (and cited) of these early interpreten of Ibn Cortm d'apre$ cAbd ar-RDzzaq aJ-Q4Ihibrr. pp. 111.
cArabI,tosuchanextentthatmuchofthesubseqUCDt
discussion of Mlbn cArabrs· thought and doctrine"
whetherintheEasternIslamicworldorinthemodem instoaffix"lbDCArabi's"nametothetext.Someoftilemore
West"can best beundentood asinfact a referenceto imponant distiDctiODl between ~1IhIar. and Ibn cArabI'.
Kisbini'swritinas cospcria11ywherewritas~expound respectiwapproachestotheKoranarediKaac:dbelo inthis
ina what they take to be Ibn cArabi"s ·system" or sectionor.forIbncArabi,inIeVeI'81earlierJNUUofthisarticle
philosophicMdoctrine"(e....ofwlll;ultlllll-wujiid).72In • well.
this regard, the modem attribution to Ibn CArabT of BothProf.Lory(p.23)andO. Yabia(II,p.'"3,baedon
Kishlni's TII:>wiliil III-Qur:Jiin is unfortunately u Klsblnt'sownautoaraph \el'lionofhiswork,attributed by
symptomaticas it is historically unfounded.7J Profes- laterlibrariaDItoIbilcArabf)ftOlethatcttWnIIWlUlCripuof
KlsbiDr.COlDIDeDtarygoonly• far..Sura32;tbcsamefaa
isDOledinH.Landoh'simportaDtstudyofKIIhIDr.corre
.pondencewithCAli.>aJ-DawlaaJ-Simnlni(discuaedatD.80
12 This is even true to a certain extent of T. lzuuu's below), without any bypothesis .. to who miabthawcom
fundamental study of Ibn CArabI's tboupt, Sl{"um tmd pletedit-possiblyanimmediatedisciple,sincereadersdonot
TlIOism... (see Part I, D. 6 aboft), which, as tbc author seemtoha~noticedanypeatdiffereacabetweentheearlier
himself streaes in the 1Dtrocluetion, is heavily Jdiant on and latersectioDi. ProfeAOrLandoltalsopointsout(p. 36)
KII~I'Icommentary, usuallycitinlitat thesametimeas thatthecommentaryonItJIlaJ-F'lricrlNtlP'ftI1-SuliiIcusually
thetextoftbeFrqi4tI1-J:likimr.(Thisisanotherillustrationof attributed to our author (in several printed editio. and in
the chanlcteriltic pedaaoP:aJ usefulocl. and iDtelltion of Arberry'l traDllatioD of Ibn al-FIri4, see D. 63 &bow) is
KlIbInI's works,diJtulsed bdo.illtelatiOIltohisKoranic actUally by clzz aJ-DIn M~Od aJ-UshInJ (d. 73S/1334
coJDJDeDtaries.) 3S), best known for his widely read Pa'sian traDIlatiOD of
1) Altboup Prof. Lory, followinl Brockelmaan, remarb CUmarSuhrawardY'.famousSufimanualcAwllrl/tU-MtlclIrif,
thatallthemanuscriptsofthisworkareattributedtoKIIbInt theM~III-HiMyG.(TheMt,biIh,ndhcrthanSuhraw.-clr.
(or ODe of the other variant fo.... of his name, such .. ori&inal Arabic, was the bMis for Wdberforce Clarke'. still
"al-K.IshJ," etc.), Osman Yabia (Bistain..., DO. 732 aDd frequentlyrq»rintedpartialEnaIishparaphrue..TItecAwlrlf
724) does mentioD a few later manuscripts of this work u;)/-Mtlc4TIf,"CaJcutta. 1891.) Inthe comext ofthis artIiodne,,
attributed to Ibn cArabT(aloOl witb KllblDJ'. treatiK OD thefldthatthisCOllUDClltaryODIbnaJ-F1ri4halforso
~>and~,OYDO.723). However,itisccnaiDJytrue, paacd• thewortofCAWaJ-RazziqKiIJWlIisstillanother
..P. LoryiDdicate:s,thatthemostrecentmodempublishen int.erestinasipofthe remarkable peoetrationofsubsequent
oftbis wort (in India, cairo, and Beirut) IIlUIt bPe been Iranian Sufithouabl bytheconceptionsaDd t.erminolOlYof
primariJymotivatedbycommercialcoDlicleraliominconlinu- this"school"ofIbnCArabL
101
102 JoUl7Ull oftM Anvrialn OrimltJI SociDy 107.1 (1987)
Paris:LaDEUX<>dANS. 1981.]isnotonlyanexceDent spiritualimplicationsofparticularKoranicverses,"..
introduction to the main outlines of KlshlDT'1 it is the application to the Koran of • coherent
metaphysicsor"spiritualcosmology,"butalsoauseful
illustration of those characteristic feamres of his
writings and interpretations that help explain their l' P.LorypvaaremarkablycoadeDleclsummaryofthese
great influence OD later Muslim thinken, especially typic:alfeatureaofSufi"1Iermeneutics"atthebepnnilllofthis
philosophcnandtheologians.(Rudenwithoutaccess study (pp. 9-18), with appropriateemphasis on the funda
totheArabiccansupplementProfessorLory'sanalysis mentalroleofindividul.piritualrealizatiOD(p. 15)inaUthe
ofthiscommentarybyreferringtothecarefullyanno formaofSufiexqeais-adimensionwhichmakesitextremely
tatedpartialtranalatioDlofM. VIIsan,orthesumma diffialJtto"1UJIlID&rizc"orsystematize,evenwithintbeworks
riesofcertainsectionsinM. Ayoub's The Qur'jjnand ofa sinale autbor. However, be: does nOl draw the reader"s
ItsInterpreters.)'· attention to the peat dearee to which ptecilely KllbIDJ'I
Kllhtnrsworkisinfact Dotsomucha"ta'>w,f"in commentarytendstodepartfromtllianorm.(Forarelatively
the more specifically Sufi usqe of a profound and accasiblesampliDiofsomemoretypic:aJCaICIofSufi,.""r/
inevitably quite personal awareness ofthe immediate precilelyintheirradieaJdiwnityofoutlookaodilllCrpmation
-seetbediscussionsofRtlzbeblnBaqn,NajmuddJDKubri,
SimnInr(n.80below],aDdothersinH.Corbin'.TMManof
14 Prof. Lorylivaabriefrdereoc:etoM. Vilsan'.tramla U,h' in Irll1rllUJ Sufism,tT. N. Peanoa,BoulderaLoDdoa,
tioas, whicbareapinofcoDlisteallybiPqualityandwith 1978.)
extremelyusefulnotesaDdexplanations,intheBibliogrwphy ItisperhapsalsoindicativethatIbn cArabIhimselfrarely
(p. (67)attheendofhisbook;forfuU biosraPhicaldetails uses the term III>wJI(which in his work can have a pejora
and a CODlplete liItiq of the pauqa traDS1atccl, ICC the ti~ICDICofan"CIOleric"iJlterpretahonarbitrarilyauaehed
biblioJrapbyofallofMr. VIIsaD'Iwritinp..iDductiDImany toaKoranicexpression,withDOeaentialiDDCfcoDDCCtionto
traDllatio..fromtbe:F~',discuaedinPmtI,n.27&bene theactual meanin,ofthe text), and thatbe:commonlyUICI
(thecollectedarticlesentitled L7Mi1m~,,.Fonclio"• RmI theword'II/.rrr-which,a P.Lorynota,waordinarilyused
Guhum,ed.C.Gayat). for -exoteric," historical aDd pmm,'icaI commentaries
Prof.MahmoudAyoub'.work-VoLI(Albany,NY.SUNY preciselyforhisowaspiritualundentandinl-ThisisonlyODe
Press, (984)covensUral1Il-1JGqtJr1laadthe~butthe sipofIbncAnbY'sbroadermetapbysicaloutlook.Forhim,in
ItudyistobeexteDdedtotheen~Koran-c:ubeusedonly JCneraI,whatwewouldordinarilycallthe"spiritual"meanin,
foraFocralnotionofKilblDt'Iinterpretations,sinceitlives uprecilClythe"literal"meanin.(utypitiedinhischaracter
onlya paraphnucorsummaryofcertainaectio...Altboup isticJinluistic,"etymotop:al"approKbtokeyKoranicterma~
Prof. Ayoub briely mentions that Mit is more commonly indeed"the-Reality"ofthe ~oran itJdf-inaseasewhich
believed"that tbis workis"by ODeofIbn CArabi'sdisciples include$,butisinnowayreducibleto,thesortofbiatoricist
Abel aI-Razzaq aI-Qubani" (p. 6), be coadudes that and lepIistic·viewpoiDb(themleha"interpretationsj that
•••C
-Wboevertbeauthormaybe,theworkclearlyrepraentlthe are unthinkingly accepted • the "obvious"meaniaa ofthe
tbou&btaDdstyleofIbnCArabi.toaDdthenprocaldItocite"Ibn text mo t ofthetime. This"Platonic"UDdentandinIofthe
cArabi"-with DO further mention of Kisbini-throuabout Koran(andofrneIationiDament)isinDOwayreducibleto
theI'CItofhisstudy,indudinatheindex, bibliopapby,and the sort of 1Ihir/W,in or 11Ift"/,.".,1sc:bema implicit in
key to the sources. This practice-which bopefWl.y will be Kllblnrsapproacb(andintbephilosophic, Sua, aDdShiite
correctedinthesecondaDdsubsequentvolumes-isespecially penpectives he ultimaJe1ydraws on). and cannot really be
unfortunatenotonlybecauseKisbinTisnolataUrepresenta "'-up."-preciJelybecausethatwouldimplythattbe:"mean
tiveofIbncArabT'I"style"or..method"ofexqesis,andonly ing"weresomehowreducible to a system orletofCODCCptl
to a very limited extent (forreaIOns outlined below in this somehow separable from tbe triad Koran-reader-Reality
seelioD)ofIbncArabrs""tboujbt."Moreimportam,farftom which&lODeisthematrixwithin which,for Ibn cArabY,that
~presentinlSufi tbought at its biabeIt level of esoteric meanin&isncceaariIybothmanifestedaDdperceived.
exeaais"(p.6),itis-abshlnIbimlelfexplicitlybriopout Itiscertainlytruethat KlihInI'. orbinJlCaeral(cf. on.
in his Introduction (a. 75 beJow)-aaelementary wor~ for 74,76,78)areextremdyhelpfuJpcdqoaica.ltools,forthOle
bqinnersonthespiritualPath,withverylimitedpedaaoaical previouslyunacquaintedwithIbncArabl'soutlookandtermi
aims,aDdtbcreforeiscompletelydifferentinstyleaDdconteftt no!o&Y,inbriD&inIouttomeofhiskeycooceptIaDdtechnical
from wbat one usually fiDel. (to take only examples in the vocabulary.ButtherelationofthesedemaatItotheSbaykh's
frameworkofthisarticle)ineithertbeworbofIbDCARbYor own orb can probably best be expreac:d u t.bat of a
the more iDtiIIlate paIIIICI in cAbd al-Qldir's JltIWiqif IfaDUIW'inrelationto aUtbericlmessofa livilll1aqua&e,
(traaslatiODld.iscuaedbelow). botbspokenudwritten.
Moaals; Ibn cArtJbitmdhis Interpreters, Pm II 103
metaphysical system, elaborated in all ofhis works,76 However, the relative clarity and simplicity of
basedonelementsfrombothIbncArabl'swritinasand ProfessorLory'sbookalsoreflectsimilarfeaturesinall
theprevalentAvicennanschoolofphilosophyinwhich of KlshiJifs own works-features which have to do
X.lshlnIhimselfwasoriginallytrained.Thefinthalfof withboththeformandthesubstanceofthatwork,aDd
ProfessorLory'soutlineofKlshlnrssystem(chapters whichinsomekeyrespectsareradicallydifferentfrom
4-7)isaremarkablyclearandreadablesummaryofits whatonefinds inIbncArabrsWritings(orinmanyof
metaphysicalstructure(thedivine"Presences"and the hismorepurelySuficommentators).KishinrsKoranic
ontologicallevelsofthedivineEssence,Attributes,and commentaries, like his other boots, are all clearly
Acts)anditsmanifestationsorexpressionsincosmol distinguishedbyathoroughgoingpedagogicalconcern
ogy, theology, and spiritual psychology. The second and didactic procedure71 that is manifested in such
halfofhisaccount(chapters8-11)dealswithKishinrs interrelatedcharacteristicsastheirrigoroussystematiza
applicationofthisconceptualschematomorepractical tion, theclarificationandsimplificationofvocabulary
and experiential aspects of the spiritual life, with (especially if compared with Ibn cArabI), and the
regard to a representative selection ofKoranic verses conceptualization(ofteninanopenlyreductionistman
and themes (eschatology, morality, the religious Law ner) of what were originally multivalent symbols.
and its application, prophecy and sainthood, etc.) Thesetendenciesarenotmerelystylisticparticularities;
traditionally taken to refer to these issues in Sufi they also reflect a shift in the content and underlying
writingmoregenerally.Theauthor'sexpositionthrough intentions ofKishinl's writing(when compared with
outisaimedprimarilyatreaderswithoutmuchprevious IbnCArabi)thatbroughthimveryclosetotheprevail
background in Islamicspirituality, and thus may well ing systems of Avicennan philosophy (especially in
serve (for that group) as an extremely useful general theirinterpretations ofthe phenomenaand claims of
introduction not only to KishiJirs metaphysics, but Sufism) and related schools of kalam-to such a
also to certain essential features common to many
forms of Sufism and their spiritual approach to the
Koran.Forexample,ProfessorLory'sexplanationina
Ltmgllge Mystique [Beirut, 1970J and G. ~wcring's 1'1u!
number of later chapters ofthe fundamental shift in
MysticalYi.sionofExistenceinCl4uictUhlmn:TheQur:>anic
perspective from a "moralistic"and historicistframe
Herme1lftlliaoftheSufiSDhl111-TustiiTT[BerlinINewYork,
work (in which Koraniccategories andjudgments an:
1980D probably presuppose more backgrOUnd than can be
viewed as applying to specific external groups and
expected from most beginning students. while the still fre
individuals)toaprofoundlyandrigorouslyinternalized
quently cited works of Goldziher and Massigoon are both
spiritual (or "ontological") understanding of those
passages,isespeciallyhelpfulinthatregard.17 outdated and extremely misleading on fundamental points.
However, one may question whether most readers of this
workwillbeabletoreadilydistinguishwhere(asinchapters
76 Fora further, moredetailedintroductiontothissystem, 4-7,ontheunderlying"spiritualcosmology")KlsblDI"sviews
asitwasdevelopedinKIshinI'sfamouscommentaryonthe are relatively uniqueorrepresentativeonlyofthisparticular
FU#iIa/-lJiJcam,secT. lzutsu·sSufwntlIfd TQosim... (cr. school. and where (as in most of the latter chapters) his
wen
n. 72 and Part I. n. 6), as as substantial segments approach and presuppositions are more broadly typical of
translated or summarized in the two articlcs of William Sufismingeneral.
Chittick onthecommentatorsoftheFUID1cited at n. 71 of 71 Thisparticularintentionisbroughtoutveryclearlyinthe
this review article. (The same conceptual system is also IntroductiontoKishaorsTQ:>wflOt,whichistranslatedinfull
presupposedinKishlnrsuntrans1ated,butwidelyreadworks here(pp. 149-S3),wherebeclearlyexplainsthathisintention
mentionedatn.78below.) isonlytoopenupthepossibilityofaspiritualunderstanding
71 Inthisregard,itshouldbenotedthatProf.Lory'sbookis oftheKoranforthosebeginningSufiswhomaystillfindthat
evidentlyintended notonlyasan introductionto Klshlnrs difficult(ashehimselfoncedid),andwherehestatesthathe
own thought, but also as a general introduction to certain will avoid his more pcnooal (and possibly controveni81)
commonfeatures ofSufiexegesis,aswellastheirrelationto understandingsofmanypoints. However,thesamepedagog
other forms of Islamic Koran interpretation (e.&-. in the ical approach and broader audience likewise seem to be
author·sForewordandtheopeningandconcludingchapters). assumedinhisotherextantwritings,includinghiscommentary
There iscertainly a great need for such an introduction for ontheFU#lI(d. n.76),onAnprI's ManaziltIl-S4:>iTin.and
studentsunabletoreadexemplarytextsintheoriginalArabic his frequently cited Sufi lexicon (l11i/QJ.r4t QI-$iijiya), which
orPersian,sincethemostalIequatemodemWestern-language was explicitly intended as a learning aid for readcn of the
studiesofthissubject(e.g..P. Nwyia'sExige~Coraniqueet threeabove-mentionedcommentaries.
104 JounttIl of1M Ammctm 0rlMttI1 ~ty 107.1 (1987)
depee that their verbal formuJatioDi are sometimes a yOUIII man bereached the hiJbestdepeeofattain
virtuallyindistiDpisbable.'" mentinthestudyofloJicand(AviceDnan)philosophy,
The background ofthat teDdeney is at least partly befon:continuiDllpirituaicliSlatisfactiondrovehimto
explained by some rare autobiOJl8PbicaI remarb in seek the companyand JUidanceofSufi masters. Itis
KlihInrs famous letterto cAlI' aI-Dawlaa1-Simnlnt not 10 surprisina. then, that Klsblnrl worb often
defeodina his coaception ofwtJ1)dmGl-wujQd-a.... appear, attheveryleast,• abiIb1Ytheoretiallsortof
sage translated in its entirety here (pp. JS4-M) from ~lo8Y"ofSufiaJndirected-whetherasapologetic
JImi'sNaf~tfI1.CJnI'O-inwhichheexplainsthat. orprotreptic-moretowardsconvincinBreaderswitha
similar fa1MJfa or kaIam training (rather than the
spiritualdirection ofalreadypracticingSufis);orthat
79 ThepermeationofDlhlarlthouabtbyAvicabmiaon.c.o..n,. often his writing turns toward a purely conceptual,
ceptsandprauppositioDs(larJdyexplicablebythe "rational" philosophic exposition in which only the
icaIdementsmentioDCdatn.80below)isespcciaDymdentiD
broaderproblems and technical vocabulary recall the
his psychololYaDdtheoryofintellection(e•..,pp.~2in inftuence of Ibn CArabi or other Sufi authon. This
P.Lory'sbook),wherehisremarbcouldDOdoubtbereadby latterdevelopment,throopwhichselectedthemesand
theAviceoaanpbilosopbenofmsday..simplyarestatemeat approachesfromIbntArabi'.worksgnlduallybecame
of their own vicws. (This WM especially litdy since post integratedintotheintellectualdiscourseofavarietyof
Avicemwaphilosophicthouahtbadd~lopedanexplanation
laterphilosophicandtheologicalschools,isespecially
ofSuipncIiceaDdexperience,buiIdiaIonhintsiaIbnS-mi"s weD illustrated in the rec:ent reprint of S. Guyard's
K.tlI-J~6t, whichpaatc:dthemaccrtaiDvalidity,albeitata translation (and Arabic edition) of K.llblnI's R. fi
lower,pre-pbi1osophiclevel.)
tl1-QGf/;f>Wtl tJl-QadIu[Traite SlIT111 PridutiNltion et
While KlahlDrs adaptatioas of AviceJman thouPt can Ielibrearbitre,prkldJ• q&l/Utl1Uehtlditlu.Introduc
probablybestbeUDdentood,ontheirowntermI(aadjudBiDI tion (and supplementary material) by G. 1...EcoNTE.
byhisownautobioaraPbica1explanations,n.80below),asan pp. 114+ 25pp.ofArabictext.Paris:SINDBAD/EDI
attempttoexplaintheiDliabtsofIbncArabItoItudemswith TlONSOmENTALES. 1978.],11which(despitethelimited
aphiiOlOphicbadtJl'Ound,withtheaimofdrawiDathemiDto
the practical dons aca:ssaryto realize theIDOI'Cprofound
intentioas ofIbn CArabt(aod Sufism more acoenUY), they and the additional aoun::a on the KubrlWlya order and
alsomadeiteasyforsublequeatstudentstotrattheShaykh's historicalcontextatthistimeinDD.33aod39ofPutII.
tbouptasa purelyintdIcctualand, u itwere,-.atcmalive" Within the penpcctive of this article, Klahlnrs letter is
philosophicalsystem,withlittleorDOrefemac:etoitsexperien especiallylipificaDtinexplaiDina(a)theearlyreceptionof
tialaDdpncticalpresuppositionsandultimateam.. Ibn<ArabI'stboualat(onceapia.inthefonnoftheFrqiq)iD
.. Here readen are referred to H. Landoh's much more IranianSuficin:IcaprimarilyM aformof-mysticaltheology"
detailed daaaic study of this conapondence (iDdudins especially on the question of w~ 411-wujUd-6llinI a
SimnlDrs reply to KllhIDJ): "Ocr Briefwccbael Zwischen widely-feltDeedforamoreadequateintellectualdefeuse(or
KIIIDI und SiJDDIDI Ober WlIJ.u/dt Ill-WuIfld," Dn 1$1imt, description) ofthe metaphysical claims ofthe exiJtiDI Sufi
Band50, J(1973), pp.29-81,which briopoutthe&fOunds orden, aod (b) the pervasiveness ofAvimman conceptions
for SimnlnI'. attack-which was an important souroe for (whetherunderstood astbeo1o&Yorphilosophy)intbeintel
latercritiquesoCIbncArabi,suchM tbatbyAtamadSirbindT lectualtraininaoftbetime(seenn.79,SS-S6,and64-66).On
(n. S, Part II), even if it was not euetly typical of Sufi thelast point,especially,I'rof. Landolt·sarticle(pp. 33-36)
attitudesatthetime(~1IbIftIftOtes[po 163]theapprovalof adds a Dumber of indispeDaable explanations (bioanPbica1
IbncArabT'stheaisbySimnIDt'sownmaster,IsfarlyinI)-ia details, etc.) to the list of names of masten supplied by
fean for blamic "orthodoxy" (especially in reprd to the Kishlnt, iDc1udini the fact that the philosopber-scientist
pncticeofandIIdhereacetothebJamic:Law)inasituationiD Qu~bal-DJnal-8bJrlZI(d.DD. J4and64above)JhJdiedwith
which SimnIDt's conception of blam appeared quile con KllhInI"lownIpiritualmasterU ayOUDIman.
cretelythreateDedbyotherreJiaioDSorsectsundertherelative I. Thesystematicscopeofthistreatisecanbemeasured by
toleraoce enforced by the Mongol rulers ofthe time. For consultiDl o. B. MacDoaald's article "CAbeI aI-~
SimninT's own dramatic life aod politico-refilious role, see aI-~iIbInt,.. reprinted in the E/2 (1, pp. 88-90>, which is
thebibliosrapbicreferencesinthesameuticle(p.37,n. 36), Jaraely an cxteDlive summary of iu CODteDts. baled on S.
Prof. Landolt'sintroduction(pp. S-S2)tohiseditionofthe Guyard·1translationandedition.Theeditorofthisreprinted
COf'r~$plrltwlkofSimaIDIandlsfarlyiJlI(fehralll edition bu added a helpful introduction placina ~lsbInrs
Paris,Bibliothequeiranienneno.21, 1912),thearticle",cAlI) ideas iD the largercontext ofIba cArabJ~tboupt, with a
al-Oawla al-SimnlnJ'"(by F. Meier) in E/2(I, pp. 346-47), numberofmerencestotheFutiiJ,il1andtheFflIIlI,M well
lOS
title) actually recapitulates the broad outlines of his possiblyseriouspracticalconsequences(bothpenon
diJtiDctivemetaphysicalsystem.Inthisrespect,Kishi ally and politically). Bycontnst. in Iba cArabt(e.&-,
nIisprobablythebest-known(ifbynomeansthemOlt FutfJJ.r4t,c:bapters60-64aDd371,forthemostextended
profOUDd).epreseDtatileofthismajorinteUectuaIten KCOuotsofacbatololY), whatmuststribaDyreader
dencyinthetreatmentofIbncArabt'sheritageinlater istheconsistentandthorough""literality"-anattitude
Islamictbouah~~D8hisphilosophicaDdtheological equallyremovedfromKlsblnrs""symbolic"approach
defeodenandcriticsalike.a} andfromwhatweordinarilythinkof.-literalism"
Whether one happens to view this transformation withwhichtheShaykbtreatstheprofusedescriptions
positivelyornegatively,thedistanceseparatiDaKishi given by the :Koran and /;uu:lrIJa, his extraordinary
Drsapproachftom that ofIbn I';Arabt-iJlltyle,COD respect for each concrete detail in the -..iminl" and
tent, audience, aDd ultimate iDtentions-1taDds out ""location"ofthestageaofman'spoll-mortemexistence
dramaticaUy wbeD one compares their writinp OD (his ongoinadevelopment and spiritual experience in
almost any issue. To tate one of the most striking the1HIrziIkltor-IeuerResurrection,"thentheeventsof
examples,therelatedproblemsofescbatoiOlY,resurrec the Greater Resurrection, then the many facets of
tion, and the afterlife, Profeaor Lory dearly points Gehenna,theGarden,aDdthebeatificVision).llWhen
out(pp.107-21)howforKlsbInT-whoinhisinterpre
tationfollowstheunderstaDdingbothofearlierphilos
ophen and many Sufi writers (d. Nasafl above) as IJ (Seea1radytheclileuuioftofIbftcAtabT·.broaderattitude
well- the Resurrection is that"instaat'inwhich towardthe~oranand1}tJd1lltinPartIaudatnota10aDd7S,
k •••
PanII.)
theencounteroftheatemporal(ofthe metaphysically
"timeless') and historical duration shatters the latter In metaphysical terms, ODe could say that the difference
whilerevealingtoititsowntrue nature"(p. J20). But turns especially on their ditrerina conceptions ofwhat Ibn
CAnbYcalls 1chtqIl, in boda its cosmic dimension, on many
whilethat formula (and theinsight and experienceit
planes of beins (indudina the "material" world); and its
conveys)surelycorrespondsto atleut oneimportant
facet of Ibn I';ArabT's eschatology, taken by itself it macroc:osmic,humanmaDifatations(where""im"linatioll"is
bothaweakandmialeadinlequivalent,sinceitUDderIiesmost
couldalsolead,asfrequentlyseemstobethecuewith
ofthephenomena-DOlmerelytheNrdiaiOUS"orimqinal
Klshlnt, to a son of allegorical m1uetiOD of the
complex symbolism of the Koran and I}tulrth to a ofexperieaceinJeIICIlI1).Fora moreCODCI'deexample,one
can compare Ibn CArabrs tttatmeDt of the esdwoJoaical
single(oratmosttwofold)planeofrefen:ace,andeven
materials of Islamic tndition with that of GbazIJI in his
potentially to an implicit denial of any meaningful
Duntlltll-FIkltirtlflKMJ;cUIilm tll-AkJrinl(1M Pr«iota
"survival"oftheindividualsoul,withitswiderangeof
P«Ul:tITrlllVllUkJftfrom1MAnlbk.tr.JaneSmith,Missoula,
MODt..I919[DOttobeconfaledwithJIDiI+sDurTIltaJ-Fakhir.
a translation (apin by Mr. Leconte) of a c:oJJection of4M) hose translation and edition arediscuued belowD, whose
/;IIId1thfromtheRW14Ibythejuristal-QayrawinJ,uitendedto restricted rhetorical intenIions and UDderpinniDp-moreor
show the doJID&tic Nortbodoxy· ofthe Sufi position (here las aimed at Nfn,btenina" the Ctlwimm into carryin, out
identifiedwith XlshlnJ).Whilethesetextsarefascin-tinSin theirreJiliousduties-anclearfyoutlinedinGhazllrsmore
m.
themselves and help to brina out the traditional Islamic philosophic writinp (d. n. 13, Pan It is precildy the
bactsroUDdofKlshlnl's(andIbncArabI'S)positionsOilthis relativeseparationof-ethical..and-intellectual"(orspiritual)
iuue, it is perhaps worth noline that the positions on tbis planesofmeaDiqandinteftlion-andthec:onscquentdivision
question-whetherfromthestandpointof~IhaudKoran, oftypes ofwritiJlS and tadainS- hieh ObazIIJtook ovn
fUlh, ulam, aDd Sufism, aJDODI others-are not quite • fromtileAvicennanphilosophyofhisdaythatiscalledinto
simpleu theeditormiPtimply,siDcethispanicularproblem question by Ibn cArabl's metaphysics aud his distinctive
aenerated *
Utlbr and qiu/Qr) bas monumental literaturein understandiJIIofpropbeqandrevelationinalltheirdimen
each of those domains, extenclins from the first Wamic sions.(Thesamefundamental roleoflMy4lfor Ibn cArabi
centuriesdowntoourownday. likewiseseemstounderliebiscrypticrapoDIC.inhisfamous
12 To take only his-defenders"orlaterinterpmen in the fintencoWderwiththenotedphilosopherIbnRUlhd[Aver
scboolofIbncAnbImentiooed below.heisfrequeotlycited roes).to . qUCltionwbethcrthe wer-toa mysteriously
by~aydaTAmun.JIJDI,IbnAbllumbar.IbnTurb,MuIlI IInnameetprobJem!-achieYc:dbyilluminationandinspiration
~rI (who. followina JImt, diJcusses the correspondence wuthesameu that provided byrationalinquiry:·Yes'and
with SimnInJatIeqthinhiI K. tJl-A$fIT__Arbee.),and a no. Betweentheyesandtheno.spiritstaketheirftiabtfrom
DumberoftheIaIerIranianthinkenincludedintheAnllrol theirmatterandheadsareseparatedfromtheirbocIieI."See
ogw... ofS.J.AsbtiyintaDd H.Corbin(n.3.Pan11). pp.41-42inthe EqIisbtnmslation ofH. Corbin's CrwIIM
106 JOUTIIIIl011M Americlm OrimMlSoclet, 107.1 (1981)
this characteristic procedure is combined with Ibn of interpretation by referring to relatively acceuiblc
cArabr,repeatedvividdelcriptioDlofhisown(orother worb by Haydar AmuJT (d. 787/1385) and CAW
Sufia') personalvisionary experiences aDdencounters a1-KarIma1-mT(d.8OS/14(3),bothlitewilccomlllen
with many dcceuecl individuals(cartiermasten,pro tatOlSoftheFr.qlq,butalsoindependentandimportant
phets,etc.)intheotherworld(btuza/ch),itisrelatively thinkenintheirownriaht.as
easytoleethathisownconstant-andhighlyproblem The three works by }Jaydar AmulI edited by
atic, not to say diJconcertina-insistence on the pri H. Corbin andO. Yahya(andatleastpartiallyacces
maryroleofk4.tJif(immcdialeexperiential-UOvcilin.i sible to non-Arabisa in Professor Corbin's French
and the concomitant limitations of abstract, formal introduction and related stUdies) have a considerable
~reasoning"(ctlql) have been substantially altered, if historical aDd an intrinsic interest, even if AmulI's
not indeed reversed, in Klshlnl's far more sober immediate influenceinIslamicthought seemsto have
philosophicperspective." been relatively limitc:cLN To begin with, they are an
Atthesametime, itmustbestressedthatKlsblnr. excellentillustrationofthosegeneralfeatureswhich,as
relativelyconceptualtreatmentofIbncArabI'sl)'mbols we have alreadynoted,characterize mostofthelater,
(orrather,ofbispcnonalexperienceandre-expression more "scholastic" and theoretical treatments of Ibn
of the data of the Koran and J.uu/fth, in 10 many cArabT's thought: the relative concentration (amonl
domains)representsonlyonetypicalstrandamongIbn the Shaykh', own works) on the Frqfq aJ-IJiIuIm, the
cArabt', later interpreten. One cannot help but be determinantroleofthecommentariesofQayf&dand
remindedagainofthesimilardiversityofapproedlesin Kishlni,andthecentralityofthecomplexofproblems
WesterncivilizationtoPlato'sdialogues, accordingto -at once philosophic, theological, and mystical
subeequentreaders'cmplweaonhismyths,psycbolOJ)', summedupinthecontrovenialformulaofthe"Unity
ontolOl)';cosmology,logic,and10forth.Thefecundity ofBeing"(wcrhda'tI1-wujQd).'''
ofIbn cArabi'swriting and his richness ofexpression Moreimportant, however, thesebookshavecertain
(and possibilitiesofinterpretation) arecertainlycom qualities which might recommeocl them more partic
parable,eveniftheirlatercreativedevelopmentisstill ularly to modem t'Cadcn, if only tbey were better
far less known to us. Continuing beyond KlshInI, known. To begin with, both the masaive K.. JamiC
studentscanpinsomenotionofthosealternativelines al-ARMwa Manba::JaJ.Anwifrand the much shorter
R. Ntlqd al-NuqUd fi MaCri/at al-WujQd printed
l~ill1M$iifumofIbn f;Artlbr, PriDcetoo, 1969;a
more complete traaslatioo of the same paIU&Ie, from the IS Their line is contiaued by audI fipra as 11m1 (d.
FutilI}at. I, 1S3-SC, can befouod in Asln PaJaciO$'L'b1iJm 898/1492),MuIIlSadrI.adanumberofotherleurenowned
~[trauslabondilcussc:dinPartI].pp.30-31.) thinkerswhoarebrieftymentionedbelow(e.I.•atn.91).
M Some of the gounds of the difl'erina outlooks of Ibn .. The relative rarity of manuscripts of AmuJr'l works
f;Arabtaod Kllblnihavebeendisc:uacdinscaenJtermIin (comparedwithauthonliteK1sblnt,Qlnawi,orJilI)JCeIDS
notes 1S and 83 aboft. Still another typiaaI example of tore~notsomuchtheintrinsicqualitiesofhisthOU8hlu
KIIhtnra auimilatioo ofIbn f;ArabI's ideas to Avicennan the restricted nature of his oriPW audience-primarily
notions is in his treatment or COIJDOlol)' (=Prof. Lory's TwelYer Shiite tbeololians-and his pioncerin. status in
study,pp.~S9),wherethevariousco-equalaDdconcomitant d~endinlthe writiDp ofIbn cArabrin thatcontext. (He •
dementsofIbncArabT'sCQlmoJoay-discusscdbrielyinPut &monl the authOR cited by the laterShiite writer Ibn AM
IintbecontextofatranslatiooofD.GriI-aretransformed JumhOr[leethearticleofW.MlMleJunlatn.39.PutII).who
into dqrces of·proareuive particularization"(p. 54), with likewiseattempted toassimilateIbn cArabt·.penpectivain
-Prime~.thelowestlevel the Shiite theoloPca1 context.) For a tentative listina of
It should be added that Dlhlni"s approach was not Amutt" worts and extant manUKripts, lee espc:cially the
necauriIytypicalofotlacolDllleDtatonandinterpretersof introductions to his JilmiC IIl-Asr. (fuD refereDCa in text
lbocArabtSomethinaoftheclistinctiftDeuofhisapproach below).
(inantbeways01ltliDed above)comaoutmoreclearly.for •, TheindexestotheJimictil-b.andNtIqdIIl-Nuqiidare
example.wbenit· contnltedwithmrsmuchmorefaithful especiallyrevealiDaoftheIeadinaroleofUIhInIandQanad
commentary on Ibn cArabt"s RUaItlt IIl-AnWiIT discuuecI in detmnioin, Amun's conception of Ibn cArabl's -Philo
below. mI'. relative faitbfuIneu to tbe Shaykh's Janauaae sophy." The same -school" seems to have been equally
aDdinteatioDlcanbeplainlyseen,e....inhisdilcuslion(pp. inftuential in his later COllUlJeDtary 00 the Frqiq (NiIII
121'.)ofIbncArabt'saIhIsionstothestqesandrealitiesofthe tU-NIqUI.•. ).tojuclaebytherefereoceainhisIntroduction
nenworld. (theonlypansofaredited;IClen.90below).
107
with it ["fA phi/o$OP~$hrc;u." Ed. H. CouIN TheleCoDdvolumeeditedbyCorbinandYmy&,the
et O. YAHYA. pp. 832 (Arabic introcluctioD~ texts, JODI in.t$roduction to Autun'. commentary on the
and extensive indexes)+76pp. French introduction. Frq;qII1-Qilulm[NtIRIIl-Nrqiil/fSlwuI;IIu-FUIiiII "u
TehranIParis:BIBLIOTBEQUEWNIENNI!,n· 16.1969.1' T~xl~ T~xt~$." Ed. H. eoaBIN et O. YABYA.
aremainlydevotedtoexplaininglOmeofIbnC;ArabT~s pp.547(text)+77pp.FreDChintroductionand80pp.
keycooc:epts(aDdtheirpncticaI,cxpericntialPiesupposi Arabicintroduction.Paris/Tehran:Bau01'llllOOllaAN
tions) to readen who are not UIUlIled to befamiliar JENNE, n· 22-21. 1975.fOwritteninhisold ap,isstill
with his worb, an especially di1IicuJt daalIenae that marked by his Twelver Shiite convictions on the
must obviouslybefaced by anycontemporary writer
on these subjects. ~ a result, Amun's dilc:ussioDS~
conc:eption. In fact, AmuIr. UlUJDeIlt is a1moIt entirely
while no doubt lacking the philosophic subtlety and
complex technical vocabulary of the clauical worts intended to explain Ibn cArabI'. outlookto Shiite reli&iOUI
scholars (whose trainiDa was traditionally in Shiite I)«/1Ih,
directed toward "specialists" (QaytaJ'l, KIIhInT, Jr~
fiqh, and 1uIJbJ tbeoIo&Y) and to convince them of the
etc.), are likely to be considerably clearer and more
superiorityofSufismandiurelatedlpiritualpnctices.inthe
~bletoreadersapproachingtheseissues,atleast
form expressed by IbIl cArabt, u the proper aDd uniquely
intheirIslamicform,forthefinttime.Thispedagog
icalinterestisamplified,atleastintheJllmiclll-A6rar effectivewayto.... ptiletnaeintentionsaDdmeaninasofthe
talChinpoftheearlyIm8IDI-whichAmuIIuDdentands•
a work of Amuli's youth, written soon after his
another spiritual -Path,.{IdrJqllr), Iharin& many ofthe key
"convenion" to Sufism in the form of Ibn cArabI's
teachinp-byareveaIin&penonalopennessanddirect penonalitics (e.I., CAli and Jacfar ~ also found in
ness, an unconcealed autobiographical dimension manySufichai ofinitiation.The orkisItOtdevoted(aacl
heretheFrmdItitlemaybelIIIiDteDboaallyirODic)todefend
whichisrelatiYeJyrareinIslamicliteratureingeneral,
and certainly in most works of this school. This inaShiiJm to non-ShiiteSufis. for example; Amu1Icomis
tendywritesfromthepenpectWeofthedirectlyexperienced
pcnonal aspectisespeciallyvisible in AmulI's impas
sioned attempts-which provide thejustification and Truth (~.)uDdertyiaa thae IIDd many other reliaious
framt\1Vorkforthebook-tocoaYinoebismostlyhostile traditions.anddoesDOtattempttocircumlcribetheuniwnal
and suspicious Twclver Shiite colleagues and friends import of Ibn cArabt'1 mer. In that liaht, it is cuy to
uDdmtand the relative hOstility (or perhaps mon: often
(inthe holycitiesofIraqwherehewaswriting)ofthe
ultimate unity of Ibn 'ArabI's Sufi path and the simpleindifference)wbidIWM theusualdericalreIpODSeto
similarattemptsbyAmuJIandhisIUCCeIIOn.
insipta and teaehinp traditionally attributed to the
HistoricallyspcakiJJ&thecfl'orts01AmuJJmelRIChTwcMr
earlyShiiteImams."
Shiite scholars u MuDa$adrl (or in our own clay, S. J.
AshtiylDI: ICe n. S7, Put II) to brilll out this uniftJ'Ul
II TheimportaDCeofOsmanYahia'llonlArabicintroduc spiritualdimensionofShiitetradition(almostalways under
tiontothisvolumefortheentirehistoryofthecommentaria thedirectorindirectinftueDc:eofIbncArabT)haveusually
aDd reception (critical. well u favorable) of the F"'IiI with the poaible exception of certain teacben ill Qajar
td-{liJulmbasalmwIybeenmcntiooedatn.S,PartII. Iran-remaiDcdatbestsomewhatmaqiDalintheeycsofthc
RelldcnunabletocoDlU1ttheArabictextsinthisvolume vat JUjority ofthe Twdftr c:w.ma', and often IUbjec:t to
will fiDeI an exc:el1etlt brief introduction to Amulrs meta banasmeIltOrevenopenpersecutionu asuspectheresy.(The
phyUcal thouJbt, bued IarFly on both the worb edited typical case of Mulli $adrl aDd his attempts to ~.the
there,illToshihikoIzutlu'larticleonWfbeBaicStnlCtUreof profoundinftueDceofIbacArabI,inhismorepopularwritinp,
MetaphysicalThoqbtinIslam,,.DOWmostreadilyaccasiblc is detailed ill our traDllation ad introduction to his 17te
in FreDCh translation ill the collectionofhis Claysentitled WuJo", 011M Tlrrone•.., Princeton, 1911.) Without an
«
Urdll 1"ExU1aI« ~t Crltuion hrpItwlk m Myst;qw awarenasofthishistoricalbIlctarouDd.morerecentcIevdop
I&ltmtiqw(paris,LcsDeux0c:Qm, (980),pp.9-47(leealso mentainTwclftfSlWsmmilbtappearsomewhataaomaloUl,
Do14,Part11). ratherthan..heinathecootinuationofOuaoinlaDddeepIy
., Thil latter point daena IOIDC further amplification, rootedtendeocies.
sinceProfessorCorbin·.introductionfOCllla onthe-meta· ,.. This edition docs not include Prof. Yabya'i cxtenIiw
historical"orpbilosophic1IDity(aperceivedbyAmunanda iDdeuImentioocdilltheFrenchintroduction(_theprojected
fewotbeI'relatiftlyrareShiitescholan)betweenSufismaDd part 2 of this volume in the -Bibli~ueiranielmej;
Shiiam, but does not stress the real Irbloriall difticultia apparently they have notyet been publilbecl. An especially
AmuII(and his lucc:euon; seeDo 91 below)eDCOUIlten:d in intereltiq feature of this text are Amun'. many circular
tryiuato conviDcetheirfellow Shiitesofthevalictityofthis diapamsUICdtoillustrateupedIoftbcdoctrineof~t
108 JoUTIIIIIoftM Ammc4II 0rimt1l1 ~ty 101.1 (1987)
questionofwa/8ytJ(whichmayhaveaccountedforits audindependentmysticalwriteramonathefigures we
relativeaep:etbysublequentnon-Shiiteauthon),but have discuaed in the "school" of Ibn cArabl (or of
isinsteadanadvanced,philosophicallyelaboratetrea QOnaWl). lodeed the sort of derivative relationship
tise, aimed at other hiahlY trained students of Ibn implied by that expression is quite milleedilllunIea
cArabr,discussingallthekeythemesoftheFUIilIfrom weundentandtheirrelationascomparable,(orexam
the threefold standpoiat of IUlqI(1}tIdrth aad Wamic ple,toProcJus'positionvil-l-visPlotinus.f1For,haviDa
tradition), clI'Il(the dialectic -reason" oflater kaIam completely assimilated the teacbiap and writings of
aDd Avicennan philosophy), aod kiuhf (the direct the Shayth (aDd his earliercollUDentaton), nil pro
experiential realizationofthe Sufis). Amulrsexplicit ceedstodevelopthesamebroadthemes(metaphysica,
comparatiw analysis of tbae three dimensions (at cosmololY, spiritual psycboloJ)', etc.), but with an
onceofintellectualfonnandspiritualmethod),which oriJinality aud independence which is consistendy
are inextricablyinterwoven in Ibn cArabra own writ grounded-like Ibn CArabrs-ia his own piritual
ings, is a typical feature of virtually aD subsequent insight and experieacc. These distinctive qualities,
commentaria and discussions or his taebinp-at which are especially strikina wben let apiDat the
least when some attempt was made to explain or relativelygeatertheolOJica1andphilosophicemphasis
defend them to pbilolopben and theol()JiaDs outside of most earlier (aDd 1a1er) writen ill this school, no
strictlySuficircles.'1 doubthelpedaccountforthewidediffusionandaccep
cAbdal-KarimaI-.mt(d.832/1428)wasundoubtedly tance ofhis writinpamon. Sufisfrom Muslim India
boththemostoriginalthinkerandthemOltremarkable (where.nJTtraveled)totheOttomanlauds.')However,
that same riclmea and depth of implicit references
tIl-WIIjDdaodttljMtiylt,wbicbareCODliderablymoreelaborate
thantholeaiYCDbyIbaCArabliDtheFUllll,lt. lina ofCOnaec:bon with theeartierworbor~. AmuhaDd
AphyaicaJindicationoftheextent(andrelativepbilolophic 11mTurk&.)
iDdeJ'C!*oce)oftbistnditiollofI6C0111IDODtar,.'OIltheFIIIiII Comparative wor~ aIoq Iimilar IiDa by the poet
bythistimecanbeaIe&DCdfromtheeditors'remarkthatan philosopherJImJaod by MulJISadriare dilculled inthe
edition ofthe first halfofAmulT'. 8CtUalcommentary(the IeCtiononJImIbelow.
onlypartnowavailableinmaaUlCript)wouldhavetakeafour n Theana1o&YinthisCalCisparticularlystroDlbecauseone
or he volumes the tizc ofthis -IntroebIctioo-(547 pp. of ofthe importaDt features ofmrs indc:pm:teat pbiJolopbic
Arabictextalone). contribution,• withProcl..andsuhlcquentNeoplatonilts,
" See tile very .imiIar aaalysil of tNJ"dIIt tIl-wujIMJ ad baa to do with his subtle anaJyIiI ud muJtiplicatioa of
related themea, incontrut with the Avicennan philosophic distiDctioDi conClCl'DiDa the -intermediate- coaditioaa aDd
aacI bam .taaclpoiDta, by another, 'li&btly I.ter Twelver ItatcIofbeiDa;see,forexample,E.Buaerth,-0.8ucbder
Shiitewriter,$a>jnal-DfaTurbIsfahlnt(d.ca.83~A.B.)in 40Stufenvon CAbei a1-~adm a1-lmt," ~MAU
bitT..mJd.,.g.w~[ed.S.J.AIhtiyIDt274pp.+6pp. ~ ., W"1UeIUdttIftm. phiJoio,um-hUtorUdw KJa.
EnaU.hiDarodudionbyS. H. NMI'.Tehran,1976.].Thiswas 230,no. 3(J9S6). cAbeial-QIdira1-JazI~iJf'.defemeofIbn
aDimportanttuchiaatextinIaIeI"Iraoiupbilolopbiccin:IeI, cArabIqaiDItlOmeofmrs"'iDDovatioDs-orclUpeementl
• iDcticated by the &Jolla by 19th and early 20th ceDtury oa certain points is cliIcaIIed by M. Cbodkiewicz in the
tneIitionailraniuphilolopbeniDClucleclinthisedition;their IDtrocluetiontohistraDdatioDlfromtheM"""""(tbetmu
roleisaplaiDedintheeditor'sJeDathyPeniaDiDtroduction spiriluelrdilcuucdattheCIIdofthisarticle),pp.31 and189.
(IIIpp.).T'biaIbDTura...,pareatlytheIOnorJfUdson t) For mr. trawll .. life. ICe the artide by HeJbDut
of $adr al-Drn Ibo Turta, another Twle¥er .cbo!ar "coo Ritter,MCAbdal-Kadmal-DjIIt'"iJaEll,I,p.11;theimportaace
verted-totheSufismorI_cArabT,no.RUAIfrill-WIIjfid of tile Yemen in .nn'l life mniDds us of the IIiD virtually
tll-MU/1iIqis cited by AmulJbimselfin the J6mlctd-AsrIT, unkDown Itory orthe IICCqUDCc &lid development of Ibn
pp.496-97. cAraIIJ'.inaueDcethere(asubjectevoked onlybridyatthe
Another .ucceaor in this hierarchical resolutioa of the eDdofA.Atq'.articleintheEJ2).Someideaofthespreadof
penpectiva of taIam, plailolophy, and Ibe cArabI(repre his ideas &lid writiDp, espccWly in sabtcqUCDt Turkish
sentinlSufismmoreacneraUY)istheShiitethinkerlboAM Sufism, can bepthered from the locatioaa ofmanuscripts
JumbOr(d. &me9th115thcmtUIY), wholeviewsiDbitmajot listedinBrockelman. GALSII, pp. 283-84,peI-for.nn's
work,theK.tIl-MujlIareoutliDedinW.Madeluaa's"IbnAbI comlllClJtarielORacvera.IofIbacArabJ'sworb-inO.Yabia'.
GumbOr al-A~=n SyothaiI of ~ PbiIoIopby aDd HUtoir,...•
Sufism-(ICeDo39,PanII),wbidlaltomeatioDl•fonhcomina TheIDOItaccaIiblepopuJariDtroductiontoJmisprobably
articleORIbDAbtJamb inthe~totheBtl.(This ItiII that iDdIIded iD R. A. NicboltoD'. SIIMlIa ill IMtuIIk
article,tintpraentedin1976,doesDOtmentionthepoaible M,me;.,(Cambrid~1921;repro 1967),cbapterII.
109
<aaain comparable to the later Neoplatonists), which annotated translationofsuch a work, difficult that
posesuch adilemmaforstudents inmostdomains of mipt be, could help transform many widespread
later Islamic cult~ are a formidable obstacle for misconceptions concerningthis wholecurrentoflater
modem students and traDllators-a fact which may IslamictbouJbt.
explain the limited availability ofhis writinJS in any In the meanwhile, readers can find an exceUent,
Westernlanauaae. eminentlytadabIeillustrationofthesedistinctivequal
TItusBurckhardt'spartialtranslationoftheopening, ities ofJitI'a work in the recent partial translation of
mrs
metaphysical chapters of K. Gl-I1Ul1n al-Kbnil hiscommentaryonIbncArabT'sR.al-Anwlr[JOUI7Je}'
[DeI"HomlM ~l.pp.101.Paris:DEavy-LlvRES. totheLordofPower.Tr.R.T. HAUlS. pp. 116.New
1975(1sted. 19S3)./ Englishtr.(fromthe French)by York: INNEIl TaADmONS IN1'EaNAnONAL. 1981.]."
A. CUUIIE-SEYMOUR. UniwrMd Man. pp. 93. Sher What is remarkable about that commentary, incom
borne, UK: BESHARA PuBLlcAnONS. 1983.], with its parisonwiththeworksbyauthondiscussedearlierin
extensiveintroductionandcarefultreatmentofphilo thissection,isitsconsistent,unmistakablereferenceto
sophic vocabulary (including an excellent glossary), directexperienceoftherealitiesinquestion,notjustas
has been a classic introduction to this dimension of apremiseofthediscussion,butasitsveryrai30nd'ltre.
.nu,
Ibn cArabY's tboupt for many yean. However, the like Ibn cArabIand unlike 10 many ofhis other
translator's intentionally limited selection of topics commentatoR, is careful here to raise questions of
and particular pedagogical intention-both carefully "theoryW or intellectual explanation as they naturally
acknowledged in the opening sections" necessarily arise withinthecontextand ultimate aim ofspiritual
lead the uninitiated reader in a direction almost the realization-not as they are generated by extraneous
opposite(atleasthistoricallyspeaking)ofthatactually apologetic concerns, or by an internal intellectual
followed by the author; it ia very difficult, unless the dialectictakenasanendinitself.Theresult, aided by
readerisalreadyquitefamiliarwithIbnCArabiandhis his frequent references from appropriate passages of
earliercommentators,toseehowJiliisactuallyusing the FutDJ,at aDd other orks ofIbn cArabi, isa truly
their concepts and terminology in an independent, Suficommentary(not10much a philosophicortheo
creativefashiontodevelopandexpressnewinsightsand logicalone),groundedintermsacc:essibletoanyreader
oriainalideas."Arelativelycompleteandappropriately
favoriteSufithemeofthe-menofIII-Ac,rlcf.Koran7:468'.),
,. Thiswrsion,a thetranslatorstrases,covenomyrouably the second a mystical encounter with the initiatic figure of
y.ofthetotalwort,andisnotentirelycomplete:evenfortbe Khip".) WithoutalreadyknowingthatJi1Iwatheirauthor,
chapters that arc included. The translator Jives a careful itwouldbedifficulttoimaainethatthesepusagesaredra n
outline of tbe chapter beadinp of the rest of the book, from the same book as the earlier ~hapten traDllated by
but-as often with both Ibn cArabt and many ofhis later T.Burckhardt.
interpreters-anoutlinedoesnotreallysugestthelikelihood " The excerpts from JDi's commentary here coven 33
of such discussions .. those mentioned in n. 95 below. pages,venus only24Pa&afortheaaua1translationofIbn
Readers of .mT's work, not to mention translators, are cArabr.text.(Aim Palacios'earliertranIlation oftheI8.IDC
certainlynotaidedbythestateoftheavailableprintedtexts, textwasdiJcuasedinPartIabove.)ThisEnglishvcrRonalso
whereitisclearthattheeditorIprinterhuhimselfoftennot includesahelpfuill-p.Jloaary(includin,aplan tiODIof
beenabletofollowtbediJcuaion. biographical references to cartier Sufi authors), bile the
~ InJill'scase,thealmostuniversalproblem,formodern on81awhole-iftCludinatheintroductorymaterialbytwo
studentsandtranslatorsoflaterIslamicthoupt,ofwidespread contemporaryJe~Sufilhaykbs-reftectsthegreatesteem
iporanccofthedistincttraditionsoflaterkillamandAviccn nn lonl enjoyed in Ottoman (by no means exclusively
nanphilosophy(alreadycitedatnn.55-56aDdS9--a»,PartII) 1"urkishjSuficirdes.a phenomenonalsoindicated bythe
is further compounded by his creative devdopmmt of Ibn many manuscripts of his oft. found in libraries in that
cArabY's own tceImical terminolOl)', which also umes a rqion(n.93above).
considerableacquaintancewiththeShaykh"swritinpingen Althoup the tra.DIlatio in this wort are nOt by a
era),especiallyinhismorecomplexmetaphysicalcliIcussions. scholarly specialist, any IhortcomiDp in that regard (e.z.,
This is not always thecase withJl'1l, a iDdica'cd bytwo technicaltermsnotalwaysclearlyexplained ucb.mcreDCeS
fasclnatin,briefexcerptsfromtheK.ai-I'"al-Dmil(from and allusions not alwaysidentified) are more than COUDter
laterchaptersthanthoseincludedintheBurckhardttransla bal-need bythetranslator",obvio carefor tbe~larityand
tion).whicharereadilyaccasibleintheEnaJishtranIlationof readabilityofthefiDalvcnion-afundamentalco ideration
H.Corbin'sSpiriIutIlBodytIIUlQkstitllFAr~(tr.N.Pearson, thatisunfortunatelynotalwayssoapparentintheavailable
PriDceton.1977),pp.148-63.(Thefintselectionconcernsthe tr latio inthisarea.