Rızâeddîn bin Fahreddîn, 19.-20. yüzyıllarda İdil-Ural bölgesinde ceditçilik hareketi içerisinde yer almış en önemli düşünürlerdendir. Rusya müslümanlarının uyanışına katkı sunmak için birçok İslam düşünürünün biyografisini kaleme almıştır. Bunlardan birisi de İbn Arabî hakkındadır. Eserinde İbn Arabî’nin fikirlerini amelî, ilmî ve felsefî başlıkları altında inceler. Amelî görüşler başlığında içtihat, kıyas ve icmâ meseleleriyle ilgilenir. İlmî görüşler başlığı altında şumûl-i rahmet, ricâlu’l-gayb ve firavunun imanı konularını inceler. Felsefî görüşlerde ise âlem-i misâl ve vahdet-i vücûd hakkındaki tartışmaları öne çıkarır. Rızâeddîn bin Fahreddîn, (...) eserinde İbn Arabî hakkında gelişen tarihsel münakaşaları yeniden değerlendirir. Bu konuda üç tutum ve gruptan bahseder. İlk grup onu kafir, ikinci grup ise büyük bir veli olarak görür. Üçüncü grup onun büyük bir veli olduğunu kabul eder fakat eserlerinin okunmasının sakıncalı olduğunu söylerler. Rızâeddîn bin Fahreddîn bunlara ek olarak eserinde İdil-Ural müslümanları arasında da İbn Arabî etkilerinden bahseder. Eserinin sonunda İbn Arabî ile ilgili zikrettiği görüşleri değerlendirir. İbn Arabî düşüncesinin zaaf ve imkanlarına işaret eden bu değerlendirmede neo-selefî ve reformist görüşlerin etkisini izlemek mümkündür. (shrink)

Ghazzālī; 1058-1111; Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm, 1263-1328; criticism and interpretation; Islam; doctrines.

El concepto de la forma divina del ser humano es mencionado en varias descripciones en las tres religiones abrahámicas mayores. El enfoque tradicional judeocristiano de Imago Dei (La imagen de Dios) tiene tres perspectivas principales: sustantiva, funcional y relacional. Ibn ‘Arabī, como pensador y místico musulmán, explicó esta idea a través del concepto de espejo y otros dos conceptos, a saber, el ‘Hombre Perfecto’ y la vicegerencia de Dios. Consideró la forma divina del ser humano como un espejo a través (...) del cual Dios se manifiesta. Este artículo ofrece una visión general comprensiva de la interpretación de Ibn ‘Arabī a la luz de los enfoques judeocristianos. La explicación de Ibn ‘Arabī incluye tres enfoques. A través del concepto del hombre perfecto, la explicación de Ibn ‘Arabī se acerca a la interpretación sustantiva, y a través del concepto de vicegerencia, revela la interpretación funcional. El artículo reconoce una interpretación relacional de la forma divina a través de algunas explicaciones contradictorias que pueden hallarse en sus libros. Este análisis de su explicación también arroja bastante luz sobre aspectos de su perspectiva antropológica. (shrink)

Caliphate; Māwardī, ʻAlī ibn Muḥammad, 974?-1058; political and social views.

Muhyiddin ibn Arabî, İslam'daki tartışmasız en etkili sufi teorisyendir. Kalıcı şekilde en popüler çalışması olan Fusûsül-hikem'de, Kur'an'da bir peygamber hakkında algımız ne olursa olsun, onunla ilişkilendirilen ve ondan türetilen hikmetin çok farklı olduğunu açıkça ve ısrarla göstermektedir. Bu, İbn Arabî'nin Kur'an'ın literal metnini inkar ettiği anlamına gelmez. Tam tersine, O sadece Kur'an'ı farklı algılama ve alımlama düzeylerinin olduğunu iddia eder: Kur'an'ın dış gerçekliği (zâhir) kitlesel tüketim içindir ve İbn Arabî'ye göre kişinin Kur'an'ın yüzeysel bir anlayışından elde ettiği bilgidir. Bununla birlikte, (...) Kuran'ın, ariflerin (arifûn) korumasında olan daha derin bir anlayışı vardır. İbn Arabî, dış gerçeğin ötesine geçen, ancak ona (dış gerçekliğe) ayrılmaz bir şekilde bağlı olan Kur’an’ı bu şekilde okumasıyla, Kur'an'ın tasavvufi tefsir geleneğini kendi tarzında sürdürür ve birincil amacını Fusûs’un her bölümünde uygular: Her ikisinin de meşruiyetini korurken, Kur'an'ın zâhir ve bâṭını arasındaki antitezi vurgulamak ve hatta bâṭına ancak ẓâhir yoluyla erişilebileceğini iddia edecek kadar ileri gitmek. Bu makale, bu karşılıklı bağımlı bilgi ('ilm)/hikmet (hikma) antitezinin en açık örneklerini bulduğumuz ve belirli nedenlerle seçilmiş Fusûs'un dört bölümünü detaylı şekilde incelemektedir: Adem bölümü, Fusûs'un ilk bölümü olduğu için seçilmiştir ve bu bölümde İbn Arabî'nin eserin tamamına yönelik amacı ve yaklaşımı net şekilde belirginleşir. Lût ve Hârûn bölümleri, Endülüs'ün ikili hermenötik ilkesinin en bariz örneklerini oluşturdukları için seçilmiştir. Son olarak, İbn Arabî metnin tahiriyle çelişiyor gibi görünse bile, aslında birincil zahiri modele dayanan daha gelişmiş bir yorum modelini açıkladığı için Nûh bölümü seçilmiştir. Âdem bölümünde İbn Arabi, Adem ile ilişkilendirilen en tutarlı Kur'anî betimlemenin insanlığın babası olduğu için onun insanlığının olduğunu öne sürer. Oysa onun hikmeti ilahi vasfıdır. Bunun nedeni, İlahi en katıksız ve tam ifadesini ancak insanda bulabilmesidir. Diğer taraftan, Nuh'un Kuranî sembolü ise kavminin büyük çoğunluğunun boğulduğu tufandır. Sufî’ye göre (İbn Arabî) onun hikmeti, şeyleri yüzdürmesidir- subbūḥiyya/sebūḥiyya hikmeti. İbn Arabî için boğulma bir ölüm nedeni olmaktan çok bir yaşam kaynağı olmuştur. Lut'un Kur'an'daki en kalıcı imgesi, kavminin günahını dizginlemedeki yetersizliğinden dolayı güçsüzlüğüdür. İbn Arabî, ama yine de onun hikmetinin güç olduğunu söylüyor. Son olarak, Hârûn, Kuran'da Mûsâ'ya itaat eden biri olarak tasvir edilir. Kardeşine yardım etmesi, yükünü taşımasına yardım etmesi için kendisine peygamberlik verildi. Mûsâ, Sina'ya gidip onu sorumlu bıraktığında bile, o sadece Mûsâ'nın yardımcısı rolünü yerine getirir ve ona tabidir. Oysa onun hikmeti itaatin, liderliğin antitezidir. (shrink)

Ibn ʻArabī, 1165-1240; philosophy; Islamic; Sufism.

First published in 2008. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

: ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī (d. 736/1336) was a Kubrawī sheikh lived in Simnān one hundred years after Ibn al-Arabī (d. 638/1240). He authored around ninety works in Arabic and Persian on various fields within Sūfism, raised many disciples. His contribution to the sūfī tradition mainly come to forefront regarding problems like unity, latāif (subtle organs), rijāl al-ghaib (men of the unseen), wāqia (dream-like mystical experiences) and tajallī (manifestation). Simnānī’s understanding of the unity influenced subsequent sūfī’s and specifically Ahmad Sirhindī (d. (...) 1034/1624) and his sheikh Bāqībillah’s (d. 1012/1603) views of the unity overlap with Simnānī’s one. In Maktūbāt, Sirhindī who developed the idea of unity of the seen against the unity of the existence expresses that his understanding of being is the same with Simnānī’s one. Simnānī is also known as the first critic of Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of the unity among sūfī’s. Such that, whenever his name is mentioned the first thing comes to one’s mind has been his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī. However, his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī was not studied as a whole looking at his ouvre. Studying Simnānī’s works, it is seen that his criticism is concentrated on two main problems. First is Ibn al-Arabī’s employing the concept wujūd al-mutlaq (absolute being) for God. He maintains that it is not convenient to use this concept for al-Haq. His second criticism is against a sentence mentioned in al-Futūhāt: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. In this article, causes for Simnānī’s critiques will be discussed and both sūfī’s conceptions of wujūd al-mutlaq and ‘ayn (quintessence) will be studied.Summary: One of the famous names in the Kubrawī tradition, ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī is a sheikh who lived in the city of Simnān in the contemporary Iran between 659-736/1261-1336. In his youth, he served in the service of Arghūn Khan (r. 1284-1291) in the Īlkhānid Palace; and later, after a spiritual experience, he left the palace and turned to a Ṣūfī life. For a certain period, he continued worshipping and riyādhat (spiritual fight against the evil commanding self) on his own, and looked for a guide convenient to his character. Eventually, he became the disciple of the Kubrawī sheikh in Baghdad, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Isfarāyīnī (d. 717/1317), and obtained ijāzah (permission) for irshād (guidance). After that, with the instruction of his sheikh, he went back to Simnān; and spent rest of his life with guiding his disciples and writing scholarly works. He authored around ninety works in Arabic and Persian on various fields within Sūfism. His contribution to the sūfī tradition mainly comes to forefront regarding problems like unity, latāif, rijāl al-ghaib, wāqia and tajallī; and influenced subsequent sūfī’s. Simnani’s influences can best be seen on the founder of the Mujaddidiyya branch of Naqshbandiyya, Ahmad Sirhindī (d. 1034/1624), and Sirhindī’s sheikh Bāqībillah (d. 1012/1603). In a letter Bāqībillah wrote to Sirhindī, he mentions certain differences between Simnānī’s understanding of unity and unity of the existence by stating that Simnānī’s path is not that of unity of the existence, and that his shuhūd (seen) is the most perfect shuhūd. Also in the Maktūbāt, Sirhindī expresses that his understanding of being is the same with that of Simnānī’s. Simnānī is also known as the first critic of Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of being and unity among sūfī’s. It would not be incorrect to say that he is more famous for this critique so much so that whenever his name is mentioned the first thing comes to one’s mind has been his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī. The main reason for this is that a letter Simnānī wrote to one of the followers of Ibn al-Arabī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d. 736/1335) in which Simnānī criticizes Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of unity, was included in the famous work of Abd al-Raḥmān Jāmī (d. 898/1492), Nafakhāt al-uns. This letter’s presence in the Nafakhāt played a vital role in its publicity. For this reason, it can be said that Nafakhāt made Simnānī famous. Yet, it should also be said that the fame stemming from Nafakhāt is incomplete and it is just about one aspect of Simnānī, a scholar who authored dozens of books on the Sūfism. Moreover, it is not correct to defend that Simnānī’s statements in that letter reflects a full picture of his opinion about Ibn al-Arabī. Hence, to have a better understanding of his criticism and thoughts about Ibn al-Arabī, one should explore other works of Simnānī as well. Studying Simnānī’s works, it is seen that his criticism is concentrated on two main problems. First is Ibn al-Arabī’s employing the concept wujūd al-mutlaq for God. His second criticism is against a sentence mentioned in al-Futūhāt: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. To understand the first criticism, one needs to know the meaning both sūfī’s attribute to the concept of wujūd al-mutlaq; and for the second the meaning they attribute to the concept of ‘ayn. First, it should be known that Ibn al-Arabī did not think of being as a form category the members of which are beings. To the contrary, he uses wujūd exclusively for the Eternal, and refrains from using the concept of wujūd for the creation; and calls them mawjūd. In other words, Ibn al-Arabī differentiates between being and existence; and limits the concept of being only for the al-Haqq. Ibn al-Arabī states this view repeatedly in statements such as “al-Haqq (the Truth) is being; things, however, are attributes of being.” What Ibn al-Arabī means by wujūd al-mutlaq is al-Haqq who is wajib al-wujūd (the Necessary Being) and free from all restrictions. Thus, in a certain sense wujūd al-mutlaq means wajib al-wujūd. By writing that “Wujūd al-Haqq is the essence of wajib al-wujūd who is qualified with the perfect attributes of eternity and infinity. Absolute Being is the actions emanating from these attributes. Wujūd al-Muqayyad (the Limited Being) is the outcome that comes into existence as a result of these actions”, Simnānī explicitly states that for him Absolute Being is the actions of al-Haqq. What one can understand from the statements of both sūfī’s is that while by wujūd al-mutlaq Ibn al-Arabī refers to wajib al-wujūd (i.e. the essence of al-Haqq), for the same term Simnānī refers to actions of al-Haqq. Since in criticizing Ibn al-Arabī, Simnānī takes into account his own definition of the term Wujūd al-Mutlaq as the actions of al-Haqq, his criticisms are not valid. In fact, both exonerate al-Haqq from all the conditions. However, while Ibn al-Arabī chooses to verbalize the existence of God with the concept of “Absolute Being”, Simnānī only approves to express the existence of God with the concepts of wājib al-wujūd and al-Wujūd al-Haqq and differing from Ibn al-Arabī attributes the meaning of the actions of God to the concept of Absolute Being.Simnānī’s second critique against Ibn al-Arabī is related to this sentence: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. An annotation that is written by Simnānī on a page which is out of his gloss on al-Futūhāt is highly harsh reads as follows: “O, followers of the most deviant leader! If you hear that one says that your sheikh is identical with his beard, put the claim that he is identical with his rejectomenta aside, should you accept this and tolerate him?” It is understood from these sentences that Simnānī considers the concept “al-ayn” as the essence of that thing. Though, the word “al-ayn” is one of the most multi-meaning word in the Arabic language and in Ibn al-Arabī’s works it is used with various meanings such as eye, the quintessence, spring, water source, tangible being of a thing, the essence of a thing and so on. The usage as “the essence of a thing” is very much common in Ibn al-Arabī’s works. It is interesting that while this word has so many meanings, Simnānī takes one meaning as base and blaspheme against Ibn al-Arabī. It is obvious that the main cause for Simnānī’s critique against Ibn al-Arabī in both problems is his attribution to the concepts different meanings than Ibn al-Arabī and then judging him in the context of his attributes. (shrink)

This research aims, first of all, to establish that Abû Hanîfa's (d. 150/767) positive view on the issue of performing wudû’ with nabîdh of date is correct, and then to reveal Abû Hanîfa's dalîls on this subject. The issue of wudû’ with nabîdh of date is controversial among early Hanafî jurists, and the jurist who expressed a positive opinion on this issue is Abû Hanîfa, the founding imam of the madhhab. The opinion that wudû’ can be performed with nabîdh of (...) date is the strong opinion of Abû Hanîfa mentioned in zâhir al-riwâya. The riwâya reported by Nûh bin Abi Maryam (d. 173/789) stating that Abû Hanîfa reneged on this view is not strong enough to oppose the view in zâhir al-riwâya. For this reason, it is not a correct approach to ignore the view in zâhir al-riwâya based on this riwâya. As a matter of fact, Abû Hanîfa's view of zâhir al-riwâya is conveyed in many of the classical Hanafî texts such as Mukhtasar al-Karkhi and Mukhtasar al-Tahâwî. Although the majority of Hanafî jurists preferred the view of Abû Yûsuf (d. 182/798), a significant group of Hanafî jurists such as Jassâs (d. 370/981), Kâshânî (d. 587/1191) and ‘Aynî (d. 855/1451) He supports Abû Hanîfa's view. Therefore, there are two views on the issue in Hanafî fıqh. In the literature, the dalîls of Abû Hanîfa's view is not available as a whole in a single source, but is scattered in many Hanafî fiqh sources. The Hanafî jurist Jassâs is the one who deals with the mentioned dalîls in the most comprehensive way in his many works. For this reason, the subject was examined by focusing on Jassâs's dalîls. Jassâs' istidlâls regarding the issue of wudû’ with nabîdh of date also mean defending Abû Hanîfa against other Hanafî jurists such as Abu Yusuf and Imâm Muhammad (d. 189/805). Jassâs' insistent attitude on this issue and his passionate counter-answers prove how much he deserves the title of defense. For the relevant determination, Hanafî fiqh classics are centered. Because the jurists who argue that wudû’ can be made with the nabîdh of date are among the Hanafî jurists. Then, the positive and negative approaches of the jurists about the nabîdh of date are given. Starting from the early Hanafî jurists, the views of the sahâbîs, the tâbi'ûn and many later jurists on the subject are included. The approach of the four madhhabs of fiqh is also examined in this section. Then, the istidlâls of Jassâs, which is the main subject of the research, were emphasized. It is seen that Jassâs' istidlâls have three main pillars: âya, hadîth and idjma. As a âya, the 6th âya of the sûra of Mâida, as a hadîth, the hadîth of ‘Abd Allâh bin Mas'ûd (r.a.) and as a idjma, the the sahâbîs idjma tries to showas references. The most controversial dalîl is undoubtedly the hadiths of Ibn Mas'ud (r.a.). Jassâs opposes those who claim that the hadîth is da‘îf and discusses the hadîth with its detailed tarîks and argues that this hadîth is sahîh. (shrink)

Suyolcu-zāde Nahrī Aḥmad (d.1182/1768-1769) was an important sûfî poet being a member of Ismā‘īl Rūmī branch, the sect of Qādiriyya. He carried out the duty of spiritual and ethical guidance at Qādiriyya Lodge in Tekirdağ. Besides his sûfî character, he was a poet having an extensive knowledge about the theoretical and aesthetical bases of Dīwān literature. The only original copy of Nahrī’s Dīwānçe including his poems registered in the Vatican Library, Turkish Manuscripts, nr. 235. There are forty-five Turkish, twelve Arabic (...) and three Persian poems by Nahrī in this copy. The goal of this article is to present the formal and contextual features of Nahrī’s poems in Dīwānçe in the light of the analysis on some poems that we chose. Any study was not found about the poet’s life and poems in the literature review we made. In this study, poems are classified according to the verse form and the language, and the number of couplets, type of prosody, form, style and content of the chosen poems are evaluated accordingly. This study has importance in terms of providing insight about the Religious-Sûfîstic belief in the region and period of Nahrī Aḥmad who was a sûfî poet and a member of Qādiriyya sect. In addition, the study gives information about many important influencers of the period, particularly Niyāzī-i Miṣrī and inform the readers about these influencers’ and sûfîs’ effects on Nahrī’s poems and ideas. The study also makes contribution to determining literary-sûfistic terminology of 18th century.Summary: Suyolcu-zâde Nahrī Aḥmad (d.1182/1768-1769) was a member of Qādiriyya Dervish Convent in Tekirdag where he was born. He became the head sheikh of this convent following his father Sheikh Muḥammad Efendi and worked for the convent in several ways. Nahrī Aḥmad moved back to his hometown in 1182/1768-1769 after completing his Hajj duty and died soon after that. Nahrī had two works according to Osmanlı Müellifleri (Ottoman Authors) and it is stated that the first one of these two works is about “unity of existence”. It should be mentioned that we haven’t found a copy of this work yet. The other work of Nahrī is his Dīwānçe, which includes his poems. The only copy of this significant work is registered in Vatican Library, Turkish Manuscripts, nr. 235. In this study, we had the chance to determine a third work of Nahrī which has never been mentioned in the related literature. This third work that we determined is based on the information in an Arabic poem on the page 21a of the poet’s Dīwānçe. This book that we determined is an interpretation book completed in 1166/1752-53 but Nahrī Aḥmad didn’t mention the name of the work. Nahrī Aḥmad was a spiritual guide and sufi, and he was assigned to the duty of showing the true path in dervish lodge following his madrassa education, learning Qādiriyya lodge’s morals and methods and completing his “spiritual journey”. Besides these, he was a significant poet who could write poems in Arabic, Persian and Turkish languages and he was literary competent who knew the theoretical and aesthetic rules of Dīwān literature and used these features professionally in his works. When Nahrī’s poems are analyzed, it can be seen that he adopted the understanding of existence, knowledge and belief based on Islamic Sufism. Besides, it can be seen that he internalized the significant Religious-Sufi Turkish literature figures including especially Yūnus Emre.In the copy of his Dīwānçe, registered in Vatican Library, there are forty-five Turkish, twelve Arabic and three Persian poems. There are two other poems that weren’t written by Nahrī in the same work. These poems were written by a poet with penname of ‘Ᾱrif in the period when Nahrī’s son Muḥammad Muṣlih al-Dīn was the head sheikh in the same Dervish convent. These historical poems are significant as they describe the re-building of ruined Tekirdag Qādiriyya convent after Nahrī’s period. The goal of this article is to present the formal and contextual features of poems in Nahrī’s Dīwānçe on the basis of chosen poems. As far as we could determine, there is no other study on Nahrī’s works. Nahrī’s Dīwānçe wasn’t a kind of rearranged work of collected poems. Therefore, we classified the poems in terms of the form and language and evaluated the number of couplets, aruz prosody, shape, type and content. Poems of Nahrī in Dīwānçe in terms of verse style are: Four Turkish, three Arabic, one Persian ode, one Turkish compounded stanza, seventeen Turkish, nine Arabic and one Persian major stanza, three Turkish five-line stanzas, two Turkish pentastichs, eighteen Turkish and one Persian lyric.Nahrī Aḥmad wrote five-line stanzas for three of Niyāzī-i Miṣrī’s lyrics and one of Bāqī’s lyrics. He wrote parallel poems about one pentastich, one lyric and one other poem written in a specific style of blank verse of Niyāzī-i Miṣrī. Besides, there is also an original poem that is quite unique in the work. Nahrī wrote five couplets before each verse in Niyāzī-i Miṣrī’s ode which resulted in the creation of a common ode. Poems in Dīwānçe are contextually religious-Sufi based. ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, Ismā‘īl Rūmī who was the founder of the order of Rūmiyya branch and other sheikhs of Qādiriyya dervish order are the main names mentioned in the poems. One other significant point in Nahrī’s poems is that he had a deep love and respect for Niyāzī-i Miṣrī. There are praises, quintets and parallel poems about Miṣrī in Dīwānçe which shows Niyāzī-i Miṣrī’s effect on his work. This effect is so great that it covered not only the content but also there are the signs of the effect in terms of metaphoric language, words and verses. It can be said that ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī and Niyāzī-i Miṣrī, a member of Khalwatī order, were two significant names that surrounded the mental world of Nahrī, located in the texture of his poems and gave characteristic features to his works. There is a great number of historical poems in Nahrī’s Dīwānçe. He wrote twenty-six historical verses about various historical issues such as birth and death, construction of mosque, dervish monastery, zawiya, pavilion, repairing of mansion, renovation of dervish convent, enthronement of Sultan and appointment of Grand Vizier. Also, there are some other important parts in Nahrī’s Dīwānçe such as invocation, praise and self-adulation.Although there are not many poems in the previously mentioned copy in Vatican Library, there are various names mentioned in these poems. When these poems are analyzed, it can be seen that there are the names of some prophets, some companions of Prophet Muḥammad such as ‘Alī, Ja‘far al-Sādiq, some Persian legendary characters such as Afrāsiyāb, Rustem and Anūshirwān, some Sufi names such as Manṣūr al-Hallaj, Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, Shams al-Dīn of Tabrīz, Ḥācī Bektash Velī, Ibn al-‘Arabī and Bāyazīd al-Bisṭāmī, philosopher Galen and famous love heroes Laylā and Majnūn. That is to say, the poet has a rich world of references. On the other hand, there are the names of some works mentioned in Dīwānçe. Epistle of Niyāzī-i Miṣrī named Devre-i ‘Arshiyya, and Ibn al-‘Arabī’s al-Futūhāt al-Makkiyya are the other names mentioned in the work. Name of the places included in Nahrī’s poems are: Aden, Aqmescit, Baghdad, Baghcesaray, Baṭḥā, Balkh, Dimashq, Ḥijāz, Iraq, Iran, Cairo, Ken‘ān, Karbalā, Qılburun, Crimea, Kirmān, Egypt, Nemce, Rūm, Sanaa, Shām, Yemen. This study has importance in terms of providing insight about the religious-sûfî belief in the region and period of Nahrī Aḥmad who was a sûfî poet and a member of Qādiriyya sect. In addition, the study gives information about many important influencers of the period, particularly Niyāzī-i Miṣrī. Moreover, it informs the readers about these influencers’ and sûfîs’ effects on Nahrī’s poems and ideas. The study also makes contribution to determining literary-sûfistic terminology of 18th century. (shrink)

Followers of Ibn ʿArabī are considered to constitute an “Akbari” school of thought. The use of the term ‘school’ assumes some sort of cohesion, but the nature of this has been little studied. I argue that adherents found a substitute for the in-person study sessions (sing. majlis) that were common among Sufis, by identifying Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam with Ibn ʿArabī. Thus they were able to establish a direct connection with their preferred master by reading and commenting on this book. By placing (...) their own commentary among other commentar­ies on the Fuṣūṣ, they created a bookish majlis; a dialogue with their master and other students similar to an in-person majlis. Whether conscious or subconscious, this idea became prevalent: no real organization such as a Sufi order came to be, but instead we have dozens and dozens of direct commen­taries. Making Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam an icon for Ibn ʿArabī became, at times, so strong as to turn the book into an idol or effigy. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The connection between the unity of God and the multiplicity seen in the universe represents the central concern for the Sufi thinker, Muḥyī al-Dīn ibn ‘Arabī (d. 638/1240). It deeply affected the thought of the Southeast Asian mystic, Ḥamza Fanṣūrī (d. 1590?), and his alleged disciple, Shams al-Dīn al-Sumatra’ī (d. 1630). Traces of this idea, through its popularisation in the poems of Fanṣūrī, exert a powerful influence on the Indonesian intellectual topography to this day. This article investigates the concept (...) of unity and multiplicity, of the One expressed as the many in the phenomenal world, in Ibn ‘Arabī’s Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam (Ringstones of Wisdom). Through a close textual reading of the chapters of Ādam (Adam) and Ibrāhīm (Abraham) and their various commentaries by the most influential followers of Ibn ‘Arabī, it concludes that the representation of ‘oneness of being’ (waḥdat al-wujūd), which was extensively taught by Fanṣūrī in Aceh, as an erasure of the God-Man divide, is untenable. (shrink)

The fact that the names of two philosophers who lived and worked in such different periods, under conditions of quite dissimilar cultures and civilizations, share the title of this article is in itself enough to require clarification. Nikolai Berdiaev, who belonged to a current of Russian philosophy that called itself mystical, hardly needs to be presented to the reader. Muhyiuddin ibn-'Arabi , the greatest mystic of the Arab Middle Ages, is known as the founder of a philosophical conception that was (...) later referred to as the "unity of being" and enjoyed broad popularity among Islamic thinkers, philosophers, and poets of the late Middle Ages. Moreover, motifs of this conception are not difficult to find in the works of contemporary literati enthralled by the ideas of Islamic mysticism, i.e., of Sufism. Hence these two outstanding figures can be compared on the common ground that they belonged to the current of philosophical thought of mankind that is called mysticism or mystical philosophy. Despite all the differences that doubtlessly exist among Russian, Arabic, and, let us say, European mysticism, there are also certain fundamental common features of this way of looking at the world that enable us to bring all these currents together under a single generic concept. (shrink)

Ṣūfī people, as well as the ulema (ʿulemā), discussed the issue of how God (Ḥaḳḳ) surrounds the universe (ʿālem) and where the ʿarş (arsh / the ninth heaven) in which God ensconces himself exists. The Ṣūfī people supporting the unity of existence (Wahdat al-wujud) concept claim that God surrounds the universe by his own being and so that the ʿarş (arsh) is all the creation / created beings by God moreover they argued that people who rejected this idea could attribute (...) weakness or impotence to the power of God. On the other hand, commentators and scholastic theologians acknowledge the idea that God surrounds the universe not by his own being as Ṣūfīs claimed but God surrounds the universe by his knowledge (ʿilm) and power (ḳudret). They claimed that there was no physical connection of God with the universe. There-fore, this article discusses a couplet (beyit) written by Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī from Bayramī-Melāmī group in light of four different tracts (risāle). One of the four tracts was written by the author of the couplet Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī himself. The title of his tract is Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme). The other tract was written by Munīrī-yi Belgradī and the title of it is Şarḥ-i Qaṣīda-i Suleymān. The other two tracts analyzed in this article were written by Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī. These two tracts try to explain how God surrounds the universe from the unity of existence (Wahdat al-wujud) perspective. Therefore, they may help in understanding the men-tioned couplet written by Lāmekānī. The outline of the article is as follows: the introduction has the text of the ghazal including the mentioned couplet and discusses how the characteris-tics of Bayramī-Melāmī people were reflected in their poems. This part also tries to determine who wrote the mentioned ghazal as there were two different pen manes / pseudonyms (mah-las) for the same ghazal in various resources. To determine the original writer of the ghazal is crucial for proper interpretation of the texts. The next part of the article discusses the accusa-tion that Lāmekānī was an heretic in the Şarḥ-i Qaṣīda-i Suleymān tract by Munīrī-yi Belgradī. This part also tries to outline Munīrī-yi Belgradī’s mode of thought to discuss the background of his criticism about the couplets. According to his way of thinking, though Munīrī had some tolerance to Ṣūfī people believing fenā fillāh, he ironically harshly criticized the Ṣūfī group supporting Wahdat al-wujud entitled as Fuṣūṣī. In the second section, based on his work named Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme), it is aimed to create a general portrait of Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī. In this context, it discusses how Wahdat al-wujud and Hurufism, which are generally big issues for Bayramī-Melāmī, influenced Lāmekānī. Therefore, the comparison between Oglan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī who was clearly influenced by Wahdat al-mavjud (vaḥdet-i mevcūd) and Hurufism, and Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī is realized in this part. It was figured out that adoration of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem (Fuṣūṣīlik) was more influential in Bayramī-Melāmī Sheikh’s mode of thinking through the analysis of the effect of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem in Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme). It was suggested that the reason behind the allocation of Munīrī-yi Belgradī for Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī was the effect of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem which was salient for Melāmī Sheikh Lāmekānī. The final part of the article is about two tracts Miftāḥ al-vucūd and Zayl al-kitāb written by Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī. The criticized couplet was read under the light of these tracts. These two tracts are significant as they explain how God surrounds the universe and where the ʿarş (arsh) is located by referring to the verses of Quran al-Fussilet 41/54, al-Nisā 4/126 and el-Tāhā 20/5 mentio-ned in the couplet by Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī. Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī proposed a new argument about how God surrounds the universe in Zayl al-kitāb. According to this argument, in Miftāḥ al-vucūd Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī tries to explain God’s surrounding potent through the or-ders/grades of the existence. In Zayl al-kitāb, he claims that there must be a center for God’s surroundings of the universe and this center must be Ḥaḳīḳat al-Muḥammediyye. Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī stated that he did not acknowledge this information by himself but he acquired it from Ibn Arabī when he had a dream. Lastly, this part of the article discusses what Rahman settles in ʿarş (arsh) means in terms of circle (devir) theory. It was suggested that according to Ṣūfī people believing Wahdat (vaḥdetçi) God’s ʿarş (arsh) is the human being himself by drawing on the Kasf al-Gıtā (Keşfu’l-Gıtā) qasida written by Sunʿullāh-ı Gaybī who was a successor of Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī from the second generation. (shrink)

Kitāb al-Mabādiʼ wa-al-ghāyāt fi-̄mā tataḍammanah ḥurūf al-muʻjam min al-ʻajāʼib al-āyāt -- Kitāb Mīm wa-al-wāw wa-al-nūn -- Kitāb al-Alif, wa-huwa kitāb al-aḥadīyah -- Kitāb al-bāʼ, wa-huwa Kitāb al-ḥaqāʼiq al-ilahīyah -- Risālat al-ḥarf wa-al-maʻná, wa-huwa tafhīm maʻānī al-ḥurūf -- Kitāb al-yāʼ, wa-huwa Kitāb al-hūw -- Risālat al-kalām fi ̄ḥurūf al-muʻjam wa-maʻānīhā -- Risālat al-ʻiqd al-manẓūm fī khawāṣṣ al-ḥurūf.

This study aims to critically compare and contrast the views of Ibn Arabi and Whitehead on God, the world, and the relationship between the two. I argue that there are significant overlaps in their systems that are sufficient to start a scholarly and enriching dialogue between the two thinkers. Both seem to envisage the world as a continuum of events, as a process. They also appear to agree that the primordial nature of God includes all potentialities that are also the (...) metaphysical principles that ground regularity in a world that is otherwise defined by pure change. The concept of relationality lies at the core of their conception of the God-world relationship and of the relationships of entities with each other. We can also see an emphasis on God's immanence without losing the distinction between God and the world. They both hold that God can be best understood by bringing antitheses together They make similar distinctions between God's primordial and consequent natures. The article also alludes to points of divergence between the two thinkers. These divergences do not exclude the possibility of a dialogue, but, in contrast, render the interaction between the two a meaningful and enriching one. (shrink)

We will intend to evaluate, throughout the two consecutive parts of this study, which is to be considered the status at the very same time hierophanical and cosmological, ontological and anthropological, that dic notion of Beauty invests in te speculative misticism of the anda lusian Muhy¡ al-Din lbn `Arab¡ (1165-1240), known as well as "the gre Este articulo es la ponencia presentada en el Seminario Muhy¡ al-Din ¡bn Arabí -Mawláná faMí al-Din Balji(Mowlavi/ RflmiJ. Das fuentes clásicas para el estudio de (...) la mística especulativa en el Islam, que se celebró en la Facultad de Filosofía de la Universidad Complutense, en colaboración que la Consejerla Cultural de la República Islámica de Irán en Madrid. durante los días 19,20 y 21 de enero de 1999. krks&l&~ú..t&Hitat&k¡Fíksq%L <~),n~n ¡7. ~ 77-rn Sm*t& ñt4~m. thí~.~~h1Cw1tm MaI*f 78 José Miguel Puerta Vílchez atest master" in the realm of isla¡nic spirituality. And this by confronting the theories of islamic aesthetics and philosophy, and both furthermore by clarifying a vocabulary plenty of poliedric signifwances and by presen ting the doctrine of a creative imagination of which its noetical and sacred value will be thus explored. (shrink)

El presente artículo es un estudio sobre las diferenciaciones (aqsām) del amor, uno de los puntos más importantes del principal escrito que Ibn ʿArabī dedicó a la cuestión amorosa, el capítulo 178 de Las Iluminaciones de La Meca (al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya). A través de un juego de oscilación y equilibrio entre perspectivas ontológicas y epistemológicas aparentemente enfrentadas –incomparabilidad/similaridad, oculto/manifiesto, unidad/multiplicidad, espíritu/cuerpo– y un recurrente manejo del lenguaje de las alusiones (išāra), el maestro andalusí distingue entre amor divino (ilāhī), espiritual (rūḥānī), natural (...) (ṭabī‘ī) y elemental (ʿunṣurī). Se ofrece un análisis y comentario del texto akbarí que pretende aclarar la especificidad de cada una de estas nociones, así como su íntima relación con el discurso amoroso del autor. (shrink)

Ibn al-ʻArabī, 1165-1240--Criticism and interpretation.

Ibn al-ʻArabī, 1165-1240. Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. ; Qayṣarī, Dāwūd ibn Maḥmūd, -1350 or 135Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. ; Sufism ; Islamic philosophy.