Introduction

提供: CDSIA
移動先: 案内、検索

Ibn ʻArabī and the School of Ibn ʻArabī

TONAGA Yasushi

1. Ibn ʻArabī

1-1 About Ibn ʻArabī

Ibn ʻArabī is widely known as an outstanding mystic in the history of Islamic thought. He was a prolific writer, with a legacy of over 700 works according to O. Yahia.[1] His main works include Meccan Revelation (al-Futūḥāt al-Makkīya), The Bezels of Wisdom (Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam), the latter of which was the subject of more than 100 commentaries, which goes to show how extensively his thought was received in the Islamic world.

Ibn ʻArabīʼs philosophy can be explained in terms of an ontology known as the “oneness of being” (waḥda al-wujūd) and the theory of ideal human existence referred to as the theory of the “perfect man” (insān kāmil) or “the seal of the saints” (khatm al-awliyāʼ). “Oneness of being” (waḥda al-wujūd) is a view that sees everything in this world as the self-manifestation (tajallī) of the Absolute, which is called “existence” (wujūd). There is no doubt that Ibn ʻArabī put forward this theory, yet it was only later that the theory was organised into the shape in which we know it today. Ibn ʻArabī himself did not use the term waḥda al-wujūd. The theory that we are taught today is the mystical thought which his disciples rearranged in a philosophical manner.

The “perfect man” (insān kāmil) refers to a person who has completed his spiritual practice and fully understood the mystery of the world. In Ibn ʻArabīʼs thought, however, this does not simply refer to the image of an ideal person, but also has an ontological significance. That is to say, the perfect man is a link between Allah and the created world. He is an imago dei which reflects Allah as well as a microcosm which reflects the universe. Ibn ʻArabīʼs grand cosmology can been seen in the way in which Allah, the perfect man and the cosmos as a whole are interrelated.

1-2 The importance of Ibn ʻArabī

I would here like to discuss the importance of Ibn ʻArabī, both in Islamic history and in the contemporary Islamic world. My focus here will be on both the time and the space.

First I would like to focus on the time. It is rather difficult to say when began the modern period in the Islamic world, but from the point of view of the history of ideas, we can say that it began in the 18th century. In the 18th century, Islamic reform movements were launched by Muḥammad b. ʼAbd al-Wahhāb in the Arabian Peninsula, Shāh Walī Allāh in India and Osman dan Fodio in Africa. Muḥammad b. ʽAbd al-Wahhābʼs reform movement in particular is said to have exerted great influence on the later Salafī movement and so-called Islamic fundamentalism of today. These movements took as their spiritual precursor the 13th–14th century thinker Ibn Taymīya, who condemned the philosophical mysticism of Ibn ʻArabī and saint worship as polytheistic heresy and emphasized the absolute transcendence of Allah and the application of the Sharīʻa (Islamic law). It seems that Ibn Taymīyaʼs understanding of Islam has become the mainstream in the modern Islamic world.

As opposed to this, it can be said that Ibn ʻArabī provided the philosophical framework for the pre-modern Islamic world. It would, however, be too great of an oversimplification to state that pre-modern Islamic thought is centred on Ibn ʻArabī and modern Islamic thought on Ibn Taymīya.

First, there are many contemporary figures who have been influenced by Ibn ʻArabī. For instance, Amīr ʻAbd al-Qādir al-Jazāʼirī, who led the anti-French resistance in Algeria, and Khomeynī, who led the revolution in Iran, were deeply sympathetic of the ideas of Ibn ʻArabī. It is also incorrect to assume that the people who led these social movements just happened to favour the ideas of Ibn ʻArabī, and that there is no direct relationship between their ideas and those of their movements. This can be seen in the fact that Khomeynī wrote to Gorbachev, who was then Present of Soviet Union, that in order to understand the Islamic world, it is important to understand the ideas of Ibn ʻArabī and Ibn Sīnā.[2] It can be said that for Khomeynī, the revolutionʼs social reforms were profoundly related to the ideas of Ibn ʻArabī.[3]

Moreover, the fact that there is a dispute about the interdiction to publish Ibn ʻArabīʼs work al-Futuḥāt al-Makkīya in Egypt also suggests the extent of his influence, even today. Muḥammad ʻAbduh prevented its publication at the beginning of this century, and the Peopleʼs Assembly again discussed its prevention in 1979.[4]

Secondly, it should be pointed out that to say that the philosophical basis has changed from that of Ibn ʻArabī to that of Ibn Taymīya only refers to the Sunni Islamic world. Among Twelver Shiʼism, Ibn ʻArabīʼs influence is still strong, as it can be seen from the above example of Khomeynī. Similarly, Ibn ʻArabīʼs influence is said to constitute the backbone of the Ismāʻīlī doctrine.[5]

Now I would like to focus on the space. After escaping from the crisis of the Mongol invasion in 13th century, it again began to spread to Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The latter period of expansion was not by means of military force, as had been the case since the 7th century, but by means of its peaceful propagation by merchants. It is said that the Sufis were largely involved in this process. The form of Islam that was introduced in these areas contained elements of Sufism and, more often than not, simultaneously propagated the thought of Ibn ʻArabī. The fact that Ibn ʻArabīʼs influence can be seen in many parts of the Islamic world, including the ones mentioned above, proves this. It is not difficult to imagine how Ibn ʻArabīʼs metaphysics was seen to be similar to the Hindu and Buddhist worldviews prevalent in Southeast Asia, thus facilitating the introduction of Islam in these areas. I shall return to this point in the concluding section.

1-3 New trends in research on Ibn ʻArabī

It is not feasible to review the entire range of researches on Ibn ʻArabī in these pages, and so I shall exclusively deal with the new recent trends of research which attempt to describe the multi-faceted characteristics of Ibn ʻArabī.

The fact that Ibn ʻArabī is one of the most important mystics in Islamic history is widely accepted, and as a consequence previous research has primarily dealt with an analysis of his mystical thought. This aspect has been, and will no doubt continue to be, the most important aspect of research on Ibn ʻArabī. However, recent research has focused on different aspects of Ibn ʻArabī in an effort to reveal his multi-faceted character.

One approach has been to survey the external rather than internal, i.e. mystical, aspects of Ibn ʻArabīʼs thought. This includes textual analyses revealing Ibn ʻArabī as a legal specialist, and we may cite E. Winkelʼs work as an example of such an approach.[6] Although the fact that Ibn ʻArabī was an authority in the āhirī law school is widely known, this research approach has begun to discover concrete statements about this in his texts. Although this approach seeks to show other aspects of Ibn ʻArabī, the object of research is still the thought of Ibn ʻArabī.

A second approach, on the other hand, mainly deals with the image of Ibn ʻArabī as a saint among the people. The object of this type of research is not Ibn ʻArabī himself but the image of Ibn ʻArabī formed through the expectations of those who lived in his age and surroundings, and in later years. The topic of this sort of research is the activities of people who visit the tomb of the saint Ibn ʻArabī.[7]

The third category of approach is related to the second and is concerned with the history of the disputes about Ibn ʻArabī. It is possible to regard such research as synonymous with research on Ibn ʻArabīʼs influence upon later ages, which I will mention below, but since it is intimately related to the question of the image that can be drawn of Ibn ʻArabī, I will deal with it here. Ibn ʻArabī was a famous personality in a good and in a bad sense. Hence evaluations of him vary according to time and place. They range from regarding him as a saint who perfected the deepest truth to a liar and a heretic. O. Yahia have pointed out that there is a long history of disputes, and I myself have written articles on the critique of Ibn ʻArabī and his School by Ibn Taymīya and al-Biqāʻī in the Mamlūk period.[8] For the time being, however, the most comprehensive research in this field has to be the work by A. Knysh.[9] This work carefully traces the arguments made by intellectuals, but it also includes the policy of statesmen and the historical context. It is hence more of a historical approach than one grounded in the study of mystical ideas.

2. The School of Ibn ʻArabī[10]

2-1 Historical outline of research on the School of Ibn ʻArabī

Since Ibn ʻArabīʼs text is at times exceedingly difficult to understand, for a long time commentaries by his followers were used as tools for understanding his ideas. It goes without saying, however, that commentaries can be a means of developing oneʼs own ideas after securing the legitimacy and authority.

Hence, there has developed a tendency to use these commentaries in order to understand the philosophical ideas of each commentator rather than as a means for understanding the ideas of Ibn ʻArabī .

Only about 50 years ago, it was said that the flourishing of Islamic thought had ended in the 12th century and thereupon entered an age of decay.[11] Opposed to this view were scholars of whom Henry Corbin is a typical representative. They emphasized the many great thinkers in the Shiʼite and Iranian world after the 13th century, throughout the so-called Safavid Renaissance, and to the present day. This great philosophical tradition finds its roots in Ibn ʻArabī, Suhrawardī Shaykh al-Ishrāq, and theology of the Twelver Shiʼism.

It can be said that in comparison, research on the development of latter day ideas in the Sunni world lagged behind. It was only in the 1980s that serious discussion began on the development of ideas in the post 13th century Ottoman Empire, Arab world and China. This trend of research was based upon the claim that Islamic thought did not lose its power even after 12th century, but continued to grow and bear new ideas.

In the 1990s we can find a tendency to focus not on the level of metaphysics but on that of the popular masses. Chodkiewicz, for example, used uncritical pamphlets to consider the spread of Ibn ʻArabīʼs influence.[12] However, since this type of research also uses written texts as sources, it remains difficult to capture its influence among the illiterate masses.

To summarise the above, it can be said that research on metaphysics is far more advanced than research on Ibn ʻArabīʼs influence among the popular masses, and attempts at the latter have just begun. Moreover, although historical and regional differences have not yet been adequately considered, it can be said that the regional spread of Ibn ʻArabīʼs ideas have been pointed, and that research about schools in areas not previously dealt with is advancing.[13]

This bibliography aims to bring together the schools of thought that developed in different areas, and supply the basic data of the influence of Ibn ʻArabī for the future study of the comparison of the development of the Ibn ʻArabīʼs mystical thought in each area. In particular, it can be said that the characteristic of the present condition is that, we have come to a point where we can draw comparisons not only from the Arabic and Persian world, but also from the Ottoman Empire, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and China.

When I say “area” here, I have cultural areas in mind. I think that in pre-modern times these cultural areas had considerable reality. A cultural area refers to an area with a common academic language. Having a common academic language means sharing classical texts. Arabic can be said to be the common language in the Islamic world, but apart from it, Persian, Turkish, Urdu, and Malay have gradually come to be employed as means of expressing ideas, and have consequently come to shape cultural areas.[14]

Another important aspect to take into account when considering cultural areas is religious ideas. It can be said that Hinduism and Vedanta philosophy in South Asia, Hindu and Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia, and Confucianism, Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism in China have all supported the systems of knowledge in each area. It is not possible to discuss the introduction of Islamic thought and of Ibn ʻArabīʼs ideas in each area without considering its relationship with these elements.

2-2 What is the School of Ibn ʻArabī

Up to this point, I have been taking the term “the School of Ibn ʻArabī” for granted. It should, however, be noted that this term is in fact rather problematic. As J. Morris has rightly pointed out, the term “school” must be used with much care. The reason for this is that: 1. Inquiry into the philosophical and theological unity and diversity of the members has not yet begun. 2. These members are not only commentators but also independent thinkers.[15]

Various ways to categorise the so-called the School of Ibn ʻArabī have been put forward by a number of scholars. According to W. Chittick, it can be divided in the following manner: 1) al-Qūnawī and his circle; 2) commentators of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam; 3) followers of Ibn ʻArabī in silsila (spiritual lineage); 4) those under his intellectual influence.[16]

For instance, regarding those belonging to the School of Ibn ʻArabī in South Asia, Dr. Chittick says that “relatively few authors were familiar with Ibn al-ʻArabīʼs own writings, even if most had some acquaintance with the Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam through one of its numerous commentaries. The major lines of influence were not Ibn al-ʻArabīʼs own works, but those of such authors as Farghānī and ʻAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī.”[17] The same can be said about China, where the author of Mirṣād al-ʻIbād, Najm al-Dīn Dāya Rāzī, is influential, together with Jāmī. It is difficult to say whether those who have not read Ibn ʻArabīʼs own works and are not under his direct influence belong to the School of Ibn ʻArabī . It may be for this reason that there are researchers who use the term “the School of waḥda al-wujūd” instead of “the School of Ibn ʻArabī.” Moreover, whether or not al-Balyānī, Ibn Sabʻīn, and Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī should be included in the School ultimately depends on how the School is defined.[18]

I should confess that I have not reached a stage where I can define with any certitude the concept of “the School of Ibn ʻArabī.” I would, however, like to include here those who are thought to have been under the influence of Ibn ʻArabī, even though this influence may be indirect, and their references are not necessarily traceable back to Ibn ʻArabī. From this point of view, it might be better to use the term “Akbarian tradition,” which refers to the trend in a more flexible sense, rather than using the term “school,” which brings to mind something that actually exists.

Notes

  1. ↑ Osman Yahia, Histoire et classification de l’œuvre d’Ibn ʻArabī, 2 vols., Damas, 1964.
  2. ↑ Elizabeth Sirriyeh, Sufis and Anti-Sufis, Richmond, Surrey, 1999, p. 146.
  3. ↑ 松本耿郎『イスラーム政治神学：ワラーヤとウィラーヤ』未来社, 1993 (Akiro Matsumoto, Islamic Political Theology: Walāya and wilāya, Tokyo: Miraisha, 1993).
  4. ↑ E. Sirriyeh, Sufis and Anti-Sufis, p. 97; T. E. Homerin, “Ibn Arabi in the People’s Assembly: Religion, Press, and Politics in Sadat’s Egypt,” Middle East Journal, 40, 1986, pp. 462–477.
  5. ↑ Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Seventh-century Sufism and the School of Ibn ʻArabî,” in Sufi Essays, London, 1972, pp. 97–103.
  6. ↑ Eric Winkel (tr.), Mysteries of Purity: Ibn al-‘Arabī’s asrār al-ṭahārah, Notre Dam, Indiana, 1995.
  7. ↑ We could count R. Atlagh’s work as an example of this approach. Ryad Atlagh, “Paradoxes of a Mausoleum,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society, 22 (1997), pp. 1–24.
  8. ↑ See:
    • O. Yahia, Histoire et classification;
    • 東長靖「マムルーク朝末期におけるタサウウフをめぐる論争」『イスラム世界』33/34, 1990, pp. 51–72 (Yasushi Tonaga, “Disputes on Tasawwuf during the Later Mamluk Period,” Isuramu Sekai (Islamic World) 33/34, 1990, pp. 51–72);
    • 東長靖「マムルーク朝期のタサウウフの位置をめぐる一考察：イブン・タイミーヤの神秘主義哲学批判を中心として」『オリエント』33-1, 1990, pp. 64–79 (Yasushi Tonaga, “The Position of Taṣawwuf in the Mamluk Period: On Ibn Taymīya’s Criticism on the Mystical Philosophy,” Oriento(Orient), 33-1, 1990, pp. 64–79).
  9. ↑ Alexandre Knysh, Ibn ‘Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
  10. ↑ For a general information of the School of Ibn ʻArabī, see
    • H. Z. Ülken, La Pensee de l'Islam, tr. G. Dubois et al., Istanbul, 1953, pp. 258–265; S. H. Nasr, “Seventh-Century Sufism”;
    • William C. Chittick, “Ibn ʻArabī and His School,” in S. H. Nasr (ed.), Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations, New York, 1991, pp. 49–79;
    • do., “The School of Ibn ʻArabī,” in S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy, vol. 1, London; New York, 1996, pp. 510–523;
    • James Morris, “Ibn ʻArabi and his Interpreters, Part 1: Recent French Translations,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 106-3, 1986, pp. 539–551;
    • do., “Ibn ʻArabi and his Interpreters, Part 2: Influences and Interpretations,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 106-4, 1986, pp. 733–756;
    • do., “Ibn ʻArabi and his Interpreters, Part 2 (Coclusion): Influences and Interpretations,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 107-1, 1987, pp. 101–119;
    • M. Chodkiewicz, “The Diffusion of Ibn ʻArabi's Doctrine,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society, vol. 9, 1991, pp. 36–57.
  11. ↑ Arthur J. Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam, 1950; repr. London, 1979, ch. 11.
  12. ↑ Michel Chodkiewicz, “The Diffusion.”
  13. ↑ Later developments in Iran have been clarified by Corbin, but it has been pointed out that developments in the Ottoman area, Mughal, and Central Asia have not been dealt with. See J. W. Morris, “Ibn ʻArabi and His Interpreters, Part 2,” p. 734.
  14. ↑ Until the Edo period, Japan was clearly a part of the Han Chinese cultural zone. However, after the Meiji period, literacy in classical Chinese decreased and Japan no longer was able to positively represent the Chinese cultural zone.
  15. ↑ Morris, “Ibn ʻArabi and His Interpreters, Part 2,” pp.751–752.
  16. ↑ Chittick, “Ibn ʻArabī and his School”; do., “The School of Ibn ʻArabī.” From this typology, the categories 1 to 3 can be determined without much ambiguity, but this is not the case for 4). The fact that there is no agreement regarding who to place under 4) and what the standards are for this category is one of the reasons behind the ambiguities in the definition of and the range of membership in the School of Ibn ʻArabī. S. H. Nasr, in his article “Seventh-century Sufism and the School of Ibn Arabi,” gives the following typology focusing on Shi’ism/Iran. 1) Sufi (many of whom use Persian); 2) Shi’ite theologians; 3) Commentators (Nasr, “Seventh-Century Sufism”).
  17. ↑ William C. Chittick, “Note on Ibn al-ʻArabīʼs Influence in the Subcontinent,” The Muslim World, 82-3/4, 1992.
  18. ↑ For Balyānī, see Chittick, “Ibn ʻArabī and his School,” p. 54; do., “The School of Ibn ʻArabī,” p. 519. Regarding the definition of waḥda al-wujūd, see William C. Chittick, “Rūmī and Waḥdat al-Wujūd,” Amin Banani, Richard Hovannisian and Georges Sabagh (eds.), Poetry and Mysticism in Islam, New York, 1994, pp. 70–111.
「http://kias.sakura.ne.jp/ibnarabi/index.php?title=Introduction&oldid=286」から取得