Unity and multiplicity of Ibn ‘Arabī’s philosophy in Indonesian Sufism

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Ibn ‘Arabī
• unity/multiplicity
• Fanṣūrī
• Al-Sumatra’ī
• Indonesian Sufism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. See, for instance, Abuʾl-ʿAlāʾ ʿAfifī (1939), The Mystical Philosophy of MuḥyīdʾDīn Ibnul-ʿArabī; Rom Landau (2008), The Philosophy of Ibn ʿArabī; Michel Chodkiewicz (1993a), An Ocean without Shore; Chodkiewicz (1993b), The Seal of the Saints; Toshihiko Izutsu (1983), Sufism and Taoism; Michael A. Sells (1994), Mystical Languages of Unsaying; Denis Gril (2005). ‘Ibn ʿArabī et les categories’, pp. 147–65; Henri Corbin (1997), Creative Imagination in the Ṣūfism of Ibn ʿArabī; Corbin (2008), Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sūfism of Ibn ʿArabī; Gregory Lipton (2018), Rethinking Ibn ‘Arabi, among many others.

2. Osman Yahya (1964) attributes around 900 books (1395 titles) to the Sufi theorist.

3. See, for instance, Ronald Nettler, Sufi Metaphysics and Qurʾānic Prophets; Ismail Lala (2021a, 2021b), Knowing God: Ibn ‘Arabī and ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī’s Metaphysics of the Divine, ‘Contradiction and Paradox in the Mystical Hermeneutics of Ibn ‘Arabī’s Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam’, and Qur’anic Knowledge and Akbarian Wisdom: Ibn ‘Arabī’s Daring Hermeneutics in Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam’.

4. According to William Chittick (2012, p. 81), the most likely source of this term was Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq ibn Sabʿīn (d. 669/1270?).

5. The inclusion of Khālid into this pantheon is somewhat contentious as he is not mentioned in the Qur’an. Ibn ‘Arabī, nevertheless, believes that, although he was a prophet, his prophecy was never manifested on the sensory plane, which is why the main topic discussed in the chapter dedicated to him is of the intermediary plane of barzakh (Austin, 1980, p. 267; Chittick, 1984, p. 36).

6. Meaning, it had physical existence.

7. This work is entitled Naqd al-fuṣūṣ. Al-Jāmī’s commentary is called Naqsh al-fuṣūṣ. For details on the importance of this work, as well as a translation of a portion of it, see William Chittick, ‘Ibn ‘Arabī’s Own Summary of the Fuṣūṣ: The Imprint of the Bezels of Wisdom’.

8. For details on Al-Qayṣarī’s life and thought, see Mohammed Rustom (2005), ‘Dāwūd al-Qayṣarī: Notes on His Life, Influence and Reflections on the Muḥammadan Reality’.

9. For a comprehensive work on the life and thought of al-Qūnawī, see Richard Todd (2014), The Sufi Doctrine of Man: Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī’s Metaphysical Anthropology.

10. For details about the Names of majesty and beauty according to Ibn ‘Arabī, see Rabia Terri Harris (1989), ‘On Majesty and Beauty: The Kitâb Al-Jalâl Wa-l Jamâl of Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi’.

11. Information about Al-Nābulusī’s approach in interpreting the Fuṣūṣ is given by Andrew Lane (2001), ‘‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī’s (d. 1641/1731) Commentary on Ibn ‘Arabī’s Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam: an Analysis and Interpretation’. This is one of Ibn ‘Arabī favourite traditions, but ḥadīth specialists say it is very weak (ḍa‘īf) at best, and fabricated (mawḍū‘) at worst (Shams al-Dīn al-Safīrī (n.d.), Sharḥ ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, vol. 24, p. 12; Al-Haytamī (n.d.), al-Fatāwā al-ḥadīthiyya, p. 290; Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (1992), Silsilatʾl-aḥādītha al-ḍaʿīfa waʾl-mawḍūʿa wa athruhaʾl-sayyiʾa fiʾl-umma, vol. 1, p. 165.

12. Comprehensive information about Al-Qāshānī’s life and thought is provided by Lala (2019).

13. Franz Rosenthal (1988) explains that Ibn ‘Arabī, despite devoting so much ink to divulging the secrets of the divine, still maintains that the essential nature of God lies beyond the ken of human understanding and this is why reason alone can never be enough for faith.

14. Ibn ‘Arabī focuses more on this issue in the chapter of Yūsuf (Ibn 'Arabi 2002, pp. 104–05). The assertion that God, in His truest essence, is essentially unknowable to humans has a rich pedigree that, according to Harry Wolfson (1959), goes all the way back to Philo (d. 50 CE). Wolfson, ‘Philosophical Implications of the Problem of Divine Attributes in the Kalam’, p. 76.

15. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (d. 812/1408?) carries out a full exploration of this concept (which does not entirely correspond to Ibn ‘Arabī’s categorisation). See Al-Jīlī (1997), Al-Insān al-kāmil fī maʿrifat al-awākhir waʾl-awāʾil. Fitzroy Morrissey (2020) conducts a forensic analysis of the differences between Ibn ‘Arabī and Al-Jīlī’s conception of the Perfect Man in Sufism and the Scriptures: Metaphysics and Sacred History in the Thought of ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī. It is important to note that Al-Jīlī’s conception of the Perfect Man had a profound influence on the thought of Fanṣūrī and his disciple Al-Sumatra’ī. See Carool Kersten, History of Islam in Indonesia: Unity in Diversity.

16. For details on this, see Lala (2023). See also Annemarie Schimmel (1975), Mystical dimensions of Islam, p. 273.

17. For examples of this, see Claude Addas (1993), Quest for the Red Sulphur- the Life of Ibn ʿArabī; Chittick (1992), Faith and Practice of Islam: Three Thirteenth Century Sufi Texts, pp. xii-xiii; Maria De Cillis (2014), Free Will and Predestination in Islamic Thought: Theoretical Compromises in the Works of Avicenna, al-Ghāzālī and Ibn ʿArabī, p. 169; Maḥmūd Maḥmūd Ghurāb (1981), Al-Fiqh ʿind al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muḥyi al-Dīn ibn ʿArabī; Toby Mayer (2008), ‘Theology and Sufism’, p. 283. Josef van Ess (2006, p. 16) argues that orthopraxy was important as an indicator of orthodoxy. While this is certainly true, Ibn ‘Arabī regards orthopraxy to be a fundamental component in the attainment of spiritual excellence.