Ehl-i Tasavvufun İbnü’l-Arabî’ye Yönelik Tenkitleri: Alâüddevle Simnânî Örneği

Kübra ZÜMRÜT ORHAN

Article Details

Ehl-i Tasavvufun İbnü’l-Arabî’ye Yönelik Tenkitleri: Alâüddevle Simnânî Örneği

Authors:

Kübra ZÜMRÜT ORHAN

Main Topics:

Religions (General)

Journal:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi 2019 Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.631-649

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2019

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2000918187

Keywords:

Abstract:

 


: ‘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.



.

Article Details

Ehl-i Tasavvufun İbnü’l-Arabî’ye Yönelik Tenkitleri: Alâüddevle Simnânî Örneği

Authors:

Kübra ZÜMRÜT ORHAN

Main Topics:

Religions (General)

Journal:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi 2019 Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.631-649

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2019

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2000918187

Tasavvuf

Alâüddevle Simnânî

İbnü’l-Arabî

Vahdet

Vücûd-i mutlak

Ayn

Issues

Article Details

Ehl-i Tasavvufun İbnü’l-Arabî’ye Yönelik Tenkitleri: Alâüddevle Simnânî Örneği

Authors: Kübra ZÜMRÜT ORHAN

Main Topics: Religions (General)

Journal: Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi 2019 Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.631-649

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 12/2019

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2000918187

Tasavvuf

Alâüddevle Simnânî

İbnü’l-Arabî

Vahdet

Vücûd-i mutlak

Ayn

Issues

Authors:

Kübra ZÜMRÜT ORHAN

Main Topics:

Religions (General)

Journal:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi 2019 Vol.23 Issue 2, pp.631-649

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2019

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2000918187