Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism
Abstract
This essay examines the meaning, role and structure of that supreme
science of the Real which came to be known as al-tasawwuf al-'ilmi or
'irfan-i nazari in Islamic civilization. It then turns to the history of this
science beginning with Ibn 'Arabi and his immediate circle and then
considers each region of the Islamic world separately from Morocco to the
Malay world. Special attention is paid to the great masters of 'irfan-i nazari
in Persia from the earliest teachers to those of the present day. The relation
of this science to philosophy, kalam, and other intellectual disciplines is
discussed and its spiritual significance is studied in itself and in its relation
to the operative and practical aspects of Sufism. At the end of the essay a
section is devoted to the significance of 'irfan today and its role in
providing solutions for some of the most important intellectual and
spiritual issues facing the contemporary Islam world.
Introduction
There is a body of knowledge in the Islamic tradition which,
while highly intellectual in the original sense of this term, is neither
theology (kalām) nor philosophy (falsafah) while dealing with many
subjects of their concern although from another perspective. This
body of knowledge is called doctrinal Sufism, al-tas}awwuf al-‘ilmī in
Arabic, to be contrasted to practical Sufism, al-tas}awwuf al-‘amalī, or
theoretical (and sometimes speculative) gnosis (this term being
understood in its original and not sectarian sense), especially in the
2 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
turn prepared the ground for Ibn ‘Arabī, although he is a colossal and
providential figure whose writings cannot be reduced to simply
historical influences of his predecessors.5
Many have quite rightly considered Ibn ‘Arabī as the father
of theoretical gnosis or doctrinal Sufism.6 His writings as already
mentioned are not, however, concerned only with pure metaphysics
and gnosis. They also deal extensively with Quranic and H{adīth
commentary, the meaning of religious rites, various traditional
sciences including the science of the symbolic significance of letters
of the Arabic alphabet, ethics, law and many other matters, including
poetry, all of which also are of an esoteric and gnostic nature. As far
as the subject of this essay is concerned, it will be confined to works
devoted completely to theoretical gnosis and metaphysics, works
which deal directly with the Supreme Science of the Real. Otherwise,
every work of Ibn ‘Arabī and his School is related in one way or
another to gnosis or ma‘rifah as are writings of many other Sufis. The
seminal work of Ibn ‘Arabī on the subject of gnosis and one which is
foundational to the whole tradition of theoretical gnosis in Islam is
the Fus}ūs} al-h}ikam (“Bezels of Wisdom”)7 along with certain
sections of his magnum opus al-Futūh}āt al-makkiyyah, (“The Meccan
Illuminations),8 and a few of his shorter treatises including Naqsh al-
fus}ūs} which is Ibn ‘Arabī’s own commentary upon the Fus}ūs}.
In any case the Fus}ūs} was taken by later commentators as the
central text of the tradition of theoretical gnosis or doctrinal Sufism.
Many of the major later works of this tradition are in fact
commentaries upon this inspired text. The history of these
commentaries, many of which are “original” works themselves,
stretching from the 7th/13th century to this day, is itself of great import
for the understanding of this tradition and also reveals the widespread
nature of the influence of this tradition from Morocco to the Malay
world and China. Unfortunately, despite so much scholarship carried
out in this field during the past few decades, there is still no thorough
history of commentaries upon the Fus}ūs} any more than there is a
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 5
centuries its own distinct genre of Sufi literature going back to the
prayers of Abu’l-H{asan al-Shādhilī (d. 656/1258) and especially the
treatises of the third pole of the Order, Ibn ‘At}ā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī
(d.709/1309). In later centuries these two currents, the first issuing
from early Shādhilism and the second from Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis were
to meet in many notable figures of Sufism from that as well as other
regions.
There was greater interest in theoretical gnosis in the eastern
part of the Arab world as far as the production of written texts is
concerned. Strangely enough, however, Egypt, which has always
been a major center of Sufism, is an exception. In that ancient land
there has always been more interest in practical Sufism and Sufi
ethics than in speculative thought and doctrinal Sufism although
Akbarian teachings had spread to Mamluk Egypt in the 7th/13th
century. There were also some popularizers of Ibn ‘Arabī’s teachings
in Egypt, perhaps chief among them ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī (d.
973/1565), whose well known works present a more popular version
of the Futūh}āt and Fus}ūs}. 20 He tried also to link Shādhilī teachings
with those of Ibn ‘Arabī. There are, however, few notable
commentaries on classical texts of gnosis in Egypt in comparison
with those one finds in many other lands. Theoretical gnosis was,
nevertheless, taught and studied by many Egyptian figures. In this
context it is interesting to note that even the modernist reformer
Muh}ammad ‘Abduh turned to the study of Ibn ‘Arabī later in life.
Opposition to these writings has remained, however, strong to this
day in many circles in that land as one sees in the demonstrations in
front of the Egyptian Parliament some years ago on the occasion of
the publication of the Futūh}āt by Osman Yahya who had edited the
text critically.
In the Yemen there was great interest in Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis
in the School of Zabīd especially under the Rasūlids up to the 9th/15th
century. Ismā‘ī al-Jabartī (d. 806/1403), Ah}mad ibn al-Raddād (d.
821/1417-18) and ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (d. 832/1428) were
particularly significant figures of this School in the Yemen.21 Al-Jīlī,
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 9
Ottoman Turkey
Turning to the Turkish part of the Ottoman world, we find a
continuous and strong tradition in the study of theoretical gnosis
going back to al-Qūnawī himself and his circle in Konya. Foremost
among these figures after the founding of this School are Dā’ūd
Qays}arī (d. 751/1350) and Shams al-Dīn Fanārī (d. 834/1431). A
student of Kāshānī, Qays}arī wrote a number of works on gnosis,
including his commentary on the Tā’iyyah of Ibn al-Fārid}, but chief
among them is his commentary upon the Fus}ūs}, which is one of the
most thorough and remains popular to this day. 25 He also wrote an
introduction to this work called al-Muqaddimah which summarizes
the whole cycle of gnostic doctrines in a masterly fashion and has
been itself the subject of many commentaries including important
10 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Muslim India
We have been moving eastward in this brief historical survey
and logically we should now turn to Persia and adjacent areas
including Shi‘ite Iraq, which has been closely associated with Persia
intellectually since the Safavid period and Afghanistan which also
belongs to the same intellectual world as Persia. Because, however, of
the central role played in Persia in the cultivation of ‘irfān-i naz}arī
during the past few centuries, we shall turn to it at the end of this
survey and first direct our attention farther east to India, Southeast
Asia and China.
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 11
Southeast Asia
Turning to Southeast Asia and the Malay world, here we
encounter a unique phenomenon, namely the role of the School of Ibn
‘Arabī, sometimes called wujūdiyyah, in the very formation of Malay
as an intellectual language suitable for Islamic discourse. H}amzah
Fans}ūrī (d. 1000/1592), the most important figure of this School, was
a major Malay poet and played a central role in the development of
Malay as an Islamic language while he also had a command of Arabic
and Persian. He was, moreover, a master of the doctrines of the
School of Ibn ‘Arabī. 33 He was followed in his attachment to this
School by Shams al-Dīn Sumātrānī (d. 1040/1630). Although this
School was opposed by certain other Malay Sufis such as Nūr al-Dīn
Rānirī and most Malays paid more attention to the operative rather
than the doctrinal aspect of Sufism, the School of theoretical gnosis
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 13
China
A word must also be said about China. Until the 11th/17th
century Chinese Muslims who dealt with intellectual matters did so
on the basis of Arabic and Persian texts. It was only in the 11th/17th
century that they began to use classical Chinese and to seek to express
Islamic metaphysics and philosophy in the language of Neo-
Confucianism. Henceforth, there developed a significant body of
Islamic thought in Chinese that is being systematically studied only
now. It is interesting to note that two of the classical Islamic works to
be rendered the earliest into Chinese are firstly the Lawā’ih} of Jāmī,
which is a masterly summary of ‘irfān in Persian, translated by Liu
Chih (d. circa 1670) as Chen-chao-wei (“Displaying the Concealment
of the Real Realm”); and secondly the Ashi‘‘at al-lama‘āt also by
Jāmī and again, as already mentioned, dealing with ‘irfān, translated
by P’o Na-chih (d. after 1697) as Chao-yüan pi-chüeh (“The
Mysterious Secret of the Original Display”).35 Also the first Chinese
Muslim thinker to expound Islamic teachings in Chinese, that is,
Wang Tai-yü (d. 1657 or 1658), who wrote his Real Commentary on
the True Teaching in 1642 to be followed by several other works, was
steeped in the same ‘irfānī tradition. The School of theoretical gnosis
was therefore destined to play a major role in the encounter on the
highest level between the Chinese and the Islamic intellectual
traditions during the past few centuries.
Persia
Persia was destined to become one of the main centers, if not
the central arena, for the later development of theoretical gnosis. The
circle of Qūnawī was already closely connected to the Persian cultural
world and many of its members, including Qūnawī himself, wrote in
14 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
subject in Persia especially during the Qajar period and has remained
so to this day as one sees in the extensive recension of it by the
contemporary Persian philosopher and gnostic, ‘Abd Allāh Jawādī
Āmulī.42
The figure, who was given the title of the “Seal of Persian
Poets”, that is, ‘Abd al-Rah}mān Jāmī from Herat, was also in a sense
the seal of this period in the history of theoretical gnosis in Persia.
One of the greatest poets of the Persian language, he was also a
master of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis and in a sense synthesized within his
works the two distinct currents of Islamic spirituality that flowed
from Ibn ‘Arabī and Rūmī. Jāmī is the author of a number of
commentaries upon the works of Ibn ‘Arabī such as the famous Naqd
al-nus}ūs} fī sharh} naqsh al-fus}ūs.43 He also authored summaries of the
teachings of this School in works already mentioned such as the
Lawā’ih} and Ashi‘‘at al-lama‘āt, both literary masterpieces which are
used as texts for the teaching of ‘irfān to this day.44
The spread of Twelve-Imam Shi‘ism in Persia during the
Safavid period transformed the scene as far as the study and teaching
of ‘irfān was concerned. During the earlier part of Safavid rule, many
Sufi orders flourished in Persia whereas from the 11th/17th century
onward opposition grew against Sufism especially among the class of
Shi‘ite scholars who henceforth chose to speak of ‘irfān rather than
tas}awwuf.45 Although other types of Sufi and gnostic writings
appeared during this period by members of various Sufi orders such
as the Dhahabīs and ‘irfān-i shī‘ī also flourished in certain circles,
few new works on the subject of theoretical gnosis appeared during
this period in comparison to the previous era. The main influence of
the School of Ibn ‘Arabī came to be felt through the writings of Mullā
S{adrā (d. 1050/1640/41), who was deeply influenced by Shaykh al-
Akbar and quoted from him extensively in his Asfār and elsewhere.46
But technically speaking the School of Mullā S{adrā is associated with
h}ikmat and not ‘irfān, although Mullā S{adrā was also a gnostic and
deeply versed in Ibn ‘Arabian teachings. But he integrated elements
of this teaching into his al-h}ikmat al-muta‘āliyah (Transcendent
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 17
commentator upon gnostic texts such as the Fus}ūs} since the time of
Qūnawī. Āqā Muh}ammad Rid}ā studied in Isfahan but later migrated
to Tehran which became henceforth perhaps the most important for
the teaching of ‘irfān-i naz}arī for many decades.49 There, he taught
and trained numerous important students in both ‘irfān and h}ikmat.
He also wrote a number of important glosses and commentaries on
such works as the Tamhīd al-qawā‘id and Qays}arī’s commentary on
the Fus}ūs} as well as some of the works of Mullā S{adrā, in addition to
independent treatises. Like so many masters of ‘irfān-i naz}arī, Āqā
Muh}ammad Rid}ā was also a fine poet and composed poetry under the
pen-name S{ahbā. Unfortunately much of his poetry is lost. It is also
of great significance to note that Āqā Muh}ammad Rid}ā emphasized
the importance of spiritual practice and the need for a spiritual
master.50
One of Āqā Muh}ammad Rid}ā’s important students was Mīrzā
Hāshim Ashkiwarī Rashtī (d. 1332/1914), commentator upon Mis}bāh}
al-uns, who took over the circle of instruction of ‘irfān in Tehran
after Āqā Muh}ammad Rid}ā. He was in turn teacher of such famous
h}akīms and ‘ārifs of the past century as Mīrzā Mahdī Āshtiyānī (d.
1362/1953), Mīrzā Ah}mad Āshtiyānī (d. 1359/1940), Sayyid
Muh}ammad Kāz}im ‘As}s}ār (d. 1396/1975) and Muh}ammad ‘Alī
Shāhābādī (d. 1369/1951).51 The latter is particularly important not
only for his own writings on gnosis including his Rashah}āt al-bih}ār,
but for being the master of Ayatollah Khomeini in ‘irfān-i naz}arī, the
person with whom the latter studied the Fus}ūs} without the presence of
any other student.52 Many of the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini in his
Ta‘līqāt, Sharh} du‘ā-i sah}ar and Mis}bāh} al-hidāyah ila’l-khilāfah
wa’l-walāyah/wilāyah reflect the interpretations of Shāhābādī whom
he revered highly.
The extensive political fame and influence of Ayatollah Rūh}
Allāh Khumaynī (Khomeini) (d. 1409/1989) has prevented many
people in the West and even within the Islamic world to pay serious
attention to his gnostic works,53 and his place in the long history of
theoretical gnosis outlined in a summary fashion above. There is no
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 19
doubt that he was attracted to the study of ‘irfān from an early age
and in later years, while he also studied h}ikmat, not to speak of the
transmitted sciences, his great love remained ‘irfān, although he was
also a recognized master of the School of Mullā S{adrā.54 In his
writings he combined the tradition of ‘irfān-i shī‘ī55 and that of Ibn
‘Arabī. For example his Sharh} du‘ā-i sah}ar belongs to the world of
Shi‘ite gnosis; the Ta‘līqāt ‘alā sharh} fus}ūs} il-h}ikam wa mis}bāh} il-uns
belong to the tradition of Ibn ‘Arabian gnosis as interpreted over the
centuries by Shi‘ite gnostics and with many new insights into the
understanding of these classical texts; and Mis}bāh} al-hidāyah ila’l-
khilāfah wa’l-walāyah/wilāyah represent a synthesis of the two
schools of gnosis. Other mystical works of Ayatollah Khomeini such
as Chihil h}adīth, Sirr al-s}alāh, Ādāb al-s}alāh and Sharh}-i h}adīth-i
junūd-i ‘aql wa jahl are also works of a gnostic and esoteric quality
reminiscent of a Fayd} Kāshānī or Qād}ī Sa‘īd Qummī and going back
even earlier, classical Sufi works on such subjects, but they do not fall
fully under the category of ‘irfān-i naz}arī as we have defined it in this
essay. 56 Ayatollah Khomeini also composed poems of a mystical and
gnostic nature.
For many it is interesting to note and might even appear as
perplexing that although later in life he entered fully into the arena of
politics, earlier in his life Ayatollah Khomeini was very much
interested not only in theoretical gnosis but also in operative Sufism
with its ascetic dimension and emphasis on detachment from the
world. The key to this riddle should perhaps be sought first of all in
the stages of man’s journeys (asfār) to God mentioned by Mullā
S{adrā at the beginning of the Asfār, stages which include both the
journey from creation (al-khalq) to God (al-H{aqq) and return to
creation with God and secondly in Ayatollah Khomeini’s
understanding of the stages of this journey as they applied to him and
to what he considered to be his mission in life. In any case although
the later part of his life differed greatly outwardly from that of Āqā
Muh}ammad Rid}ā, his early life was much like that of the figure
whom he called “the master of our masters”. Also like Āqā
20 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
from the point of view of the unity which dominates over all that
exists and which is especially central to the Islamic perspective. One
might say that Islamic metaphysics or gnosis is dominated by the two
basic doctrines of the “transcendent oneness of Being” (wah}dat al-
wujūd) and the universal man (al-insān al-kāmil) which includes not
only a gnostic anthropology but also a symbolic cosmology on the
basis of the correspondence between the microcosm and macrocosm.
Theoretical gnosis is also concerned in the deepest sense with
the reality of revelation and religion. The question of the relation
between gnosis and esoterism on the one hand and the formal and
exoteric aspect of religion on the other is a complicated one into
which we cannot enter here. What is clear is that in every traditional
society gnosis and esoterism have been inextricably tied to the
religious climate in which they have existed. This is as true of Luria
and Jewish esoterism as it is of Śankara and Hindu gnosis as well as
everything in between. In any case in this essay, which deals with
gnosis in the Islamic tradition, we need to mention the profoundest
concern of the gnostics with the realities of religion and explanation
of its teachings on the most profound level as we observe in many
Sufi treatises on the inner meaning of the Islamic rites.62
Theoretical gnosis is concerned not only with the practical
aspects of religion, but also with basic Islamic doctrines such as
creation, prophecy, eschatology, etc. Islamic masters of gnosis speak
of both the why and the how of creation. They speak of “creation in
God” as well as creation by God.63 They expound the doctrine of the
immutable archetypes (al-a‘yān al-thābitah) and the breathing of
existence upon them associated with the Divine Mercy which brings
about the created order. They see creation itself as the Self-Disclosure
of God.64 They also discuss the renewal of creation (tajdīd al-khalq)
at every moment.65 Furthermore, theoretical gnosis speaks
extensively about the end as well as the beginning of things. The
deepest explanation of Islamic eschatology based on the Quran and
H{adīth is found in such writings as the Futūh}āt al-makkiyyah of Ibn
‘Arabī.
24 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
religions; the need to defend religion itself against all the secularist or
exclusivist Christian attacks against it emanating primarily from the
West; the need to understand the principles of Islamic art and
architecture and to apply these principles to creating authentic Islamic
art and architecture today; to provide an authentic Islamic answer to
the relation between religion and science; to formulate an Islamic
science of the soul or psychology; and to establish a firm foundation
for the harmony between faith and reason. The role of ‘irfān is central
to the solution of all of these problems. It is only in gnosis that the
unifying principle of faith and reason can be found. If one were only
to understand ‘irfān, one would realize its supreme significance for
Muslims today. Furthermore, ‘irfān is not enmeshed in the syllogistic
form of reasoning to be found in Islamic philosophy, a form of
reasoning that is alien to many people today. Paradoxically, therefore,
it is in a sense more accessible to those possessing intellectual
intuition than traditional schools of Islamic philosophy which can
also play and in fact must play an important role in the contemporary
intellectual life of the Islamic world.
As already mentioned, in the traditional Islamic world
theoretical gnosis was not only opposed by certain, but certainly not
all, jurists, theologians and philosophers; it was also opposed by
certain Sufis who claimed that gnosis is the result of what is attained
through spiritual states and not through reading books on gnosis.
Titus Burckhardt once told us that when he first went to Fez as a
young man, one day he took the Fus}ūs} with him to a great teacher to
study this basic text of ma‘rifah or ‘irfān with him. The teacher asked
him what book he was carrying under his arm. He said it was the
Fus}ūs}. The teacher smiled and said, “Those who are intelligent
enough to understand the Fus}ūs} do not need to study it, and those
who are not intelligent enough are not competent to study it anyway.”
The master nevertheless went on to teach the young S. Ibrāhīm (Titus
Burckhardt) the Fus}ūs} but he was alluding to the significance of
realized gnosis and not only its theoretical understanding, a
knowledge that once realized delivers man from the bondage of
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 27
Endnotes
1
We use this Latin term to distinguish it from “sacred science” which possesses a
more general meaning and includes also traditional cosmological sciences.
2
As far as opposition to Ibn ‘Arabī’s doctrines are concerned, see for example,
Alexander Knysh, Ibn ‘Arabī in the Later Islamic Tradition—The Making of a
28 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1999).
3
On the traditional understanding of the perennial philosophy see Nasr, Knowledge
and the Sacred (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 68ff.
See also Frithjof Schuon, “Tracing the Notion of Philosophy,” in his Sufism—Veil
and Quintessence, trans. William Stoddart (Bloomington (IN): World Wisdom
Books, 1981), Chap. 5, pp. 115-128.
4
The relation between Shi‘ite gnosis and Sufism is a fascinating and at the same
time crucially important subject with which we cannot deal here. A number of
Western scholars, chief among them Henry Corbin, have treated this issue
metaphysically and historically. See for example his En Islam iranien, Vol. III, Les
Fidèles d’amour—Shi‘ism et soufisme (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), especially pp.
149ff. See also Mohammad Ali Amir Mo‘ezzi and David Streight, The Divine
Guide in Early Shi‘ism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam (Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1994); and S. H. Nasr, Sufi Essays (Chicago: ABC
International Group, 1999), pp. 104-120.
5
Unfortunately there is no complete or even nearly complete history of either
Sufism itself nor doctrinal Sufism. Even the details of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī are
far from being known. At the present stage of scholarship we know but a few major
peaks of this majestic range and much remains to be discussed and brought to light
in the arena of international scholarship.
6
As an example of the relation between Ibn ‘Arabī and earlier gnostics one can
compare his treatment of walāyah/wilāyah discussed by many scholars such as
Michel Chodkiewicz and William Chittick (see for example works cited below) and
the writings of H{akīm Tirmidhī. For the views of the latter see Tirmidhī, Kitāb
khatm al-awliyā’, ed. Osman Yahya (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1965); also
Bernd Radtke, Drei Schriften des Theosophen Tirmid (Beirut: In Kommissein bei
Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 1992).
There is now a substantial body of works in European languages on Ibn ‘Arabī as
well as translations of many of his writings especially in French. On Ibn ‘Arabī’s
life and works see Claude Addas, Quest for the Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn ‘Arabī,
trans. Peter Kingsley (Cambridge (UK): Islamic Texts Society, 1993); and Stephen
Hirtenstein, The Unlimited Mercifier: The Spiritual Life and Thought of Ibn ‘Arabī
(Ashland, OR: White Cloud Press, 1999). For an introduction to his teachings see
William Chittick, Ibn ‘Arabī: Heir to the Prophets (Oxford: Oneworld, 2005). For
his works see Osman Yahya, Histoire et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn ‘Arabī
(Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1964). For Ibn ‘Arabī’s gnostic teachings
see W. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge (Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press, 1989); his The Self-Disclosure of God (Albany, NY: State University of
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 29
New York Press, 1998; Michel Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without Shore: Ibn ‘Arabī,
the Book and the Law, trans. David Streight, (Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press, 1993); idem. Seal of the Saints—Prophethood and Sainthood in the
Doctrine of Ibn ‘Arabī, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts
Society, 1993); Henry Corbin, Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the
Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabī (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997); and
Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical
Concepts (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), Part I, pp. 7-283.
7
See The Wisdom of the Prophets of Ibn ‘Arabī, trans. from the Arabic to French
with notes by Titus Burchkhardt, trans. from French to English by Angela Culme-
Seymour (Aldsworth (UK): Beshara Publications, 1975). This work has penetrating
comments on the metaphysics of Ibn ‘Arabī by Burckhardt. The latest and the most
successful translation of the Fus}ūs} in English is by Caner Dagli, The Ringstones of
Wisdom (Fus}ūs} al-h{ikam) (Chicago: Kazi Publications, Great Books of the Islamic
World, 2004). See also Charles-André Gilis, Le Livre des chatons des sagesse
(Beirut: Al-Bouraq Éditions, 1997).
8
See Ibn ‘Arabī, Les Illuminations de la Mecque—The Meccan Illuminations, trans.
under the direction of Michel Chodkiewicz (Paris: Sindbad, 1988).
9
On the history of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī and theoretical gnosis see W. Chittick,
“The School of Ibn ‘Arabī,” in Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman (eds.),
History of Islamic Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 510-523; S. H. Nasr,
“Seventh Century Sufism and the School of Ibn ‘Arabī,” in his Sufi Essays
(Chicago: ABC International Group, 1999), pp. 97-103; and Annemarie Schimmel,
“Theosophical Sufism” in her Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill, NC: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1978), pp. 259-286. There are also important
references to this School in several introductions of Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī to
various philosophical and Sufi works edited by himself such as his edition of Sharh}
fus}ūs} al-h{ikam of Qays}arī (Tehran: Shirkat-i Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī wa Farhangī, 1375
[A.H. solar]). See also A. Knysh, op. cit.
10
See W. Chittick, Faith and Practice of Islam (Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press, 1992); Chittick, “The Five Divine Presences: From al-Qūnawī to
al- Qays}arī,” Muslim World, vol. 72, 1982, pp. 107-128; and Chittick, “The Last
Will and Testament of Ibn ‘Arabī’s Foremost Disciple and Some Notes on its
Author,” Sophia perennis, vol. 4, no. 1, 1978, pp. 43-58. See also Muh}ammad
Khwājawī, Daw S{adr al-Dīn (Tehran, Intishārāt-i Mawlā, 1378 [A.H. solar]), pp.
17-114, containing one of the best summaries of the life, works and thought of
Qūnawī.
30 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
11
See Kitāb al-fukūk, ed. by M. Khwājawī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Mawlā, 1371 [A.H.
solar]).
12
See the edition of M. Khwājawī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Mawlā, 1374 [A.H. solar]).
This large volume includes, besides the texts of Qūnawī and Fanārī, glosses by later
members of the School of theoretical gnosis in Persia from Āqā Muh}ammad Rid}ā
Qumsha’ī, Mīrzā Hāshim Ashkiwarī, and Sayyid Muh}ammad Qummī to Ayatollah
Rūh} Allāh Khumaynī (Khomeini) and H{asanzādah Āmulī. There are also numerous
commentaries on this text by Turkish authors.
13
This work was studied and translated by Arthur J. Arberry along with other
poems of Ibn al-Fārid} in The Mystical Poems of Ibn al- Fārid} (London: E. Walker,
1952 and Dublin: E. Walker, 1956). See also Emil Homerin, The Wine of Love and
Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005).
14
See S. J. Āshtiyānī’s edition with commentary and introduction upon Mashāriq
al-darārī (Mashhad: Chāpkhāna-yi Dānishgāh-i Firdawsī, 1398 [A.H. solar]).
15
See his Sharh} fus}ūs} al-h{ikam (Qom: Būstān-i kitāb, 2002).
16
See Kashānī, Sharh} fus}ūs} al-h}ikam, (Cairo: Mus}t}afā al-Bābī al-H{alabī, 1966);
also his Majmū‘at al-rasā’il wa’l-mus}annafāt, ed. Majīd Hādī-zādah (Tehran:
Mīrāth-i maktūb, 2000); and his Traité sur la prédestination et le libre arbitre,
trans. Omar Guyard (Beirut: Al-Bouraq, 2005).
17
On Maghribī Sufism see Vincent Cornell, The Realm of the Saint—Power and
Authority in Moroccan Sufism (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1998).
18
When Titus Burckhardt was in Morocco in the 1930’s, he experienced directly
the presence of these teachings. We shall turn to this matter later in this essay.
19
See Michel Chodkiewicz, Spiritual Writings of Amir ‘Abd al-Kader, trans. by
team under James Chrestensen and Tom Manning (Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press, 1995); and Le Livre des haltes, edited and trans. by Michel
Lagande (Leiden: Brill, 2000).
20
See Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the
Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books,
1982).
21
See A. Knysh, op.cit., pp. 225ff.
22
See al-Jīlī, Universal Man, extracts translated with commentary by Titus
Burckhardt, English. English translation from the French by Angela Culme-
Seymour (Sherborne, Glos.: Beshara Press, 1983); and Reynold A. Nicholson,
Studies in Islamic Mysticism (Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1978),
Chapter II, pp. 77ff.
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 31
23
See Nābulusī, Sharh} dīwān ibn al-Fārid} (Beirut: Dār al-Turāth, 196?); and
Elizabeth Sirriyeh, Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus: ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-
Nābulusī, 1641-1731 (London: Routledge Curzon, 2005).
24
See Leslie Cadavid (ed. and trans.), Two Who Attained (Louisville, KY: Fons
Vitae, in press).
25
In light of our discussion of the significance of theoretical gnosis it is important
to note that this master of ‘irfān was the first rector of a university, to use a
contemporary term, in the Ottoman Empire. On Qays}arī see the introduction of S. J.
Āshtiyānī to Rasā’il-i Qays}arī (Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy,
1357 [A.H. solar]); Mehmet Bayraktar (ed.), Dāwūd Qays}arī—Rasā’il (Kayseri:
Metroplitan Municipality, 1997); and also Emil Homerin, op. cit.
Many glosses have been written to this day on Qays}arī’s commentary including
that of Ayatollah Khomeini. See Āyat Allāh al-‘uz}mā al-Imām al-Khumaynī,
Ta‘līqāt ‘alā sharh} fus}ūs} al-h}ikam wa mis}bāh} al-uns (Qom: Daftar-i tablīghāt-i
islāmī. 1410 [A.H. lunar]). There were also numerous Ottoman glosses and
commentaries on Qays}arī.
26
See his Commentary upon the Introduction of Qays}arī to the Fus}ūs} al-H{ikam of
Ibn Arabī, with introductions in French and English by Henry Corbin and Seyyed
Hossein Nasr (Mashhad: Meshed University Press, 1966).
27
See ft. nt. 12.
28
See Ibrahim Kalin’s entries to these figures in Oliver Leaman (ed.), Dictionary of
Islamic Philosophy (forthcoming).
29
See W. Chittick, “The School of Ibn ‘Arabī,” in S. H. Nasr and Oliver Leaman
(eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 520.
On the history of this School in India in general see W. Chittick, “Notes on Ibn
‘Arabī’s Influence in the Subcontinent,” in The Muslim World, vol. LXXXII, no. 3-
4, July-October, 1992, pp. 218-241; and Sayyid ‘Alī ‘Abbās Rizvi, A History of
Sufism in India (2 vols.) (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978), in passim.
30
Chittick discusses many of these figures in his “Notes on Ibn ‘Arabī’s
Influence…”
31
See Chittick, “Notes on Ibn ‘Arabī’s Influence …,” pp. 233ff.
32
See for example, Shah Waliullah of Delhi, Sufism and the Islamic Tradition,
trans. G. N. Jalbani, ed. D. B. Fry (London: Octagon Press, 1980). This work
contains the translation of both the Lamah}āt, one of Shāh Walī Allāh’s main
philosophical texts, and the Sata‘āt. Both texts, and especially the first, reveal the
influence of theoretical gnosis on this major intellectual figure.
32 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
45
On Shi‘ism in Safavid Persia see, S. H. Nasr, Traditional Islam in the Modern
World (London: KPI, 1987), Chapter 4, pp. 59-72.
46
See S. H. Nasr, S{adr al-Dīn Shīrāzī and his Transcendent Theosophy (Tehran:
Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1997), Chapter 4, pp. 69-82.
47
See Yahya Christian Bonaud, L’Imam Khomeyni, un gnostique méconnu du XXe
siècle (Beirut: Les Éditions Al-Bouraq, 1997), pp. 80-81. Bonaud mentions in this
connection a number of names such as Mullā H{asan Lunbānī (d. 1094/1683) and
Muh}ammad ‘Alī Muz}affar (d. 1198/1783-84) as does S. J. Āshtiyānī, but the history
of ‘irfān-i naz}arī from the Safavid period to Sayyid Rad}ī is far from clear. As far as
‘irfān is concerned, Sayyid Rad}ī possibly studied with Mullā Muh}ammad Ja‘far
Ābāda’ī.
48
On him see Manūchihr S{adūq Suhā, Tārīkh-i h}ukamā’ wa ‘urafā-yi muta’akhkhir
(Tehran: Intishārāt-i h}ikmat, 1381 [A.H. solar]), pp. 261-262.
49
On Āqā Muh}ammad Rid}ā see S{adūqī Suhā, op.cit., p. 259ff. On him and other
major figures of the School of Tehran see also Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from its
Origin to Today, Chapter 13. See also the introductions of S. J. Āshtiyānī to Sharh}
al-mashā‘ir of Lāhījī (Mashhad: Mashhad University Press, 1964); and to Mullā
S{adrā’s al-Shawāhid al-rubūbiyyah (Mashhad: Mashhad University Press, 1967),
concerning Āqā Muh}ammad Rid}ā and the whole history of ‘irfān in Persia from the
end of the Safavid period onward.
50
See S{adūqī Suhā, op.cit., p. 267.
51
These figures are discussed by Suhā. See also our Islamic Philosophy … . For
Shahābādī see Bonaud, op.cit., pp. 82-87.
52
Bonaud, op.cit., p. 87.
53
The major study of Bonaud, cited above, is an exception. Nothing comparable
exists in English.
54
One day in the 1960’s when we were discussing the philosophical ideas of
Ayatollah Khomeini with our eminent teacher, ‘Allāmah T{abāt}abā’ī, who was his
friend, we asked the ‘Allāmah what philosophical schools most attracted Ayatollah
Khomeini. He answered that Ayatollah Khomeini had little patience (h}aws}ilah) for
the logical arguments of Peripatetic philosophy but was more interested in Mullā
S{adrā and Ibn ‘Arabī. The same view is confirmed by Mīrzā Mahdī H{ā’irī who
studied with Ayatollah Khomeini and who says,
He [Imam Khomeini] did not have much interest in Peripatetic philosophy and
logic. His teaching of the Asfār had more of a gnostic attraction. He had studied
‘irfān well with Āqā-yi Shāhābādī and was busy all the time reading the books of
Ibn ‘Arabī. Therefore, he also looked at the Asfār from the point of view of Ibn
‘Arabī and not from the perspective of Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī. When he came to the
34 Seyyed Hossein Nasr
words of Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī, he would become completely uncomfortable and
would escape from philosophical constraints through the rich power of ‘irfān.
Khirad-nāma-yi hamshahrī, June 1, 2005, p. 17
55
On the different gnostic currents in Shi‘ism see our foreword to H{usaynī T{ihrānī,
Kernel of the Kernel (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003), pp.
xiii-xix.
56
On the gnostic works of Ayatollah Khomeini see Bonaud, op.cit., Chapter 2, pp.
103ff. The institution called Mu’assisa-yi tanz}īm wa nashr-i āthār-i al-Imām al-
Khumaynī in Tehran has published all of his works including those concerned with
gnosis as well as the dīwān of his poetry.
57
This is not only true of Persia but also of Shi‘ite circles in Iraq such as the one in
Najaf, at least until a few years ago. During the Qajar and early Pahlavi periods,
Tehran was better known for ‘irfān-i naz}arī and Najaf for operative ‘irfān, although
texts such as the Fus}ūs} were also taught in Najaf by remarkable masters with whom
such luminaries as ‘Allāmah T{abāt}abā’ī studied this seminal text.
58
Tehran, Sāzimān-i chāp wa intishārāt-i Wizārāt-i Farhang wa Irshād-i islāmī,
1378 [A.H. solar].
59
To quote the original French, “La substance de la connaissance est la
Connaissance de la Substance.” F. Schuon, Formes et substance dans les religions
(Paris: Dervy-Livres, 1975, p. 35).
60
We have dealt with this issue extensively in our Knowledge and the Sacred; see
also F. Schuon, Stations of Wisdom (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books,
1995), pp. 1-42.
61
We have dealt with the teachings of this Supreme Science in our Knowledge and
the Sacred, Chapter 4, pp. 130ff. This Supreme Science is of course also
metaphysics as traditionally understood. See René Guénon, “Oriental
Metaphysics,” in Jacob Needleman (ed.), The Sword of Gnosis (Boston: Arkana,
1986), pp. 40-56. Schuon has also written many illuminating pages on this subject
including his book Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism, trans. Gustavo Polit
(Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books, 1986). See also S. H. Nasr (ed.), The
Essential Frithjof Schuon (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books, 2005),
especially pp. 309ff.
62
See for example, Martin Lings, A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 1973), Chapter X, pp. 176ff; and Henry Corbin,
Temple and Contemplation, trans. Philip and Liadain Sherrard (London: KPI,
1986), pp. 183ff.
Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today 35
63
Metaphysically speaking, creation must take place in God before the external act
of creation takes place. On this important doctrine across many religious boundaries
see Leo Schaya, La Création en Dieu (Paris, Dervy-Livres, 1983).
64
See W. Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-‘Arabī’s
Cosmology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998).
65
See Toshihiko Tzutsu, Creation and the Timeless Order of Things (Ashland, OR:
White Cloud Press, 1984).
66
For outstanding examples of this function of metaphysics and gnosis see René
Guénon, Fundamental Symbols: The Universal Language of Sacred Science, trans.
Alvin Moore, ed. Martin Lings (Cambridge, UK: Quinta Essentia, 1995); and
Martin Lings, Symbol and Archetype: A Study of the Meaning of Existence
(Cambridge (UK): Quinta Essentia, 1991).
67
We have dealt with this issue extensively in our Knowledge and the Sacred.
68
See our In the Garden of Truth (San Francisco, CA: Harper, forthcoming).