Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1838-97) was a pan-Islamic thinker, political activist, and journalist, who sought to revive Islamic thought and liberate the Muslim world from Western influence. Many aspects of his life and his background remain unknown or controversial, including his birthplace, his religious affiliation, and the cause of his death. He was likely born in Asadabad, near present-day Hamadan, Iran. His better known history begins when he was 18, with a one-year stay in India that coincided with the Sepoy Mutiny (...) of 1857-59. In what would become a life of constant travel, he soon went to Mecca to perform Hajj, before returning to Afghanistan to join the service of the country's ruler, Dost Mohammad Khan (1793-1863). He later sided with Dost's son Mohammad Aʻzam, who ultimately lost in a power struggle with his British-supported brother Sher Ali. Al-Afghani's political activism eventually took him to Paris, London, Tehran, Saint Petersburg, and Constantinople. It was during his second stay in Egypt (1871-79) that he cemented his role as a reformer. He found in Cairo a class of young intellectuals who gathered around him, established newspapers, and used these papers to disseminate his ideas. Chief among al-Afghani's Egyptian disciples were scholar Muhammad ʻAbduh, journalist ʻAbd Allah al-Nadim, and nationalist politicians Mustafa Kamil and Saʻd Zaghlul. Al-Afghani's influence on both modernist and traditionalist Islamic thought continues to the present. An activist who sought to effect change through political journalism and public speaking, he did not write many books. This treatise, entitled al-Radd ʻalā al-dahrīyīn (Refutation of the materialists), was a rebuttal of the views of the pro-British Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who had argued that science is more important than religion in the rise of civilizations. First written in Persian following al-Afghani's exile from Egypt to India, it was translated into Arabic by his student Muhammad ʻAbduh, with the help of al-Afghani's assistant Arif Efendi. (shrink)

Islamic philosophy; Muslim philosophers; biography.

: ‘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)

al-Zarkashī, an ethnic Turk, is an important hadith, fiqh and commentary scholar who lived during the Mamlūks period. He was taught by some of the leading scholars of his era, such as Alā al-Dīn Mughultay (d. 762/1360), Imād al-Dīn Ibn Kashīr (d. 774/1372) ve Jamal al-Dīn al-Asnawī (d. 772/1370), and he grew up under their mentorship. Nevertheless, his only well-known student is Birmāvī (d. 831/1428). Almost half of his works have been related to fiqh and methodology of fiqh, and he (...) has also written some important works in the field of hadith. Among these, especially al-Tadhkira, al-Nukat alā Ibn al-Salāh, al-Nukat alā al-Umda fī al-Ahkām ve al-Icāba are worthy of mention. The work named al-Tadhkira, which we built our work upon, is the first known work to have been preserved in the field. Due to his being a first in his field, he was vastly studied as to how he evaluated the narrations and what kind of procedure he followed. In this work of his, not only the criticism but also the application of the text criticism adds to the importance of the work. Then, on the basis of this work, scholars such as al-Sakhāwī and al-Aclūnī made complementary works on the same subject. Summary: It is inevitable for a person to be shaped by the society he lives in. During the time when al-Zarkashī lived, Egypt was under the rule of the Mamlūks. The history of Mamlūks is examined under two periods: 1. Bahrī or Turkish Mamlūks (745 / 1344 - 794-1391) 2. Burjī or Circassian Mamlūks (784 / 1382 - 923 / 1517) period. Our author lives in both periods. About forty years of his life was in the period of Bahrī and the rest was in the period of Burjī. In both periods, the state did not have a full political authority in the country, but this was not the case in education and training. In fact, on the contrary to the political situation, scientific activities have accelerated by the arrival of many scholars to the land of Mamlūk because of the Mongol invasions coming from the east and the Crusades from the west. The increase of scientific activity was caused not only by the coming of the scholars but also by the support given by the Mamlūk sultans. In fact, they built many new madrasas in addition to the resurrection of the old ones. In addition to madrasas during the Mamlūks period, mosque, hāngāh, ribat and zāwiya are also among the educational places.Hadith, fiqh and Tafsir scholar al-Zarkashī is originally Turkish. He was born in Cairo at 745 under the conditions mentioned above. His family learned of gold and silverworking because of their subsequent settlement to Egypt, and they made their living with this craft. A person who performs this is called Zarkash in Arabic. Muhammad ibn Bahādır, who learned and did this job, was known as al-Zarkashī. al-Zarkashī, known for his love of science since childhood, was trained hadith by Alā al-Dīn Mughultay (d. 762/1360) and Imād al-Dīn Ibn Kashīr (d. 774/1372) in Damascus, and fiqh by al-Asnawī (d. 772/1370). Among his beneficiaries are distinguished personalities such as al-Subkī (d. 756/1355), al-Azraī (d. 783/1381) and al-Bulqīnī (d. 824/1421). The most remarkable of his student is al-Birmāvī (d. 831/1428).It is known that he wrote about fifty works in hadith, tafsir, fiqh, methodology of fiqh and other fields. Especially among these works al-Burhān fī ʻUlūm al-Qur’ān, al-Tadhkira, al-Ijāba, al-Bahr al-Muhīt fî Usūl al-Fiqh ve al-Mansūr fī al-Qawāid is worth mentioning. Studies on al-Burhān and al-Bahr were carried out at the level of Master and PhD.al-Zarkashī did not hesitate to criticize any person for whom he had found his mistake. For example, even though he has a great love for him, and even because of this love, he has been given the name of al-Minhāj, the criticism of al-Nawawī is the clearest indication of the value given to science. Not just him, critics of scholars such as al-Hākim al-Naysābūrī and Ibn ʻAbd al-Barr who are recognized as authority in hadith can also be considered in this framework.The work named al-Tadhkira which we have studied in our work is of importance in that it shows the accumulation of knowledge in the field of hadith. In order to compose this work, it is necessary to have enough information in this field since the riwāyas must be criticized in terms of isnād and text. To compose his work, al-Zarkashī has benefited from about a hundred and forty works related to hadith, tafsir, al-siyar, history, tabakāt, commentary, jarh - taʻdīl, ilal and maghāzī. The use of such works is an effort to reach all sources and right information as much as possible. Some of these sources are basic hadith books such as al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) al-Sahīh, Muslim (d. 261/875) al- Sahīh, Abū Dāʾūd (d. 275/889) al-Sunan, al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) al-Sunan, al-Nasā’ī (d. 303/915) al-Sunan, Ibn Mādja (d. 273/887) al-Sunan, Mālik ibn Anas (d. 179/795) al-Muwatta, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) al-Musnad, al-Dārimī (d. 255/869) al-Sunan, ʻAbd al-Razzāq al-Sanʻānī (d. 211/826-27) al-Musannaf, Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) al-Musannaf, Ibn Rāhwayh (d. 238/853) al-Musnad, al- Bazzār (d. 292/905) al-Musnad, Abu Yaʻlā el-Mawsilī (d. 307/919) al-Musnad, Ibn Hibbān (d. 354/965) al-Sahīh, al-Tabarānī (d. 360/971) al-Muʻjam al-Awsat and al-Muʻjam al-Kabīr, al-Hākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405/1014) al-Mustadrak.al-Zarkashī divided the riwāyas he had studied into eight subjects. These are judgments, wisdom, zuhd, medicine, virtue, prayer, story, words and riwāyas circulating in language. He shares the information he obtains from sources about him after mentioning the riwāyas he will examine. For example, it is mentioned that there is not a hadith which is transmitted as a hadith, it is a word of a sahāba, tābiun or a person. He transferred on the riwāyas the sources mentioned in the sources, but also stated that he did not participate in some information as the place came.The author has evaluated the narrators of the riwāyas from the point of jarh and taʻdīl. He did not only evaluate riwāyas in terms of isnād, but also text criticism. This activity is a distinctive feature of his work.al-Zarkashī gave information about the misrepresentation of the name of the narrators. He also explained the strange words that are difficult to understand in the text. It is a manifestation of his knowledge in the fiqh area that some of the riwāyas that are considered weak are expressed in some sects. The author described some errors about the riwāyas. For example, he stated that a riwāya that is said to be marfūʻ is a mavkūf. al-Zarkashī also included verses, hadiths and poems about the riwāya that he had studied while writing his work or he defended it by saying that it is not the case of a riwāya that is said to be fictitious.Perhaps it is the weakest point of al-Zarkashī’s work not to give any information about some riwāya, only to mention their isnāds. He also found some riwāyas that did not have a reliable isnāds and stated that their meanings are correct. This knowledge has become an enlightening characteristic for later generations.This work has a great significance in showing that the majority of the riwāyas that spread among the people are not hadiths. As a matter of fact, 73% of the riwāyas examined in the work are weak or irrelevant riwāyas. This work of al-Zarkashī is unique. The existence of such a work has not been determined before him. This work constituted the basis of the works written by scholars such as al-Sakhāwī and al-Aclūnī in the same subject after him. (shrink)

The hereafter, one of the main pillars of Islam, has been discussed by both theologians and Ṣūfīs from various angles and interpreted in many different ways. Although there is consensus on the main subjects, there are a lot of controversies in details. One of the Ṣūfīs who authored on diverse problems over the hereafter is ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī (d. 736/1336). He was a Kubrawī shaykh during the Īlkhānid era. He inclined towards the Ṣūfī path after serving the Buddhist ruler Arghun (...) (r. 1284-1291) for ten years, thanks to a spiritual experience he had. He met with Nūr al-dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 717/1317), a Kubrawī shaykh based in Baghdad, and became a disciple of him, granted ijāza (a certificate of authority) from him. Upon his shaykh’s order, he turned back to his hometown and spent his life until his death, in his Ṣūfī lodge raising disciples and writing works. He had contributed greatly both to his own order and to the literature of Ṣūfism with his disciples and written works. As regards to the hereafter, his opinions on the reality of this world and its position against the next, death, the doomsday and its kinds, the existence of the paradise and the hell today and their present location are remarkable. In this article, his views over those problems are discussed in the context of his understanding of mystical training.Summary: ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī (d. 736/1336) lived between the second half of the seventh century (h.) and the first half of the eighth century, in today’s Iran, during reign of the Īlkhānid’s. Thanks to the connection of his family to the Īlkhānid court, his father and uncle’s administrative positions at the court and his will and efforts, he started to serve Arghun (r. 1284-1291) around the age of fifteen and gained his personal intimacy. After serving him for ten years, he experienced a spiritual transformation and inclined towards a mystical life. He left Arghun for his hometown Simnān, on the pretext of his disease that courtier doctors could not treated, but under the condition that he would turn back after he recovered from the disease. He got better just after a while but did not return. He arrived Simnān at the beginning of a holy month of Ramadan, took off his formal clothes and began to mystical training himself based on Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī’s Qūt al-qulūb. After a while, he met with one of the disciples of Nūr al-dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 717/1317) and wondered about him. Then left Simnān for Baghdad with the intention of visiting him. However, Arghun was informed about this and prevented him from going to Baghdad, withholding him for some time. After a while, Simnānī escaped from Arghun and returned to Simnān and wrote a letter to al-Isfarāyīnī on this incident. In response, al-Isfarāyīnī said that he does not need to visit Baghdad, al-Isfarāyīnī would be with him spiritually and ordered him to start his training. Simnānī kept his connection alive with his shaykh during this period via letters and spiritual meetings but he could not meet with him face to face. Afterwards, he could meet him twice and granted ijāza from him.After that, upon his shaykh’s order, he turned back to Simnān and engaged with disciples’ mystical trainings and authoring books. He gained an eminent position in both his order and history of the Ṣūfism, upbringing too many disciples and writing around ninety works. His importance in the Kubraviyya rooted firstly in the fact that the extant sub-branches of the order have him in their silsila (spiritual genealogy). In this regard Simnānī is a key actor within his order. Besides, it is significant that he had great impact on the founders of two branches of the Kubraviyya, i.e. Sayyid ʿAlī Hamadānī (d. 786/1385) and Muhammad Nurbakhsh (d. 869/1464) that indicating his influence among the order itself. When examined from the angel of the history of the Ṣūfism, the most apparent and distinctive point regarding Simnānī is his criticism against Ibn ʿArabī (d. 637/1240) on the problem of being. Notwithstanding, his supreme contribution to the Ṣūfism is his doctrine of latāif, which particularly influenced Pārsā (d. 822/1240), a leading disciple of the founder of the Naqshbandiyya. Likewise his mystical experiences and thoughts on rijāl al-ghāib had also influenced subsequent Ṣūfīs. His thoughts on the problem of khawātir, which is crucial component of Kubravī path, and detailed information given in his books regarding the lights (anwār) and the truth of nūr as well as his explanations about the situations experienced during the manifestation of God can be listed among his contributions to the history of the Ṣūfism.Simnānī who wrote on various problems of Ṣūfism, dealt with the problem of the Hereafter in the context of his understanding of initiation. For the world cannot be disunited from the Hereafter, as his understanding of the Hereafter is examined, his view of the world is studied as well. With reference to the presupposition that there are three distinct dimensions of the world, Simnānī says that man’s relationship with the world should be differentiated according to following three aspects: the world’s being a plantation for the hereafter, the world’s being a place that should be abandoned and the world does not have a reality. According to him the hereafter is a continuous moment, whereas the worldly life is bound by the past and the future. Since the past and the future do not have a real being, hence the world as well does not have real being. Simnānī embraces the death and the Doomsday in an intertwined fashion in the context of his own understanding of mystical training. Approvingly the consensus of the Ṣūfis, he divides the death into two: necessary and voluntary. And he divides the Doomsday into three: big, middle and small. According to this, the wayfarer who has weakened his soul’s evil attributes via the voluntary death observes the situations of the small doomsday. Thereby the wayfarer who observed everything that is depicted in the Quran that will be experienced after the necessary death, gains time to take necessary precautions before the necessary death, which is irremediable. Another issue that Simnānī raises regarding the Doomsday is the sorts of the Doomsday. Based on the different names of the Doomsday, he says that there are different doomsdays each of which is related with one of the latāif situated among human faculties. Ultimately salvation from those doomsdays is possible with a different good deed. Another point that Simnānī comes up with is the problem of existence of the paradise and the hell today. He thinks that the paradise and the hell both exist today, with reference to his own kashf. He relates this narrating the verses and the traditions, which support his view. Besides, he accepts that there are two paradises and hells, one is inside the human nature and the other is out there. According to Simnānī, entering the outer paradise without observing one’s inner paradise is nonsense. This is possible only through a spiritual journey from one’s external being into his/her internal being. In the end, this can only be accomplished via the voluntary death. (shrink)

It would not be an overstatement to say that Mulla Sadra’s metaphysical system—commonly known as transcendent philosophy or transcendent wisdom (hikmat muta‘aliyyah)—is founded on the fundamentality of existence and the subjectivity of quiddity or whatness. I will begin this essay by drawing a rather simple picture of this principle under the title “A Common Error.” Then I will proceed by explaining its background and the reasoning supporting it, while offering a more detailed elucidation of the problem. The essay will (...) end by examining two recent interpretations that have gone to extremes in describing quiddity’s subjective nature. (shrink)

Glosses on a work by Gelenbevî on logic.

Faults; religious aspects; Islam; Islamic daʻwah.

Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʻUmar; 1149 or 1150-1210; criticism and interpretation; Islamic ethics; Islamic philosophy.

Taftāzānī, Masʻūd ibn ʻUmar, 1322-1389?. Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-al-kalām.

Many Western historians, cultural and literary critics have viewed travel and exploration as purely western. This total exclusion of Arabo-Islamic travel has been done to demonstrate the Western sense of modernity and cultural superiority over the constructed weak “other”. However, Moroccans, Arabs and Muslims in general have been curious about the lands of the Christians and managed to break the cultural and religious barriers by reaching such lands. In this paper 1 I examine the Moroccan presence in the lands of (...) the Christians and mainly in France through analyzing the work of Ahmad Bin Qasim Al Hajari’s Nasir al-Din ala al-Qawm al Kafirin or to dwell not only at the different instances of anger and wrath but also of love and respect towards the Christians and to demonstrate the way Arab and Muslim travelers remained different from their Christian counterparts in their discursive productions. I also question Occidentalism in Ahmad Bin Qasim Al Hajari’s narrative and assert that al-Azmeh’s vision to the systems of division as essentially part of human discourse is an exaggeration. So, while Westerners get fully entangled in the process of dehumanizing the Arab and Muslim “other”, Muslims produced an ambivalent discourse that sometimes revealed their anger but not hate towards the Christians. (shrink)