Çeviri
Critical study of the erroneous attribution of the book Shajarat al-Kawn to Ibn ‘Arabi instead of to
Şecerat el-Kevn kitabının İbn Arabi'ye hatalı atfedilmesinin eleştirel incelenmesi
Younes Alaoui Madaghri [1]
Soyut:
Şecerat el-Kevn, (Evrenin Ağacı), İslam tasavvufu üzerine, evreni ve onun gerçek kökenini, Hz. Muhammed'in (s.a.v.) rolünü ve yerini ve onun kutsal dünyadaki merkezi yerini anlatan güzel bir kısa eserdir. mevcudiyet. 19. yüzyıla (H. 13. yüzyıl) ait bazı yazmalara göre Muhyi d-Din İbn 'Arabi'ye (ö. 638 H./1240) atfedilmektedir. Tüm akademisyenler bu atıfları onayladılar ve bu, on beş ticari kitap baskısı aracılığıyla aktarıldı.
Arap bilim adamlarının ve oryantalistlerin çalışmaları ve bazı tercümeler, risalenin menşei hakkında şüphelere yol açmıştır. Bu bir maceranın başlangıcıydı çünkü şimdiye kadar bilinmesi gerekenler sorgulanmaya başlayacaktı.
Araştırmam sırasında Şecerat-ül-Kevn'in bilinmeyen iki farklı nüshasını inceledim. Ayrıca H. 835 yılında yazılmış üçüncü, çok eski bir el yazması daha vardı. Bütün bu el yazmaları, yazar ve şair 'İzzu d-Din 'Abd es-Selâm İbn Ahmad İbn Ghânim el-Makdisi'ye (ö. 678 H.) atıfta bulunmaktadır. 1280) ve İbn Arabi'ye değil.
Ayrıca biyografik tarih ve yazım tarzında, yazar olarak İbn Gânim'i işaret eden bazı deliller buldum. Eserin aslında 'İzzu'd-Din 'Abd es-Selâm İbn Ahmed İbn Ghânim tarafından yazıldığı sonucuna vardım . Araştırmamın sonuçlarından Şecerat el-Kevn kitabının İbn Arabi'ye değil, İbn Ganim'e ait olduğu sonucuna varabiliriz. [2]
Bu çalışma iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birincisi şu: Şecerat el-kevn adlı bu risale nasıl evrensel olarak İbn Arabi'ye atfedildi? İkincisi ise Şecerat el-Kevn risalesinin İbn Arabi tarafından yazıldığı yönündeki şüphelerin tartışılmasıdır . Bu tartışma dört başlıktan oluşmaktadır: 1) İbn Arabi'ye atfedilen yazmaların istinsah sorunu, 2) Şeceretü'l-kevn'in İbn Arabi'ye atfedildiği kataloglar, 3) Şecerat-ı kevn metninin her iki içerik açısından karşılaştırılması. ve İbn 'Arabi ve İbn Ganim ile format ve 4) İbn 'Arabi'ye atfedilen Şecerat el-kevnin çalışmaları ve çevirileri ."
Şeceretü'l-Kevn Risalesi
Evrensel Olarak İbn Arabi'ye Atfedilen Hale Nasıl Geldi?
Uzmanların karşılaştığı sorunlar metinden çok, eserin doğru yazara atfedilmesiyle ilgilidir. Hiçbir zaman eleştirel bir baskı yapılmamış olmasına rağmen, metnin sorunu ikincil öneme sahiptir. Tez onbeş defadan fazla yayımlandı. İlki 1290 H. (1873) yılındaydı ve herkes eserin İbn Arabi'ye ait olduğu konusunda hemfikirdi.
Şecerâtü'l-Kevn'in alimleri, oryantalistleri ve tercümanları bu risalenin atıflarının gerçekliği konusunda herhangi bir şüphe göstermediler. Şecerat el-Kevnin'in başkası tarafından bestelenip bestelenmediğini araştırmadılar . Eserin ticari baskılarını basmaya devam ettiler, ancak eserin İbn Arabi'den geldiğinden emin olduklarından asla eski ve orijinal el yazmalarına geri dönmediler. Eserin gerçek yazarını belirlemenin farklı adımları vardır. Biyografik tarihi incelediğimde şüphelerim olmaya başladı. Aklıma eserin İbn Arabi tarafından değil de İbn Ganim tarafından yazılmış olabileceği düşüncesi geldi.
Araştırmam sırasında eski Arapça elyazmalarının tüm kataloglarını incelemem gerektiğini fark ettim. Paris Milli Kütüphanesi'nde 5291 numaralı, H. 835 tarihli bir el yazması buldum. (ff. 275a-287b). [3]
Bu katalog İbn Arabi'ye değil, İbn Ganim'e atıfta bulunmaktadır. Bu , Şecerâtü'l-Kevn adında bir el yazmasıydı ve başlık sayfasında İbn Ganim'e bir atıf vardı ve burada şöyle yazıyordu: "Kitab fîhi Şecerâtü'l-Kevn li kül-şeyh es-sali h el-vari'az-zahid el-mu ha aqqiq sheikh at - t arïqa wa ma'din ul- ha aqïqa ''Izzi 'd-Dïn 'Abd es-Selam İbn kül-şeyh A h mad İbn Ganim el-Makdisï ra d ya llahu 'anhu wa ard ah ve ce'ala el-cennete mesveh. Àmîn” "
Son sayfada (f.287b) bir tarih buldum: " 15 rebi' el-evvel 835 H." burada şöyle yazıyor: " tamma kitab ash-shajarat bi h amdi l-llahi ta'ala wa'awnihi, 'ala yadi katibihi a d' afi 'ibadihi ve ah vacihim ila ra h matihi 'Ali ibn Muhammed ibn ' Ömer ma'ruf bibni el-'lkami eş-şafi'i... bitarikh hamis 'achar, şehr rabi' el-evvel, Yawma larbi'a sanata hamsin wa thalathin wa thamanimiyah.... ”
So I concluded that Ibn
‘Arabi might not be the author of Shajarat al-kawn. However, this
manuscript alone was not enough to confirm this. Many great scholars in the
east, such as Hussein Nasr in Iran, Mustafa Hilmi[4] in Egypt,
Arthur Jeffrey[5]
in America, and Maurice Gloton[6]
in France, dealt with studies on Shajarat al-kawn. They translated it
with no doubt or suspicion that the work was not by Ibn ‘Arabi. Arthur Jeffrey
and Maurice Gloton compared the ideas of Ibn ‘Arabi in this work with his ideas
in other works to clarify obscure passages in Shajarat al- kawn. The
same was done by Claude Audebert when she studied Shajarat al- kawn.[7]
Osman Yahya[8]
was convinced that the treatise was to be ascribed to Ibn ‘Arabi. This is what
we also find in the catalogues of many Arabic manuscripts. In addition, there
are more than ten copies that refer to Ibn ‘Arabi as the author. Two are at
Al-Azhar in Egypt, and the others in Damascus and in Iraq. The other copies are
in the Sulaymaniya library in Istanbul and other libraries in Turkey.
We encountered,
accordingly, widely divergent problems. We must discuss these and solve them in
order to be able to attribute the book to the true author. The following should
be taken into consideration. First, many manuscripts refer to Ibn ‘Arabi; and because
of that we had to find copies that refer to Ibn Ghanim as the author, so they
could be compared. Second, we had to consult the catalogues of the well-known
manuscripts that refer to Ibn ‘Arabi as the author, especially Osman Yahya's Histoire
et Classification de l'œuvre d'Ibn ‘Arabi. (RG), C. Brockel- mann’s Geschichte
der arabischen Literatur (GAL), Dhayl kashf az-zunun by al-
Baghdadi, and the Fihrist al-Kutubkhana al-khiddiwiya by al-Biblawi and
al-Mihi. The information has to be handled in a critical scientific way,
because there is no real evidence about the author of the book. Third, the book
itself had to be studied very thoroughly, the style viewed in terms of art, and
the way of thinking that is described in the book taken into account, so that
we can make a comparison of the two authors and attribute the book to one of
them. Fourth, the research on the work Shajarat al-kawn that has been
undertaken had to be examined as well as the discussion that results from the
three points mentioned above.
Discussion
of the Doubts about the Authorship of Ibn Arabi
Discussion
of the Manuscripts that Refer to Ibn Arabi
After researching the
historical data, we found that these manuscripts are not dated, which is normal
with manuscripts of a later period. There are only three copies that are dated.
These three are not very old; they were copied in the last quarter of the 13th
century A.H, in 1270, 1273, and 1292 A.H. exactly. After that period mechanical
printing started. The later copies have a low historical documentary value.
The latter manuscripts
became of less value once I had obtained more information from subsequent
research. A. I discovered a manuscript from Paris numbered 5291 that claimed
to have been written by Ibn Ghanim. My research began with this manuscript. It
has a high value because it is very old. In fact, it is the oldest one I
found, namely from the year 835 A.H. This copy is the most correct and complete
of those considered.[9]
B. During my research in the library at Damascus I found a manuscript
called the Shajarat al-iman, claiming to have been written by Ibn
Ghanim, bearing the number 5253. After comparing this manuscript with the one
in Paris, I found that they were identical.
If we look at the
catalogue of Riyad al-Malih,[10]
which contains all the Sufi manuscripts in the az-zahiriya
library in Damascus, we cannot come to this conclusion because he was
obviously not aware of this fact. It is possible that his catalogue is not
based on a profound study of the manuscripts and that librarians only studied
the indices of the manuscripts and some pages but not the whole manuscript.
The manuscript consists of two books with the same title: Shajarat al-iman; there
is no difference between them. The first part of the manuscript is called Shajarat
al-kawn, the second part “Explanation of the Spiritual Situation of the
Prophet’s Companions: Sharhu hal as-Sahaba.” The author of this book is
given as Ibn Ghanim.
I believe that Ibn Ghanim
made one book of the two books mentioned above in some copies, since these
books are so much alike. The first book gives an explanation of the spiritual
situation of the prophet. This is the tree. The other book, which explains the
spiritual situation of the Sahaba, talks about the branches of the tree.
The vision of the tree is
stronger as an image in Ibn Ghanim than it is in Ibn ’Arabi. It gives an
explanation of the spiritual situation of the Sahaba, and this
manuscript is also in Paris.[11]
The book talks about the tree of prophets and the last prophet of this tree is Muhammad
(peace be upon him). When the rain falls upon a tree, the tree starts to
tremble and after a while twigs and leaves grow out of its branches. And when
the tree is completely mature and is completely green, someone shouts with the
tongue of fate and says: “O tree, we needed you only for something important
that is inside you.” That is the essence of prophethood, the Muhammadi branch,
and the Ahmadi secret. If this essence of prophethood is squeezed out then
the twigs, the essences of the ten Sahaba, will grow from the branches.
Ibn Ghanim says in his
book Turuqu l-wasa’il wa tamalluqu s-sa’il (The Different
Ways of the Beggars of Allah): "O, those who have the love of
Allah, when the grain of love falls on the earth where the healthy hearts are,
then the roots will grow firm in the depth of justice and purity. All the old
habits will be washed out. Then the souls will be hung out on the branches,
with love printed on them. Every morning they will be softened by dawn because
of asking forgiveness at the nightprayer.”[12]
The az-Zahiriya
manuscript Shajarat al-iman is not dated, but there are two things that
support the documentary value of this manuscript. First, it is a reviewed
manuscript and bears the name of Muhammad Ibn Abd ar-Rahman Juha, 1243 A.H.
prior to the date of the copies attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi. Second, we noted
different kind of problems with the names of manuscripts and copies of Ibn
Ghanim: sometimes we find ”‘Izz ud-Din Ibn Abd as-salam Ibn Ghanim” and sometimes
“‘Abd as-salam Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi,” etc. However, on the other
hand, we find versions containing Shajarat al-kawn that are in perfect
shape as far as the full name is concerned. This indicates that the copyist is
sure of a fixed attribution to Ibn Ghanim. On the first page of the az-Zahiriya
manuscript (5253: fol. 136a-160b), we find the following”:[13] [14]”kitab
shajarat al-iman, ta’lifsh- Sheikh al-imam al-’alim al-’allama sh-Sheikh 'Izzi
d-Din abd as-salam Ibn Ahmad Ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi qaddas Allah sirrahu wa rühahu wa nawwara
darihahu wa nafa’ana bihi wal-muslimina amin."1i
C. After closely reading some of Ibn Ghanim’s manuscripts at the
National Library in Paris, I stumbled on part of another manuscript
constituting about one quarter of the treatise, Shajarat al-kawn at No.
3522 (f.f.: 30b-36b) and bearing the title: ishara fi mi’raj an-nabi salla
llahu 'alayhi wa sallam (=reference to the Ascent of the Prophet, peace be
upon him) attributed to Ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi. We do not understand how this
part Shajarat al-kawn came to be present in this manuscript of Ibn
Ghanim’s famous work, kashf al-asrar 'an hikam t-tuyür
wa l- azhar. We do not know why there is this confusion in that
manuscript, which does not distinguish between duplicate titles, and incomplete
parts of the work Shaja- rat al-kawn, and appended a notification and
sermons by Ibn Ghanim unrelated to the work. In addition,we do not know why the
dates of the copies were not stated.
It would, perhaps, be
more correct to assume that this manuscript version has been reproduced from an
old copy of the text, including the book kashf al- asrar 'an hikam t-tuyür wa l-azhar, the book Shajarat
al-kawn, and sermons and poems by Ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi. The copyist who
conveyed the manuscript to us was able to reproduce what distinguishes it from
the original text. This version thus came in a patchwork and incomplete form!
The title, which contains the part of the Shajarat al-kawn, is ishara
fi mi’raji n-nabi salla llahu 'alayhi wa sallam. This reduction deluded the
copyist into thinking that the manuscript was one complete work, which has the
same title - kashf al-asrar 'an hikam t-tuyur wa
l-azhar - and that the part of the Shajarat al-kawn, as well as the
poems and sermons by Ibn Ghanim, are part of the first book, which is a group
of "references.” Therefore, the copyist thought that it was a reference
from the references to kashf al-asrar and guessed the title to be ishara
fi mi’raji n-nabi salla llahu alayhi wa sallam on the basis of the topic,
calling what followed it from the sermons and poems isharat fi t-tawhïd.
D. The fourth argument we find in a short note published by Elias
Sarkis in his book Mujam al-matbu'at al-‘Arabiya wa l-mu’arraba[15]
(Glossary of Arab Literature); Sarkis says: "I saw a manuscript
entitled Shajarat al-kawn, by Ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi, similar to the work
attributed to Muhyi ad-Din Ibn 'Arabi printed in Bulaq."
We have thus solved the
problem of the copying of manuscripts attributed to Ibn ’Arabi, and we are
relatively sure of the preponderance of the copies attributed to Ibn Ghanim.
Discussing
Catalogues Attributing Shajarat al-kawn to Ibn Arabï:
The oldest catalogues
that attribute Shajarat al-kawn to Ibn ‘Arabi are, first, Fihrist
al-Kutubkhana al-khiddiwiya,[16]
which was composed by Muhammad al- Biblawi and Ahmad al-Mihi
between 1305/1887 and 1309/1889. After that is Dhayl kashf z-zundn[17]
by Baghdadi (d. 1920). Third is Geschichte der arabischen Literatur[18]
by Carl Brockelmann (in 1943). Histoire et Classification de l'œuvre d'Ibn
‘Arabï (R.G.) by Osman Yahya (in 1958- 1964) is fourth.[19]
A. With regards to the Fihrist al-kutubkhaneh, I believe that
it was the reference that was adopted by the author of Dhayl kashf z-zundn.
The authors of the fihrist al-Kutubkhana attributed Shajarat al-kawn
to Ibn ‘Arabi on the basis of two copies: the first was a manuscript from 1273
A.H.,[20]
and the second was printed in Bulaq in 1292 A.H. This attribution here has
previously been subject to criticism. With regard to the printed version, we do
not need to criticize it, since it is a copy of unreliable origin, which are
the manuscripts attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi as criticized previously.
B. With regards to Brockelmann, his catalogue of Arabic
manuscripts and books is almost legendary in the history of cataloging, because
it is so detailed, accurate, and comprehensive. Nevertheless, Brockelmann and
those following him, such as Kurkis Awwad and others,[21] thought
from the start that Ibn ‘Arabi’s book Shajarat al-wujûd wa al-bahr al-mawrûd was the same
book as Shajarat al- kawn. So he referred to a version of Shajarat al-kawn
printed in Bulaq in 1292 A.H., assuming that they were the one and same book.
However, he corrected this error in the supplement,[22]
where he placed a question mark, undoubtedly because of its similarity to Shajarat
al-wujûd, and then referred to the version found in Dar al-kutub
al-Misriya.[23]
C. Osman Yahya left no doubt in his Histoire et Classification de
l'œuvre d'Ibn 'Arabi either about the attribution of Shajarat al-kawn
to Ibn ‘Arabi and confirmed this, quoting from the manuscript copies, the
historical value of which we have previously discussed. However, he
acknowledges[24]
that Shajarat al-kawn was not included in the old catalogues, especially
those written by Ibn ‘Arabi himself; such as al-ijaza, which he
wrote in 632 A.H. for al-Malik al-Muzaffar, and the Fihrist mu’allafat ash-Sheikh
al-Akbar , which he composed at the request of his adept al- Qunawi (d. 672
A.H.).
This, and the fact that
Ibn ‘Arabi did not mention Shajarat al-kawn in his encyclopedic work al-futûhat al-makkiya; his method in
al-futûhat, when discussing a topic related to one of
his books, is to abbreviate the discussion and then transmit in detail the
book specified in that topic. Note that expressions like "Kun=be", “al-insan
al-kamil=perfect man" and "al-haqiqa al-muhammadiya=the
muhammadan truth", which are basic concepts
of the treatise Shajarat al-kawn appear frequently in al-futûhat.
Moreover, Ibn ‘Arabi did
not mention the book Shajarat al-kawn in his works that deal with
subjects similar to those of Shajarat al-kawn; such as the book Insha'
ad-dawa’ir, ‘Uqlat al-mustawfiz, at-tadbirat al-ilahiya and al-ittihad al-kawni wa
al-ishhad al'ayni bimahdari ash-shajara
al-insaniya wa t-tuyûr al-arba‘a
ar- rûhaniya.[25] Therefore, it
seems to me that the assumption that Osman Yahya made in the issue of the
attribution of Shajarat al-kawn to Ibn ‘Arabi is inaccurate, and its
basis is unacceptable.
Comparing the Content and Format of Shajarat
al-kawn to the Works of Ibn ‘Arabi and Ibn Ghanim:
I discussed the text of Shajarat
al-kawn[26]
with the great European specialist in Islamic mysticism and Ibn Arabi in
particular, Michel Chodkiewicz, with respect to
its style, language, and intellectual content, and the relationship to the
thought and style of both Ibn Ghanim and Ibn ‘Arabi’. He confirmed to me
his doubts concerning the attribution of this book to Ibn Arabi and based
these doubts on linguistic differences in the analysis of the word kun
between Shajarat al-kawn and al-futuhat al-makkiya.[27] In the Shajarat al-kawn it is composed of two characters,
i.
e. al-kaf wa n-nun
(as where the inner meaning was interpreted as follows): “So when Adam
entered the School of instruction and was taught all the names,[28]
he looked at the similitude of (kun), seeing what He who brings into
being had purposed should be brought into being and saw that what was being
taught by the K of (kun) was the K of treasure (kanziyya):
’I was a hidden Treasure; I was unknown but I wanted to be known...,’ and he
saw the secret of the N, that it was the N of ‘Yea, verily’ (ananiyya),
‘Verily I am Allah. No god save Me’” (innani and LLÀH, la ilaha illa ana)
(Qur’an 20:14).[29]
And he says in Shajarat
al-kawn as well: “So he [Iblis = diabolos] used to look at the similitude
of (kun) to see in its similitude the k of his own unbelief (kufr),
so that he exalted himself, “refused and became proud” (Qur’an 2:253).
Likewise, from the essence of the N the N of the unrecognized (nakirah)
and the N of the recognized appeared.”[30]
Ibn ‘Arabi interpreted it
linguistically and philosophically in his al-Futuhat al-
makkiya, quite contrary to the interpretation of the former. He divided it
first into three characters; al-kaf, al-waw, and an-nun. He says, for
example, in al-Futuhat al- makkiya: “the first
word that was composed was the word ‘be’ =(kun); it is composed
of three letters: Kaf, waw, and nun [K, W and N].”[31]
He says elsewhere in al-futuhat: “The exterior
of the image of (kun) is comprised of two letters, K and N,
and as the exoteric world was made, is comprised of two sides: the first is
exoteric (zahir), and the second is
esoteric (bajin). The nun corresponds to zahir and kaf
corresponds to the bajin ... whereas the mystery of this word is the
letter waw between kaf and nun.”[32]
He says in a third place
in al-futuhat, quoting a poem
Like signs, if you set up
its image,
Like the signs of the
female and the male,
But he (God) who placed
the whole creature
on the reality of itself
(= KUN) in the world of images,
The ( W), without
closing the syllable (N), would have been shown
Visibly, as if it was
walking by destiny.[33]
Ibn ‘Arabi comments on
this poem as follows:
the expression of the
Qur’an, in connection with the creation of the things from the word oneself (= KUN),
used two letters, like the first two assumptions. However what occurs after
oneself (= KUN) is the synthesis, these two letters are open. But the
third, which is the bond between the two, is removed because of the closing of
the syllables waw and nun. Thus, just as nothing of the qalam
(penis) is revealed in the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. The
semen is ejaculated into the vagina mysteriously, because it is a secret (=
sirr). Elsewhere, marriage is referred to in the Arabic language as a
secret (= as-sirr): God said: “but do not make a promise (of a contract)
with them (women) in secrecy (walakin la tuwa 'idühunna sirran...)
(Qur’an 2:235). It is the same at the time of ejaculation, they stop moving, in
a state of penetration or where the qalam (penis) disappears, like the
disappearance of the waw in (KUN), as a consequence of the
interaction of the two letters (the kaf and the nun).[34]
From these texts we can
conclude that it is contradictory to assume that the person who analyses the
meaning of (kun) (“be”) in Shajarat al-kawn is the same as the
one who analyses (kun) in al-Futühat. There is a
big difference between the linguistical and philosophical analysis and the
esoteric one.
We can add to the above
observations, perhaps, the remark of the renowned orientalist Denis Gril[35]
on the difference in the symbolism of the “tree” in the treatise Risalat
al-ittihad al-kawni of Ibn ‘Arabi, and in Shajarat
al-kawn.[36]
Despite their common theme, these treatises are very dissimilar, whereas we
find a great similarity between the treatise al-Ittihad al-kawni and Ibn
‘Arabi’s work 'Uqlatu l- mustawfiz. Moreover, we find a clear
explanation in the latter work of the talk of the four birds, as mentioned in
the al-Ittihad al-kawni.[37] Also, the
artistic styles in the al-Ittihad al-kawni and Ibn
‘Arabi’s treatise ‘anqa’ mughrib[38]
are very similar.
In contrast, Ibn Ghanim’s
literary style can be detected in the first reading of the Shajarat al-kawn
treatise. My long experience of reading Ibn Ghanim’s manuscripts and printed
books since 1987 allows me to recognize his literary style, which is rhetorical
for the most part. It is based primarily on rhetorical methods and the musical
aspects of language, such as prosaic rhyme, wordplays, etc. which are the
dominant characteristic styles in Shajarat al-kawn. In addition, we
often find expressions in this book that are very similar in style or content
to the ex- pressions contained in other works by Ibn Ghanim, such as “ifrad
al-ahad 'an ifrad al-‘adad," “Sharhu hal as-sahaba wa al-awliya,"
“Turuqu l-wasa’il wa tamalluqu s- sa’il, and
others." One can compare the following five texts:
1. In Shajarat al-kawn he says:
When Adam - upon whom be
peace - was created, and the light of our Master Muhammad - upon
whom be Allah’s blessing and peace - shone forth on his forehead, the Angels
approached and gave greeting to that Light of Muhammad. However, Adam could
not see it, so he said: “Oh lord! I should love to look at the light of my
child Muhammad -upon whom be Allah’s blessing and peace - so please convey
it to one of my members that I may see it." So Allah conveyed it to the
forefinger, which He then raised and said: “I testify that there is no deity
save Allah, and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." It is for
this reason that the forefinger was called al-musabbiha. Adam said :
“O Lord! Does any of this light remain in my loins?" He answered:
“Yes," [meaning that] it was the light of his Companions, who are Abu
Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali. The light of ‘Ali He set in his thumb, the light
of Abu Bakr in his middle finger, the light of ‘Umar in his ring finger, and
light of ‘Uthman in his little finger.[39]
1.1. And in the book Ifrad al-ahad 'an ifrad
al-'adad Ibn Ghanim writes:
When God, exalted be he,
created Adam, peace be upon him, he put the light of Muhammad in him, peace and
grace upon him. This light shone on Adam’s forehead and lit up to just below
the throne. The Angels went before Adam to greet him in peace. Adam then wished
to see the light of Muhammad, peace and grace upon him, as the angels saw it
and claimed: ‘Oh my God! I would like to see the light of my child Muhammad,
peace and grace upon him, Transfer it to one of my limbs.’ God moved it to put
it on his forefinger. When Adam, peace be upon him, looked at the light of his
child Muhammad, peace and grace upon him, on his forefinger, he raised it
saying: ‘I testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is God’s
Messenger.’ It is for this reason that the forefinger was called al-
musabbiha, ‘that which glorifies.’ Adam said, ‘Lord! Will a trace of this
light remain within me?’ God answered him: ‘Yes, the light of his four
Companions, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali.’ Adam said, ‘Oh my lord!
Transfer them to my body so that I can see them.‘ He then put the four lights
of the four Companions on to his four fingers.[40]
2. He says in Shajarat al-kawn:
For people have gone far
astray and erred concerning me, saying that I encompass One Who has no mode of
being.
O Muhammad! How
could One whose essence has no boundaries, and whose attributes are beyond
number, be said either to be separated from me or borne by me? If His name is
the Merciful, and taking His seat one of His attributes and qualities, and His
attributes and qualities are connected with His essence, how could He be either
attached to me or separated from me, seeing I am not from Him and He is not
from me? O Muhammad, by His might (I swear), I am not near enough to Him to be
in touch nor yet far enough away from Him to be separated. I do not have the
ability to bear Him. Nor am I inclusive enough to encompass Him or provide a
similitude for Him. Nay, indeed, it twas He, in His mercy, Who brought me into
existence, as a favour and a kindness. Were He to annihilate me that would be
but kindness and justice on His part. O Muhammad, I am something borne by His
power, formed by His wisdom, so how could it be true that the Bearer is borne?
So do not believe that about which thou hast no knowledge. Truly, hearing and
seeing and having a heart are all matters about which in His case there is
much ques- tioning.[41]
2.1. In one of his poems in Ifrad al-ahad 'an ifrad
al-'adad Ibn Ghanim says: Whoever believes by ignorance that the throne
(of God) can support Him cheats and ventures in injustice and aggression.
The throne,
the ground and the seat (kursi) are his creatures;
He has created
them marvelously and magnificently.
The throne begs highest; in its remote the throne
is always in its search in love with God.[42]
It is
remarkable that Shajarat al-kawn is not the only one of Ibn Ghanim’s
works that was attributed erroneously to Ibn ‘Arabi: the work Hall ar-rumüz wa mafatîh al-kunüz was also attributed to him, whereas it is certain that Ibn Ghanim wrote
it. The same book is attributed to al-‘Izz Ibn
‘Abd as-Salam as-Sulami (d. 660
A.
H.), in the edition of Jaridat
ul-islam of 1899/1317, and in al-Matb'a al-Yüsufiya called Khulasat
zubad at-tasawwuf. Also
attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi is the work by Ibn Ghanim known as Kitab taflîs
iblis in the Cairo edition of 1277 A.H., under the title al-Qawlu an-nafis fi
taflîs iblis.[43]
It is worthwhile to point
out here that there are other books attributed erroneously to Ibn ‘Arabi. Some
researchers have managed to disclose these erroneous attributions, as Denis
Gril did in his tadkirat al-khawass wa ‘aqidat ahl al- ikhtisas,[44] which was
edited by him. Osman Yahya did not include this work in his list of doubtful
attributions to Ibn ‘Arabi; this list - according to Osman Yahya - amounted to
over one hundred and forty works.[45]
If the authors of
catalogues and researchers of manuscripts managed to attribute the work Hall
ar-rumüz wa
mafâtîh al-kunüz and kitab taflis
iblis to their real author, ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi, depending on the
numerous and ancient manuscripts that attributed them to Ibn Ghanim, the
continuation of the wrong attribution of Shajarat al-kawn to Ibn
‘Arabi, is to be seen as the result of the scarcity of ancient manuscripts
attributing this treatise to its real author.
Discussion of Studies and Translations of Shajarat
al-kawn Attributed to Ibn 'Arabi
This is the last
remaining problem that has to be discussed. First, there is Arthur Jeffrey’s
English translation and introduction, followed by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the
Iranian scholar’s study, the Frenchwoman Claude Audebert’s study, and Maurice
Gloton’s French translation, which includes lengthy comments.
A. As far as
Claude-France Audebert is concerned, she did not make any attempt to ascertain
the authenticity of the attribution of Shajarat al-kawn to Ibn ‘Arabi
but relied completely on the examination of this treatise in the Cairo edition
only. Nor did she make any scholarly study of this treatise. As she states in
the introduction to the study “Tariqat tafkir ibn ‘Arabi fi risalat Shajarat
al-kawn,” she said that it would be limited to the study of the formal literary
aspect. She assumed that by doing so she would reach the inner meanings of the
treatise and therefore Ibn ‘Arabi's thoughts. Audebert starts by studying the
visual acts in the treatise, such as “looking (nazara),” “he saw (ra’a),”
“witnessed (shahada),” etc., in order to arrive at her conclusion
immediately: the importance of “vision” in Ibn ‘Arabi’s thinking. Audebert used
Ibn ‘Arabi’s books to reinforce this conclusion.
While I do not disagree with
Audebert on the importance of “vision” in Ibn ‘Arabi’s philosophy, this cannot
be used as evidence - in our discussion - for the claim that Shajarat
al-kawn was written by Ibn ‘Arabi. This is so because the importance of
“vision” and “witnessing” is not specific to Ibn ‘Arabi's philosophy; it is the
public domain of all philosophers, mystics, prophets, and divine messengers.
In the Qur’an we find the repeated attempts of Ibrahim to find
the Creator while gazing at the universe (cf. verses 76-78 of Sürat al-An'am).
Audebert is also quite
wrong with respect to the denial of historical time in Ibn ‘Arabi's thinking in
relation to her quote from Shajarat al-kawn: “So when He calls on them
to bear witness against themselves in the presence of His witnesses, He will
say: ’Am I not your Lord? and they will answer; Yea, verity’” (VII, 171-72).[46] She comments: "As
the present, the past and the future of each of these stages are linked to each
other in Ibn ‘Arabi's thinking, so Adam is a contemporary to the Prophet
Mohammed, and he is the representative of mankind, which will be called up on
the Day of Resurrection.”[47].
What is right here is that al-haqîqa al- Muhammadiya was a
contemporary of Adam, as is stated in the relevant hadith:"I was a Prophet,
when Adam was between water and earth.”[48] That Adam
is the representative of humankind that will be defended on the Day of
Resurrection is not the correct interpretation of the following phrase of Shajarat
al-kawn: “and where he was announced during the day of testimony: ‘Am I not your Lord?’”[49]
This appeal does not concern the Day of Resurrection but prehuman
history, which is the empowering world about which God had said that he asked
human- kind(-to-be) if He was not their Lord, to which the reply from humankind(-to-be)
was affirmative.[50]
In general, we can note
that Audebert uses the exegesis-projection method for analyzing texts, which is
not a scientific method. Following that method, we could, for example,
attribute Shajarat al-kawn to Jalal ad-Din ar-Rumi and we could use any
texts of ar-Rumi's books to confirm this argument.
B. The study that Arthur Jeffrey presented in the introduction to his
translation of Shajarat al-kawn is regarded as the most complete
in-depth study that was done on this treatise. However, Jeffrey did not do any
research to confirm the authenticity of the attribution of Shajarat al-kawn
to Ibn ‘Arabi. I will not discuss all the details of the study because it will
take us far from the research in which we are engaged here. But I will examine
some points where Jeffrey was engaged in the comparison between Shajarat
al-kawn and other works by Ibn ‘Arabi to ascertain if the contents match
or are not compatible with the texts from Ibn ‘Arabi's books to which Jeffrey
refers.
From the outset, Jeffrey
decided that the subject of Shajarat al-kawn was the al-haqiqa al-muhammadiya. He then says
that this al-haqiqa is the source of inner knowledge, which is the
source of power by which everything came to be, referring to page 99 of the
first part of al-Futühât al-Makkiya from the
writings of Ibn ‘Arabi to strengthen his argument. My comment is that the truth
(al-haqiqa) to which Jeffrey refers - is not al-haqiqa al-muhammadiya but the al-haqiqa
of the divine names that influence everything in this world, and it is the
first key.[51]
At another point[52]
Jeffrey refers to the fact that in Shajarat al-kawn Ibn ‘Arabi was the
only one to link the word “creature “ (kun) with the Shajarat
al-kawn. But Jeffrey did not refer to any of Ibn ‘Arabi's other works. This
proves that Ibn Ghanim is the real author of Shajarat al-kawn and that
it was to him that the uniqueness of this idea belonged. If it did belong to
Ibn ‘Arabi, it would have appeared in his books, especially Al-futûhât al-Makkiya, since in the
first part alone the words kun, kawn, and al-kawn were mentioned
more than twenty-five times,[53]
without the least reference to the link between kun and Shajarat
al-kawn and its origin, which is the seed (al-habba). Making the
seed the word of creation, kun, does not appear in any book written by
Ibn ‘Arabi, as far as I know. The use that was made of the word (kun) in
al-Futuhat al-Makkiya does not stray far from
its true meaning except in one place, i.e. the following analogy: “He sows the
seeds of guidance and success in the earth of the human souls. Then this earth
produces according to what has been sown into it.”[54]
Thereafter Jeffrey talks
about various similarities as mentioned in Shajarat al- kawn and tries
to find its paradigm in al-Futuhat. He refers to
pages 65 and 87 of Part I of the old edition of al-Futuhat, and to page
67 of 'Uqlat al-mustawfiz. But when I compared those texts, I found a
major difference between them, since there is no relationship between the
similarities in Shajarat al-kawn[55] and what
Ibn ‘Arabi talks about in al-Futuhat[56] concerning
letters, numbers, and their secrets.
Jeffrey goes a long way
to search for sources of the theory of numbers in the old religions and
philosophies, concluding that the rules of arithmetical similarities resemble
the teaching of the Manichees.[57]
He goes through all the trouble of searching for sources of the ideas contained
in the treatise only because he was aware of Ibn ‘Arabi‘s vast intellect and
the great knowledge of this mystic philosopher. If Jeffrey had known that the
author of Shajarat al-kawn was Ibn Ghanim al- Maqdisi - the mystic who
did not go beyond his people’s knowledge and his own spiritual experiences - he
would probably not have taken all that trouble. I think that there are a number
of similarities between the Shajarat al-kawn and the thought of ‘Izzi
d-Din Ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi, who excelled in this art, particularly in his work
Ifrad al-ahad 'an ifrad al-'adad.[58]
Finally, I will mention
Jeffrey’s[59]
recognition of the clear difference regarding content between the Shajarat
al-kawn on the one hand and 'Uqlat al-mustawfiz and the Insha'
ad-dawa'ir by Ibn ‘Arabi on the other.[60] Jeffrey’s
recognition here saves us from continuing the discussion any further. It
furthermore strengthens our reassurance of attributing Shajarat al-kawn
to Ibn Ghanim.
C. Gloton paid some attention to the attribution of the work to Ibn
‘Arabi in the introduction to his French translation of Shajarat al-kawn.
He confirmed that it is not contained in al-Ijâza nor in the Fihrist
musannafat Ibn 'Arabi,[61]
but Osman Yahya’s confirmation of its attribution to Ibn ‘Arabi removed any
doubts Gloton may have had concering this attribution.[62]
My remark concerning
Gloton’s introduction is that he has adopted the interpretative and synthetic
methods used by the translator; he depends on the interpretation of the views
contained in Shajarat al-kawn applied to the complete philosophy of Ibn
‘Arabi. He follows this process without referring - except in a few cases - to
Ibn ‘Arabi’s own texts. Some references in Gloton’s introduction are often far
from the point he wants to make.
For example, when he
talks about the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a pillar of the
universe, he refers at the end to the content of al-Futuhat[63] and to what is
stated in the chapter “Hood” of Fusus al-hikam.[64] When I compare
these two texts and that of shajarat al-kawn, it appears that their aims
are very different and their subjects quite distinct. Since righteousness (al-istiqama)
in Shajarat al-kawn is a divine order only for the prophet (peace be
upon him) and those with him, we find, on the contrary, in al-Futuhat and Fusus
al-hikam that the discourse is focused on the
universal righteousness (al-istiqama al-kawniya) and legal righteousness
(al-istiqama sh-shar’iya). It is therefore an attempt to demonstrate
the righteousness (istiqamat) of all people, with reference to either
the legal or general aspect. Gloton follows the same method in commenting on
the Shajarat al-kawn, which takes up almost half of the book. His method
confuses the features of Shajarat al-kawn with the philosophy of Ibn
‘Arabi in his literary works and thereby spoils its characteristics and
independence. We can, in this regard, simply refer to the comment by Gloton on
the word kun to prove how this mixing Shajarat al-kawn with the
philosophy of Muhyi d-Din Ibn ‘Arabi took place. In this commentary Gloton
talks about the letter waw that is concealed between the kaf and
the nun, which completely contradicts the analysis of Shajarat
al-kawn for the word kun, as stated previously. The adoption of
texts other than the text that is being scrutinised requires considerable
caution to avoid confusing the reader, as is the case here. This method does
not allow the reader to recognize that the Shajarat al-kawn is a work
that is attributed solely to Ibn ‘Arabi but implies farfetched interpretations
that are not expressed in the text.[65] In a
follow-up article we will present the life story of Ibn Ghanim al-Maqdisi.
The Journal of
Rotterdam Islamic and Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1,2010
[1] Younes Alaoui Mdaghri is Assistant
Professor of Arabic Rhetoric at the Islamic University of Rotterdam; alaoui@iur.nl.
[2] I came to these conclusions over
eighteen years ago, during my Master’s studies in 1989-1990 at the Sorbonne and
after that in the French Institute of Arab Studies of Damascus (IFEAD), in
1991..
[3] The story of this Parisian manuscript
dates back to the end of the 19th century, as stated by the French colonialists
of the Segou Kingdom of West Africa. It was included among the priceless collection
of Arabic manuscripts that belonged to Ahmed Segou’s library, known as Ahmed
al-kabir al- Madani Ibn al-Hajj Omar Segou, prince of that Islamic State in the
second half of the 19th century. It was founded by his father, al-Hajj Omar,
the president of the Tijani Brotherhood and the leader of jihad against
the Bambara groups between 1852 and 1864. Segou was colonised, by the French in
1890, under the leadership of Arsenal, who transferred four sets of priceless
manuscripts from Segou to Paris. At the beginning of the 20th century these
manuscripts were placed in the National Library in Paris for researchers. For
details of these manuscripts see Inventaire de la bibliothèque Umarienne de
Ségou (Conservée à la Bibliothèque de Paris), by Noureddine Ghali et Sidi
Mohamed Mahibou, with collaboration by L. Brenner ed. C.N.R.S. (Paris: 1985).
[4] Mustafa Hilmi, "Kunüz fi
Rumuz," in al-kitab al-tidkarï Muhyï al-Dïn Ibn 'Arabï fï al-dikra
al-ta mina li Mïladih (Cairo, 1969), pp. 35-66.
[5] Arthur Jeffrey, "Ibn ‘Arabî’s
Shajarat al-kawn," Studia Islamica X-XI (1959-1960). This English
translation was reprinted in 1980 in Lahore (Publisher: Aziz).
[6] Maurice Gloton, L’arbre du monde
(Paris: Deux Océan, 1982).
[7] Claude Audebert adopted the Cairo
edition 1360/1941 in her article "Tarîqat Tafkîr ibn ‘Arabi fi risalat Shajarat
al-kawn,”al-mu‘allim al-‘Arabi20/4 (1967), as did Arthur Jeffrey in his
translation of Shajarat al-kawn, whereas Maurice Gloton adopted the 1966
and 1968 editions.
[8] Osman Yahya, Histoire et
Classification de l'œuvre d'Ibn 'Arabi (Damascus, 1964), RG 666. This was a
Ph.D. dissertation in 1958 at the Sorbonne in Paris.
[9] Some pages of this copy are partly
burned but were replaced from another copy.
[10] Riyad al-Malih, Fihris Maktütát Dar
al-Kutub al-Zahiriyya, pt. 2 (Damascus:
Publisher, Year), p. 83.
[11] Arab Manuscript in Paris, nr. 2035, fol.
2a.
[12] Turuq al-Wasa’il wa Tamalluq
al-Sa’il, manuscript at Leiden University, Oosterse Handschriften, OR 709,
fol. 90b.
[13] Cf. the exact name of Ibn Ghanim and the
name written on the Paris manuscript (2035, fol. 27a) and the complete name of
his biography that I will mention later.
[14] jjb a^jjj °>~ ^ ---2 ^—^' r3--
ùi -^' ùi r— -jc jj-II Jc ¿jl^SI
t^*ll fll*ll fUyi ¿j^II ^JU jUj^I 3>^~
^K" "jj jj^'-^'lj Aj
U»ijj A^o^
[15] In the margin of page 197.
[16] Pt. II; p.89, d pt. I, t. VII; p.14.
[17] Pt. II; p. 41.
[18] Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der
arabischen Literatur G.I.443/12; 13
[19] RG nr. 666 n Damascus. This is a Ph.D.
from 1958 at the Sorbonne-Paris.
[20] Pt. I, t.VII; p.14.
[21] RG 667
[22] Brockelmann, GAL SI. 74913. It had been
printed in 1275,and had been previously criticized.
[23] Brockelmann, GAL SI- 74913.
[24] RG n:666, p. 625
[25] See “Le livre de l’Arbre et des quatre
Oiseaux d’Ibn ‘Arabî; Risalat al-Ittihad al-Kawnî,” transl. by D. Gril, in Annales
Islamologiques XVII (1981): 67-68.
[26] This discussion took place at the end of
1989 at the Seuil publishing house in Paris when Michel Chodkiewicz was
director there.
[27] See Ibn Arabî, al-Futuhat
al-Makkiyya, pt. 2, pp. 301, 312.
[28] A reference to sura 2:31: "And He taught
Adam all the names ...."
[29] Jeffrey “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,” Studia
Islamica X (1959): 65.
[30] Jeffrey “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,”
pp. 65-66.
[31] Ibn ‘Arabi, al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya,
pt. 3 (Place: Dar Sadir,: n.d.), p. 90.
[32] Ibn ‘Arabi, al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya,
pt. 2, p. 331.
[33] Ibn ‘Arabi, al-Futühat al-Makkiyya,
pt. 2, p. 100.
[34] Ibn ‘Arabi, al-Futühât al-Makkiyya,
pt. 2, pp. 300-01.
[35] See his long article, “Sources
manuscrites de l’histoire du soufisme à Dar al-Kutub,” Annales Is-
lamologiques XXVIII (1994): 154.
[36] Denis Gril, “Le livre de l’Arbre et des
quatre Oiseaux d’Ibn ‘Arabî: Risalat al-Ittihad al-Kawnî,” Annales
Islamologiques XVII (1981): 67.
[37] Gril, “Le livre de l’Arbre et des quatre
Oiseaux d’Ibn ‘Arabî,” pp. 67-68.
[38] Gril, “Le livre de l’Arbre et des quatre
Oiseaux d’Ibn ‘Arabî,” p. 68.
[39] Jeffrey, “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat
al-Kawn," Studia Islamica XI (1960): 125.
[40] Ibn Ghanim, Ifrad al-Ahad ‘an Ifrad
al-'adad, copy in the National Library of Paris (nr. 6882, f. 18a).
[41] Jeffrey, “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,”
Studia Islamica XI (1960): 154
[42] Jeffrey, “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,”
p. 154, and see my dissertation Shi‘r Ibn Ganim al-Maqdisi (Fez: Fez
University, 2003), poetry n. 292.
[43] See Osman Yahya (RG), n. 571. The
editors who attributed these works to Ibn ‘Arab! did so following certain
manuscripts that attribute the two treatises to him, as mentioned by Osman
Yahya in the above text. See e.g. Fihrist Al-Kizana
at-Taymüriyya, pt. 3 (Cairo: Dar ul-Kutub, 1948), p. 201.
[44] Annales Islamologiques XX (1984):
337-39.
[45] Osman Yahya (RG), pt. 1, pp. 74-75, and
Claude Addas, “A Propos du Dïwân al-Ma‘arif d'Ibn 'Arab!,” Studia Islamica
(1995): 187.
[46] Jeffrey, “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,”
Studia Islamica XI (1960): 114.
[47] Claude Audebert,'Tariqat Tafkîr ibn
‘Arab! fi Risalat Shajarat al-kawn,” 70.
[48] Kuntu Nabiyyan wa Adam bayna al-ma' wa al-Tin;
see al-Qari in al-masnu’ fi ma’rifat al -hadit al - mawdu’, pp.
141, n. 233.
[49] "Tarîqat Tafkîr ibn ‘Arabî fi
Risalat Shajarat al-kawn,” al-Mu‘allim al-'Arabi 20/4 (1967): 70.
[50] See Qur’an 7:172.
[51] Jeffrey,“Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,” Studia
Islamica X (1959): 52.
[52] Jeffrey, “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,” Studia
Islamica X (1959): 53.
[53] See Ibn ’Arab!,, al-Futuhat
al-Makkiyya, chs. 92, 95, 162, 187, 285, 286, 309, 310, 326, 423, 440, 482,
487, 488, 490, 533, 537, 548, 551, 577, 633, 688.
[54] Ibn ’Arabî, al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya,
pt. 8, p. 278.
[55] Jeffrey, “Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn,” Studia
Islamica X (1959): 59-60.
[56] Bkz. P. Şecerat el-Kevn'in123. bölümü
("İbn Arabi'nin Şecerat el-Kevn'i") ve pt. 1, s. 65 ve 78,el-Futuhat el-Mekkiyye'den,ed. Darsadir.
[57] Jeffrey, "Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn",Studia MuslimaX (1959): 60.
[58] Paris Milli Kütüphanesi'ndeki el yazması nüsha (no. 6882, f. 1-27b) eksiktir. Tam bir nüshası Şam el- Zahiriyye'de(nr. 4465)bulunmaktadır1'den 10'a kadar olan sayılar, somut ve soyut şeylerle ilgili pek çok benzerlik içerir. ve dini fenomenler.
[59] Jeffrey, "Ibn Arabi's Shajarat al-Kawn",Studia MuslimaX (1959): 57, n. 3.
[60] Bu fikir iki Fransız araştırmacı tarafından doğrulandı: Denis Gril,Annales IslamologiquesXVII (1987): 67 ve Maurice Gloton, Fransızca çevirisiL'arbre du monde,s. 124.
[61] Gloton,Dünya Ağacı,s. 12.
[62] Gloton,Dünya Ağacı,s. 12.
[63] İbn Arabi,el-Futuhat el-Mekkiyye,
pt. 1, s. 217.
[64] İbn 'Arab!,Fu susel-Hikam,pt. 1, s. 160
[65] Mustafa Hilmi, kunuzfi Rumuz, al-kitab t-tidhkariMu h yi al-Din İbn 'Arabi fi al-dikra al-tamina li Miladih (Kahire, 1969), s. 35'te Şecerat el-Kawnhakkındabirmakaleyazmıştır .-66, ancak bu makalenin derinliği çok az ve analizden yoksun. Bu nedenle anketime dahil etmedim. Ayrıca Hüseyin Nasr'ın İran'da Şecerat el-Kawnşu ana kadar bulamadığımbir makalesi de yazmıştır
Not: Bazen Büyük Dosyaları tarayıcı açmayabilir...İndirerek okumaya Çalışınız.
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder