Customer Reviews

An Ocean Without Shore: Ibn Arabi, the Book, and the Law

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I read the book a few years back, and found it to be one of the most lucid studies of Ibn Arabi. Chodkiewicz is one of the two most distinguished scholars in the Western Academic world on Shaikh al-Akbar, the Greatest Shaikh, as he was entitled by those, in the words of R.A. Nicholson, "most qualified to judge". The other is William Chittick.

The book, as the title informs, is about the relationship between law and the spiritual journey, in other words, between the outward and the inward. It reveals the attempt of one of medieval Islam's greatest gnostics to bridge the apparently irreconcilable gap between the spirit and the letter. Chodkiewicz exposes IA's radically literalistic interpretive method of deriving of the most esoteric meanings by way of deconstructing Koranic words into their roots, and then presenting the meanings of the word-roots as the esoteric meaning of the text. By such an approach the "hidden" or esoteric is brought to the fore by the most stringent form of exotericism -- hence there is a meeting of opposites, the veil become the face. It is interesting to note that IA was affiliated with the Dhahirism, which was Islam's most literalistic legal school. Yet, ironically, he was also the greatest esotericist.

On a final note: Chodkiewicz also presents the views of later Islamic scholars on how they perceived (and misperceived) IA. This gives a better contextual understanding of IA's influence.

(Sorry but English it is not my mother-tongue) Althought there have been a lot of works wrtten in this last 15 years (thanks to Chittick, Morris, Gril and many more) this remains, with Seal of the Saints, an incredible book: academic in its precision and schoolarship, but inspiring and aweful in its meaning and kowledge. I thinks these are two "must" lectures for anyone who want to plunge himself in Ibn 'Arabi's lessons, in sufism in general, and in the meanings of the Qur'an. "Sidi" Chodkiewizc, in his discrection, is still an outstanding figure in Ibn 'Arabi's studies, and a helpful hand to enter in the meaning of Islam and sufism.

In most areas of scholarship there are one or two books so uniquely rich in their depth of insight, breadth of understanding, and richness of expression and illustration that even their individual footnotes become, as it were, the seeds of whole volumes of research in later generations. This deceptively short volume, which so ably condenses the fruits of decades of intensive study and reflection on Ibn 'Arabī (as well as his disciples and heirs throughout the Islamic world) is clearly just such a landmark in "Akbarī" studies. Its basic unifying theme - familiar enough to even the novice reader of Ibn 'Arabī today - is the Qur'anic (and Prophetic) inspiration and aims of all the Shaykh's writing. But here Professor Chodkiewicz, referring primarily to the "ocean" of al-Futūhāt al-Makkīya as well as a host of other untranslated (and often unedited) texts and commentaries, has systematically developed that theme to a depth that goes far beyond academic philology and amply illustrates the profoundly transforming power of Ibn 'Arabī's own "spiritual hermeneutics" of Islamic scripture. For those interested in the Shaykh's own life, this volume also highlights some of the deeper roots of his own extraordinary personal claims with regard to his "realization" of the Qur'an and the inner dimension of prophecy, themes which are examined in more detail in two other recently translated studies, The Seal of the Saints (by the same author) and Claude Addas' biography, The Quest for the Red Sulphur.

There is no question, then, that this is in many respects an "advanced" work, almost an agenda (as well as an indispensable reference work) for future study: indeed very few modern scholars could honestly lay claim to the familiar mastery of Arabic, of the Qur'an and hadith, and of so many different writings of the Shaykh and his disciples which this book often presupposes. On the other hand, serious students of Ibn 'Arabī will recognize many familiar themes from the works that are available in translation, and - while acknowledging how much of this "ocean" still remains uncharted - will surely be challenged to re-read and re-explore those available texts from new perspectives. The author's Introduction (pp. 1-18) is an especially striking illustration of that process. At first reading, the Introduction may seem like nothing more than history: a highly condensed survey of the far-reaching "manifestations" of Ibn 'Arabī's work for centuries throughout the Islamic world, focusing especially on the recent research by the author (as well as his many colleagues and students from France and the Arab world) that has helped to bring out the actual social bases (tariqas, ethical manuals, etc.) for the popular spread of Ibn 'Arabī's insights, especially in the Ottoman period, far beyond the line of his avowed disciples and commentators. By the time one has completed reading the book, however, it will be quite evident just how and to what extent those same historical data are also meant to illuminate the nature and seriousness of the Shaykh's meta-historical claims concerning the "Seal of the saints" and his special inner relationship with both the Qur'an and the "Reality of Muhammad."

Each of the book's five chapters richly illustrates, at progressively deeper levels of expression and meaning, the full Qur'anic inspiration of all of Ibn 'Arabi's works. Not surprisingly, the first two chapters highlight themes and typical methods of scriptural interpretation - such as Ibn 'Arabī's consistent focus on the "letter" of revelation even in his apparently most original (or outrageous) insights; his stress on the ongoing, "perpetual descent" of the inner meanings of the Qur'an within each purified heart; or the metaphysical "universality" of the Qur'an and the Source of all prophecy - which should be familiar to most students of the Fusūs al-Hikam and other widely available works. The second chapter also includes a very clear and accessible summary of Prof. Chodkiewicz' seminal research on two major topics in the Shaykh's teaching: his discussion of the various types and ranks and functions of the "friends of God" (from chapter 73 of the Futūhāt), and his uniquely irenic understanding of the principles of fiqh, with its compelling practical and intellectual relevance to the contemporary Islamic world.

The following two chapters, though, explore territory which has until now remained largely uncharted, at least in Western scholarship. Chapter 3 demonstrates in rigorous and convincing detail - focusing on the long Fasl al-Manāzil in the Futūhāt - the multitude of precise ways in which the order, inner structures, and language and style of the Qur'an underlies the corresponding arrangement and meaning of all the Meccan Illuminations, including literally thousands of passages or allusions that would have remained mysterious and indecipherable without these essential "keys." Chapter 4 extends the same approach to revealing both the internal structure of other major works (such as the early K. al-Isrā', the K. al-'Abādila, the K. al-Tajalliyāt), and, even more significantly, to suggesting the "networks" or "constellations" of Qur'anic allusion that form fundamental linkages - of both inspiration and cross-referential explanation - between chapters or sections of the Qur'an, the Futūhāt, and each of Ibn 'Arabī's shorter works. While scholars and students of these untranslated (and often unedited) works may have intuitively felt, and even occasionally deciphered, some of these inner connections and allusions, the systematic results of Professor Chodkiewicz' methods and examples here (summarized in 35 pages of dense notes) are rich enough to orient the research of several generations of future scholars. Indeed anyone who has wrestled directly with the constantly recurrent mysteries and opaque passages to be found throughout the Shaykh's writings may well consider these two chapters to constitute a sort of "Rosetta Stone" in the gradual deciphering of Ibn 'Arabī's work.

The final chapter, focusing on the integral relationship between religious practice and spiritual realization in all the Shaykh's writings, returns to a topic and illustrations (from the Fusūs al-Hikam and other translated works) familiar to a wider audience. Again the detailed analyses and synopses here - of the interplay between right actions and the attainment of karamāt in the Mawāqi' al-Nujūm; of the roles of God and the individual soul in prayer in the Tanazzulāt Mawsilīya; or of the constant allusions to the inner dimensions of salāt throughout Tirmidhī's famous "spiritual questionnaire" in chapter 73 of the Futūhāt - fully demonstrate both the author's mastery of the entire "Akbarī" corpus and the spiritual richness of these many texts that still await translation in order to reach the wider audience they deserve today.

Any brief account of Prof. Chodkiewicz' book, with its massive illustration of the impact of the Qur'an and (selective) hadith on every dimension of Ibn 'Arabī's writing, almost inevitably suggests a sort of "apologetic" or narrowly sectarian approach and an intention - on the part of either the Shaykh or his modern interpreter - that is in fact almost diametrically opposed to the actual state of affairs. Readers familiar only with the many modern Western studies emphasizing the "universality" of the Shaykh's outlook, in particular, might find this approach somewhat surprising. But this apparent paradox is no mystery to students familiar with Ibn 'Arabī's own writings: as they know from their own experience, it is easily resolvable once one begins to appreciate the "Reality" (to use the Shaykh's own expression) to which Ibn 'Arabī is actually referring. And few secondary studies in this field bring the reader closer to that constantly revelatory, more than intellectual, experience of the Qur'an than this remarkable work. It is itself an extraordinary illustration of that "ascension into meaning" (mi'rāj al-kalima, to borrow S. al-Hakīm's apt expression) which so uniquely typifies Ibn 'Arabī's own style and approach to revelation. The English translation, which includes a substantial index of Qur'anic verses and technical terms (but not, unfortunately, of hadith references), is quite readable on the whole, an especially commendable achievement given that so much of the original French text already consists of translations of Ibn 'Arabī's notoriously difficult language and close study of Arabic linguistic, religious and grammatical expressions.

Clearly the first two reviewers not only did not read this book, but they lack scholarly sophistication which makes there contributions saddening. Shiism is a jewish conspiracy? This seems to be the case with everything that the fundamentalist-bent Muslims don't like. Shias, Ahmadis, you name it, they are all jewish conspiracies. Please. Moreover, Ibn Arabi was not a Shia and had no affiliation with Shias at all. He was, in fact, an orthodox Sunni. The hidden agenda behind such reviewers is that they wish to disqualify Ibn Arabi because so much of what he says go directly against the narrow-minded and impoverished views of the "ulama" of today. This has been an effort on their part since Ibn Arabi's time and the principle reason why only Western scholars have delved into studying Ibn Arabi.
Although the Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi and Maliki schools of thought are well known, many do not realize that Ibn Arabi could very well be the 5th. His level of scholarship on Islam, both before and after him, is unsurpassed, him having produced the densest and deepest works of all the great Sufis and legal scholars. Scholars like Chodkiewicz do humanity a great service by increasing accessibility to Ibn Arabi and showing the relevance of his writings. Thank you.

The works of the great Andalucian theosopher Ibn Arabi (1165-1240) have an exceptional value. This does not mean that they are well-known. Despite translations, their immensity discourages the efforts, and it is necessary to refer back, sometimes, to those who dedicated their lives to read Ibn Arabi exhaustively to grasp, in a nutshell, the ultimate spirituality deployed in these thousands of pages. Michel Chodkiewicz has again, in his latest book, put forward a question concerning the integral interpretation of Ibn Arabi, by multiplying tiring readings of precision and knowledge. Let's dig in further: In this [latest] meditation he explores further meanings of the spiritual conquests of Mecca, this "ocean with no limits" of the gnosis which corresponds to the unlimited ocean of Quranic scripture. Michel Chodkiewicz proposes, for those who know how to read it, a thesis on Islam and the destiny of its Community. Thence we have at our hands a guide to access the writings of Ibn Arabi, and command a most instructed, authoritative, judgement on the essence of "submission" or "obedience" to God, the ultimate attitude of whoever wants to be a Muslim.

It is astounding that of the numerous authors who commented on Ibn Arabi, and those who cited him, and those who praised him, in Sunni Islam and in Shi'i Islam, never conceived the project to elucidate, publically, the scheme of Ibn Arabi's major work. Michel Chodkiewicz discovers that this [the absence of such a general review] is neither due to ignorance, nor is the consequence of some amateurism, but is due to an esoteric reading [of Islam] guarded in secrecy. One must note that this dangerous word has a very precise meaning: Reading Ibn Arabi is not throwing words haphazard with an arbitrary meaning which might mean love. This is a manifestation of hidden and complex relations [with the One] which consider [in their expressions] the veiled structures of the Book and thought.

Here is what Michel Chodkiewicz proves in detail: The structure of thought is always governed by the rigourous structures, infinite in power, of the Quranic text. Put in other words, there exists a conscious homology, a munitious correspondence between the order of the Surahs, cut into verses, the pauses in the reading of such verses, sometimes even between isolated words in the Quran and the order of the chapters, their themes, the intention that guides them or the inspiration that they yield. The structure of these spiritual Conquests (Futuhat) is the same as that
of the Holy Quran.

What are then the results? First, we have to renounce the claim that "Ibn Arabi's method, the method of this grand Sufi, is equivalent in the Sunnite understanding to the exegesis of extremist Shiites: The Ta'wil (interpretation)." If the Ismailites of Alamout, for exemple, conceived that exegetic understanding of the holy book amounts to transgression and an abrogation of the letter of the faith [the french text here is very confusing] the same does not hold in Ibn Arabi's understanding. In fact,
Ismailite Shiites value the letter of the faith by easing the symbol of the haqiqa, essential reality of the divine expression. [This understanding] makes it necessary [for Ismailites] to effect a metamorphosis of the [original meanings of the Quranic text], and bring about, under the guise of apparent meanings, a series of hidden understandings, sometimes out of touch with the spirit of the original text. In such a view, the haqiqa is no longer Law (the Sharia) itself, it is not even the legal body of the religion ordaining private and public obligations. [Haqiqa] is then the antithesis: the abolition of this same religious legal binding.

The [Quranic] text identifies Law

The view of Ibn Arabi is then the complete opposite: Text, mystical inspiration, and "devoilement" (Kashf - "Divine Unveiling") are rigourously put to the ultimate judgement of the Quranic text. The text is the norm in this quest. The letter of the book governs the order of the symbols (thence the sequence of theophanies is dictated by the verses of the second surah). [sic -- actually third]. In the final analysis, it is the letter, identified with the law, that formulates the essential truth of the verbium, "Law is not the symbol of the haqiqa, it is the haqiqa." Let's stress here that Michel Chodkiewicz includes a remarkable critique of allegorism, targetting Philon of Alexandria, paralleling the works of Benny Levy, a Jewish scholar, in his "le Logos et la Lettre". This yields
a second consequence, namely that the gnosis of Ibn Arabi is a call to a "state of childhood" which is the condition for a testing of litteral interpretation, to a practice that is based on the verses [of the Quran].

This richness of Parole yields a realisation of the whole architecture of the spiritual states of prayer, or the [complete] submission of the faithful to his Lord, expressing the eternal state of mankind.

More than a legalism, reverting to Law (Shari'a) is a discovery of the ontological status, the 'Ubudiyyah, which constitutes as such the state of the servant ('abd). We will read [in "Oceans with no limits"] vibrant pages where Michel Chodkiewicz relates the silence of free-will, the silence of intelligence, and the silence of the being. Such will be the authentic mystical experience, where the beings join the "unique being" (Ittihad). Law (Sharia) is then the vehicle. Michel Chodkiewicz proposes, in Ibn Arabi, a modal of the Islamic conscience, between two perils of pseudo--litteralism of exoterist doctors of the faith ([official] Saudi Islam ?) and messianic Shiite exigesis. In this understanding, Ibn Arabi is viewed at the origin of an irenic [conducive to or operating toward peace or conciliation] legality. Is it true that the whole debate [in Islam] revolves around this [central] theme: The spiritual realization of Islam. Does is essentially pass through Law (Sharia) or does it suppose the antithesis of the Law (the Imam for Shi'ites for example) ?

Whose "Law" are we talking about? Don't we have many different versions of divine "Law" throughout Islamic world? We have 4 different schools of "Law" and each one claims to have knowledge about the "Law". I find nothing divine about these jurisprudents and their "Law". I always ask myself how do we know what these scholars say is really the "Law" and what Allah wants? Do these scholars have a direct channel to God, if they do why is their views so different from each other, some even accuse each other of being worse thing that has happened to Islam. I don't say that there isn't any such a thing as the "Law" but I do believe that these scholars do not have anyway of knowing what this"Law" is. If you ask 100 Moslems a question about a hot modern topic, say, stem-cell issue, you will get 100 different answers, well which one of these is really the "Law" and which one isn't? Who will have the authority to Judge? Scholars? they are just as confused and scattered as the rest of us. Based on this observation, I have fundamental problems with the notion of "Law". "Law" like absolute motion can not be detected. What we have is "law" and many versions of them too and no one version is better than the other. None of these laws are more divine than any other laws that we see floating around. The problem is as soon as you turn a "law" into the "Law" then you setup stage for fanaticism, discrimination, murder, killings, etc all in the name of God. I believe that prophet Muhammad knew what the "Law" was and he could tell us what the "Law" would be in each new situation, but the rest of these scholars are normal human beings who want to play God. I doubt it that modern 21st century civilization would buy into such a thing. So lets concentrate on the man made "law", and not on the divine "Law" which is a very troublesome notion. One can only talk about "Law" if they have direct channel to divine mind, and I don't know of anyone other than Prophet Muhammad who qualified for this. Sufi folks, like Ibne' Al-Arabi claim to have some sort of contact with divine but that is debatable. Besides many of these Sufi masters themselves were the followers of one the four school of laws and never claimed to be a "law" master. Speaking of the 4 dominant schools of law in Islamic world, that was purely arbitrary. I have never found anything in Quran or tradition to limit schools to 4. History tells us that some king somewhere who were afraid of civil war in his kingdom, because followers of different "laws" were at each other's throat, decided to limit the number to 4, why 4? I don't know, maybe one for each of his wives, who knows and who cares. Probably he followed what the Romans did in preventing religious war in their kingdom by eliminating all versions of bibles and limiting it to four bibles. At any rate, there is as much meaning to the "Law" as there is to the the "Bible", both exist but we do not have access to it, what is among us is niether the "Law" nor the "Bible". If Allah wanted us to know about "Law" he would have given Prophet an unlimited life span, or would have created many prophets, like he did for Jews after Moses, to tell us of His Laws.