İsmail Sirâceddin Şirvânî’nin (öl. 1269/1853) Vahdet-i Vücûd ile Vahdet-i Şuhûd Yorumu
Ismāʽīl Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī’s (d. 1034/1624) Commentary on Waḥdah al-wujūd and Waḥdah al-shuhūd

Summary/Abstract: Since the inception of the science of Kalām (Islamic Theology) to this day, the early Sufis began to set themselves apart in their prodigious emphasis on the existence of the ‘possible’ (mumkin) with expressions such as, “I did not see anything, but God,” and “I performed the Hajj-pilgrimage, [yet] I did not see the House [of the Kaʽbah], I saw [only] the Master of the House.” Thereafter, this distinction culminated with Ibn al-‘Arabī (d. 638/1240) that he disregards the existence of the ‘possible things’ (mumkināt), that is to say, in their divergent understanding of God’s Oneness (tawḥīd) based on absolute unity (absolute existence). The concept of unity based on absolute existence, where the existence of the ‘possible things’ is disregarded, was then re-interpreted around the concept of mushāhadah (witnessing) by Imām Rabbānī (d. 1034/1624) and he reemphasized the truth of the existence of the ‘possible things’. On the other hand, Imām Rabbānī, accepted the thought of unity of existence (waḥdah al-wujūd) which he attributed to Ibn al-‘Arabī as a level visited in the beginning of sufi journey and regarded unity of vision (waḥdah al-shuhūd) as the ending of the Sufi journey. Based on this determination, he criticized the idea of unity of existence. It is possible to extend the reasons for Imām Rabbānī’s criticism on unity of existence. In this study, it is tried to determine the basics of unity of existence and unity of vision from the Sufi thought in the early period, based on the comments on oneness by the early period sufists. In making this determination, the views Ismāʽīl Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī (d. 1269/1853), who wrote forty-two treatises based on the idea of unity of vision, were used. Helpful element in these determinations is that Ismāʽīl Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī gathered the inter-pretations of Oneness formed by the Sufis under three groups. (i) Interpretation of Oneness based on binary real assets. This interpretation is the interpretation of the Oneness by the Sufis before Ibn al-‘Arabī, which is similar to the interpretation of theologians (ii) Unification of Oneness based on unity in observation, not in existence. This interpretation is the interpretation of One-ness accepted by the Mujaddidī Sufis, especially Imām Rabbānī/unity of vision. (iii) Oneness interpretation based on unity in existence. This interpretation is the interpretation of the One-ness accepted by Ibn al-‘Arabī and Akbari Sufis/unity of existence. In the first part though al-Shirwānī refers to the first period Sufis and in the second part he points to waḥdah al-shuhūd (unity of vision). But he did not purpose such conceptualization. He made it clear that the under-standing of tawhid (oneness) of the third part belonged to the pro waḥdah al-shuhūd (unity of existence) Sufis.According to al-Shirwānī, the views of the Sufis in the first group on existence and world can be summarized as follows: The real world is present as a substance or accidents with the creation of Allah. Sufis in this group regard their existence as lent and shadow-imagination. They forget his/her assets borrowed at the time of annihilation and union, and their attachment to the world and thinks of the world as mirage and say: ‘There is none but Allah in the being.’ At the time of clearness and recognition they wear their clothes, which they borrow at the time of the clearness (sahw) and recognition (farq) and assume the existence of the realm and say: 'There is no deity other than Allah.' These are those who follow the Kitab, Sunnah and the Consensus of Islamic scholars (Ijmā’), and the theologians agreeing to the Ahl al-Sunnah about the existence of the world. According to al-Shirwānī, the point where the theologians are separated from the Sufis in this group is the following: Theologians only consider the realms of the world and are capable of clearness (sahw). Sufis, on the other hand, look at trance and abstinence, because the Sufis are clearness (sahw) and transience (mahw/fanā) people. The discussion between this group of Sufis and the theologians is not actual, but literal. According to al-Shirwānī, the opinion of the Sufis in the second group on existence and world can be summarized as follows: World externally exists. A shadow being dependent to Haqq means that the shadow being exists like the original. So, the realm is a shadow that stretches from Haqq. In other words, the world is a shadow that lies by the spiritual side of Right which does not require the space. The attributes of the Haqq are reflected in this shade. The attributes of the world consist of the reflection of the attributes of the Haqq. For example, a person’s might is a reflection of the might of the Haqq. Self of a person is the shadow of the Haqq’s self (dhat), and his attributes are the reflection of His attributes. According to al-Shirwānī, the view on existence and world of Sufis in the third group can be summarized as follows: There is no real external existence for the world. On the contrary, the world only has a cognitive existence. According to al-Shirwānī, the Sufis in this group claim that the things seen from the shadow entity are in the rank of Haqq, and these things are merely absent in nafs al-amr. According to this view, the reality of the realm is the mirror for the reality of Allah. Therefore, they qualify necessarily existence (Vājib al-vujud) in terms of necessary and possible attributes. According to al-Shirwānī, even though those who claim this view are from those who have reached the the Haqq, there will be a number of ecclesiastical and rational obstacles. According to these Sufis, who accept the unity of exist-ence, the external existence is only one, and that is the existence of Supreme Allah. Apart from Him is simply non-existence. When it comes to the contribution of al-Shirwānī's Risāles to the literature of unity of existence and unity of vision, the context of the first six treatises, especially on monotheism, has allowed us to evaluate the views of the Sufis from the first period to his times. The treatises of al-Shirwānī are also valuable in terms of identifying the differences between the sufi conceptions of tawhid in tripartite and presenting them in comparison with theologians. The conclusion that can be drawn from this tripartite division of al-Shirwānī is that the understanding of tawhid, which is mentioned in the first and second parts, is devoid of any rational and religious deficiencies. It is consistent with theologians’ understanding of tawhid. According to him, the understanding of Oneness, which is mentioned in the third group, is not in agreement with the theologians’ under-standing of Oneness with the rational and ecclesiastical obstacles. However, according to him, it is necessary to leave what they mean by unity of existence to its followers, themselves. As it is understood from Sirāj al-Dīn al-Shirwānī’s presentation in Risālas, the opinions of Imām Rabbānī about tawhid lie somewhere between the opinions of Ibn al-‘Arabī and theologians.

• Details
• Contents