1 [© James W. Morris. This is an unrevised, scanned version of an article which has been published, with revisions and corrections, as indicated below. ‘Ibn Arabî and His Interpreters,’ Part II-B. Originally appeared in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 107 (1987), pp. 101-119. Part II-A originally appeared in JAOS, vol. 106 (1986), pp. 733-756; and Part I in JAOS, vol. 106 (1986), pp. 539-551. If citing or distributing in any format, please include full reference to the actual corrected original publication. Thank you.]
IBN ‘ARABI AND HIS INTERPRETERS PART II (CONCLUSION): INFLUENCES AND INTERPRETATIONS JAMES WINSTON MORRIS INSTITUTE OF ISMAILI STUDIES, PARIS
Concluding our survey of major historical tendencies in the interpretation and reception of Ibn ‘Arabî’s writings in various traditions of later Islamic thought, as illustrated by recent translations and related studies, this final section deals with representative figures in the more philosophic ‘school’ founded by Qûnawî (Kâshânî, H. Âmulî, and Jîlî); in mystical poetry (Jâmî, ‘Irâqî, and others) and philosophy (Mullâ Sadrâ and his successors); and with the more recent Sufi writings of ‘Abd al-Qâdir al-Jazâ’irî, who recapitulates and integrates many of these traditions while returning to the spiritual sources and intentions underlying Ibn ‘Arabî’s own work and teaching.
IV [Cont.]
‘Abd al-Razzâq al-Kâshânî (d. ca. 736/1335) has almost certainly been the most
widely read (and cited) of these early interpreters of Ibn ‘Arabî, to such an extent that much of the subsequent discussion of ‘Ibn ‘Arabî’s’ thought and doctrine, whether in the Eastern Islamic world or in the modern West, can best be understood as in fact a reference to Kâshânî’s writings—especially where writers are expounding what they take to be Ibn ‘Arabî’s ‘system’ or philosophic ‘doctrine’ (e.g., of wahdat al-wujûd).72 In this regard, the modern attribution to Ibn
72
This is even true to a certain extent of T. Izutsu’s fundamental study of Ibn ‘Arabî’s thought, Sufism and Taoism... (see Part I, n. 6 above). which, as the author himself stresses in the Introduction, is heavily reliant on Kâshânî’s commentary, usually citing it at the same time as the text of the Fusûs al-Hikam. (This is another illustration of the characteristic pedagogical