Qasimi Sufi

Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī and the Salafi Approach to Sufism
Author(s): Mun'im Sirry

Source: Die Welt des Islams, Vol. 51, Issue 1 (2011), pp. 75-108
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41105370
Accessed: 11-08-2017 18:02 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41105370?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Die Welt des
Islams
This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:02:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
'~M S DIE
WELT DES
BRILL Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108 islams
Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï and the Salafi App

to Sufism
Mun'im Sirry*
Chicago, IL
Abstract
Ihis article problematizes the general assumption about the inherent anti-Suh
tendency of the Salafiyya by looking closely at the thought of the Syrian Salafi
thinker Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï. The primary text analysed in this article is a brief
chapter of Qâsimï s book DaWil al-tawhïd, entitled Butlän al-hulül wa-l-ittihâd
(The Invalidity of Incarnation and Union). Here Qâsimï discusses the notions of
hulül (incarnation) and ittihâd (union), and defends the idea of wahdat al-wujüd
(unity of being) attributed to the shaykh akbar Ibn cArabï which led Qâsimï to
stand up against the shaykh al-islâm Ibn Taymiyya who accused Ibn c Arabi of being
a heretic. This article discusses Qâsimï's defense of Ibn 'Arabi within a broader
context of the Salafi approach to Sufism. In this context, the case of Qâsimï
presents us with an insight that the Salafis took a more nuanced position than is
sometimes supposed. We will conclude with a brief reflection on how we could
situate Qâsimï s view of Ibn 'Arabï within the ongoing debate about the relationship
between the Salafiyya and Sufism in more recent scholarship.
Keywords
Salafiyya, Salafism, Sufism, anti-Sufis, Islamic reform, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï,

Ibn 'Arabï, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Alusï, Muhammad (Abduh, Rashïd Rida, wahdat
al-wujüdy ittihädy hulül
* Authors Note: I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Malika Zeghal without
whose critical comments and guidance this study would not have been possible. My thanks
should also go to my ustädh Michael Sells, with whom I read and studied Ibn 'Arabi s Fusùs
al-hikam. I am indebted to my dear friends, Joshua Mabra and Emran el-Badawi, for their
insights and suggestions during the process of revising this article. I have also benefited
from an ongoing debate in recent publications that relate to some aspect of this article, a
number of which were noted by Stefan Reichmuth and anonymous reviewers, to whom
I would like to express my thanks. They can, of course, in no way be held responsible for
any ideas expressed in this article.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 201 1 DOI: 10.1 163/15700601 1X556102
76 M. Sirry / Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108
The Salafiyya, one of the most influential modern Islamic reform move-
ments, has generally been viewed as the relentless enemy of Sufism.
Mark Sedgwick argues that "The significance of Salafism for anti-Sufism
was not just that instead of combating rationalism it accepted and even
encouraged it, but it was also actively anti-Sufi."1 The most recent
scholarly discussion of anti-Sufi movements took place at the interna-
tional conference on "Sufism and its Opponents", held in Utrecht,
Netherlands, in May 1995 and was published under the title "Islamic
Mysticism Contested". Much of the conferences discussion focused on
anti-Sufi movements, including "the Salafiyya for whom mysticism
went against their Puritanism and scripturalism."2 Seeing Salafiyya and
Sufism as antithetical is also prevalent among Muslim authors.3 Whereas
most scholars tend to think of Salafiyya and Sufism as diametrically
opposed, this article questions the notion that the Salafiyya movement
was inherently anti-Sufi.
The main argument put forward here is that the Salafis took a more
nuanced position towards Sufism than is sometimes supposed. We will
explore the diversity of the Salafi approach to Sufism by examining an
often overlooked chapter in a work called DalâHl al-tawhïd written by
Syrian Salafi thinker Jamal al-Dïn al-Qàsimï (d. 1914). In this chapter,
entitled Butlän al-hulül wa-1-ittihäd (The Invalidity of Incarnation and
Union), Qàsimï puts forth a complex view of Sufism, what makes it
difficult to simply label him an anti-Sufi reformist. While attacking
what he considers reprehensible innovations {bida') of Sufi practices,
n Mark Sedgwick, "In Search of a Counter-Reformation: Anti-Sufi Stereotypes and the

Budshishiyyas Response", in Michaelle Browers & Charles Kurzman (eds.), An Islamic
Reformation? (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004), 130.
2) Josef van Ess, "Sufism and Its Opponents: Reflections on Topoi, Tribulations, and
Transformations", in Frederick de Jong & Bernd Radtke (eds.), Islamic Mysticism Contested:
Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 39. In addition to the
Salafiyya, van Ess discusses two other anti-Sufi forces, namely, "the political reformers for
whom it [Sufism] went against their secularism and nationalism, and the Europeans for
whom it went against their imperialism and colonialism."
3) See, for example, Mustafa Hilmï, al-Tasawwuf wa-1-ittijäh al-salafi fi lJasr al-hadïth
(Alexandria: Dar al-DaSva, 1982); cAbd al-Latïf Muhammad al-'Abd, al-Tasawwuffi l-islâm
wa-ahamm al-ïtiràdât (alayhi (Cairo: Dâr al-Thaqâfa, 1986); {Abd al-Hâfiz b. al-Mâlik
{Abd al-Haqq al-Makkï, Mawqifa'immat al-haraka al-salafiyya min al-süfiyya wa-l-tasawwuf
(Cairo: Dar al-Saläm, 1988).
M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108 77
Qâsimï praises and even defends the more sober teachings and practices
of some of the early Sufis. The questions which thus arise are as follows:
What kind of Sufism did Qâsimï accommodate? Who were the Sufis
that he rejected and/or accepted? And finally, what accounts for his
defense of Ibn cArabï's (d. 1240) idea of wahdat al-wujüdi
Despite his criticism of popular Sufi practices, Qâsimï, like a num-
ber of other Salafi reformers, remained committed to Sufi revivalist
ideas. This is particularly evident in his defense of Ibn cArabfs concept
of wahdat al-wujüd, which put him in opposition to the famed Ibn
Taymiyya (d. 1328), a central figure for the Salafiyya movement. None-
theless, Qâsimï was strongly committed to reviving the general trends
of Ibn Taymiyyas thought, albeit trying to fuse them with a more
positive view of Sufism.
Biographical Sketch
Qâsimï was born in Damascus to a family of 'ulama' in 1866 and, in

due time, became the most proponent religious reformer in late
Ottoman Syria.4 Itzchak Weismann rightly calls Qâsimï "the mouth-
piece of the early Damascene Salafiyya".5 Qâsimï studied with the pres-
tigious 'ulama' and Sufis of his time. Enjoying a traditional 'ulama'
education, he began by memorizing the Qur'än, studied tafsir and
finally was appointed as the Shâficï prayer leader at the 'Annaba mosque
at the age of 20. It is not clear when he entered the circle of the Salafiyya
and who inspired him. During his earlier life, he was "following the
path of Naqshbandï order".6 David Commins sees the year 1888 as
marking his entrance into Salafi circles, as it was in this year that he
composed a recitation in honor of the Prophet s birthday (mawlid
al-nabí).7 Although this text excluded customary anecdotes of a
4) Nizär Abäzä, Jamal al-Din al-Qäsimi: Ahad 'ulama' al-isläh al-hadïth fï l-Shâm
(Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 1997), 67.
5) Itzchak Weismann, The Naqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Sufi
Tradition (New York: Routledge, 2007), 143.
6) Ibid., 304.
7) David Dean Commins, Islamic Reform: Politics and Social Change in Late Ottoman Syria
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 46.
78 M Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108
miraculous and superstitious kind which points to its Salafi nature, he

identifies himself at the end of the text as "Muhammad Jamal al-Dïn
Abu 1-Faraj al-Qâsimï al-Ashcarï al-Dimashqï al-Naqshbandï al-Khâlidï
al-ShâfiT,8 which implies that he still associated himself with the
Naqshbandï Sufi order.
However, Qâsimïs identification with a Sufi order should not sur-
prise us, considering that such orders were found everywhere in Damas-
cus at this time.9 In late Ottoman Islam, Sufism flourished - as it had
for centuries - among the elites and among the masses, having become
an integral part of Ottoman religious life.10 Sufi shaykhs represented an
established religious authority, in some ways even more so than the
non-Sufi 'ulama'. In fact, most of the so-called "Salafis" of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a clear Sufi background.
Qäsimfs favorable view of the writings of such celebrated Sufis as
Ghazâlï (d. 1 1 1 1) or Ibn 'Arabi is a product of this very environment,
and he, like other Salafis, was well versed in the esoteric and ascetic
writings of Sufi scholars.
Qâsimï was first introduced to Sufism by Muhammad al-Khânï (d.
1 898), the leading shaykh of the Naqshbandï order with whom he also
studied from 1885-1891, calling him "one of the most respected shaykhs
from whom I benefited [by attending] their lessons, emulating their
manners and being blessed by accompanying them."11 It was due to his
association with Khânï that Qâsimï was introduced to Sufi dhikr cer-
emonies, as well as to the writings of Ibn 'Arabï. Nevertheless, he later
left Khânï s circle for unspecified reasons (li-amrin ma) which may have
been a result of the general spread of the rationalist ideas and attitudes
that were prominent during this time.12
8) Nizär Abäzä, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï, 304.

9) For a detailed discussion of the widespread of Naqshbandïs in the Ottoman world from
the second half of the fifteenth through eighteenth centuries, see Dina Le Gall, A Culture
of Sufism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2005).
10) Sedgwick, "In Search of a Counter- Reformation ', 126.
1 1) Zäfir al-Qâsimï, Jamal al-Din al-Qâsimï wa-'asruhü (Damascus: Maktaba Atlas, 1 965),
27.
12) Ibid. See also Itzchak Weismann, Taste of Modernity: Sufism, Salafiyya, andArabism in
late Ottoman Damascus (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 278.
M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108 79
His abandonment of the Naqshbandï path did not prevent Qâsimï

from maintaining a deep reverence for his old master, and he continued
to visit Khânï, who cherished him and paid him increasing respect. At
this point in time he was more inclined to the study of hadïth, a field
that connected him with Ahmad al-Shâttï (d.1898), and through him
probably also with the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya. Moreover, he became
a close associate of 'Abd al-Razzäq al-Baytär (d. 1917), Ahmad al-Jazâ'irï
(d. 1902), Tähir al-Jazâ'irï (d. 1920) and others who had been known
for their reformist ideas and activities.13 It was this intellectual environ-
ment in Damascus that led Qâsimï to turn to the teachings of Ibn

Taymiyya. Besides, Qâsimï extended his intellectual networks abroad
by establishing ties with the reformist Alûsï family of Baghdad, and also
with Muhammad cAbduh (d. 1905) and Rashïd Rida (d. 1935) in
Egypt. In 1903 he, along with Baytär, visited Egypt and met with both
of them. During his four- week stay in Cairo, he saw 'Abduh frequently
and attended a number of his lessons at al-Azhar. Upon his return to
Damascus, Qâsimï prepared a summary of Ghazâlîs masterpiece Ihyä*
(ulüm al-dïn as recommended by cAbduh.
Taking into account the networks of scholars that he established and
engaged, it seems clear that Qâsimï did not derive his vision of the
Salafiyya from Muhammad 'Abduh and Rashïd Rida as Skovgaard-
Peterson claims.14 Instead, this influence came more directly through
the Alûsï family in Baghdad, with whom he had associated before he
made the acquaintance of cAbduh and Rida. The importance of the
Alùsïs on Qâsimï s thought is evident in the newly published correspon-
dence between him and Mahmùd Shukrï al-Alûsï (d. 1924).15 In fact,
Qâsimï s defense of Ibn cArabï can be traced back to the view of Abu
1-Thanä' al-Alûsï (d. 1854), the grandfather of Mahmud Shukrï, who
is nowadays generally claimed as "one of the influential ancestors of
13) Abäzä, Jamal al-Dïn al-Oäsimu 108f.

14) "The Syrian scholar, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï (1866-1914) is one of the most important
representatives in Damascus of the well-known reform movement, Salafiya, which derives
from Jamal al-Dïn al-Afghânï and Muhammad (Abduh." See Jakob Skovgaard-Peterson,
Defining Islam for the Egyptian State: Muftis and Fatwâs of the Dar al-Iftä (Leiden: Brill,
1997), 84.
15) See Muhammad b. Nàsir al-'Ajmï (ed.), al-Rasä'il al-mutabädila bayna Jamal al-Dïn
al-Qâsimï wa-Mahmüd Shukrï al-Alûsï (Beirut: Dar al-Bashä'ir al-Islämiyya, 2001).
80 M Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108
modern Salafiyya".16 Abu 1-Thanâ3 was well-known for his endeavors to

revive the intellectual legacy of Ibn Taymiyya. Yet, in spite of the fact
that he embraced a range of Ibn Taymiyyas ideas and wrote a treatise
on his virtues, Abu 1-Thanä' remained convinced of Ibn 'Arabï's saint-
hood (waldya) and believed in the notion of wahdat al-wujüd. His son,
Nu'mân Khayr al-Dïn al-Alùsï (d. 1899), wrote a treatise entitled Jald}
al-aynaynfi muhâkamat al-Ahmadayn (Revealing to the Eyes the Trial
of the Two Ahmads) which was intended to defend Ibn Taymiyya
against the severe attack of one of his major detractors, the sixteenth-
century Shâfi'ï scholar Ahmad b. Hajar al-Haytamï (d. 1567).17 Nev-
ertheless, his defense of , Ibn Taymiyya did not stop him from expressing
his disagreement with the latter concerning the mystical thought of Ibn
cArabï.
Unlike his model, then, Nucmän Alüsi did not denounce Ibn 'Arabi.
Instead, he claimed to exonerate him of any charges of heresy:
I am among those who think well of the greatest master Muhyï 1-Dïn [Ibn
(Arabï] and do not count myself among his detractors, although I am among
those who forbid reading those of his books whose literal expressions contradict
the sharVa}*
Elsewhere he embarked on a delicate and elaborate reconstruction of

the various understandings of Ibn 'Arabïs idea of wahdat al-wujüd.
Nucmän divided the 'ulama' into three categories with respect to their
approaches to Ibn 'Arabi : (1) those who called him a heretic because
of his utterances that contradict the sharVa, (2) those who regarded him
among the great saints (awliya}) and mujtahidïn, and (3) those who
trusted his sainthood but were cautious of his works.19 Nu'mans own
position seems to have been that Ibn cArabis work should not be
16) Basheer M. Nafi, "Abu al-Thana' al-Alusi: an Alim, Ottoman Mufti, and Exegete of the
Qur'an", IJMES, 34 (2002), 466.
17) For a detailed discussion of this, see Basheer M. Nafi, "Salafism Revived: Nu'mân
al-Alùsï and the Trial of Two Ahmads", WI, 49 (2009), 49-97.
18) Nu'män Khayr al-Dïn al-Alùsï, Jala' al-'aynayn fi muhâkamat Ahmadayn (Beirut: Dar
al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, n. d.), 68. See also Itzchak Weismann, "Genealogies of Funda-
mentalism: Salafi Discourse in Nineteenth-Century Baghdad", British Journal of Middle
Eastern Studies, 36 (2009), 274.
19) Nu'män Alùsï, Jala' al-'aynayn, 69-78.
M Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108 8 1
discarded altogether because "some of his ideas have been widely

accepted and are attested by reason (mdqül) and textual evidence
(manqui)"20 It seems reasonable to argue that the Alùsï family exerted
tremendous influence on Qâsimï s approach to Sufism, especially in his
defense of Ibn 'Arabï. Qâsimï belongs to what Itzchak Weismann has
called "the Salafiyya [which] was not a merely offshoot of the Modernist
trend in Cairo, but rather a separate trend that emerged among the
reformist-minded 'ulama' in the Arab provinces of the late Ottoman
Empire."21 As we will see later, Qâsimï s view of Ibn 'Arabi differs sig-
nificantly from that of cAbduh and Rida.
Within the reformist circles of Damascus at that time, Qâsimï was
the most prolific writer. It is reported that he wrote more than a hun-
dred books, chief among them a Qur'an commentary called Mahâsin
al-ta'wïl and a hadïth work entitled Qawä'id al-tahdith. His literary
abilities are further highlighted by the fact that he composed a short
biography of the Prophet Muhammad during a four- week stay in Cairo
which was also praised by Rida in his journal al-Manär a few months
later. The coverage which he received in Ridas journal broadened
Qâsimï s audience, making him known far beyond Damascus and Bei-
rut.22 Nonetheless, Qâsimï s call for ijtihäd in his writings had caused
him to suffer persecution at the hand of some official 'ulama' m Damas-
cus, since religious reform threatened the latter's authority. When
Qâsimï published a collection of epistles on "the principles of jurispru-
dence" (usui al-fiqh) which included Ibn c Arabï s advocacy of ijtihâd
and rejection of taqlïd, some official 'ulama' accused him of harming
society by departing from the "accepted schools" of legal thought. Ten-
sions between Qâsimï and the mainstream 'ulama' took off in 1906
when Qâsimï published a chapter on legal theory from Ibn cArabïs
magnum opus, al-Futühät al-makkiyya. The publication disturbed the
conservatives because the selections put forth principles that deviated
from those of the four recognized legal schools. At the same time this
article won the attention of progressive-minded scholars and students,
20) Ibid., 75.

21) See Itzchak Weismann, "Between Sufi Reformism and Modernist Rationalism - A
Reappraisal of the Origins of the Salafiyya from the Damascus Angle", WI, 41 (2001), 208.
22) Commins, Islamic Reform, 62.
82 M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108
and after its publication many sought out Qâsimï to discuss his ideas
with him.
However, the conservative 'ulama' were taunted by the excerpt from
Ibn 'Arabï s work. As'ad al-Sähib, a shaykh of the Naqshbandï order,
tried to convince the Ottoman governor to punish Qâsimï for publish-
ing these essays. Sähib complained to Shukrï Pasha, the military gov-
ernor of Aleppo, that the essays did great harm, and he reminded him
that the last governor had threatened to exile Qâsimï for advocating
ijtihädP Sähib was likely referring to an 1895 incident known as the
"mujtahids' incident" (hâdithat al-mujtahidïn), when a number of offi-
cial 'ulama' accused Qâsimï of advocating an independent madhhab
known as the "madhhab Jamâlï", that is, his own legal school apart from
the four recognized madhhabs.2A Qâsimï was summoned to the court
and later detained at the police station. During the interrogation in
front of a special investigative committee, Qâsimï was asked about his
involvement in the circle of Salafi reformists and whether he and other
Salafis rejected the legal opinions of the authoritative imams. He was
also questioned about his commentary of a work by the Egyptian Sufi
<Abd al-Wahhäb al-Sha'rânï (d. 1565), entitled Kashf al-ghumma.25
Sha'rânï was held in contempt by the mainstream 'ulama' because he,
like the Salafis, opposed an extreme partisanship for one s legal school
and blind adherence to the legal arguments of its founding scholars.
Additionally, Sha'rânï strongly condemned the view that the founders
of the madhhabs had direct access to divine knowledge and, therefore,
stated that they could not be considered infallible {ma' sum). He was
also known for his opposition to the Ottoman judicial system in Egypt
and considered the office oîqâdï (judge) and muhtasib (market inspec-
tor) as suspect on religious grounds.26
23) Ibid., 112f.

24) Abâzà, Jamal al-Din al-QäsimU 116; Commins, Islamic Reform, 50-55.
25) For a discussion of Sha'rânï and his influence among elite intellectual groups in Syria,
see Leila Hudson, "Reading al-Sha'rânï: The Sufi Genealogy of Islamic modernism in Late
Ottoman Damascus", Journal of Islamic Studies, 1 5 (2004), 39-68. On Shacrânï s view of
Ibn 'Arabï, see Richard McGregor, "Notes on the Transmission of Mystical Philosophy:
Ibn cArabï according to Abd al-Wahhab al-Sharani", in Todd Lawson (ed.), Reason and
Inspiration in Islam (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 380-394.
26) Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt (New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books, 1982), 242.
M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108 83
While the "mujtahids' incident" did not vindicate Salafiyya ^¿r.^, it

certainly brought Qâsimï a measure of celebrity he had not enjoyed
before. For the purpose of historical reconstruction, it can be said with
some confidence that the report of the mujtahids incident taking place
in 1895 indicates that Qâsimï entered the circle of Salafiyya some time
before that year. He turned to the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya and fol-
lowed him in vehemently attacking Sufi shaykhs, describing them in
the most emphatic words as electric wires that generate spiritual mad-
ness and melancholy among the people, and we also find him denounc-
ing certain Sufi practices, such as extreme asceticism, self-mortification,
and especially the visiting of saints' tombs in pursuance of their inter-
cession with God. Nevertheless, Qâsimï s biography and writings make
it evident that Sufism still held a central place in his reform program
and he did not reject it as a whole. As the mouthpiece of the emerging
Salafiyya in Damascus, Qâsimï offered a new attitude toward Sufism
while at the same time embracing the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya.27
Qâsimï and His Works on Sufism
When Qâsimï died in 1914, Rashïd Rida wrote an article in al-Manär

defending Qâsimï against those who accused him of not being reformist
enough. For Rida, Qâsimï followed and promoted the way of the salaf
{madhhab al-salaf) in his thought and works. "Qâsimï sought moder-
ation [Vtidät) and fairness (insäf) in matters of differences", wrote Rida,
"he also followed whatever the textual evidence {dalli) led him to
without disgracing or declaring the opponent as evil."28 However, the
middle way that Qâsimï chose, Rida argued, had put him in a difficult
situation. In fact he was labelled by protagonists of each of the two
extreme sides of belonging to the other one. For instance, some of
the Salafis accused him of contradicting the way of the salaf in his
book entitled Tärikh al-jahmiyya wa-l-mu'tazila for his apparently
sympathetic attitude toward the Jahmiyya. Qâsimï was also attacked
by some Shï£ïs even before the book was published. On this contro-
27) Weismann, "Between Sufi Reformism and Modernist Rationalism", 219.

28) Rashïd Rida, "Shaykh Muhammad Jamal al-Dïn al-Qäsimf , al-Manâr, 8, 17 (1914),
633.
84 M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108
versy, Rida noted: "No one has ever written a book on Muslim sects
which is more moderate than his/'29 It is worth mentioning that Ridas
assessment of Qâsimïs moderation is based mainly on the Dalâ' il
al-tawhìd, without reference, however, to the chapter on hulül and
ittihäd.
Rashïd Rida was not alone in his irreverence of Qâsimïs chapter on

butlän al-hulül wa-1-ittihäd, and recent scholarship has similarly over-
looked much of Qâsimï s views and writings about Sufism. Both David
Commins and Itzchak Weismann only briefly discuss Qâsimï's attitude
toward Sufism, arguing that "Qâsimï recorded his only explicit state-
ment on Sufism as a body of thought in an unpublished notebook."30
Weismann states that "Qâsimï rarely discussed Sufism and, in the few
cases in which he did so, he followed Ibn Taymiyya in vehemently
attacking the shaykhs of the popular orders."31 Accordingly, they fail to
discuss Qâsimï s view of hulül and ittihäd which he puts forth in the
Dalä'il al-tawhid which Rida actually acknowledged as one of Qâsimïs
most significant works. One year after its first publication in 1908, Rida
wrote in al-Manâr a brief review of it, saying that in it Qâsimï presented
an original reading of the works of such philosophers and theologians
as Ibn Miskawaih, Tusï, Farâbï, Ibn Rushd, Ghazàlï, Ibn 'Abd al-Salâm,
Ibn Taymiyya, and cAbduh.
In addition to the chapter on butlän al-hulül wa-1-ittihäd and the
unpublished notebook to which Commins alludes above, Qâsimï pro-
vides a lengthy discussion on many aspects of Sufi practices that he
considered as reprehensible innovation (bid(a) in his Isläh al-masäjid.
As will be discussed later, this book not only rejects certain Sufi practices
in Syria's mosques and elsewhere, but also deals with what he considered
as the accepted version of Sufism. For the moment it suffices to say that
Qâsimï did not make a sweeping generalization in his rejection of cer-
tain Sufi practices, but rather explained the extent to which those prac-
tices depart from early Sufi teachings. It is therefore difficult to accept
29) Ibid., 634.

30) Commins, Islamic Reform^ 80. Weismann acknowledges that his account of Qâsimï
is primarily based on Commins' work. See Weismann, Taste of Modernity ' 291-298.
M. Sirry/Die Welt des Islams 5 1 (2011) 75-108 85
Commins' assertion that Qâsimï did not devote much discussion on

Sufism except "in an unpublished notebook". It seems that Qâsimï was
not an exception among Muslim reformers in the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries who were attracted to Sufism in their earlier life
and later on became critical of the excesses of some Sufi orders. Some
of his other writings also reflect his concern about what he perceived
as outrageous in popular Sufi practice.
In 1901, Qâsimï published a book called al-Awräd al-ma'thüra, in
which he addresses the common practices among the Sufi orders of his
time, such as reciting new compositions during the ritual procession.
As Nizär Abäzä notes in his biographical work on Qâsimï, "this book
was written to refute several books on the same subject that were far
away from the tradition {sunna)!'02 Qâsimï also wrote a book called
Muntakhab al-tawassulät, published in 1902, which was also an attempt
to deter Muslims from non-traditional forms of prayer.33 In another
work, MawHzat al-mu'minïn min ihyâ* 'ulürn al-dïn, he attempted to
revive acceptable aspects of Sufi teachings as found in Ghazâlïs magnum
opus, Ihyä* lulüm al-dïn, which he summarizes. Nonetheless, he censors
the text, omitting strange stories and weak hadiths, while weaving dis-
cussions of Salafi views into the text. In his introduction, Qâsimï
acknowledged that it was Muhammad 'Abduh, the grand mufti of
Egypt, who suggested to him to write this book.34 It thus seems plau-
sible that Qâsimï wrote MawHzat al-mu'minin min ihyä' culüm ai-din
in order to make Ghazâlïs masterpiece more accessible to the general
public as an example of legitimate Sufism.
We can infer from this brief exploration that Qâsimï s writings on
Sufism can be divided into two categories. Some of his works criticize
certain Sufi practices since he thought they deviated from the pristine
teachings of Islam and the practices of the early Sufis. Qâsimï was care-
ful not to target any specific group of people, for instance, by naming
them. Instead he chose to target certain practices. His other works are
concerned with reviving the "true" teachings and doctrines of Sufis, as
32) Abäzä, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimi, 255.

33) Ibid., 278.
M; bee Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï, Maw izat al-mu'minïn min ihyä' (ulüm al-dïn (Damascus:
Darb. Kathïr, 2001), 7f.
86 M Sirry/Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108
can be seen in MawHzat al-muïminïn. In these writings Qâsimï men-

tions the names of those Sufis whose teachings and views he wanted to
uphold or defend, namely Ghazâlï and Ibn cArabï. However, he avoids
mentioning names when criticizing individual Sufi shaykhs, and instead
focuses his criticism on their innovative practices.
In the light of the above analysis, I would disagree with Itzchak
Weismanns assertion that Qâsimï acknowledges "Ibn cArabï s merits as
a theologian and jurist, who espoused views that generally corresponded
with those of the Salafis' in the matters of tawhtd and ijtihâd, rather
than as a Sufi."35 Elsewhere, Weismann even writes: "the attempt to
present Ibn 'Arabfs eminence as resting on theology and jurisprudence
rather than on Sufism is a clear indication that Qâsimï no longer
regarded the Akbari theosophy as an adequate basis for the reform of
Islam."36 As will be discussed later, especially with a reference to his
chapter on hulül and ittihäd, Qâsimï clearly defended Ibn 'Arabï as a
Sufi against the severe attacks of Ibn Taymiyya, rather than as a theo-
logian or jurist, as Weismann claims. It seems clear that he regarded
Ibn cArabï as an authoritative source of Sufism and hence used his works
to attack the excessive tendencies found in popular Sufi practices. It is
this appreciation of Ibn 'Arabïs theosophical thought that makes
Qâsimï distinct from other Salafis' approaches to Sufism.
In Defense of Ibn "Arabi
Qâsimï s views on Ghazâlï and Ibn cArabï deserve further elaboration

and contextualization as they tell us about his position with regard to
Sufism. Viewing the Sufis with a somewhat moderate approach char-
acterized his entire thought; as Weismann notes, "he sought to delineate
a middle way between their opponents, who conclude from their utter-
ances that they were infidels, and their admirers, who regard their path
as the essence and goal of Islam."37 Since Ibn 'Arabï has usually been
associated with the idea of wahdat al-wujüd, although he never used
the term, it is understandable that Qâsimï alluded to him in his
35) Weismann, Taste of Modernity, 294.

36) Weismann, "Between Sufi Reformism and Modernist Rationalism ,219.
37) Weismann, Taste of Modernity, 294.
discussion on the invalidity of hulül and ittihäd. It is striking that

Qâsimï not only defended Ibn cArabï, but also cited him as an opponent
of these ideas. We will first examine what Qâsimï meant by them and
see whether the two terms are somehow related to the idea of wahdat
al-wujüd, and then discuss Ibn cArabïs position as expounded in the
DaläHl al-tawhid as well as in Qâsimï s unpublished notebook. We will
also identify issues where he disagreed with Ibn Taymiyya concerning
the doctrine of wahdat al-wujüd, and then look at the grounds of his
critique of Ibn Taymiyya.
Qâsimï gave various descriptive definitions of the term ittihäd, how-
ever, he did not explain what he meant by hulül. Thus, it cannot be
excluded that he viewed hulül and ittihäd as synonymous. From the
point of view of Islamic mysticism, ittihäd is generally understood as
"the mystical union of the soul with God."38 As Ibn 'Arabi defines it,
" ittihäd takes place when two essences become one, whether servant or
Lord",39 which suggests a mystical union in which one essence is sub-
sumed or annihilated in the other. Qâsimï argued that ittihäd could be
understood in three ways. First, "a thing that becomes something else
without losing anything from it, which is absolutely impossible for both
God and the other."40 He based his argument on the ground that the
infusion of two things falls into three possibilities: the two things still
remain, and hence there is no infusion; both are annihilated (faniya),
and hence become non-existent (ma'düm); or one thing is annihilated
and the other remains, which also means that there is no infusion. Sec-
ond, ittihäd could also mean the unification of two things out of which
emerges a single reality {haqiqa wähida), in such a way that the two
become one single unique being.41 Third, "something becomes some-
thing else by way of transformation or transubstantiation (istihäla),
either in its essence or form as it is said that water turns to air or white
becomes black; all of these descriptions are absurd for God."42
38) R. Nicholson, "Ittihäd", in EP, 4, 283.

39) Ibn cArabï, al-Futühät al-makkiyya (Beirut: Dar al-Sädir, 1968), vol. 2, 130.
40) Jamal al-Dîn al-Qâsimï, Dalâ'il al-tawhid (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqâfa al-Dïniyya,
1986), 83.
41) Ibid.
42) Ibid.
88 M. Sirry/DieWelt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108
The last category of ittihäd is challenged by Qâsimï from different

points of view, in most cases by utilizing theological or philosophical
arguments. He holds, for instance, that the notion of mixture (imtizäj)
between human and God is impossible because of their very different
natures: God is eternal while mankind is temporal. He also argued that
the change in both essence and form is impossible for God "because
we cannot ascribe any corporeal parts to God." It seems that his discus-
sion on ittihäd was merely theological. However, Qâsimï argues that
the mystical union intended by the early Sufis was not this kind of
ittihäd. It is interesting to note that he cites Ibn cArabï to support his
contention against the idea of hulül and ittihâd. Nevertheless, whether
Ibn 'Arabï was really against the idea of ittihâd is a different question,
because Qâsimï did not refer to Ibn 'Arabïs own writings but rather
quoted him from a secondary source. In the footnote for the citation
of Ibn 'Arabi s viewpoint he said: "This is cited by Shalrânï in his
al-Yawâqït"Ao
Let us now examine Qâsimï s presentation of Ibn £Arabïs views and
his claim that the Shaykh Akbar was on his side, and then discuss briefly
Ibn c Arabï s idea of ittihäd by looking at his own writings. Ibn 'Arabi
is cited by Qâsimï as having said:
No one has said anything about ittihäd except ahi al-ilhäd [unbelievers].
Similarly, those who said something about hulül are ahi al-jahl wa-1-fudül
[people of ignorance and excess] .44
For Ibn cArabï, as presented by Qâsimï, a human being will never be

able to unite with his/her Creator because the idea of ittihäd implies
that God departs from His being God, and eventually becoming a
creature, and that the creature becomes God. In his al-Futühät al-
makkiyya, Ibn 'Arabï argues that ittihâd is a meaningless concept because
it rests on a false assumption that there is anything other than the One
Essence.45
43) Ibid., 84. Much of Sha'rânïs work is dedicated to the defense of Ibn 'Arabi and to the
popularization of his legacy.
44) Ibid.
45) Ibn 'Arabï, al-Futühät al-makkiyya, vol. 2, 130.
It might be correct that both terms, hulül and ittihäd, are specifically
rejected by Ibn cArabï, at least in the meaning that is given to them by
their critics. This, however, is not the whole story, since there are situ-
ations in which Ibn cArabï claims that the declaration of ittihäd is not
only permissible but necessary for the Sufi to profess.46 In the Futühät's
chapter on love, referring to the hadïth qudsï on the servant's hearing,
seeing, speaking, and all his faculties, he describes the goal of spiritual
love as ittihäd, in which the essence of the Beloved becomes the essence
of the lover. The sense of unification between the lover and the Beloved
is later explained in terms of natural love, in which lovers exchange
breath, that is, spirits, and saliva in intimate embrace.
When this breath becomes the spirit in the one toward which it is transferred
and the breath of the other becomes the spirit of the first, it is interpreted
as unification {ittihäd). [...] So it is correct to say: "I am the one I love, the
one I love is me."47
In other words, Ibn cArabï s view of ittihäd is more complex than the
one presented by Qâsimï. What is significant here is the way in which
he dissociated Ibn 'Arabï completely from two main heresies of belief
in hulül and ittihäd, a charge commonly made in polemical literature
against Sufi excesses.
The mystical union as envisioned by the early Sufis, Qâsimï argued,
is "not a real union {ittihäd haqïqï) but rather the union with respect
to divine manifestation."48 It is in this context that Qâsimï justified Ibn
'Arabï's idea of wahdat al-wujüd by alluding to the latter s famous met-
aphor of the mirror (mir'ät). In his Fusüs al-hikam, Ibn cArabï says:
A divine self-manifestation occurs only in a form conforming to the essential

predisposition of the recipient of such manifestation. Thus, the recipient sees
nothing other than his own form in the mirror of the Reality (al-haqq) [....]
In seeing your true self, He is your mirror and you are His mirror in which
46) Ibn c Arabi s view of ittihäd^ as on other issues, is not straightforward, but paradoxical.
For a good discussion on Ibn cArabïs idea of ittihäd^ see the commentary on his work
Ittihäd al'kawn by Angela JafFray, The Universal Tree and the Four Birds (Oxford: Anqa
Publishing, 2006).
47) Ibn cArabi, al-Futühät al-makkiyya, vol. 2, 334.
4SJ Qâsimï, Dalä'il al-tawhïd, 84.
He sees His names and their determinations, which are nothing other than
Himself.49
Thus, one can only see oneself in the mirror that is God, although this
image is in essence a contingent or partial divine self-manifestation.
Michael Sells describes the Sufi use of this metaphor of the polishing
of the mirror "as a symbol of the shift beyond the distinction between
subject and object, self and other."50 Qâsimï cited it to suggest that the
mystical union as envisioned by Ibn cArabï is neither the real ittihäd
nor hulül, for the image of the human in the mirror is not the human
himself.51 In other words, the union is metaphorical, since only God
truly exists. It is not clear to what extent Qâsimï may at times have
either misunderstood Ibn (Arabï or wished to take a deliberately dif-
ferent line on certain key issues in order to gain greater credence in a
conservative society. But one thing is apparent: the metaphor of the
mirror, for Qâsimï, does not invalidate Ibn 'Arabfs idea of wahdat
al-wujüd, a doctrine that had come under severe criticism. One of Ibn
cArabïs influential critics, Sa'd al-Dïn al-Taftâzânï (d. 1390), argued
that "the Sufi espousers of the wahdat al-wujüd, unlike their orthodox
predecessors who never ventured into metaphysical speculations, insist
that their subjective experiences mirror the real state of affairs in the
universe."52 Taftâzânï composed a lengthy polemical treatise against the
erroneous assumptions peculiar to the doctrine of wahdat al-wujüd.
For him, the position of the proponents of wahdat al-wujüd comes
round to that of the Christians.53
It was Ibn Taymiyya who established the link between the idea of
ittihâd and Ibn cArabï by tracing this theory back to the his Fusüs
al-hikam - a work in which the doctrine of hulül and ittihäd, which
was only incipient in the ecstatic ravings of al-Hallâj and al-Bistâmï, is
49) Ibn cArabï, Fusüs al-hikam, ed. Abu l-'Alä (Afïfï (Beirut: Dar al-Kitäb al-'Arabï, 2002),
61f.
50) Michael Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1994), 63.
51) Qâsimï, Dalâ'il al-tawhïd, 84.
52) Alexander D. Knysh, Ibn 'Arabi in the Later Islamic Iraditwn (Albany: Mate University
of New York Press, 1999), 150.
53) L Massignon, "Hulül", in EP, 3, 571.
M. Sirry/Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108 91
brought to fruition.54 The Shaykh al-Isläm interpreted Ibn cArabï s

teaching as a monism that collapses a proper distinction between God
and His creatures and makes God identical to creation. Interestingly,
what Ibn Taymiyya condemned was not Ibn cArabfs al-Futühát
al-makkiyya, for he claimed that he was no less an admirer of this great
work than anybody else who considered its reading to be a spiritually
beneficial exercise. Instead, he choosed Ibn cArabï s single volume book
Fusüs al-hikam as his target of criticism.55 Using his notion of "correct
Sufism" as his measuring stick, Ibn Taymiyya singled out what he
viewed as Ibn cArabï s tendency to obfuscate the critical demarcation
between God and man as the starting point of his anti-monistic cri-
tique. He often referred to the term wahdat al-wujüd, even employing
it in the title of two of his treatises: Ibtäl wahdat al-wujüd wa-l-radd
(alä l-qà'ilïn bi-hâ ( Nullification of wahdat al-wujüd and the Rejection
, of Those Who Support It) and Risala ilä man sa'alahü (an haqlqat madh-
hab al-ittihâdiyyïriy ay al-qâ'ilïn bi-wahdat al-wujüd (Treatise Written
to the One Who Asked Him about the Reality of the Position of the
Unificationists, That Is, of Those Who Support wahdat al-wujüd) .5<s It
54) Ibn Taymiyya divides the ittihâd into two categories: ittihâd cämm (general union) and
ittihâd khâss (specific union). The former indicates an identification of God with the whole
universe at an existential level, while in the latter God enters into union with holy
individuals. As for the faultily according to Ibn Taymiyya, God takes up residence in some
persons or designates that person as the locus of His activity and presence in the universe.
See Ibn Taymiyya, Majmü'at al-rasä'il wa-l-masä% ed. Rashïd Rida (Cairo: Maktabat
al-Manâr, 1922-30), voi. 1, 76-80.
55) Ibn Taymiyya says himself: "At first I was among those who held a good opinion of Ibn
cArabï and praised him highly for the useful advice he provides in his books. This useful
advice is found in the pages of the 'Revelations' (Futühät) [...] and similar writings. At that
time, we were unaware of his real goal, because we had not yet studied the Fusüs and such
like books." Citation from Knysh, Ibn 'Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 96. However,
it was precisely because the Fusüs was controversial, in addition to it being brief and difficult,
that it became a kind of template for the philosophical speculations and elaborations of
his school. Fusüs commentaries were written by a number of scholars, including Sadr al-Dïn
al-Qûnawï, Qûnawï s disciple Mu'ayyad al-Dïn Jandï, Jandï s disciple cAbd al-Razzâq
al-Kâshânï, Kâshânï s disciple Dâwùd al-Qaysarï, in a continuous line of spiritual and
intellectual succession. Later commentaries include those of cAbd al-Rahmän Jâmïc and
cAbd al-Ghânï al-Nâbulusï.
56) Ibn Taymiyya wrote a number of refutations of the idea of wahdat al-wujüd, several of
which are found in his Majmü'at al-rasä}il wa-1-masä'il. These include: Ibtäl wahdat al-wujüd
(vol. 1, 61-120); Kitäb Shaykh al-isläm ilâ l-ârif bi-lläh al-Shaykh Nasr al-Manbijï (vol. 1,
is particularly significant that in the second of these titles Ibn Taymiyya

identified "oneness of being" with "unification" (ittihâd). He repeated
this identification in many passages of his works, often adding the term
"incarnation" (hulül) as a second near synonym.
For Ibn Taymiyya, wahdat al-wujüd is nothing else than ittihâd and
hulül, and it is equivalent to atheism (ilhâd), heresy (zandaqa), and
unbelief (kufr).57 He sums up his objections to the proponents of
wahdat al-wujüd by claiming that they deny the basic principles of the
religion: They have no faith in God, in His prophets, or in the Last
Day. He contended:
As for faith in God, they think that His wujûd is identical with the wujüd
of the cosmos and that the cosmos has no other maker than the cosmos itself.
Furthermore, these people think that they have more knowledge of God than
God's Messenger and all the other prophets. Some claim to take knowledge
of God - that is, wahdat al-wujüd and atheism (ta* tit) - from the Prophets
lamp.58
In several polemical passages, Ibn Taymiyya directly equates wahdat

al-wujüd with the Christian theory of incarnation {hulül) and union
(ittihâd) between man and the divine, which he regards as a form of
polytheism, or sheer atheism (ilhâd, ta1 til). Here it becomes clear that,
by citing wahdat al-wujüd and ta'ftl as parallel terms, he is in fact
equating the two. Ta(til is variously defined in theological texts and
always condemned. Its basic meaning is to consider God divested of
His activity, in a way resembling Deist concepts.
We are not in a position to evaluate Ibn Taymiyyas understanding
of the Shaykh Akbar s idea. William C. Chittick argues that Ibn Taymi-
yya "takes a simplistic view of one side of Ibn cArabï s teaching - that
of similarity of immanence (tashbih) - and completely ignores the other
161-173), and Haqiqat madhhab al-ittihädiyyin (vol. 4, 2-101). For other works and
evaluations of Ibn Taymiyyas opinions regarding speculative Sufism, see the useful study
by Muhammad Umar Memon, Ibn Taimiyas Struggle Against Popular Religion (The Hague:
Mouton, 1976), and Abdul Haq Ansari, "Ibn Taymiyyas Criticism of Sufism", Islam and
the Modern Age, 15 (August 1984), 147-156.
57) For a detailed discussion of Ibn Taymiyyas criticism of Ibn 'Arabï, see Knysh, Ibn 'Arabi
in the Later Islamic Tradition, especially chapter 4: "Ibn Taymiyyas Formidable Challenge".
58) Ibn Taymiyya, Majmù(aty vol. 4, 73.
side, that of incomparability or transcendence (tanzîh)"59 Ibn 'Arabï

often employs paradoxical statements in the form of "He/not He".
Michel Chodkiewicz admits that the polemics and controversies over
Ibn 'Arabïs ideas from Ibn Taymiyyas time to the present are mainly
the result of his language, "[which] is often paradoxical or enigmatic."60
Ibn ( Arabi himself considered the principle of coincidentia oppositorum
(jam' bayn (addäd> or synthesis between opposites) as central to his
metaphysics. In the fass of Enoch, he cites Abu Sacïd al-Kharräz (d. 899)
as having said: "God can only be known through the synthesis between
the opposites."61 As Michael Sells puts it:
The coming together of the opposites {coincidentia oppositorum) results logically

from any reference to the unlimited. Conversely, it can be interpreted as the
means by which language is transformed from referential to theoria. The
coincidence of the opposites is a form of dialectical logic that plays against
and upon the linear logic of delimited reference.62
Considering the principle of coincidentia oppositorum as the funda-

mental character of reality, Ibn cArabï argued that the wujüd of the
cosmos can be said to be identical with the wujüd of God in one respect,
but strictly speaking, the cosmos has no wujüd. It is so because, he
continued, "Nothing has become manifest in wujüd through wujüd
except the Real (al-haqq), since wujüd is the Real, and He is one."63 Ibn
Taymiyya strongly rejected Ibn 'Arabï s principle oí coincidentia opposi-
torum:
the synthesis between two opposites in a matter of belief is of utmost corrupt.

The two contradictory questions between negative and positive sides mean
that the validity of one of them necessitates that the other is wrong and
cannot be combined, (fa-inna al-jam* bayn al-mutanäqidayn fi l-ïtiqâd fi
59) William C. Chittick, "Rumi and Wahdat al-Wujüd", in Amin Banani, Richard
Hovannisian, and Georges Sabagh (eds.), Poetry and Mysticism in Islam (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994), 86.
60) Michel Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without Shore: Ibn 'Arabi, the Book, and the Law (Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), If.
61) Ibn cArabï, Fusüs al-hikam, 77.
62) Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, 2 1 .
63) Ibn 'Arab!, al-Futühät al-makkiyya, vol. 2, 517.
94 M. Sirry/Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108
ghäyat al-fasâd wa-l-qadiyyatâni al-mutanäqidatäni bi-l-silbi wa-l-ïjâb (alà

wajhin yalzam min sidq ahadihima kidhb al-âkhar läyumkin al-jam* bayna-
humä.)64
Furthermore, he considered wahdat al-wujüd synonymous with atheism

and unbelief because he saw it as a denial of the distinction between
God and the cosmos.
Qâsimï was troubled with Ibn Taymiyyas fierce attack that put Ibn
cArabï amid the cohort of heretics. In spite of his admiration for Ibn
Taymiyya, he criticized him for declaring the Shaykh Akbar a heretic,
arguing that "one may disagree with him [Ibn 'Arabï] on a particular
issue, yet his belief and legal reasoning are sound."65 Thus Qâsimï
denounced in his writings the (ulamä}s practice of takfir (declaring
others as heretics) and tadlïl (declaring others as astray) in their dispu-
tations with their opponents, and called for unity on the basis of gener-
ally accepted fundamental religious precepts. He thus showed a strong
desire to keep the Muslim community unified and not to commit
tamziq (discord) through exclusion and takfir. In his unpublished note-
book, he issued warnings against both the detractors of Sufism and the
Sufi zealots. The former in his view go too far when they declare the
Sufis as unbelievers, forbid the study of Sufism and excommunicate
those Sufis whose belief seems to include hulül znd ittihâd. As for Sufi
zealots, they exaggerate the importance of Sufi masters and devote all
their lives to studying Sufi texts.66 Qâsimï was all too aware of the accu-
mulation of misconceptions and perceived a need to respond to them.
Weismann is thus correct stating that "as the mouth-piece of the
emerging Salafiyya in Damascus, Qâsimï s writings clarify the essence
of the new attitude that this trend adopted toward Sufism while turn-
ing to the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya."67 Following his usual inclination
to seek a middle position on matters of differences, Qâsimï argued that
"we should not declare as unbelievers those who turn their faces toward
64) Ibn Taymiyya, Majmü'at, vol. 1,81.

65) Zafir al-Qàsimï, Jamal al-Din al-Qäsimi wa-asruhü, 274; see also Abäzä, Jamal al-Dïn
al-Qâsimï, 316.
66) Zafir al-Qâsimï, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï wa-asruhü, 303; Commins, Islamic Rejorm,
80.
our qibla, pray the same way as we do our prayers, and believe in what
we believe."68 The Sufis have their own methodology and terminology.
Qâsimï maintained, therefore, that those who examine their works will
notice that Sufism constitutes a branch of philosophy (fann al-hikma),
though since the authors are people of spiritual training (riyäda), self-
deprivation (tajrid), and asceticism (tazahhud), their discourse resem-
bles an Islamic philosophy, not a purely Greek one. Undoubtedly,
Sufism might include some errors in its teaching. However, it should
be kept in mind that in those days they were part of the accepted truth.69
Qàsimï would struggle hard in defense of the Shaykh Akbar and all
potential proponents of wahdat al-wujüd> even when their interpreta-
tions differed substantially. He made clear that most people understood
the notion of wahdat al-wujüd as a synonym of hulül and ittihäd from
the apparent meaning of Sufi utterances. However, he argued that
"if one examines their intentions one would find them innocent of
such an accusation, for the doctrine of hulül and ittihäd is contrary to
their principles."70 Such a positive view of Ibn 'Arabï and his thought
allows Qâsimï to include him along with major 'ulama' whom the
Salafis relied upon, such as Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim, and
so forth.
Qâsimï s tolerance of Sufi theosophy contrasted sharply with his

attitude toward certain Sufi orders. He attacked what he thought were
fake Sufis who led Sufi orders, likening them to electric wires spreading
madness among people, reproaching them for feigning epilepsy and for
ceaselessly repeating the word "Allah" without an end, and causing
spiritual madness.71 He also condemned ignorant shaykhs who led their
followers to such embarrassing Sufi processions as dancing, screaming
like madmen, eating fire and playing music. Qâsimï found such spec-
tacles not only repugnant but also humiliating to the pristine teaching
of Islam. The greatest catastrophe, according to Qâsimï, are claims made
by some Sufi masters that are harmful to Muslim belief and could mis-
lead the public, such as the concept of al-insän al-kämil (the perfect
68) Zàfir al-Qâsimï, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï wa-asruhü, 303.

69) Ibid.
'"' Ibid., 3U4.
'" Ibid., 353; Commins, Islamic Reform, 80.
man) which is taken from the Sufi books without properly understanding
it, especially since they claim to understand it through divine revelation
and inspiration. These Sufi shaykhs distort religion by ascribing super-
stitions and blameworthy innovations to it, which even people of other
religions would reject.72
In order to counter such outrageous practices made popular by some
Sufi orders, Qâsimï made frequent references not only to such 'ulama'
whom the Salafis often relied upon, including Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn
Qayyim, and Ibn Hajar, but also to such well-known Sufi masters as
Ghazâlï and Ibn cArabï. Of these two, Ghazâlï is the most quoted in
his Isläh al-masäjid, especially by referring to the Ihyâ' Qâsimïs aim
was to demonstrate that those ignorant shaykhs not only exaggerated
the teachings of the early Sufis, but also misunderstood them. He
affirmed that the early Sufis were on the right track of the Prophet
{sunna) y the Righteous Caliphs, and their contemporaries. However,
when the ignorant pretended to be shaykhs (tashayyakha) in the Sufi
orders, they began practicing certain blameworthy innovations and
imitating statements the meaning of which they did not really under-
stand.73 Here we can see how Qâsimï used other pious Sufis to support
his critiques against certain Sufi practices. That is to say, he employed,
in criticizing popular Sufi practices, the writings of some of the early
Sufis.
It is most likely that when Qâsimï referred to early Sufis whom he
viewed as legitimate, he would include in this category both Ghazâlï
and Ibn £Arabï. He showed his respect for Ghazâlï by his attempt to
revive the Ihyâ* as a means to bring the umma back to the essence of
Islam and to teach it the beauty of the religion. His admiration for Ibn
'Arabï, in addition to his defense against Ibn Taymiyyas attacks, can be
seen in his book al-Fadl al-mubtn, where he writes the biography of
Ibn cArabï with special attention to his excellent works and influences.
As mentioned earlier, Qâsimï also edited an excerpt from a work by Ibn
'Arabï on legal theory, along with the works of Tufi and Suyutï, because
he "thought it important to publish the chapter because it would
72) Qâsimï, Isläh al-masäjid min al-aida* wa-l-awä'id (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Salafiyya,
1922), 248ff.
73) Ibid., 250.
M. Sirry/DieWelt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108 97
acquaint Ibn 'Arabï's many admirers among the conservative 'ulama'

with his opinion on legal theory, especially his critique of emulation,
advocacy of ijtihâd, and adherence to the Zähiri school of jurisprudence."74
With this high respect for both Ghazâlï and Ibn 'Arabï, did he con-
sider them to belong to the salafi There is no explicit statement to that
effect. However, in treating the Salafis' idea about what constitutes the
salaf I would argue that Qasimï s view seems to be closer to cAbduhs
approach than to that of Rida. As Albert Hourani notes, one of the
significant differences between 'Abduh and Ridä was over their views
concerning the salaf. 'Abduh used this category broader than Rida, tak-
ing them to include "the creators of the central tradition of Muslim
thought and devotion, from the Prophet to al-Ghazâlï." For Rida, the
salaf were confined to "the first generation [of Muslims] who had
known Muhammad."75 While cAbduh was a somewhat sympathetic to
Sufism in general, Rida exhibited a rather skeptical attitude towards it
and was certainly against the idea of wahdat al-wujüd.76 Like cAbduh,
Qasimï seemed to understand the salaf in a broad sense, even broader
than 'Abduhs. Moreover, Qasimï differed from cAbduh on an important
point. While the Grand Mufti of Egypt had some reservations with Ibn
'Arabïs works,77 Qasimï expressed his appreciation of Ibn 'Arabï s ideas
and even defended him against the Shaykh al-Isläms critiques. He also
disagreed with 'Abduh as he himself recorded it:
'Abduh seems to interpret verse 15 of Sürat al-Nisa: "If any of your women
are guilty oflewdness" in the way similar to the one provided by Abu Muslim
al-Isfahânï which is related by Fakhr al-Dïn al-Râzï. However, I do not agree
74) Commins, Islamic Reform, 112, 171, n. 33.

75) Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1798-1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983), 230.
76) Rashïd Rida, Târïkh al-ustädh al-imäm al-Shaykh Muhammad (Abduh (Egypt: Matba'at
al-Manär, 1931), 123.
77) Hourani notes that when 'Abduh was the president of a commission to supervise the
publishing of Arabic classics, he refused to allow the publication of Ibn 'Arabi s al-Futûhât
al-makkiyya. See Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 150. The reason why 'Abduh
refused to publish the Futühätvtzs because he thought of "works of this sort should not be
looked at save by those who are qualified", since the symbolism in the works would lead
to the uninitiated astray. Cited by Ih. Emil Homerin, "Ibn 'Arabi in the People s Assembly:
Religion, Press, and Politics in Sadat's Egypt", ME], 40 (1986), 465.
with his interpretation because it goes against its true interpretation as

mentioned in the authentic hadïths. 78
'Abduhs "liberal" stance on such controversial issues as the permissi-

bility of limited interest (riba), eating the animal meats slaughtered by
Christians, and many other hermeneutical issues, did surprise not only
Qâsimï, but also many of his colleagues, including Rida himself.79
What was, then, the kind of Salafiyya that Qâsimï advocated? When
defending Qâsimï against al-Manârs readers who accused him of not
being enough of a reformist, Rashid Rida acknowledged that "some of
Qâsimïs works might not fall within the field of reform as generally
understood by al-Manârs readers."80 However, he added that the so-
called "reform" and its meaning was broad and varied according to
differences of time and space. Rida discussed at length Qâsimï s ten-
dency toward an independent thinking to the extent that "he was
accused of promoting a new madhhab in Islam."81 Qâsimï eagerly sought
to strengthen the unity among the Muslims by explaining the position
of each madhhab and strove to bring them closer to each other. On the
one hand, he was independent in such a way that, "however the truth
appeared to him he would say it and implement it, even if he had to
face the people s wrath." On the other hand, he sought to find a middle
way between two extremes that opposed each other by emphasizing
78) Abäzä Jamal al-Din al-QâsimU 315f.

79) For a discussion of 'Abduh s audacious views, see Muhammad Sa'ïd Ramadan al-Butï,
al-Salafiyya: Marhala zamaniyya mubâraka là madhhab islàmi (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr,
1988), 232-235. The most famous of 'Abduh s fatwäs that caused a considerable stir is
known as "Transvaal fatwa ' in which cAbduh answered in the affirmative all three questions
posed by a member of the small Muslim community in the Transvaal: (1) Is it permissible
for a Muslim in a predominantly Christian country to wear a European-style hat? (2) Is it
permissible for him to eat meat slaughtered by Christians according to their own manner,
without assurance of conformity to the stipulations of the Qur'an concerning the method
of slaughtering? (3) Is it permissible for Hanafìs and Shàfi'ïs to hold public prayer together,
led by a single imam, despite the differences in ritual between the two schools? For a further
discussion of this fatwây see Charles C. Adams, "Muhammad 'Abduh and the Transvaal
fatwa', The Macdonald Presentation Volume (London: Oxford University Press, 1933),
13-29; Malcolm Kerr, Islamic Reform: The Political and Legal Theories of Muhammad (Abduh
and Rashid Rida (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966), I45f.
80) Rida, al-Shaykh Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâstmï, 631,
81) Ibid., 632.
M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-1 08 99
their similarities rather than their differences. "This method of reform",

Rida argued, "is the best way to appease the moderate among the peo-
ple of different madhhabs, while their fanatics would not be content
with it."82
Qâsimïs ambivalent appreciation of Ibn Taymiyya s legacy should be

read within this context of reconciling different streams of Islamic
thought. It was because of his conciliatory approach that led Qâsimï
to consider Ibn 'Arabï s teaching quite germane to his goal and, more-
over, was eager to incorporate its elements into his own reformist plat-
form. We should keep in mind that the debates between Ibn TVrabïs
champions and antagonists have raged for more than six centuries,
dividing the Muslim community into two hostile camps. Therefore,
the reconciliatory approach proposed by Qâsimï and earlier reformist
Muslims before him, such as the Alusï family, Shah Wall Allah Dihlawï
(d. 1762), Muhammad Murtadä al-Zabïdï (d. 1791), and Ibrahim
al-Kurânï (d. 1690), marks an important development in the reformist
tradition that envisages what may be called "the middle way" between
the two figures, whom the Salafis depicted as prototypes of the contra-
diction between sharVa and tasawwuf. Ibn Taymiyya, from whose call
to follow the path of the forefathers (salaf) they derived their name,
and Ibn cArabï, whom they vehemently rejected. Qâsimï urged his fel-
low reformist (muslih) that he should "become open-minded (wâsï
al'Sadr) and not averse to those who disagree with him. He should rather
approach them in a congenial manner."83
Qâsimï, undoubtedly, was tremendously influenced by Ibn Taymiyya
and his disciples such as Ibn Qayyim. He took from them what he
deemed suitable to this own project of reform. However, his vision of
the Salafiyya differs significantly from that of Ibn Taymiyya in his sharp
attacks on his adversaries, and from other Salafis who became prone to
takfir of other Muslims and divided them into two groups, Salafis and
innovators, which led, furthermore, to sectarianism, at a time when
they needed the unity and solidarity of the community. Qâsimï s vision
of the Salafiyya differs from other Salafis on a number of issues, includ-
82) Ibid., 634.

83) Mahmud Mahdï al-Istambulï, Shaykh al-Shäm Jamal al-Din al-Qâsimï (Beirut:
al-Maktab al-Islâmï, 1984), 80.
1 00 M Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108
ing the question of takfir just mentioned, and his attitude toward Sufism
and innovations (bida(). In the case of Ibn 'Arabï, Qâsimï urged his
fellow Salafis to be careful not to throw at him takfir and other baseless
accusations:
As for Ibn cArabï, he argued, the researcher and the opponent have every
right to reject a specific issue that accepts no other interpretation, which may
seem like an infidel's statement. However, his belief ('aqïda) and madhhab
in legal matters are good. Hence, there is no reason to label him as unbeliever
{mulhid).u
Even if one might consider Ibn 'Arabïs ideas to be innovations (f?ida(),

he prefers to call them good innovations open to multiple layers of
meanings, and, therefore, not to be charged with atheism (ilhäd)}5
What accounts for Qâsimïs defense of Ibn cArabï? Firstly, most Sufi
reformers in later Ottoman Syria had been attracted to Ibn 'Arabfs
teachings. Chief among them was cAbd al-Ghânï al-Nabulusî (d.l731),
the most distinguished Sufi in Ottoman Syria who considered himself
a "spiritual son of Ibn 'Arabï".86 Elizabeth Sirriyeh depicts Nâbulusï as
a "Sufi reformer [who was] able to lead by example as a 'friend of God',
perhaps then deserving the title of 'imam of the faith'."87 From the six-
teenth century onwards, Ibn 'Arabï had effectively been recognized by
the Ottomans as a saint and it had become quite respectable to study
his works. Following his conquest of Syria, Sultan Selim I ordered in
1517-18 the construction of the celebrated mausoleum over the tomb
of Ibn cArabï; the Shaykh Akbar became valued as the protecting saint
of the Ottoman dynasty. Selims son, Suleyman the Lawgiver (known
to Europeans as "the Magnificent"), prevented any efforts to disparage
Ibn 'Arabï as a heretic or unbeliever.88 Qâsimï lived in an environment
where Ibn 'Arab! had for a long time exerted tremendous influence.
84) Zafir al-Qâsimï, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qäsimi wa-'asruhü, 274.

85) Ibid.
86) For a detailed discussion of al-Nâbulusï and his association with Ibn (Arabï, see Elizabeth
Sirriyeh, Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005); Barbara
Rosenow von Schlegell, Sufism in the Ottoman Arab World: Shaykh (Abd al-Ghanï al-Nâbulusi
(Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1997).
87) Sirriyeh, Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus, 134.
88) Ibid., 8.
M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108 1 0 1
Even the most vociferous critic of philosophical Sufism, Ibn Taymiyya,

was ready to concede:
Of all the exponents of wahdat al-wujûd Ibn cArabï is the nearest of them
to Islam, the one whose speech is best in many places. He distinguishes
between the Manifest (zàhir) and the objects of manifestations (mazähir).
He affirms the divine commanding and forbidding as well as the revealed
religions against what is put forward against them. He has commanded the
following of much of what the shaykhs have prescribed by way of moral and
religious duties. Many religious people have thereby taken their path from
his teaching, and have benefited from it although they do not know its true
nature.89
Here we can see that despite such a condemnation of Ibn 'Arabfs

concept of wahdat al-wujùd, Ibn Taymiyya refrains from the adhominem
attacks that could be found on the lips or flowing from the pens of so
many of Ibn Taymiyya s disciples in subsequent generations. In his eyes,
Ibn 'Arabi was not as insisting as other Sufis on the issue of absolute
monism, and he even praised him for respecting the law and paying
careful attention to the Sufi path.90
Secondly, through Qâsimïs scholarly networks we can see that he
was very much engaged in the Naqshbandiyya-Khälidiyya through his
teacher, al-Khânï. The Naqshbandiyya was the leading reformist order
in Damascus in the first of half of the nineteenth century that paid
much interest in the doctrines of Ibn cArabï. Most of the major figures
in late Ottoman Damascus with whom Qâsimï studied were under the
influence of Ibn cArabï. As mentioned earlier, Qâsimï established a
special relationship with Ahmad al-Jaza'irï, a brother of the leading Sufi
reformer cAbd al-Qädir al-Jazä'iri who belonged to the spiritual chain
of the Shaykh Akbar. (Abd al-Qädir al-Jaza'irï (d. 1883) was the leader
of the resistance movement to the French occupation of Algeria, who
in the last part of his life chose Damascus as his place of residence. Both
Michel Chodkiewicz and Itzchak Weismann have shown cAbd al-Qädir s
89) Ibn Taymiyya, Majmü'at, vol. 1, 176. For a detailed discussion of this, see Ansari, "Ibn
Taymiyyas Criticism", 148. See also Knysh, Ibn 'Arabi in the later Islamic Tradition, 98.
90) Th. Emil Homerin, "Sufis and Their Detractors in Mamluk Egypt", in de Jong & Radtke
(eds.), Islamic Mysticism Contested, 233.
102 M. Sirry/Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108
reliance on the teachings of Ibn cArabï, including his affirmation of the

principle of wahdat al-wujüd as a concept of mutual relationship
between God and His creatures.91 Ahmad al-Jazä'iri himself, who
appointed Qâsimï as prayer leader for the 'Annaba mosque, had very
much the same view of Ibn 'Arabï s concept of wahdat al-wujüd as his
brother. In 1884/5, Ahmad al-Jazâ'irï wrote an essay defending the
concept of wahdat al-wujüd and explaining "true" Sufism.92 This
undoubtedly had a clear influence on Qâsimï, who praised al-Jazà'irï s
Sufi rituals as "void of the blemishes of innovation".93 The Alusï family,
especially Abu 1-Thanä* and Nu'mân al-Alusï, whose influences were
equally apparent in Qâsimï's approach to Sufism, were explicitly fault-
ing any denouncers of Ibn cArabï and the idea of wahdat al-wujüd while
at the same time embracing a range of Ibn Taymiyyas ideas. The appear-
ance of such a conspicuous defense of Ibn cArabï should, therefore, be
seen as a major development in the Salafiyya movement, which has
usually been viewed as inimical to Sufism. Despite the Salafis' conse-
quent diminishing interest in Sufism, they refused to follow Ibn Taymi-
yyas attack against Ibn 'Arabï, presenting the two instead as belonging
to the same reformist tradition.
Thirdly, Qâsimï s critique of Ibn Taymiyya and his defense of Ibn
cArabï suggest the possibility of overlapping attitudes, where both a
Salafi-inspired belief and Sufi-reformist vision could coexist. What,
however, was the background of this critique? The Salafiyya has usually
been associated with the intellectual legacy of Ibn Taymiyya. Most of
the reformist (ulamä' including Qâsimï, were attracted - in one form
or the other - to the Salafi school of thought epitomized by Ibn Taymi-
yya and elaborated in his writings. As Commins puts it, "Religious
reformers in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and India accorded him the greatest
respect, avidly sought his works, and strove to have them published."94
In the early 1900s, Qâsimï corresponded with the Baghdadi Salafi
91) Michel Chodkiewics, Seal of Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrines of Ibn
'Arabi (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993); Weismann, Taste of Modernity, 143-
260.
92) Commins, Islamic Reform, 38.
93) Cited in ibid., 38.
94) Ibid., 25; see also H. A. R. Gibb, Modern Trends in Islam (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1947), 34f.
Mahmud Shukrï al-Alùsï (d. 1924), and much of their correspondence

dealt with recent discoveries of manuscripts of Ibn Taymiyya.95 The fact
that Ibn Taymiyya condemned the pantheistic Sufism of wahdat
al-wujüd could easily mislead scholars to conclude that Salafism
and Sufism are inherently opposed each other. It is noteworthy that
recent studies by George Makdisi have suggested that Ibn Taymiyya
himself belonged to a Sufi order, whereas, on the other hand, any
such Sufi connection of Ibn Taymiyya has decisively been rejected by
Fritz Meier.96
Given Ibn Taymiyyas notoriety for polemics against the doctrine of

wahdat al-wujüd, it may seem odd to see the Salafis as having a great
deal of appreciation for Ibn cArabï. Yet, in the case of Qâsimï, this
assumption is not true. Although Qâsimï, as many other Salafis, fol-
lowed the footsteps of Ibn Taymiyya, he did not take everything from
him, but rather only what had really impressed him, especially Ibn
Taymiyyas independent thinking. On this issue, Qâsimï confessed:
"Who did say to you that I am a muqallid [blind follower] of Ibn
Taymiyya? No. I only defend him and disseminate his works because
he was a mujtahidP7 Further, Qâsimï claimed, "in terms of opinion,
we are independent (mustaqillün) and are neither followers, nor
partisans."98 With this independent thinking, he was free to reject what-
ever views he deemed contrary to his own thought, including the takfir
and tadlïl tendency of Ibn Taymiyya and later Salafi circles. In his Dalà'il
95) See al-cAjmï (ed.), al-Rasä'il al-mutabâdila.

96) In support of the view that Ibn Taymiyya was a Sufi, see George Makdisi, "Ibn Taymiyya:
A Study of the Qadiriya Order", American Journal of Arabic Studies, 1 (1977), 1 18-130.
Makdisi also debunked the notion that adherents of the Hanbali legal school reject Sufism;
he showed that many Hanbalis criticized certain Sufi practices but embraced "correct"
Sufism. George Makdisi, "The Hanbali School and Sufism", Humaniora Islamica, 2 (1974),
61-72. Both of these works are reprinted in George Makdisi, Religion, Law and Learning
in Classical Islam (Britain: Variorum, 1991). Against Ibn Taymiyyas being a Sufi, see
F. Meier, "Das Sauberste über die Vorbestimmung. Ein Stück Ibn Taymiyya", Saeculum,
32 (1981), 74-89. The English translation of this article can be found in E Meier, "The
Cleanest about Predestination: A Bit of Ibn Taymiyya", in Essays on Islamic Piety and
Mysticism, trans. J. O'Kane (Leiden: Brill, 1999).
97) Quoted in al-Istambulï, Shaykh al-Shäm Jamal al-Dïn al-Qäsiml, 49; Abäzä, Jamal
al- Din al-Qäsimi, 315.
98) Abäzä Jamal al-Din at-Qäsimi, 333.
1 04 M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011) 75-108
al-tawhid, he approved, rather, of Ibn 'Arabïs position that "you should

not reject outright what Philosophers and Muctazilis have said [....]
because not everything Philosophers have said is wrong."99 This is cer-
tainly apart from Ibn Taymiyyas position and it might disturb many
Salafis.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, let us now situate Qâsimïs position on Sufism within

the ongoing discussion about the relationship between the Salafiyya
and Sufism in more recent scholarship. It seems that Qâsimï s vision of
the Salafiyya is different from that of the "golden trinity" of Afghânï-
cAbduh-Ridä in Egypt. Unfortunately, as Thomas Eich has shown,
scholarship about the Salafiyya has until very recently been focused
exclusively on Egypt.100 In the early 1960s, Albert Hourani has already
alluded to groups of reformers outside Egypt rightly claiming that
"perhaps it is too simple to explain them in terms of the influence of
Afghani and cAbduh."101 He nevertheless still devoted much of his
attention to Egyptian reformist thinkers. Thanks to the works of David
Commins, Itzchak Weismann, Thomas Eich, and Basheer Nafi, among
others, different Salafi trends in late Ottoman Damascus and Baghdad
have come into the limelight as well.102 These recent studies strongly
challenge the idea of a unified beginning of the Salafiyya movements,
which has been prevalent in early research on modern Islamic reformism.
99) Qâsimï, Dalä'il al-tawhïd, 129.

100) See Thomas Eich, "Questioning Paradigms: A Close Reading of cAbd al-Razzäq
al-Baytär s Hilya in Order to Gain Some New Insights into Damascene Salafiyya ' Arabica,
52 (2005), 373-390.
101) It is worth noting that Hourani mentions in passing such reformist Muslims as the
scholars of the Alûsï family in Baghdad, the followers of Khayr al-Dïn in Tunisia, Syrian
reformer Tâhir al-Jazâ'irï, and Shaykh Husayn al-Jisr of Tripoli. See Hourani, Arabic
Thought in Liberal Age, 222.
102) On the Damascene Salafiyya, see, for instance, David Commins, bocial Criticism and
Reformist 'Ulama of Damascus", Stud 1st., 78 (1993), 169-180; Weismann, "Between
Sufi reformism and Modernist Rationalism", 206-237; Eich, "Questioning Paradigms",
373-390; on the Baghdadi Salafiyya, see, for instance, Hala Fatah, "Wahhabi Influences,
Salafi Responses: Shaikh Mahmud Shukri and the Iraqi Salafi Movement, 1745-1930",
Journal of Islamic Studies, 14 (2003), 127-148; Nafi, "Salafism Revived", 49-97.
With more diverse Salafis becoming a subject of scholarly discussion,

it is now difficult to accept the hypothesis that the different Salafiyya
movements, stretching from the late nineteenth and twentieth cen-
turies, have produced a single, more or less homogenous, body of
thought which belongs to an identifiable "fundamentalist mode of
Islam".
Of particular relevance to my argument is the lack of a sharp distinc-
tion between the Salafiyya and Sufism. Recent debate between Weis-
mann and Eich on the enigmatic figure Abu 1-Hudâ al-Sayyâdï
(d. 1909) can illustrate this point. Was Abu 1-Hudä a Salafi? Eich at-
tempts to question the position of earlier scholarship that portrays
Abu 1-Hudä as a strong opponent of the Salafiyya. By using both net-
work and textual analyses, Eich is able to bring out a complex picture
of Abu 1-Hudä who "had good and intensive relations to leading figures
of the Salafiyya" in Baghdad and Damascus.103 Eich further contends
that Abu 1-Hudä s later writings, especially after 1900, show that "he
shared much of the Salafis' opinions."104 Weismann disagrees with Eichs
presentation of Abu 1-Hudä and accuses Eich of "adding non-Salafi
high status 'ulama 'of a previous generation to the Salafi camp [. . ..]".105
The problem with this debate, in my view, lies in its basic assumption
that there is a sharp line between Salafiyya and Sufism, and therefore
both Eich and Weismann seem to be puzzled by enigmatic figures like
Abu 1-Hudä who cannot be located easily within an assumed Sufi-Salafi
antagonism. This assumption apparently has no roots in the perceptions
of Sufism prevailing among the Damascene Salafis of the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, but has rather been shaped by the con-
temporary view of the sharp contrast between Salafiyya and Sufism,
which was then projected back into history.
It is in this context that the Salafi view of Sufism as represented
by Qasimï may have something to tell us about the possibility of
overlapping attitudes, where the relationship between Salafiyya and
Sufism should not be viewed as hostile as is sometimes supposed. Most
scholars, including Weismann and Eich, agree that most Salafi-minded
103) Thomas Eich, "The Forgotten Salafi- Abu al-Hudà as-Sayyâdï", WI, 43 (2003), 63.
104) Ibid., 87.
105) Itzchak Weismann, "Abu 1-Hudä 1-Sayyàdï and the Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism",
Arabica, 54 (2007), 588.
1 06 M Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108
'ulama' had Sufi backgrounds in their early life, and only later became
interested in Ibn Taymiyyas teachings. In spite of his disagreement with
Weismann, Eich expresses that "We both want to point to the Sufi roots
of Islamic reformism in the 19th and 20th centuries."106 What seems to
be problematic is that this turn toward Ibn Taymiyya is often described
in the literature as superceding the Salafis' earlier attachment to Sufism.
Since scholars are so prone to the clear-cut dichotomy between the
Salafiyya and Sufism, this leads them to see this shift a break with the
mystical thought of Ibn 'Arab!.107 The case of Qâsimïs defense of Ibn
cArabï seems to challenge the general assumption that one cannot
adhere to the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn 'Arabï at the same
time. On a number of important issues, Qâsimï quoted approvingly
the views of both Ibn cArabï and Ibn Taymiyya. His position on this
issue is neither unique nor unfounded. As discussed earlier, reformist-
minded 'ulama' such as Abu 1-Thanä' al-Alûsï and Nu'mân al-Alûsï held
positions similar to that of QäsimL Basheer Nafi alludes briefly to
Dihlawï, Zabïdï, and Kurânï, as having a conciliatory Sufi-reformist
vision.108 The latter reformer deserves a further elaboration not only
because he was a seminal figure in the pre-modern network of reform-
ist-minded 'ulama' which was centered in Medina, but also because he
explicitly defended both Ibn 'Arabi and Ibn Taymiyya. According to
Nu'man al-Alûsï, Kùrânï was "a Salafi in his creed who defended Shaykh
Ibn Taymiyya and likewise defended those Sufi utterings which
outwardly may look like [suggesting] incarnation (hulül), fusion with
God (ittihäd), or becoming identical with Him ((ayniyya)?m
To do justice to Qâsimï, we should place his work within this broader
historical context. Qâsimï was just one of the many reformist Muslims
who sought to exculpate Ibn cArabï from the fierce theological attacks
106) Thomas Eich, "Abu 1-Hudä 1-Sayyâdï - Still such a Polarizing Figure (Response to
Itzchak Weismann)", Arabica, 55 (2008), 443.
107) In his discussion of cAbd al-Qâdir al-Jazâ'irï, Weismann writes, "{Abd al-Qâdir s thought
was embedded in the mystical thought of Ibn cArabï, which in the Salafi creed was
superceded by the teachings of the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyya." See Weismann, "Abu 1-Hudä
1-Sayyâdï", 588.
108) Nafi, "Abu al-Thana' al-Alusi", 466.
109) Nu'män Alûsï, Jala' al-aynayn, 4 1 . For a detailed discussion of Kurânï s view of wahdat
al-wujüd, see Alexander Knysh, "Ibrahim al-Kùrânï (d. 1101/1690), an Apologist for
Wahdat al-wujûd" Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 5 (1995), 39-47.
M. Sirry I Die Welt des Islams 51 (201 1) 75-108 1 07
which denounced him as Islam's great heresiarch. There is no question

that Qâsimï regarded Ibn Taymiyya as a model for the latter s strong
advocacy for ijtihäd and rejection of taqlid. However, it seems that
Qâsimï's attempts to position himself as an independent thinker in his
disscussions about Ibn Taymiyya's views is a clear indication that he did
not regard the Shaykh al-Isläm's intellectual legacy as an adequate and
sufficient basis for Islamic reform. His overall view of Sufism is also
complex. While, on the one hand, he despised what he called ghulüw
(excess) in the practices of some Sufi orders, on the other hand, he
respected those 'ulama' who practiced the more sober Sufism of the
intellectual elites. By looking at the network of scholars with which
Qâsimï associated, we can conclude that he represented the majority
of the Damascene Salafis who condemned excesses and abuses, rather
than Sufism as a whole. Qâsimï put forth a social explanation for the
persistence of Sufi ritual innovations and customs and their resilience
in the face of reformers' efforts to eliminate them. Most Muslims did
not perceive such customs as innovations but as genuine religious prac-
tices; therefore, when reformers attacked innovations, they appeared to
be assaulting religion itself.110 Some of his numerous works attack pop-
ular practices in the visitation of saints' tombs and aim to remove inno-
vations in ritual and un-Islamic customs practiced in the mosques of
Damascus.
However, Qâsimï also made known his generally positive view of

"true Sufism", taking the position of early Sufi masters. His reference
to Ghazâlï and Ibn 'Arabï is significant in so far as he attempted to
demonstrate that the ecstatic ceremonies of Sufi orders were not sup-
ported by the teachings of such influential Sufi masters as Ghazâlï and
Ibn 'Arabï. Qâsimï's strong defense of the Shaykh Akbar compelled him
to stand up against Ibn Taymiyya whom the Salafis often relied upon.
Perhaps it is our scant knowledge of the nature of the relationship
between Salafiyya and Sufism in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
turies that prevents us from explaining why some reformist-minded
Muslims vehemently opposed Ibn cArabï s teaching, viewing it as a
consummation of Sufi heresy, whereas others were ready to adopt and
incorporate it along with that of his ardent detractor, namely Ibn
uo) Commins, Islamic Reform, 80.
108 M. Sirryl Die Welt des Islams 51 (2011)75-108
Taymiyya, into their own reformist programs. It is essential that we

delve into the world of ideas current in that epoch in order to discover
why intellectual Sufism was rejected or, alternatively, adopted as a foun-
dation of Islamic reform by the so-called Salafis in different parts of the
Muslim world. In so doing, we need to avoid any bald generalization
about the inherent anti-Sufi attitude of the Salafiyya movement. The
ambivalent relationship between the Salafiyya and Sufism will be better
understood in a broader comparative framework supported by further
case studies.

Qasimi Sufi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qasimi Sufi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qasimi Sufi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī and the Salafi Approach to Sufism

Author(s): Mun'im Sirry

Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï and the Salafi App

Salafiyya, Salafism, Sufism, anti-Sufis, Islamic reform, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 201 1 DOI: 10.1 163/15700601 1X556102

n Mark Sedgwick, "In Search of a Counter-Reformation: Anti-Sufi Stereotypes and the

Qâsimï was born in Damascus to a family of 'ulama' in 1866 and, in

miraculous and superstitious kind which points to its Salafi nature, he

8) Nizär Abäzä, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï, 304.

His abandonment of the Naqshbandï path did not prevent Qâsimï

ment in Damascus that led Qâsimï to turn to the teachings of Ibn

13) Abäzä, Jamal al-Dïn al-Oäsimu 108f.

modern Salafiyya".16 Abu 1-Thanâ3 was well-known for his endeavors to

Elsewhere he embarked on a delicate and elaborate reconstruction of

discarded altogether because "some of his ideas have been widely

20) Ibid., 75.

23) Ibid., 112f.

While the "mujtahids' incident" did not vindicate Salafiyya ^¿r.^, it

Qâsimï and His Works on Sufism

When Qâsimï died in 1914, Rashïd Rida wrote an article in al-Manär

27) Weismann, "Between Sufi Reformism and Modernist Rationalism", 219.

Rashïd Rida was not alone in his irreverence of Qâsimïs chapter on

29) Ibid., 634.

Commins' assertion that Qâsimï did not devote much discussion on

32) Abäzä, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimi, 255.

can be seen in MawHzat al-muïminïn. In these writings Qâsimï men-

In Defense of Ibn "Arabi

Qâsimï s views on Ghazâlï and Ibn cArabï deserve further elaboration

35) Weismann, Taste of Modernity, 294.

discussion on the invalidity of hulül and ittihäd. It is striking that

38) R. Nicholson, "Ittihäd", in EP, 4, 283.

The last category of ittihäd is challenged by Qâsimï from different

For Ibn cArabï, as presented by Qâsimï, a human being will never be

A divine self-manifestation occurs only in a form conforming to the essential

brought to fruition.54 The Shaykh al-Isläm interpreted Ibn cArabï s

is particularly significant that in the second of these titles Ibn Taymiyya

In several polemical passages, Ibn Taymiyya directly equates wahdat

side, that of incomparability or transcendence (tanzîh)"59 Ibn 'Arabï

The coming together of the opposites {coincidentia oppositorum) results logically

Considering the principle of coincidentia oppositorum as the funda-

the synthesis between two opposites in a matter of belief is of utmost corrupt.

ghäyat al-fasâd wa-l-qadiyyatâni al-mutanäqidatäni bi-l-silbi wa-l-ïjâb (alà

Furthermore, he considered wahdat al-wujüd synonymous with atheism

64) Ibn Taymiyya, Majmü'at, vol. 1,81.

Qâsimï s tolerance of Sufi theosophy contrasted sharply with his

68) Zàfir al-Qâsimï, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qâsimï wa-asruhü, 303.

'" Ibid., 353; Commins, Islamic Reform, 80.

acquaint Ibn 'Arabï's many admirers among the conservative 'ulama'

74) Commins, Islamic Reform, 112, 171, n. 33.

with his interpretation because it goes against its true interpretation as

'Abduhs "liberal" stance on such controversial issues as the permissi-

78) Abäzä Jamal al-Din al-QâsimU 315f.

their similarities rather than their differences. "This method of reform",

Qâsimïs ambivalent appreciation of Ibn Taymiyya s legacy should be

82) Ibid., 634.

Even if one might consider Ibn 'Arabïs ideas to be innovations (f?ida(),

84) Zafir al-Qâsimï, Jamal al-Dïn al-Qäsimi wa-'asruhü, 274.

Even the most vociferous critic of philosophical Sufism, Ibn Taymiyya,

Here we can see that despite such a condemnation of Ibn 'Arabfs