You are on page 1of 261


A critical study of Nru'l-D!n al-Raniri's
refutation of Hamzah Fansris mystical
philosophy, based on Ranr!s HujJatu'lSiddiq li daf'i'l-Zindiq and Tlbyan fi
Ma'rifati'l-Adyn and other Kalay sources.

Sayyid Nuhammad Naguib al-Attas

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of

Graduate Studies and Research in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts

Institute of Islamic Studies,

NcGill University,
Hon treal.

August 1962


A critical study of Nru'l-D!n al-Raniri's
refutation of Hamzah Fansris mystical
philosophy, based on Ranr!s HujJatu'lSiddiq li daf'i'l-Zindiq and Tlbyan fi
Ma'rifati'l-Adyn and other Kalay sources.

Sayyid Nuhammad Naguib al-Attas

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of

Graduate Studies and Research in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts

Institute of Islamic Studies,

NcGill University,
Hon treal.

August 1962





Introduction: The historical background.


Nru'l-Din al-Raniri.



Rniri's refutation of Hamzah


The teachings of Hamzah





's concept of the ir adah

in the conceptual
structure of the Malay vmrd hendak.



(a) Conceptual structure of the

rd hendak.


(b) Derivatives and their conceptual



(c) Conceptual distinction bet,.reen

hendak and ~


(d) Hamzah Fansri's concept of the




Romanized Malay edition of the text of

the ?ujjatu'l-~iddia li ~'i'l-Zind~.



English translation of the text.


Facsimile of the text of the

?ujjatu'l-?iddiq li daf'i'l-Zi~dig.


The significance of the term zindig.








I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Wilfred

Cantwell Smith, Director of the Institute of Islamic Studies,
McGill University, whose help and encouragement has made this
study possible.
My especial thanks are due to Dr. Huharn..-nad Rasjidi,
Associate Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill
University, who supervised my work with care and attention; to
Dr. Fazlu-r-Rahman, Associate Professor, Institute of Islamic
Studies, McGill University, and Professor, Central Institute of
Islamic Research, Karachi, Pakistan, for his assistance particularly
in readings of relevant passages from Ibnu'l-'Arabi's
MakkcyYah and



to Dr. Toshihiko Izutsu, Professor

of General Linguistics and Lecturer in Classical Greek Philosophy,

Keio University, Tokyo, Japan, for his guidance in the linguistic
field and for the keen interest he has shown in my '"ork; and to

W.J. 1.</atson, Librarian, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill

University, for giving every possible help in

me certain books and journals.


available to


The subject of this thesis is a critical study of Nru'l-Din

al-Raniri's refutation of Hamzah
mystical philosophy,

based on two of Ranir1 1 s works: the ~ujjatu'l-~iddig li daf'i'lZindiq (Haxwell Text no. 93, Royal Asiatic Society, London), and the
Tibyan fi Ha'rifati'l-Adyan (Leiden Text cod. or. 3291), both of
which have been reproduced in facsimile in Voorhoeves Twee Haleise


Nruddin ar-Raniri (1955); and on the works of

Hamzah Fansri containing various collections of mystical poems and

tvm prose works: the Asraru '1- 'Arif in and the Sharabu '1- 'Ashiqin
or Zinatu '1-Hm..ra.Nlidl:n, all of which have been edited and transliterated into the Roman script and bound in a single volume by
Doorenbos in De Geschriften van Hamzah Pansoeri (1933).

None of

Raniri's two works Inentioned above - or his other extant works for
that matter - have been edited and transliterated in Romanized form,
nor have they - including the works of Hamzah
referred to - been

translated into English or any other language. In this study I have

made a Romanized Nalay edition of the text of the


li daf'i'l-Zindl:q including an Engiish translation of it.

As far as I am aware, this is the first thesis on the subject
dealing with a detailed study of the mystical controversy between
Rniri and


and it is the second thesis an studies in Malay

mysticism written for an English-speaking university.l


The first being the doctoral dissertation of A.H. Johns
(published in the Journal of t he Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic
Society, vol. 30, pt. 2, August 1957).


work in this field has been the preserve of Dutch scholars.


the best of my knowledge there has yet been no work done on

Rniri insofar as his refutation of
is concerned, nor vrork on



mystical philosophy

s teachings wi tf1 a view to

bringing together for close comparison the ideas of these t\TO men
who have played so significant a role in the life of the people of
their time, as is here attempted.
Scholars in Indonesian and Malay studies seem to have taken
for granted as true Rniri's representation of
and teachings.



They believe in Raniri's claim to being an exponent

of "orthodox mysticisr," and in Raniri 1 s denunciation of


a "heretical pantheist" and of his teachings as "heresies."



for example, we find a great scholar in Malay studies such as

\;l'instedt succumbing to Rniri' s persuasive inf1uence in interpreting

mystical philosophy as mere materialistic pantheism:

For Hamzah God includes heat and cold, good
and evil, the Ka'bah and idolatrous temples. All
lies potential in the Divine Be :Lng like the seed in
the tree. If heat and cold, good and evil, were
not abt~ays i-r:unanent in God, then He could not be
ca1led perfect.2

Even in the most recent Observation in connection with Hamzah's

mystical philosophy we find it said that:

Winstedt, R.O., A History of Classical Malay literature,
Journal of the Malayan Branch, Royal Asi<.:tic Society, vol. 31, pt.3,
June 1958, p. 118.


There is not sufficient primary material available

to be absolutely certain of the standpoint of the
various authors concerned, even in regard to the
works of Hamzah and Shamsu'l-Din, although it
seems safe to say they were Pantheists of an
extreme kind.3
It is the veracity of what has been reported as



and teac ings as conveyed to us by Raniri and all those who agree
with him that I now challenge, for from what I understand of
~amza~ 's

mystical philosophy, I contend that for the most part - and

a damaging one at that - the reports and presentations are distortions and caricatures of vrl1at


actually says and means.


is therefore wi th reas on thc.t I now suggest we no longer continue

to consign him to the con pany of that uncultured and antinomian
brand of pedestrian


whom Raniri calls t .he Heretical or

Deviatir1g \vujdiyyah, for as Sa 'di 'l.rould say, if dust were blown to

the heavens it would still be dust; ru1d if gold were cast into the
dung-heap, gold it still would beJ
I have selected Raniri's


l i daf'i'l-Zindiq

for translation as I think t his worl{: reveals t he nature of Raniri 1 s

concepts of Being, Exi stence, Essence.

These are key concepts in

his polemics a gainst t he heretical Wujdiyyah mystics and against


The Romanized Nalay edition and English transl ation appears

respectively in chapters six and seven of thi s study.

The edition

and translation have been briefly annotated to thrm-1 sorne li ght on


~ ~.,

p. 30.


the meaning of the text and to convey cri ti cal comments en the text.
The system of transliteration of Arabie characters that I adopt
throughout t J.1 iS study is as follm.;s :(a)


\ = a



= b


= t


= th

= d

= dh


= j


= r


= z

= s

~ = d


= t

= z


= f


= q


= k

= 1

= n

= w

= h


= y

Long vovJels:


Short vo-vrels:







~ =





= sh

= u

= a;

= aw;

..!J-.1 -'





= gh



= u - .,.- '


= iyy (final
form i)

uww (final form )

(as in ma'rifah) and at (as in ma 'rifatu);

(article) = al

or '1

Throughout t iliS study and in chapter six in particular, the

system of Romanized Malay spelling is not the same as that still
officially used in Nalay schools and textbooks in the Malay

I am following closely the system adopted by the

Kongres Bahasa dan Persuratan Melayu III.

In this system, the

pepet sign ( "' ) and hyphens ( except in cases of repetition of words

usually denoting plurals and emphases) are dropped out, and the
spelling is more phonetic.

Except "Yrhen initial.

Thus, for example, sa-suatu is spelled




is spelled diperolehnya - and so



chapters six and seven, numerals in brackets ( (1) ) indicate

Rniri's notes to the written text on the margin of the manuscript;
numerals without brackets are my notes continued in the usual order
from the preceding chapters; numerals in square brackets ([1])
indic a te paging of the rnanuscript; a word or vrords in square
braclcets ((one]) denotes conjecture; a letter or letters in square
brackets ([o]) indicates missing letters in either the correct
spelling, or the modern form of spelling, such as, for an exarnple
of the latter, terbunyi (archaic) and ter[sem]bunyi (modern form);
memantah (archaic) and men[b]antah (modern forB).
occurring in the Malay text, and words of Arabie

Arabie words
ori ~in

which have

become common Malay usage are spelled according to t he Arabie form

following t 11e system of transliteration into Arabie characters here

Thus words now regarded as part of common Nalay usage

such as rnaksud, kaum,


dunia, are Romanized with the addition

of diacritical marks to indicate their original Arabie derivation



qa-vrm, 'alam, and dunya.


Introduction: The historical background


Trade has been going on in the Indonesian Archipelago since

ancient times, linking it with the various parts of Asia and with
the Middle East and the lands of the North.

In Roman times, the

Alexandrian geographer Ptolemy, who flourished in the year 160

of the Christian era, mentioned for the first time an area in the
Archipelago, referring toit as the 'Golden Chersonese.


prosperous land seems now to have been identified with the Malay
Peninsula. 1 Along with trade came changing religions and various
cultural elements imparting upon the people their distinctive

Islam too had come

the trade route.

Yet it

seems strange that, when considering the fact that Arab and Muslim
settlements had established themselves in Sumatra as early as 674,2
The Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboguerg ue, ~~
Viceroy of India. With notes and introduction by Walter de Gray
Birch. The Hakluyt Society, LII, LV, LXII, LXIX, London, 4 volumes,
1875-1884. Volume III, p. 71. Malacca and the Malay Peninsula
is referred to as the Golden Chersonese. Camillio Portio in his
Oration to Pope Leo X in 1515 on the capture of Malacca, extolls
Malacca as the Golden Chersonese (~., pp. 169-187). Hereafter
cited as Commentaries . See also Vlekke, B.H. ~r ., Nusantara, a
history of Indonesia, The Hague, 1959, p. 18. Hereafter cited as

See Arnold, T.W., The preaching Qf_Islam, London, 1913,

p. 364.

Hereafter cited as Arnold.


and again in 878,3 and in Java in 1082, in Champa in 1039, in
See ~uzayyin, S.A., ~~and the Far East~eir commerci21
and cultural relations in Graeco-Roman and Irano-Arabia n times,
Cairo, 1942, pp. 274, 154. See also ~ 1 on p. 164. Hereafter
cited as Ruzayyin. In 878, following a troublesome rebellion
which broke out in South China among the troops of the T'ang
Emperor Hi-tsung (874-889), Mas'd! reported that about one
hundred and twenty thousand, or two hundred thousand traders from
the West comprising Muslims (the majority), Jews, Christians,
and Parsees who had settled :hl what was known to the Arabs as
Khanfu (Canton) 1 were massacred (see Chau Ju-Kua: his works on the
Chinese and Arab trade in the twelfth and thlrfeenth centuries,
entltied Chu-fan-chi, tranSiatea and annotated by F. Hirth and
Rockhill, St. Petersburg, 1912, p. 18. Hereafter cited as
Chau Ju-Kua). Consequently the Muslim traders, who were mainly
Arabs and Persians left Canton and sought refuge in Kalah
(Kedah) on the west coast of the Malay Peninsula. This considerable emii;ration of the Muslim traders to the Malay Peninsula
effected a transference of the entrepot for trade vdth the Chinese
Empire from Canton to Kedah. We can reasonably assume that since
the Muslims had quite a considerable settlement in Canton, enjoying a high degree of civil and religious autonomy (see reference
to Chu Yu's work written between 1111 and 1117 in Chau Ju-Kua,
pp. 16 and 17; notes 1 and 2 on p. 16, and notes 1 and 2 on p. 17),
they must have perpetuated their mode of settlement and social
organization in Kedah and San-fo-tsi (Palembang) in east Sumatra,
whither they had similarly migrated. This event seems to have
marked the beginning of the coming of Islam in these areas. We
may imagine - if we accept our a ssumption that the Muslims
established settlements similar to those in Canton and elsewhere
in South China - that the Muslims coupled trading with missionary
ac ti vi ti es; especially in the coast al are as which vrere the ir
ports of call and trading centres.


Krom, N.J., Hindoe-Javaa nsche Geschiedenis , The Hague, second

edition, 1931, p. 452 and notes 5 and 6. Cited in van Leur, J.c.,
Indonesian tra~e and societz, The Hague, 1955, p. 168.


the Malay Peninsula in 8785 and in 1302, 6 we discern little

missionary activity when compared with the spread of missionary
activity among the l.fuslims at the end of the thirteenth century;
and that this activity, which in the fourteenth century increased
in momentum, dominated the entire Archipelago in the fifteenth

The reason is that, so Schrieke believes,7 a race with

Christianity was going on; and the coming of the Portuguese, who
took upon themselves wi th extrerJe zeal the "priviledge allowed
them through the extraordinary blessing of God 118 to exterminate
the Muslims, accelerated the process.

Had death not overtaken

him, Albuquerque planned to seek the land of the legendary Prester

John, which he presumably thought lay in Africa near the Nile.
Having crossed the small range of hills from the Red Sea to the
Nile, Albuquerque planned to divert the waters of
ruin Egypt.

t~1 e

Nile and

Then he dreamed of fitt :Lng out an expedition of four

hundred horsemen galloping from the eastern shores of the Red Sea

See above


See Paterson, H.s., An earlx insc!!~tion from Trengganu,

Journal o:f the Ha layan Branch o:f the Royal Asiatic Society (JHBRAS),

1924, vol. 2, pt. 3, pp. 252-258. See also Blagden, c.o., A note
on the Trenggany_in scription, JMBRAS, 1924, vol. 2, part 3, pp.


Schrieke, B., Indonesian sociological studies, The Hague,
1955-1957, parts I and II. Cited hereafter as Schrieke I and
Schrieke II respectively . Schrieke II, p. 232.

Schrieke quoting Barros, Schrieke I, p. 39.


to Makkah to sack and make a stable of the Ka'bah, then to raze

it to the ground.

From there the horsemen would rush upon

Madinah, exhume the Prophet's bones to trade them for Jerusa1em.9

The Portuguese adventure in wor1d politics succeeded to a certain
extent in cripp1ing the economy of sorne Nus1im countries particularly Egypt.

There was no need for Albuquerque to divert

the waters of the Nile to ruin Egypt, for in 1511 when he

captured Na1acca, trade from the .Archipe1ago was diverted round
the Cape of Good Hope to European ports.

This "'.vas one of the main

causes for the downfall of the Hamlks (another one being the
discovery of America

w~ ch

also diverted world trade).

From the

point of view of trade, the Golden Age for Egypt seems to be not
during the time of the


but during the period of the

Namlks (1250-1517) when the transit trade from the Spi ce Islands
and the Archipe1ago was thriving briskly.

To indicate the grave

economie loss suffered by the Mamlks by virtue of Portuguese

interference in their transit trade, it would be worthwhile to
point out that according to Becker, gold to the value of about
420,000 pounds passed through Egypt at that time each year.10

Commentaries IV, pp. 36-37.

Cited in Schrieke I, p. 10, from Becker's work on the economie
history of Muslim Egypt to be found in his Islarnstudien, pp. 214,

The spices involved in the trade were so much in demand in
Europe, where they were used not only in kitchens but in apothecaries as well.

But ironically enough, just as the destruction

of Baghdad and of the Khilafat by Hlag and his Hongols in 1258

diverted world trade from 'Iraq to Egypt, 11 and contributed to
promoting the rise of Muslim trade in the East, so did the
attack on Huslim trade in the East contribute in influencing the
rise of Islam there.

The spread of Islam would appear to have

begun at the same time as that of the Portuguese.

The Portuguese's

role was that of an extension of the Crusades between Islam and

Christianity, and trade competition between Muslims and
Chris tians.
However, one point of Schrieke's thesis is unacceptable to
me as I think the arguments marshalled in support of it are

This is his magnification of the role of Christianity

and the Portuguese in bringing about the rise of Islam in the


As a result of this the importance of Malacca's

role as the centre whence Islamic propaganda and missionary

Since the rise of the Fatimis, trade was diverted fran 'Iraq
to Egypt; and even more so after the destruction of Baghdad.
During the period of the 'Abbas!s, the trade route used to be
from the Persian Gulf via Baghdad to the Mediterranean ports.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the conquest of southern
Palestine by the Franks in the twelfth century had resulted in
diverting the spice trade route in Egypt itself. Ras 'Ilba on the
Red Sea across from Jiddah became the port of the Indian transit
trade. From there it followed through the desert to Qush in
Upper Egypt and ~ the Nile to Fus~a~ and thence to Alexandria,
whence it reached the European ports. See ~uzayyin, map no. 9,
facing p. 168.


activity radiated to the extremities of the Archipelago is

relegated to the background.
the sixteenth century
the Archipelago.


Schrieke himself knows that before

had already spread to many parts of

In the earlier centuries Pasai had supplied the

missionaries, but when Malacca became the centre of Muslim trade

and learning in the fifteenth century, Islam spread more rapidly.
It was the prosperity and brilliance of Malacca that made it the
headquarters for the Muslim missionary invasion of Java.
the saying: 'Java was converted in Malacca.

All this happened

long before the Portuguese appeared on the scene.




Yet to

so little progress was made by Islam before the six-

teenth century"!

I do not see how it is "impossible to understand

the spread of Islam in the Archipelago unless one takes into

account the antagonism between the Muslim traders and the Portuguese" when that spread of Islam had begun before the Portuguese
even came.

It seems to me quite possible indeed to understand the

spread of Islam in the Archipelago as a process that had already

begun (though naturally slowly at first) in the early fourteenth
century and increased its momentum in the fifteenth


dominating the sixteenth century not so much because of a "race

with Christianity" but because - and I do not want to imply that
I am necessarily a disciple of Plekhanov - t he momentum of the
historical process must inevitably



Whether or not the Portuguese appeared then on the scene would not


have made that much difference as Schrieke maintains, for Islam

by then would still have spread rapidly due to its own increasing

Viewed in this Hay it is easy to see how the

Portuguese factor can be easily magnified at the expanse of

other more important ones.

I do not doubt that the appearance

of the Portuguese and Christianity must have some effect on the

historical process of the spread of Islam in the Archipelago,
but I certainly doubt that their role was as big as Schrieke
makes it out to be.

The Muslims, then, had a good start of

more than a century in spreading Islam in the Archipelago, and

there was really no "race" with the Portuguese; they had
established centres in Pasai in north Sumatra and in Malacca
long before the Portuguese appeared on the scene.

When Malacca

was captured by the Portuguese, the Muslims moved their centres

to Acheh in north Sumatra and Banten in west Java, and to Ternate
in the Noluccas.

Thus Pasai, :Malacca, and Acheh in turn became

centres of international trade.

This period of economie power

and prosperity of the Muslim port towns corresponded - as has

always been the case in these areas - with intellectual and

religious achievements which radiated from there to all the

other parts of the Archipelago.



courts were

thronged with, in most cases, foreign scholars and mystics.


the Archipelago, Islam had come, contrary to wha t seemed to be

the case in other lands, through the channel of trade and


missionary zeal.

$ufism had eased the way for it, and the

1arigahs carried the propaganda skilfully.

The Walis conveyed

the spiritual message effectively and Makkah wielded the mystic


Apart from the scholars and mystics, there flourished

also the administrators - the Shhbandars who not only represented

a link between Islam and the royal courts, but between the courts
and the outside world as we11. 12
According to the 11alay chronicles, Islam first spread in the
area now called Acheh through the missionary zeal of an Arab
(who must have come~ India) called 'Abdu'l-Lah 'Arif who came
there in the beginning of the twe1fth century. 1 3 It is related
that the Sharif of Makkah sent one Shaykh Isma'il and a small
group of missionaries to Samudra to spread Islam there in the
middle of the thirteenth century. 14 He succeeded in Perlak and
from there moved on to Samudra where he converted the ru1ing king,
For information about the various roles of the Shahbandar,
see Moreland, W.H., Shahbandar of the Eastern Seas, Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS), 1920;-pt. ~ pp. 517-535. See a1so
Blagden, c.o., Shahbandar and Bendahara, JRAS, 1921, pt. 1,
pp. 246-250.

See Arnold, p. 366.

Hika~at Raja-Raja Pasai; a revised romanized version of
Raffles M 67, with an English translation, an introduction and
notes by A.H. Hill, JMBRAS, vol. 33, pt. 2, 1960, p. 56.
Hereafted cited as Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai.


Merah Silu, to Islam.

The realms of Perlak and Samudra were then

united under this king's rule and called Pasai.

Muslim title was


died in 1297.

The king, whose

Marco Polo,

visiting this part of Sumatra in 1292, witnessed the fact that the
inhabitants were Huslims. During the reign of
(who may have been the eldest son of



in the

first half of the fourteenth century, Islamic learning was a1ready

f1ourishing in Pasai.

It was the earliest centre of Islamic

1earning in the Archipelago.


According to Ibn Ba~t;~ah, 1 5 the

was a lover of religions debates and discourses, and had

himself surrounded by 'U1ama' and Fuqaha'.

He makes mention of

several Fuqaha' from Persia who acted in the capacity of religions

advisors to the


and his sons.

These may have been the

ones he met when he stopped there in 1345-1346. 16 Ibn Ba~~~ah
also mentioned that the Sult;an was zealous in propagating the
faith in the surrounding country by means of wars and raiding
expeditions. 1 7 From the same source, we know too that the


Su1t;ns court maintained close relations

with the Indian courts

Ibn Bat~~~~' Trave1s in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354; trans1ated
and selecte by H.A.R. Gibb, London, 1953, p. 274. Hereafter
cited as Ibn Ba~~U~sh

Ibn Ba~t~~' p. 273.



p. 274.


and was markedly Indian in character, with a c ourt official who

bore the Arab-Persian -Indi an ti tle of amir 18 During the period
of religious transition in Java, Javanese scholars gathered in
the court of Pasai, 'rThich had con tri buted tmrards the conversion
of vtest Java by sending there Sunan Gunung Jati, one of the most
illustrious missionaries in Java \vho became the founder of Banten
and who converted Sundanese Java to Isl am. 1 9
of Pasai tha t in 1407

It was at the court


the great- great grandson of

the 'Abbasi Kha.J..ifah, died. 20

Sumatra in 1365 still OiJed

nominal allegiance to Hayam Wuruk, the king of Najapahit, and

Acheh in 1412 was still ruled by a Naharaja, but by 1416 Chinese
sources reported that Acheh was already Huslim, 21 vigourously
expanding her pm.J"er by pushing further south.
In 1401, Parames-v,rara, a Shailendra prince of the once great

Shrivijaya (Palembang) who had married a Javanese princess of

Majapahit, was fleeing Java because of political disturbances in
east Java.

He took refu ge in Tumasik (Singapore) and, after

slaying his host, took possession of the island.

In 1402, the




See Schrieke II, p. 238, 261.

p. 273. Ibn Ba~~~ah had been acquainted i.J'ith the amir

l a tter h ad cane as an envoy to the Sultan of Delhi
(p. 274).

t ~e

See Winstedt, R.O., Ea:r:J.:t_Huhammadan missi.Ql!;~, Journal of
the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JSBRAS), 1920,
no. 81, p. 5.
See Winstedt, R.O. and Wilkins on, R.J., History of_ferak,
JMBRAS, 1934, vol. 12, pt. 1, p. 18. Hereafter cited as Histoyz
of Perak.


murdered man's brother, who came from Pahang or Patani, drove

Parameswara out of Tumasik.

Fleeing up the Muar River, he

finally settled in a fishing village and founded his kingdam of

Malacca there. 22 By 1411+, through marriage with a daughter of


of Pasai, Parameswara became a Muslim, styling himself

Sul~an Iskandar Shh. 23 Malacca, due to its favourable position

which eclipsed even old Shrivijaya and Malayu in the Sumatran

mainland, expanded rapidly in the sphere of trade.

It developed

into an emporium, a rendezvous for traders and trading vessels

that plied between ports of east Java and India carrying thir
precious spices from the Moluccas. Not only was Malacca an
emporium where international trade was carried out at a brisk
rate, it developed also into another centre of Islamic studies
in the whole of t :1e Ar chi pelago.

The development of Malacca

into a great commercial centre and the propagation of Islam in

that part of the world went band in hand; and it would appear that
in the latter case, Sufism had played a significant role in the
process of islamization.


In less than a century after Parames-

Q!. Commentaries III, pp. 71-84.

That Parameswara, or Permaisura was identical with Iskandar

Shh was shown by Winstedt in sever~ places. Kern was earlier
in holding this view. It was Tome Pires, a Portuguese accountant
who wrote his Suma Oriental in Malacca and India between 1512 and
1515, who pointed out this fact. See Winstedt, R.O., The Malays,
a cultural historx, London, 1953, p. 34. See also his Halay
chronicles fi2m Sumatra and Malaya in Historians of South East Asia,
edited by D.G.E. Hall, London, 1961, vol. II, p. 25.


wara became a Nuslim, the theolo g; ians of the kingdom Here already
formula tinG religious questions and taking an active part in
polemics in metaphysi cal matters, vying \vi th those of Pas ai. 24
In 'Abdu '1-Lh ibn 'Abdu '1 Qadir :Hunshi 's edition of the 3e.i arah
Helayu,25 chapter t1.-renty 26 relates that a certain ~fi Shaykh


- Ab IstJ.q by narne - had wri tten a book enti tled

Durru '1-Na..Il~m.

This boo!{, dealing with mysticisra , was at first

apparently written in two parts: the first part a iscourse on

the nature of the
of the



(essence), and the second on the nature

(attributes) of God.

Having coDpleted this work,

the Shaykh Ab Isl}aq then instructed his disciple Ab Bakr

to spread the knowledge in Nalacca.

Before taldn g lea ve of his

Shaykh, however, Ab Bakr \vas said to su g gested to him to

include in the book a discourse on the af'al ('tmrks) of God, so

See the article on the Pasai auestions, JSBnAS, 1922, no. 86,
pp. 264-265.
Edited by Situmorang , T.D. and Teemr, A., Djakarta , 1958.
Hereafter cited as Sejarah Melayu.
Pp. 168-173. See also Wir.:.stedt, R.o., The NalalL.lillnals,
JMBRAS, 1938, vol. 16, pt. 3, p. 8; and A history of Nala:y-l'iter.!;::.
ture, JNBRAS, 1 940, vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 92.


that should he be asked question s pertaini ng to the af'al of God,

he would be 1o1ell prepared . The Shaykh Ab Isl)aq agreed to his
discipl e's suggesti on and included the discours e required in his
book. The complete d book of three parts dealing with the
essence , attribut es, and 'Yrorks of God was taken to Halacca where
both, the book and Mawlana Ab Bakr, were received with great
pomp and ceremony ; drummed a11 the way to the Nalaccan court.


of Malacca at the time,


Shah, himself took a

keen interes t in the study of the book and had it sent to Pasai
to the Makhdm Patru{an, who was instruct ed to interpre t its inner


Manir Shah also sent Tun Bija Wangsa to Pasai,

offerrin g presents of gold, slave girls, and cockatoo s for the

solution of the problem as to whether those in heaven and he11
enjoy or suffer eternal1 y.

At first Tun Bija Wangsa was to1d

that they will dwe11 in heaven or in hell enjoying and sufferri ng

eternall y, but since this was not the answer expected , he was
privatel y given an esoteric answer: that the sufferin gs of the
damned would be turned to pleasure .

This answer reflects a

teaching of 'Abdu'l- Karim al-Jili, who was born in 1365-6 and

probably died sorne time between 1406 and 1417. 2 7 Johns noted


Shh ascended the throne in 1459 and that 1t 1s fair

to assume that the contents of the Insanu'l -Kamil and its author

See Nicholso n, R.A.,
mystici2 m, Cambrid ge,

1921, pp. 136-137 and note 5. Hereaft er cited as Nicholso n. Qr.

also Johns, A.H., Mala~fism, as il1ustra ted in an anonymous
collecti on of seventee nth-cent ury tracts, JMBRAS, 1957, vol. 30,
pt. 2, p. 9. Hereaft er cited as Johns.


were we11 known (at 1east in Pasai) we11 before it is referred to

in the Sejarah Me1ayu, so that the possibi1ity of the work being
known in Indonesia within fifty years of its author's death is not
unreasonable. 28 The foundations of Sufism had a1ready been we11
laid in Malacca in 1488, and it is not a surprise for us to learn
that the


in Sufism. Tha

who reigned at that time was himse1f an enthusiast


orders must have already been wel1 estab1ished

in the Archipelago - particularly in Pasai - between the fifteenth

and sixteenth centuries, for we cou1d find men whose comprehension
of the doctrines of the


and of Huslim theology and

metaphysics revealed a maturity found only within a society in

which Sufism flourishes.
When in 1511 the Portuguese captured Malacca, Acheh rose
rapid1y as the most important Nuslim commercial centre in the
.Archipe1ago, for the


marchants and traders from Malacca had

moved over and selected Acheh as their base in their trade with the

Acheh became an important transit point for Muslim

trade between Mus1im lands in the North-West, India, and the Far

In the early sixteenth century, under the first maker

Greater Acheh,


'Ali Mughayat Shh



1530), Acheh had

conquered several territories in the regions of southern Sumatra

and in the eastern coasta1 regions; repulsed the Portuguese f1eet
under Ruy de Brito (1521); and expelled the Portuguese from their

Muslim mystics and historical writing, in Historians of
South East Asia, edited by D. G. E. Hall, London, 1961, vol. II,
p. 41.


fort at Acheh (1524) which they had occupied since 1521. 29


successor , 'Ala'u,l-D !n Ri'ayat Shh al-Qahhar (d. 1568 ) raised

the military prestige of Acheh still higher when in 1537 he made
an incursion into the interior of central Sumatra - the Batak
country - and conquered the territory .

His mercenari es were said

to have been hired from Turkey, Abyssinia , Gujerat, and Malabar.

The tenth Sul~an from 'Al! Hughayat Shh was also named 'Ala,u'lDin Ri'ayat Shh.

He reigned from 1589-1604 .

The opulence of his

court is illustrate d by the descriptio ns of those who came there.

Queen Elizabeth greeted him as "our loving brother" in her letter
which Sir James Lancaster conveyed to his court where diplomats
as well as mystics were welcome.

The Englishme n came to anchor in

the Road of Acheh on the 5th of June, 1602 about five miles off the

They found about eighteen other ships of different nations -

from Gujerat, Halabar, Bengal, Calicut, Pegu, Patani, and even the
Red Sea.3


the 8th of June, the Sul~an sent to fetch Lancaster :

sixe great elephants , with many trumpets,

drums and streamers , with much people to
accompany the generall to the court, so that
the presse was exceeding great. The biggest of
these elephants was about thirteene or ~ourteene
foote high, which had a small castle, like a coach
upon his back, couered with crimson veluet. In

History of Perak, p. 18.

The voyages of Sir James Lancaster , Kt., to the East Indies,
edited by C.R. Markham, The Hakluyt Society, LVI, London , 1877,
p. 74. Hereafter cited as Voyages.


the middle thereof was a great bason of gold, and

a peece of silke exceeding richly wrought to couer
it, vnder which her Majesties letter was put. The
generall vms mounted vpon another of the elephants;
sorne of his attendants rode, ethers went a foote.
But when he came to the court gate, there a nobleman stayed the generall, till he had gone in to
know the kings further pleasure. But presently
the said nobleman returned, and willed the generall
to enter in. And when the generall came to the
kings presence, he made his obeysance after the
manner of the country, declaring that hee was
sent from the most mightie Queene of England to
congratulate with his hignesse and treat with
concerning a peace and amitie with his Maiestie,
if it pleased him to entertaine the same.31
Lancaster presented the


a silver basin with a fountain in

the midst of it, a great silver eup, a rich looking glass, a

plumed head-piece, a case of daggers, a richly wrought and
embroidered sword-belt and a feather fan.

In the banquet that

followed all the dishes in which the meat was served were of
pure gold and some of gold alloy.

After the banquet, the


caused his dancing girls to perform, richly attired and adorned

with bracelets and jewels.

Lancaster was presented with a fine

white robe of calice richly wrought with gold, a girdle of Turkish

work, and two keris.

When Lancaster presented himself at court

again to negotiate a treaty of peace and friendship between

England and Acheh, the


sent two noblemen on his behalf to

discuss the matter with Lancaster.


Voyages, p. 76.


The one of these noblemen was the chiefe bishope

of the realme, a man of great estimation with the
king and all the people; and so he well deserued,
for he was a man very wise and temperate. The
other one was one of the most ancient nobilitie,
a man of very good grauitie but not so fit to
enter into those conferences as the bishop was.3 2
It has been suggested that t :1e "chiefe bishope of the realme" may
have been Shamsu'l-Din a1-Sumatrani the myst1c,33 or it may have
been ~amzah Fan~ri.34
may have been


It seems to me that the other man mentioned

who was actual1y in Acheh at this time, for

in one of his poems (undated) he indicates that it was composed

during the


season of '-rhite men"35 referring no doubt either to the

Dutch or to the Eng1ish who appeared on the scene at this time.

------------------------------------------------------------------32 ~., p. 81.

See Van Nieuwenhuijz e, C.A.O., Samsu'l-Din van Pasai, Leiden,
1945, p. 1.3 . Hereafter cited as Van Nieuwenhuijz e. Pertinent
references to Shaykh Shamsu '1-Din i::-1 the Hikayat Ach~ seem to
confirm the view that Shamsu'1-Din was in fact the 'chiefe bishope
of the realme. See Teuku Iskandar, De Hikajat~jeh, s-Gravenhage, N.V. De Neder1andsch e Boek -en Steendrukker ij v.h. H.L.
Smits, 1959, pp. 137, 153, 168. Hereafter cited as Hikayat Acheh.
Shamsu'l-Dfu bore the Otto11an tit1e of Shayku'1-Is1a m. The Dong
Dawis mentioned on p. 136 was none other than John Davis, the
great Arctic navigator who had visited the Achehnese court in his
voyage to the East Indies in a Dutch ship in 1593.

See Schrieke II, p. 393, ~ 149.

De Geschrifte ~ van Hamzah Pansoeri, by J. Doorenbos, Leiden,
1933, p. 118. Hereafter cited as ~amzah Fan~ri.


The term 'orang putih' cou1d not have referred to the Portuguese
who would have been cal1ed Pertugali or Peringgi (from Ar.
faranji); rather even to this day it refers to Englishmen.
Acheh had grmm so great and famous on account of her
prosperity that Francois Pyrard, describing conditions in 1602,
writes that:
All people in the Indies or on the other side of the
Cape of Good Hope, \vhen they go to Sumatra, merely
say that they are going to Achen: for this city and
port ha~ acquired the name and reputation of the
island.j 6


Iskandar Muda, who reigned from 1607 to 1636, Acheh

reached its zenith in military as well as commercial pov1er.

Iskandar Muda conquered Perak and sacked Johore, and with the
exception of Java and the eastern parts of the Archipelago, held
sway over the rest.


Captain Best visited Acheh in 1612, he

saw Iskandar Huda "a gallant man of warre, of thirty two yeares,
of middle size, full of spirit"; fond of smoking the huggah and
watching cock fights and fights between elephants, rams, and tigers.
His splendid court was fashioned after that of the Mogul court.37
When the

Sul~ an

went to the Frida y prayers, it is said that:

The voyage of Francois pyrard of Laval to the East Indies, the
Haldives, the Holuccas and Brazil; transla ted by Albert Gray,
assisted by H.C.P. Bell, from the French, Hakluyt Society, LXXVI,
LXXVII, London, 1887-1890, 2 vols. in 3 parts, part 1, pp. 159-160.


See Schrieke II, pp. 251-252.


He had for his guard, (who) went before him,

200 great ollephantes, 2000 small shot, 2000 pikes,
200 launces, 100 bowmen, 20 naked S'\ofordes of pure
gould carried before him; 20 fencers went before
him, plaiinge with swordes and targettes; a horse
leed before him, covered with beaten gould, the
bridle set with stones; at his sadle-crutch a
shafte of arrowes, the quiver of beaten gould set
with pretious stones. Before =him went his towe
sons, of 8 or 9 years ould, arrayed with jewelles
and rich stones. His Hajestie rode upon an ollephant,
his saddle of pure gould, his slave behind him in
rich arraye, with his betel boxe, and a fan of pure
gould in his hand to keepe the flies fraa the Kinge.
The Kinge 1 s robes were so rich that I cannot well describe them; he had a turband upon his head set with
jewelles and pretious stones invalluable; creast
and sword of pure gold, the skaberd set with stones.
Before him 'lrrent an ollephant, with a chaire of state
couered all with beaten si1ver, that, if yt shou1d
chaunce to rayne, he might change ollephantes 38
Not only was Iskandar Nuda reputed to be a conqueror, but
he was also credited with having brought a reform in Acheh which,
in accordance with what was believed to be Islamic, he created into
a theocratie state.

As part of his reform programme, he is said to

have created the office of ~~i as


official of the court.39

I must, however, point out that the title




See Voyages, p. 256.

See Van Langen, K.F.H., De Inrichting van het Atjehsche Staatsbestuur onder het Soeltanaat, BKI, Leiden, 1888, p. 420. Hereafter
cited as Van Langen. Hurgronje, c.s. (in The Achehnese, translated
by A.w.s. oSullivan, London, 1906, 2 vols, vol. 1, p. 97), also
mentions this, but he leaves it an open possibility that another
earlier sovereign might have instituted the qa~I 1 s title. I
believe, however, that it is certain that the institution of the
qa~I had existed at a much earlier date.
See be1oH note 4o.


by which the court qag! was known, was in use long before Iskandar
Muda's time.40

In Acheh before Iskandar Muda's time, the qagi

was not the sole judge in legal matters pertaining to him, as

was the case in ether Nuslim countries. 41 In conformity with the
system of administration prevailing in Acheh at the time, it would
be more precise to regard the qagi as the President of the Sul~an's
judicial college, which consisted of the various Territorial Chiefs,
Dignitaries, and Fuqaha' of the realm.

The reason underlying the

qagi's appointment to the presidency of the judici al collage was



desire - undoubtedly influenced by the



mystics around him - to check the power of 'adat law and to

reconcile it wi th the shari'ah as it was t hen canceived.


'adat law, all decisions of the judicial college were unanimous

decisions of the members which consisted of the Territorial Chiefs
and other Dignitaries of the reaL11.

With the Qali Naliku'l-'Adil

as its head, such decisions could therefore be swayed (by the

'Ulama' represented by the Qali) in faveur of those aligned to the

4o See ~lat Acheh p. 150. In paragraph 196, the chronicler

mentions Sultan 4 Al~ 'u 11-Din Ri' ayat_Shah (a1-Qahhar r. 1540-1567)
conferring the title Qa~I Maliku'l-'Adil to a Faqih. -The Sul~an
alone exercised the prerogative of appointing one to t he Qal.Iship
(see p. 149, para. 194).
Regarding the jurisdiction of t he qali i n other Muslim
conntries , see Tyan, E., "Judic ial organi zation" i n Law in the
Middle Ea st , edi ted by H. Khadd:;ri and H. J. Lie besny, Wa shington,
D.C., 1955, p. 245.


requirements of the shari'ah.

In this way too a compromise was

reached between the exponents of 'adat on the one hand and those
of the sharr 'ah on the other.

Iskandar Mucl.a promulgated statutes

outlining r ules and regulations to be put i nto effect in Acheh. 42
He also appointed a state Q9I from among the 'Ulama' of the
realm who se duty i t vras to ens ure that laws re garding matters
within the purview of religion were duly administered.

This Qa9I's

would seem to prevail only within the domain of

private law. 43
His reforms and stern rule, however, did not seem to effect
the spiri tual climate of Acheh

w'~ icn,

since the time


flourished, bad betrayed 'heterodox tendencies.

period flourished

Shams ~~

In this

'1-Din al-Sumatran!, a mystic from Pasai

who may have been influenced by the teachings of ~amzah Faniri.44

It is possible moreover that these two famous figures in the
domain of Malay mysticism may not have taught

heterod0x' doctrines,

bu t the.t those who claimed to be their disciples have distorted

1-rhat they te ach.



Iskandar Thani, Iskanda.r Muda' s

For the contents of the daftar of rules and regulations, see

Van Lang en, pp. 436-41-t-7.

43 See Van Langan, p. 422. Indeed in those times certain parts

of privnte law were still in the grip of 'adat law. See the
descEiption of the customs at Acheh in Voyages, pp. 259-260. The
Sul 'fan seeus to follm..r the Ottoman Law of Fratricide w:t th regard
to succession.

Van Nieuwel~huijze, pp. 234-235.


successor, ascended the throne in 1636, there were marked changes.

He 1.-vas a


sober' man and encouraged

orthodox' 'Ulama' at his

this time, the greatness of Acheh, both as a commercial

and religious centre, had begun to decline.

The Dutch capture of

Malacca from the Portuguese in 1641 made Halacca once again the
most important comaercial centre in the Archipelago soon to
eclipse even Acheh.

The level of scholarly activity in the courts

had sunk to a lmv degree.

Pseudo-mystics and charlatans had

taken hold of the minds of the people.

But their activities were

put to an abrupt end when Nru'l-Din al-Raniri arrived in Acheh

in 1637 and found faveur at court.

He soon inaugur ated, after

engaging himself in polemics and debates vrlth the deviating

Wujdiyyah mystics in the presence of the
zindig hunt.


a 'tddespread


Nru'l-Din al-Raniri


The latest account about the author of the ~ujjatu'l-~idd!g

li daf'i'l-Zi nd!q, and probably the most concise1y informativ e so
far, is that given by Vuorhoeve ; 4 5 according to vlhn, on the
authori ty of Drewes ,,,rhich commands respect, Nru '1-Din ibn 'Ali
ibn ?asanji ibn Mu~ammad ~amid a1-Rniri came from Ranir (Rander)
in Bikanir, Rajputana , Gujerat.

The eminent Indonesian scho1ar

Raden Hoesein Djajadini ngrat had conc1usiv ely pointed out the
error of van der Tuuk who asserted that Raniri wrote his Bustnu'l -

Sa1a~in in Acheh in the year 1630-1631 .46

Djajadini ngrat showed

that Rniri - as far as we can glean from historica l sources at

our disposal - arrived in Acheh in 1637, 47 and there is so far no
evidence as yet to show that he was in Acheh at sorne earlier date.
The same Indonesian scholar also corrected the errer that another
book written by Rniri, the Sira~u '1-11ustagi m, was wri tten in 1634.
It is now knovm that he -vrrote this vmrk in 161+4. 48 Voorhoeve is of


Voorhoeve , P., Twee Naleise Geschrifte n van Nruddin arRaniri, Leiden, 195,---pp. 5-7. This"'Cont a'ins facsimile s of the
Tibyan fi Na'rifati'l -Adyan (128p., Leiden text, Cod. Or. 3291),
and the Hujjatu'l- Siddig li daf'i'l-Zi ndia (27p., Maxwell text no.
93, Royal Asiatic ~ociety, London). Reference s to Voorhoeve 's
introduct ion will hereafter be cited as Voorhoeve . The Tibyan fi
Ma 'rifati '1-Ad~n ,..,ill hereafter be cited as Tibyan; the
Fujjatu'l-~idd~a li daf'i'l-Zi ndia will hereafter be cited as

Djajadini ngrat, R.H., Critisch overzicht van de in Haleische
werken vervatte e evens over de eschieden is van het-sota naat
van Atjeh, BKI, 6 , Leiden, 1911, pp. 136-137. See also note
Hereafter cited as Djajadini ngrat.

Voorhoeve , p. 6, note 4.


the opinion that it was not necessary for Raniri to acquire such
k:nowledge of Malay literature as is apparent in that ,. rork before
his arrival in Acheh in 1637.49

Furthermore, he went on to say

that Raniri did not have to go to Acheh to learn the llalay

language, as in Gujerat there was a considerable lwfalay population
from which he could obtain the knowledge required.

The coastal

to\vns of Gujerat were then having an international population.

Trading ships plied regularly bettveen these towns and the Straits
of Nalacca.

The Halays and Javanese in these coastal areas even

served among the mercenary troops.

The Malay language in these

harbour to\-ms was th en well lmotm.

Rani ri' s family had also kept

contact with Acheh - his mother being a Malay.

But the question

as to hm.; and -vrhere Raniri lear:.:ed the Malay language to be able

ultimately to vanquish the indigenous 'heterodox mystics who were
surely masters of their own language seems to me to be still

Assuming that he was in Gujerat learning Malay from

the Nalays there, it would still be hard to accept that his knowledge of the language learned in that manner from traders, sailors
and mercenary troops would suffice to equip him to challenge the
Malay mystics who spoke court language and \vho, in the case of
?amzah Faniri, was also an accomplished poet.

Although Voorhoeve

mentioned that most of the sources Raniri was acquainted with were
all famous books by Indian authors

a ~d

not one of those of his older


contemporaries at Makkah,50 it would still seem tome strange that

Raniri did not appear in his works to betray any knowledge of the
thought and works of Apmad Sirhindi who died in 1625.

One would

have thought that Raniri would be wen acquainted with Sirhindi's

well-known criticism directed against Ibnu'l-'Arabi and his
doctrine of w~datu'l-wujd,5l for this is an important matter
connected so closely with his own attack on the Wujdiyyah mystics.
Perhaps it would not be too improbable to conjecture that Raniri
might well have been in Acheh before the year 1637, or more
likely in Pahang wbich was then under Achenese domination, or even
in Malacca,

and had acquired a good grounding of the Malay

language in either of these places to prepare him for the task

to come.
Ran!ris family had always maintained close contact with

In 1580 and 1583 his uncle had cone to Acheh to teach

logic, rhetoric, athies and figh, but found to his dismay that he
could not generate interest in these subjects, the reason being
that mysticism prevailed then.
Makkah to study


Only after he had journeyed to

master Sufism did he, on returning to Acheh,

achieve seme measure of success at court.


Ibid., p. 7.

Raniri must have


Short of a comprehensive account of Sirhindi's conception of

~~lQ and his_c~i~icism of Ibnu'l-'Arabi's ~datu'l-wujd, see
Burhan ~ad Faruq1's brief work, The Mujaddid's CoUQeption of
~~~' Lahore, 1943.


1earned a great deal about the spiritua1 c11mate of Acheh from

his uncle, for when he arrived in Acheh fifty years 1ater, as a
teacher of Sufism he was well prepared.

We lmow for certain that

he returned to Ran!r in 1644 and died there in 1666.

Ran!r! was a member of the Rifa'iyyah Order and the shaykh who
initiated him, Sayyid Ab ~ars 'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l-Lah Ba Shayban,
of South Arabian origin


was born in India.

This man

had studied in Arabia, but la.ter settled in India where he '"as

initiated into the Rifa'iyyah Order by Sayyid
at Srat.



Ba Shayban lived mainly in Bijapr where he enjoyed the

patronage and protection of Mul}ammad 'Adil Shh.

Bilgrm in 1656.

He died in

The famous Shaykh Ysuf of Macassar, who

departed from Celebes on a trip to Makkah in 1644 was also a murid





RaLiri too is mentioned as one of Shaykh Ysuf's

Sayyid Nul}ammad a1-'Aydars, Ba Shayban's teacher, was

born in Tarim in the


in 1561.

At the age of nineteen

he 1eft his native land for Gujerat and became a theo1ogian there.
Thence he went to Srat where he died in 1620.

Al-'Aydars unc1e,

'Abdu'l-Qadir who died at A9madabad in 1628, was more well known

as author of several books and treatises.
South Arabia to settle in Srat in 1551.

His father came from

There he married an

Indian woman. Such, in short, was the environmental setting where

Raniri round himself; nurtured by that spiritua1 atmosphere which
was to prepare him for the court of Acheh.

The people who had made

up the milieu whence Rn!ri sprang were of mixed Arab-Indian b1ood,


who through regular correspondence and frequent study trips,

maintained an unbroken chain of contact with the motherland,
while, at the same time, keeping in touch with Acheh.
It was then the general rule that those who devoted themselves
to teaching and religious work accomplished them by virtue of the
Sultan's patronage and protection. The spiritual climate in

Acheh during the reign of Sultan Iskandar Muda (Hahkota 'Alam) was
rather unhealthy for an exponent of or thodoxy' such as Rniri;
for the Sultan, who reigned from 1607 to 1636, was prone to give
a willing ear to the enlightened subtleties of the mystical
teachin6S spread abroad by


Faniri, and to the teachings

of Shamsu'l-Din al-Sumatran! who was then flourishing and holding

sway at court.

Shamsu'l-Din mi ght have been , according to

Nieuwenhuijze,52 one of the most famous scholars who graced the

court, whose mystic doctrines attracted numerous disciples including the Sultan himself.
remained in the

Sul~an 1 s

spiritual life in Acheh.

When he died in 1630,53 his disciples

favour and continued to cont rol the
But in 1636, on the

spiritual state of affairs changed.


His successor,

death, t he



Thni (1637-1641), compared to his predecessor was of a different

temperament, for no sooner was he installed than Rniri decided it




Ibid., p. 15.

p. 234.


timely to appear at court, arriving in Acheh on a Sunday, Hay 31,


He gained fa.vour at once and in 1638 received the order

from the


- ' ~ -t~ 54
to wri te the Bust,lllLl-:::lala.m.

I n 1641 dur1ng

the ceremony of the Erection of the Tombstone 55 by the ne'" Sultan,


Djajadiningrat, p. 136.


Chau Ju-Kua in 1225 noted that:

There is (in San fo-tsi) a (kind of) Buddha
(i.e. image) called 'Hill of Gold and Silver,'
and-it is cast jn gold. Each succeeding king
before ascending the throne has cast a golden
image to r epresent his person, and they are
most particular to make offerings of golden
vessels to these images, and the golden images
and golden vessels all bear inscript:i.ons to
caution future generations not to malt them
(Chau Ju-Kua, p. 61)
John Davis, who wa s in Acheh i n 1599, gi ves this account:
As touching their Burials, every Generation or
Kinred have their particular place to burie their
dead; which is in the Fields. They lay the Corps
with the head towards Mecha, having a free Stone at
the head, and another at the feete curiously wronght,
thereby signif ying the \'TOrthinesse of the person.
But in the place of the Kings Burials every grave
hath a piece of Gold at the head, and another at the
foot, weighing at the least five hundred pound
wei ght, cunningly embossed and wrou ght. This King
['Ala'u'l-Din Ri' ayat Shh Sayyid al- Mukammal] hath
two such Peeces in making and almost finished, vmich
wee saw, t hat are a t hous and pound wei ght a piece,
and shall bee richly set with stones.
(Purchas, s., Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His
Pilgrimes, Contayning a_Bistory of_~Wor~n-sea
Voyages and Lande Travells Qy__Englishmen and Others,
Hakluyt Society, Extra seri es, XIV-XXXII I , 20v.,
1905-07, vol. II, pp. 321-322)

Schrieke points out tha t fran -vrha t John Davis said it is clear
that the Sul~an of Acheh had h i s tombsto nes ma de during hi s lifetime. Iskandar Huda too made his tombstones during his l i fetime
and even chose hi s own posthumous t i tle. The ceremony '\..rhich
Rani r i attended may well have been one i n whi ch I skand a r Thni


Raniri was present with the courtiers.

ceremony the


At the time of this

had already assumed his posthumous title

Daru'l-Salam by which Raniri addressed him

entitled Tibyan fi_}la 'rifati '1-Adyan. 56

t b.e refore been

writte ~1

of his ret urn to Ranir.


his treatise

This work must have

by him between 1641 and 1644 - the year

In his very vrords Rani ri re lE. tes how,

in a polemic against the exponents of the 'heretical' Wujdiyyah

in the presence of the new


he banished them forever:

Maka tatakala t:ahirlah qaum \vujdiyyah

yang zindig mulhid lagi sesat daripada murid
Shamsu'l-D1n al!Sumatrni yang lisut maka
berbahathlah mereka itu dengan kami beberapa hari
dihadapan hadrat Sultan yang terlebih salih pada
masanya (didiamkan Ailah Ta'ala kiranya akan dia
pada sama tengah shurga!)l iaitu Mawlana alSultan Iskandar Thani 'Ala 'u '1-Din Nughayat Shah,
yang bergelar ~~m Daru '1-salam. Ialah yang
mendirikan agama Allah dengan keteguhan yang amat
'ajab Serta kata mereka itu: "Bahwa sanya
Allah Ta'ala diri kami dan wujd kami, dan
kami diriNya dan wujdNyan Naka [telah]
kukaran t:: pada memba~alkan kata mereka itu yang
salah dan i'tiqad mereka itu yang sia-sia itu
suatu risalah pada menyatakan da'wa bayangbayang dengan empun~a bayang-bayan ~
Dan kukatakan [padaj mereka itu: "Bahwa sanya
kamu menda ''-ra diri kamu ketuhanan seperti da 'wa
Fir 'awn, ka tanya: "Akaulah Tuhan kamu yang Hahatinggi 11 ; tetapi bahwasanya adalah kamu qat.nn

----------------------------------------------------- -------------placed the tombstones for his dead rather the ruler of Pahang.
This ceremony is called the menanam batu ceremony, and is
in origin a megalithic usage in accordance with
which memorial stones are elected for dead chieftains. On Java the megalithic usage was Hinduized,
so that there deceased rulers were entombed in
deification images of Buddha images with the facial
characteristics of the deified ruler. Here we
encounter the Halay form of the same usage.
(Schrieke in Schrieke II, p. 260)


Tibyn, p. 4.


yang kafir " Maka masamlah muka mereka itu,

serta ditundukk an mereka itulah kepalanya , dan
adalah mereka itu mushrik. Maka mem[b]eri
fatwalah segala Islam atas kufr mereka itu dan
akan mem[b]unuh dia Dan setengah daripada
mereka itu mem[b]eri fatwa akan kufr dirinya,
maka setengahn ya tawbat dan setengahn ya tiada
mahu tawbat. Dan setengahn ya daripada mereka
itu yang tawbat itu murtad pula ia; kembali ia
kepada i'tiqadny a yang dahulu itu jua ~ Maka
terbunuhl ah segala tentera qaum yang kafir.
Dan segala PY11-puji an bagi Allh Tuhan
serwa 'alam.J'/
Wnen there arose that group of the
deviating and strayed Wujdiyyah from amongst the
disciples of the misguided Shamsu'l-D in alSumatrani they engaged us in a polemic
for severa! days before the presence of the
Sul~an, who is the most pious in his time
(may Allah include him among the dwellers in
Paradise: ), Mawlana al-Sultan Iskandar Thani
'Ala 'u ' 1-Dm Mughayat Shh, who is called
Marhm Daru'l-Sal am. He it is who set up
firmly the Religion of Allah with a firmness
that evokes wonder They [the deviating
Wujdiyya h] asserted: "God is our selves and
our beings, and we are His Self and His Being 11
In refuting them in their erroneous and vain
belief I [have] compose[d ) a treatise expounding
the meaning of the analogica l expression~egarding
the image and the possessor of the image'~
I said to them: "You have claimed for yourselve s
divinity in the same mannar as did Pharaoh who
said: ''I am your Lord Most Exalted; tt 59 but indeed
you are of the unbelievin g group." [When they
beard this] their faces betrayed a sour expressio n
and they bowed their heads, for surely they are
polytheis ts. The entire 'Ulam' of Islam


Tibyn, pp. 3-6.

58 Cf. Van Ronkel, Ph.S., Catalogus der Maleische Handschri ften,

Batavia, 1909, p. 433. Hereafter cited as Van Ronkel.

Qur'an 79:24.


pronounced against them the fatwa of unbelief

and condemmed them to death Sorne of them
acknowledged the charge of unbelief levelled
against them, and some recanted whilst ethers
refused to recant. Yet sorne of those who
have recanted committed apostasy - they fell
back upon their former belief Thus were
executed the host of unbelievers. Every
praise be to Allh, Lord of the Worlds.
In order to refute the Wujdiyyah in their erroneous interpretation
of the formula la ilha illa'l-Lh, Rniri had written a short
treatise entitled Shifa'u'l-Qulb.60

But all his works an the

subject are mainly devoted to refuting

~amzah Fan~ri


Shamsu'l-Din al-Sumatrani whose disciples he found holding sway

at court and village alike.

Raniri's aim was to cleanse the

minds of the people of the Malay world from the corrupting effects
of their teachings which have spread rapidly abroad and



However, in this study we shall concern ourselves mainly with

Raniris attack on
criticism with what

~amzah Fan~ri's

teachings, comparing his

actually taught in order to see whether

or not Raniri represented them truly and justly.

From what I have understood of the mystical philosophy and
teachings of

~amzah Fan~ri

gleaned from his works that have

excaped the flames and come down to us,61 it appears tome that
all of Raniri's criticisms of him and the alleged beliefs he

Van Ronkel, p. 434.


See above

35, and preface on p. ii.


attributed to him were not to the point and falsely presented .





time, Raniri 1 s uncle had taught in Acheh and nowhere

publicly refuted by him.

Raniri himself did not

publicly refute Shamsu'l-D in when the latter was alive.

Why had

Raniri to delay his refutation so that there was no possibili ty

for retaliatio n on the part of the one (or ones) refuted?


seems clear to me that when Raniri began his polemics against the
Wujdiyya h his opponents were all of them inferior with respect
to knowledge and character to either


or Shamsu'l-D in, and

that Raniri was therefore guilty of taking advantage of this in

order to obtain a high position at court.

In fact Raniri, after

his success against the Wujudiyya h, probably did obtain a high

position at court, for "the moorish bishop [!~ Qa~I] Sich
Noordijn" mentioned in the Dag Register of 1641-1642 may well have
been him. 62
It must be pointed out that the success of Raniri's
destructiv e attack against


seems, to my mind, to have been

due not to learned and scholarly critical analyses of his teachines

as one would expect, but rather to distortion s of what Hamzah

actually taught; distortion s which he had cunningly branded as

'heretica l' and had easily torn to pieces.

It seems to have been

a case of attacking the caricature , not the true pictur e, as will

become apparent in this study.

Q[. Schrieke II, p. 394.

It fails to convi nce me to say that


the motivation underlying Raniri's attack was one of sincere

attempt at intellectual and religious reform, untainted by bias
and personal interest.
the case.

Indeed, the contrary seens to have been

It cannot be said of Raniri that he had obtained a

distorted picture of


teachings from the latter's disciples

who may have distorted them through lack of proper understanding,

for he had access to



impressed by Raniri's apparatus criticus.

I cannot say that I am

He betrays in his

writings not only a lack of comprehension of the $fi doctrines,

as contrasted with the more thorough and deep understanding which
reveals itself in


writings, but also a lack of under-

standing of the Qur'an and Quranic



it is also possible that Raniri's understanding of the teachings


~amzah Fan~ri

was impaired - apart from bias and personal

interest - by a lack of mastery of the Halay language; that is,

a mastery sufficient to enable him to plumb the depths of Malay
linguistic consciousness in order to understand the conceptual
structures of the symbols employed so that the thoughts that
underly them

may become clear to him.


Raniris refutation of

~amzah Fan~ri


Raniris refutation of


teacQings which he considers

'heretical' and which he uses as evidence for branding

with infidelity is based upon several points.


These points he has

selected in a mannar calculated to expose and condemn the

'heresies' which to him are scattered in
so to speak, in the garb of true Sufism.


writings disguised,

In t hese points of

Raniris criticism, we will be able to obtain an idea as to the

manner in which he represents


ideas and the manner in

which - to achieve maximum credence from his audience - he

couches his attacks.


The points may be summarized thus:

~amzah 1 s

ideas regarding God, the world, Man and the

relationship between them, in short, Reality, are identi cal - to

mention sorne - with those of the Philosophers, the Zoroastrians,
the Metempsychosists, the Incarnationists, the Brahmins.



belief is pantheistic in the sen se that

God's essence is completely immanent in the World; that God

permeates everything that is sean.

That, like the Philosophers,


believes that God

is Simple Being.


t ~e


like the Qadariyyah and the Hu 'tazilah,

Qur'an to be created.

That, like the Philosophers,

eternity of the World.


believes in the


Speaking of a sect of the Zoroastrians, he says:

Ketiga ta'ifah daripada Majsi itu bernama Sumaniyyah.
Adalah mereka itu menyembah tiap-tiap chahaya daripada
mata hari dan bulan dan bintang dan api dan barang
sebagainya. Seperti katanya adalah sekalian chahaya
itu daripada suatu chahaya jua dahulu daripada
dijadikan Allh segala makhlq (iait 'arsh, dan
law~, dan tujuh petala langit).
Maka tatrucala
dijadikan Allah Ta'ala segala perkara itu, jadi
bercherailah segala chahala itu; iaitu pada penglihat
mata jua, tetapi pada ~aqiqatnya sekalian chahaya
itu suatu jua: iaitulah Nr Allah. Dernikianlah
i'tiqad ~amzah Fansur!. Katanya dalam kitab
Asraru'l-'Arif!n b~wa chahaya yang pertama-tama
cherai daripada Dhat Allah itu Nr Mu~ammad. Maka
daripada perkataan ini chendereng kepada madhhab
Tanasukiyyah, dan serupa dengan kata Falasifah
bahwa adalah ~aqq Ta'ala itu suatu jawhar yang
basit. Dan demikian lagi 1 'tiqad Wathaniyyah yang
daripada qaum Barhimah dan Samiyyah yang mengediami
negeri Tubbat. Dan seperti i'tiqad qawm ~ulliyyah
yang mengediami negeri Halwaniyyah dan benua Hindustan.
Demikianlah i'tiqad mereka itu.o3
The third sect of the Zoroastrians 64 is called
theSUmaniyyah.65 They worship all kinds of light;
the sun, the moon, the stars, fire, and the like.
They say that all light originated from one light
[i.e. source] even before God created Creation
Ci.~. the Throne, the Tablet, and the Seven Layers
of Heaven). When God Most Exalted created these
things, all li ght became separated from their source;
that is, it is so only to outward perception, for
in reality all light is cne - that is the Light of
God. Such is the belief of ~amzah Fansr!. He
said in the book Asraru'l-'rifin that"the first
light to separate from the Essence of God is the
Light of Mu9ammad.66 From this saying [it is


Tibyan, PP


For the Majs!, see the Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI); edited by
N. Th. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold, R. Basset and R. Hartmann, Leiden,
Brill, 1913-38. 4v. and supplement, article I~Iadjs.
Cf. Watt, W.M., Free will and predestination in early Islam,
London, 1948, p. 103. Hereafter cited as Watt.



p. 141.


clear that] he tends towards the Tanasukhiyyah

school.67 Furthermore it amounts to the same
thing as what the Falasifah said; that the Truth
Nost Exalted is Simple Honad [or Simple Atom,
or Simple Being]. And t his is also the belief
of the Wathaniyyah from among the Barhimah,
and the Samiyyah who inhabit the land of Tibet.
The same is true also of ~he ~ulliyyah who
dwell in the land of Halwaniyyah and the
continent of India. Such is their belief.
Notice how in the passage quoted, Ranir! connects
the various groups mentioned.



In fact these expertly woven

connections are all of them questionable - even false - except

perhaps in the case of the connection with the Philosophers.
Eut even in this latter case, we should not be led to believe in
the kind of connection Ranir! creates for us.



actually says on the point in dispute is:

Antara 'alim dan ma'lm itulah asal chahaya
Muhammad pertama hercherai daripada -Dhat Allah.
Adpun pada suatu 'ibrat, itulah bernama r~
idati (ya'ni, nyawa berchampur); dan pada suatu
'!barat 'aql al-kull namanya (ya'ni, perhimpunan
segala budi); dan pada suatu 'ibarat nr namanya
(ya'n!, chahaya); pada suatu 'ibarat qalam ala'ala namanya (ya'ni, qalam yang mahatinggi);
dan pada suatu 'ibarat law~ namanya (ya'ni, papan
tempat menyurat)
Kerana 'ilmu hidup dinamainya rh; kerana 'ilmu
ma'lmat kelihatan dinamainya nr; krana 'ilmu
mencharakan se gala ma'lmat dinamainya ~; kerana
'ilmu tersurat rupa ma'lmat dinamainya lawb;
kerana 'ilmu menjadi hurf sekalian ma'lmat
dinamainya galam 68
Between Knower and Kno\m, that is when the
Light of M~ammad first separates from the Essence


For this sc:1ool, See EI, article Tanasukh.


~amzah Fan~ri,

pp. 141-142.


of God. One expression is that it is called the

Relational Spirit; another is the Universal
Intellect; another is Light; another is the Host
Exalted Pen; and another is the Tablet
Because knowledge is living, it is called
Spirit; because by knowledge the things known are
manifest it is called Light; because knowledge
patterns the forms of the things known it is
called Intellect; because in knowledge is inscribed
the forms of the things know.n it is called Tablet;
because knowledge becomes letters of the things
known it is called Pen
Now what


is saying here is a well-known $fi doctrine

which Ibnu'l-'Arabi and Jili and other famous

It is strange that Raniri should single out



also hold.
and accuse

him of 'heresy' for holding a doctrine which he learnt, most of

all, from Ibnu'l-'Arabi and Jili whose names Raniri mentions

Hamzah does not distort the teachings of his

masters, so that Raniri carmot accuse hirn of this in order that

he may interpret the teachings of these
to his own 'orthodox brand.


masters according

Rather it would seem that it is

Rniri who distorts the teachings of the Sfi

masters to suit his

own ideas. What Raniri wants to convey in the passage quoted is

not that part of the point which deals with this particular aspect
of the


doctrine, but that he wants to focus the attention of

his readers on the point that

worships light.


like the Zoroastrians,

Rniri wishes to convey to his readers the notion

that the word 'light' used by

al, but i n the real sense.


is meant not in the metaphoric-

In fact Raniri even resorts to using

the word 'fire' so as to make his intention clear.

This word he


uses again in another passage where he elucidate s the salient

features of the doctrines of the Tanasukhi yyah school to which
Hamzah has already been assigned.

Note in this passage that the

meaning of the word 'fire' is taken in the real sense:

Katanya bahwa segala arwh dan segala sesuatu
itu daripada suku-suku Allah dari kerana Ia berbuat
dan menjadika n segala suatu. Maka perbuatanN ya dan
yang demikiann ya itu jadi daripada api 1 ~an kembali
pula kepadanya jua. Haka segala makhluqat itu
suku-suku daripada Allah. Inilah madhhab ~amzah
Fan~ri dan Shamsu'l-D in al-Sumatr ani yang ~alalat
keduanya. Dan lagi kata setengah daripada qawm
Tanasukhi yyah bahwa takwin dan mukawwan,69 dan
taf'il dan maf'1 suatu jua. Dan demikianl ah
madhhab Hamzah Fan~ri dan Shamsu'l~Din alSumatrn! [itu] kata ma'nawily ah daripada qawm
Tanasukhil Yah jua: bahwa Allah Ta'ala hul1
dengan DhatNya pada segala sua.tu yang kelihatan .70
They [i~ the Tanasukhi yyah school] say that
a11 spirits and every single thing are parts of
God by virtue of His doing and creating them all.
His doings and the like come from [i.e. have their
origin in] fire and return to it. This is the
strayed opinion of both ~amzah Fanfnri and Shamsu'lDin al-Sumatr ani. Sorne of the Tanasukhi yyah say
that the Producer and the Productio n, the Doer
and the Thing Done, are identica1 . Likewise is
the opini~n of ~amzah Fan~ri and Shamsu'l-D in
al-Sumatr ani; they really adhere to the true
meaning of what the Tanasukhiy yah believe: that
God in His Essence is incarnate in every thing
that is seen.
The text reads mukawwin. Al-Ash'ar i too seems to have
identified the two. See McCarthy, R.J.,. The theology of al-Ash'ar i,
Beyrouth, 1953, p. 168. This work contains al-Ash'ar i 1 s Kitb
al-Luma' and Risa1at Istibsan al-Khaw9 fi 'Ilm a1-Ka1m (Arabie
texts and annotated translatio ns), and relevant Appendice s. Hereafter cited as al-Ash'ar i.

Tibyn, pp. 26-27.


In this passage, apart from the point mentioned, ~amzah is

accused of adhering to the real meaning of what the Tanasukhiyyah
believe, that is the difft;sion and distribution of the divine
spirit among the beings of the World.
:tJamzah of pantheism.

Raniri here accuses

But what kind of pantheism?

"There is a

for.m of pantheism which, starting from the assumption that God is

an absolute, infinite and eternal being, who is the source and
ultimate ground of all that is, was, and 'l.vill be, gradually
assumes a form of acosmism according to which the Phenomenal
World is but a passing shadow of the Reality which lies behind it.n71
Then there is another form of pantheism wl1ich asserts that the
Essence of God or the Absolute is completely immanent in the
World; God, so to speak, exhausts Himself in the World, so that
transcendance is denied Him.

It is to this somewhat crude type of

pantheism that Raniri refers in his accusation of


tion of the relationship between God and the World.

accusation is false.

Had Rniri read



But this

carefully and under-

stood what he read, then he would know that it is absurd to label


system as pantheistic in the sense he means.

It has been

said that in any pantheistic doctrine either God is bound to

suffer in the sense that He is a fabrication of the human mind that only the Phenomenal World is real, or that the Universe suffers
'Affifi, A.E., The mystical ffhilosophy of Muhyid Din-Ibnul
'Arabi, Cambridge, 1939, p. ~.
ereafter cited as 1 Affifi.


in the sense that it is mere illusion - that God alone is the

Real Being.


certainly holds the latter view although

Raniri would have us believe that he holds the former.


Ibnu'l-'Arab i,72 ~amzah conceives Reality as having both aspects

of transcendanc e (tanzih) and immanence (tashbih),73 and takes
care to assert repeatedly that God is not everything and all
things in the sense of being an
all of Raniris attacks on

ag ~regation


of existants.


'pantheism' seem to prove to

be nothing beyond his own fallacy of jumping to conclusions in

identifying what


considers to be real.

means metaphorical ly with what


In this way it is the metaphors that are

attacked and the picture of the real caricatured.

Raniri makes

mention of ~amzah's book entitled Muntahi74 from which he deduces

evidence to denounce the author as belonging to the false brand
of the Wujdiyyah.7 5 In one of the passages, speaking on behalf


he says:
Tamthil seperti biji dan puhun; puhunnya
dalam biji itu lengkap [ber] serta dalam biji itu.


See 'Affifi, pp. 18-24.


~amzah Fan~r i,

pp. 70-74.

This boo~ was apparently consi gned to the flames. Fortunately,
however, in t nose works of Hamzah that have come dovm to us, it is
possible to reproduce all his ideas and even analogies which he had
written in the Muntahi (the correct form should be Muwtaha).
~amzah himself apparently refers to this wor~ in one of his poems


p. 62).

Tibyan, p. 97-1o1.


Maka nyatalah daripada perkataan Wujdiyyah itu

bahwa serwa semesta 'alam sekalian ada lengkap
berwujd dalam ~aqq Ta 'ala. f.1aka keluarlah 'alam
daripadaNya seperti puhun kayu keluar daripada
The analogy is like the seed and the
plant; the plant resides in its completeness within
the seed. Renee it is clear from this saying of
the [false] Wujdiyyah that the Universe together
with all its parts exists in its completeness in
the Truth Most Exalted. The World proceeds from Him
as the plant from the seed.
The impression that Raniri conveys here is that the World proceeds
from God out of its own necessity without any act of vTilling on
God's part.

But what


says is precisely the opposite, for

here he is actually revealing what he understands by God's

creative will (iradah), which according to him is:
Berkehendak kepada isti'dad yang dalam
'ilmuNya kepada 'alam ini. Seperti kata ~adith
~udsi: Kuntu kanzan makhfi~an fa apbabtu an
urafa"- ya 4ni: "Aku perbenaharaa n yang
ter[sem]buny i, maka kukasih bahwa aku dikenal."
Ya'ni: 'alam dengan isti'dadnya sekalian yang
didalam 'ilmuNya i tulah maka dinisbatkan dalamnya
kepada perbendahara an yang ter[sem]buny i hendak
mengeluarkan ma'lmat dari dalam 'ilmuNya. Maka
bersabda "Kuntu kanzan makhfiyyan fa !lbabtu an
'urafa. 11
Adapun mathal perbendahara an itu seperti
puhun kayu sepuhun dalam bijinya. Biji itu
perbendahara an, puhun kayu lang dalamnya itu
isi perbendahara an, ter[semJbuny i dengan lengkapnya;
akarnya, dengan batangnya, dengan chabangnya,
dengan dahannya, dengan rantingnya, dengan
daunnya, dengan bunganya, dengan buahnya sekalian lengkap didalam biji sebiji itu. Maka
biji itu hendak keluar tumbuh puhun kayu itu
daripada dirinya di tengah padang yang mahaluas.


p. 97.


l1aka bi ji i tu berkata: "Kuntu kanzan makhfiyyan

fa ahbabtu an 'ur afa" - y a 'nt sekalian kata ini
ishrat kepada berkehendak jua.
Dan lagi firman Allah Ta'ala: 'Innruna amruhu
idha arada shay, an an yagla lahu kun fa yakunu 77 y a 1ni: 1 Bahwa sanya barang ti tahNya tatakala
berkehendak kepada sesuatu~ bahwa b~rkata baginya
"jadi lu!"- menj_adi.' In~ pWl isharat kepada
berkehendak jua.'l8
Willing the potentialities in His knowledge
to become the World. As the >_ladith qudsi says:

"I was a hidden treasure and I loved to be lmown" that is: the World together with all its potentialities in His knowledge is likened to the
hidden treasure about to bring forth the things
known in His knowledge. Thus it says: "I was a
hidden treasure and I loved to be lmown."
The treasure is likened to a plant in~s seed.
The seed is the treasure, the plant within it is
the content of the treasure; hidden in its completeness: its roots, trunk, branches, small branches,
twigs, leaves, flowers, fruits - all complete within
the seed. The seed wants to bring forth the growth
of plant 1-Tithin itself on a field of vast expanse.
The seed says: "I was a hidden treasure and I loved
to be known." All this is an allusion to [God's
act of] willing.
And further God the Most Exalted says:
'Verily His command is, when He is in the state of
willing a thing, to say to it ttBe thou!" - and
it becomes. This too is an allusion to [God's
act of] willing.
Then Raniri goes m to say:
Dan lagi pula kat any a:

Tamthil seperti air

hu jan didalam sebuah tanaman. Airnya i tu jua
lengkap pada sekalian tanaman 1 tu. Bagimu
rasanya pada li~au. masam, pada tebu manis, pada
mumba pahit; masing-masing membawa rasanya.


Qur'n 36:82.


~amzah Fan~ri, pp.




Tetapi haqiqatnya air itu jua pada sekalian itu."

Maka i'tiqad yang demikian itu kufr kerana
dii'tiqadkannya makhlq dengan ~aqq Ta'la
mesra seperti mesra air dengan bumi (Mahasuchi
[Allh] Ta'ala daripada kata kafir itu!).79
And he says further: "The analogy is like
rain water in a plant. The water permeates the
entire plant. To you the taste is, for lemon,
sour, for sugar-cane, sweet, for the ~a plant80
bitter; each conveying its ow.n taste. But their
essence [or reality] is water.u Such a belief
is infidelity for it is belicved that the Truth
Most Exalted permeates the created beings just
as water permeates the earth (Pure is the :t-fost
Exalted God from the saying of that infidel!).
On this point


actually says:

Fa' lam menj adikan makhlq siang dan mal am:

ra'ni atharNra itu yang dinamai \VUjd, kerana

Litulah yangJ menjadikan. Wujd makhlqat

seperti bumi; jika tiada hujan, dimanakan tumbuh
kayu-kayuan? Adapun bumi ditamthilkan 'ilmu
Allh~ hujan seperti wujd, kayu-kaynan seperti
makhluq. Adapun bumi tanah sendirinya, hujan
pun air jua sendirinya. Setelah berchrunpur maka
ada kayu-kayuan tumbuh. Adapun kayu-kayuan yang
tumbuh daripada bumi dan air, dengan hukum isti 'dad
jua: setengah tumbuh menjadi pahit; stengah tumbuh
menjadi manis; setengah tumbuh menjadi kelat;
setengah tumbuh menjadi hijau; setengah tumbuh
menjadi merah; setengah tumbuh menjadi putih;
setengah tumbuh menjadi hitam. Warna, dengan
sekalian rasa, dengan isti'dad asli jua. Adapun
air serupa semata; tanah pun serpa semata.
Kayu-kayuan itu tumbuh daripada air dan tanah
jua, tetapi rupanya dan warnanya menurut

isti'dad jua


Tibyan, PP 98-99.

See Wilkinson, R.J., A Malay-English dictionary, Singapore,
1903, p. 655. Hereafter cited as Wilkinson.

Tamthil ini ditamthilkan kepada 'alam: aialnya

daripada wujd, maka menjadi siang dan malam;
langit dan bumi; 'arsh dan kursi; shurga dan
nerakaz kafir dan islam; baik dan jahat - dengan
hukum ~sti'dad dirinya jua. Adapun Dhat Allah
mat suchi. Farq makblqat berbagai-bagai kerana
sifatNya banyak, af'alNya banyak 1 atharNya banlak,
kerana isti'dad sekalian makhlqat did~lam i~fatNya
jua. Perbuatan yang baik daripad~ ~ifa~ Jamal;
perbuatan yang jahat daripada ~ifat Jalal. Adapun
asal Jalal dan Jamal daripada wujd, aial wujd
daripada Dhat. Pada haqiqat, sekalian keranaNya
jua; lain daripadaNya.tiada lulus 'alam ini, kerana
Ia ~dahu la sharika lahu. 81

Know that [by God] creating [His] creatures

day and night is meant His affects that are called
existence for they give existence to the creatures.
The existence of the creatures is like earth;
without rain how can plants grow? The earth is
likened to God's knowledge, rain is existence, the
plants are the creatures. The earth is, in itself,
earth, and rain is, in itself, water. When [they]
mix, the plants begin to grow. The plants that grow
out of earth and water are determined by the law of
potentiality: some grow becoming bitter; sorne sweet;
soma tart; soma grow becoming green; some red; some
white; some black. Colour and all taste become
according to their original potentiality. The water
is water, the earth is earth, and the plants grow
out of water and earth, but their forms and colours
are determined by their potentialities
This analogy is applied to the World:
originating from existence there comes forth day
and ni ght, the heavens and the earth, the Throne
and the Kursi82 Heaven and Hell, the believer and

the unbeliever, the good and the evil - [all ] by

virtue of their respective potentialities. The

Essence of God is Most Pure. The creatures are
many and have contraries, because His attributes
are many, His acts are many, His affects are many
for the potentialities of the creatures are in
His attributes. Works that are good come from His

~amzah Fan~ri,


See EI article Kursi.

pp. 151-152.

attribute of Beauty, works that are evil come from

His attribute of Majesty. The origin of Beauty and
Majesty is from Being, and Being is from Essence.
In reality all [come to be] because of Him; but
from Him this world has no existence, for there is
none like unto Him.
Again, quoting another passage from
of identifying the creator



Raniri accuses him

the Creatures thus:

Dan lagi pula katanya pada mere[n]chanakan

firman Allah Ta'al: 'Kulla yawmin huwa fi
sha'nin83 - ya'ni, pada ~hirNya jua berbagai dan
berubah-ubah kerana Ia huwa'l-awwalu wa'l-akhiru
wa'l-~abiru wa'l-ba~inu - ya 1ni: awwal[Nla] tiada
ketahuan, akhirNya tiada berkesudahan, ~ahirNya
amat nyata, ba~inNya tiada kedapatan. Memandang
diriNya dengan diriNya, melihat diriNya dengan
dhatNya, dengan ~ifatNya, dengan af'alN~a, dengan
atharNya; sungguh pun namanya empat haqiqatNya
esa jua. Maka i'tiqad yang demikian itu kufr kerana
dijadikannya Khaliq dengan Makhlq bersuatu.84
And he further says in interpreting the words
of God the Most Exalted: 'Every moment He is in a
state of glory' - that it means that He in His
manifestation is many and is subject to change,
for He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and
the Hidden. By this it means that His Firstness
is unknown, His Lastness is endless, His Ma~ifesta
tion is so clearly evident [to perception] and
His Hiddenness is unknowable. He looks upon Himself
through Himself, and sees Himself with His essence,
His attributes, His a cts and His effects; although
[these are] four in name, but in reality [they are]
one. Such belief is infidelity for the Creator and
the Creatures are identified as being one.
This point is explained by


in at least two places.


one he says that everywhere in the World His effects are manifest.

Qur'an 55:29.


Tibyn, pp. 99-100.


It is these affects that "give existence" to the World.85

Everything in the World is a mode of His Being.

By a mode


means a state (kelakuan), so that the passage 'Every moment He is

in a state of glory' is interpreted by hir1 to mean that:
Segala rupa, rupaNya; segala warna,
warnaNya; segala bunyi, bunyiNya; kerana Ia
~dahu la sharika lahu. 86
All forms are His form, al1 colours
are His colours, al1 sounds are His sounds,
for there is none like unto Him.


is expressing the idea that God, although immanent in

everything, is nevertheless transcendent because He is above

limitation and individualization. This is of course Ibnu'l-'Arabi's
concept of transcendence,87 which according to 'Affifi's analysis
which I quote be1ow is fundamentally of two different kinds:

That which belongs to the divine Essence per se

and ~ ~ - the absolute simp1icity and unity Of
the One - the state of the !9adiyyah.


Transcendance asserted by the intellect, which

must be always coup1ed with immanence and which
may assume the fol1owing forms:


God may be cal1ed transcendent in the sense

of being abso1ute; or,
He may be cal1ed transcendent in the sense
of being a necessary being, se1f-begotten,
self-caused, ~., in contradistinction to
the contingent, created or caused beings of
the Phenomenal World; or,



Fan~ri, p.



p. 157.


See 'Affifi, p. 19.




In another place

He may be called transcendent in the sense

that He is unkno,Table 2-nd incom.rnunicable
and beyond all proor.8~


speaks of the same idea thus:

Pada Ahlu'l-Sulk Allh Ta'ala qadim dan

'alim. Apabila Ia 'alim, ma'lm dalam 'ilmuNya,
hendaknya: barang yang dijadikanNya dahulu atau kemudian,
kita lihat, sekaliannya daripada ma'lm itu jua.
Jikalau demikian ~ukumnya, daripada ada jua diadakanNya,
bukan daripada tiada diadakanNya kerana lang namanya
11 ada" itu wujd shu'nNya.
Sepert! firman Allah
Ta'ala; 'Kulla *awmin huwa f! sha'nin' - ya'ni:
1 Kepada segalaari Ia itu dalam kelakuanNya jua '
hai talib, kerana keadaan Allah Sub~nahu wa Ta'ala
seperti laut yang tiada berhingga dan tiada
berkesudahan. Semesta sekalian 'alam ini dalam
laut itu sepert! buih kechil sebiji jua; manusia
seorang didalam buih itu berapa bahagiannya?
Ya'ni tiada lagi melainkan sepert! firman Allh
Ta'ala: 'Kullu man 'ala ha fnin wa ab wa hu
rabbika dhu 1-jalali wa 1-ikrami
- ya n : 'Barang
segala yang diatas 1 lam ini lenyap; bermula: yang
kekal Dhat Tuhanmu jua, Yang Empunya kebesaran dan
kemuliaan._ Hai talib!, 'alam ini sepert! ombak,
keadaan Allah seperti laut; sungguh pun ombak
lain daripada laut kepada ~aqiqatnya tiada lain
daripada laut 9
According to the Itinerants, Gad is
eternal and knower. Since He is knower, the known
is in His knowledge, that is to say: we see that
the things He creates, 1 before 1 or 'after, 1 are all
of them from the known. If such is the case, it is
from being that He creates them, not from nothingness,
for what is called "existence" is the being o:f His
modes. As God says: 1 Every day He is in a state of
glory,' 0 Seeker, because God's condition is like a
limitless ocean. The World in its entirety is like

Ibid., p. 24.


Quf'n 55:26-27.


~amzah Fan~ri,

p. 195.


a tiny speck of foam within it, and what avails

one man to be in this tiny speck of foam? That
is, it is none but as God says: 'Every one91 in
it must pass away. And there will endure forever
the person92 of your Lord, the Lord of Glory and
Honour.' 0 Seeker: this World is but a wave, God's
condition is the sea; though wave is not the same
as sea, in reality it is not distinct from the sea.
Raniri 1 s allegation that


adheres to the thesis of the

Philosophers that God is Simple Being93 may be a reference to


idea of God as the attributeless Absolute Being which

he calls the Dhat or Huwa.94

However, this idea is, for that

matter, also that of Ibnu'l-'Arabi, Jili, and other


If it

is true that Raniri's allegation refers to this idea (which is most

like1y the case although he does not mention it), then it is
false, for the thesis of the ~fis on this po1nt95 - ~amzah
included - is that God in His essence is unknowable and independant
of al1 assertions.

The Essence is on1y known to the divine Essence.

It is in the sense that the Essence, in its bare abstraction, is

beyond al1 know1edge and relations that He is,attribute1ess,96


For every one (kullu

~) ~amzah


has every thing'.

is interpreted by t~amzah as Dhat

, pp. 24-, ~ 1; 55, note 4.

.Q!. Ibnu'l-'Arabi in

Tibyan, p. 18. For the thesis of the Philosophers that God is
Simple Being, see Ghazzli's Tahfut al-Falasifah, translated by
Sabih Ahmad Kamali, Lahore, 1958, pp.235-341. Hereafter cited as


Fansri, pp. 125.

See Arberry, A.J., The doctrines of the ~~' Cambridge, 1935,
pp. 14-18.

:tiamzah Fan~ri, p. 126.


and not that it is impossible for Him to possess attributes since

they would be an augmentation of His Essence.

The argument of

the Philosophers that God is Simple Being has its basis in their
arguments against the attributes and the division into genus and
The thesis of the ~fis on this point,

specifie difference.97
which is also that of


Philosophers, for the




as for other

is not the same as that of the

do not uphold the denial of attributes.


the attributes of God are eternal

and never separate fran His Essence - not because God needs them
or does t ,ings with them, but because they mean the denial of
their opposites and the assertion that they exist in themselves
and subsist through Him.
nor other than God.


To some the attributes are neither God


the attributes are God - or the

Essence (~) is the attributes (~ifat).98

In the following passage Raniri accuses :tiamzah of adhering
to Qadari views.

What is interesting to note in this passage,

as indeed in sorne others, is the manner in which he parades the

'heresies' of the Qadaris before coming to the point: namely
their belief that the Qur'an is created, in which he also condemns

In this way it wou1d seem to me that he purposely paints

the picture of the Qadaris as black as possible as a prelude to


Tahafut, pp. 109-131.

Qf. Jili in Nicholson, pp. 90, 95 note 1. Hamzah Faniri,
pp. 127, 196-7. fr also a1-Ash'ari, pp. 16-17 note 16, and p. 19.




with this picture - a method which in modern

times we know so well as the



Shahdan. Lagi pula i'tiqd qawm Qadariyyah.

Dan katanya bahwa adalah Hagg Ta'ala menyurubkan dan
memilikkan [or memikulkan?]~~ segala pekerjaan
hamba itu kepada hamba jua. Maka hambalah menjadikan
segala perbuatan, tetapi dinyatakan Allah akan
segala hambaNya amr dan nahi. Maka tiada harus
akan Allah menjadikan segala perbuatan hambaNya
dengan iradatNya, dan mashiyyatNya, dan qada'Nya,
dan qadarNya. Maka i'tiqad yang demikian ltu
kufr kerana mereka itu menyabitkan ada yang
menjadikan [sesuatu] lain daripada Allah. Dan
setengah daripada mereka itu i'tiqadnya [me]
mungkirkanlOO ;;ifat Allh. Maka 1 'tiqad yang
demikian itu kufr. Dan setengah daripada mereka
itu i'tiqadnya bahwa Qur'an itu makhlq. Maka
i'tiqad yang demikian itu kufr; seperti sabda
Nabi s.a.w.: "Man Iala'l-gur'anu makhlgun fahuwa
kafi.J:B!1"121 - ya 'n "Baran~siapa mengatakan Qur 'n
itu makhluq, maka ia itu kafir." Demikian lagi
i'tiqad ~amzah Fansri dalam kitb yang bernama
Asraru'l-'Arifin: katanya Qur'n yang dibawa
Jibr'Il itu dapat dikata makhlq.l02
Shahdn. Now the beliefs of the Qadariyyah.103
They say that God wills and makes as their own [or

The text looks ambiguous: Mernilikkan preferred.


The text 1 s corrupt.

It reads:

101 Cf. Sa'du'l-Din al-Taftazni on the creed of Najmu'l-Din

al-Nasafi, translated with introduction by Elder, E.E., A commentary
on the creed of Islam, New York, 1950, p. 62. Hereafter cited as

Tibyn, pp. 70-71.

103 Cf. Watt, pp. 32-57, 93-129, and see EI article

al-AshTarf;:Pp. 39, 74-75.



places the burden of] the actions of His creatures.

Hence the creatures are the doers of all [their]
actions, although God makes manifest to them the
1 do 1 s' and 'don't's'.
God in reality then does not,
by virtue of His will, and His desire, and His
decision, and His power, create the actions of His
creatures. Such belief is infidelity, for they
affirm that there is an 1 other' apart from God
who creates acts. Some of them refused to believe
that God has attributes.l04 Sorne of them believe
that the Qur,an is created.l05 Such beliefs are
a rejection of the truth, for as the Prophet says:
"Whosoever believes that the Qur'an is created,
then he is an unbeliever." Such indeed is the
belief of ~amzah Fan~ri in the book entitled
Asraru'l-'Arifin: he says that the Qur,an which
is conveyed by Gabriel may be regarded as created.l06
In the same vein he associates


with a sect of the

J ahmiyyah: 107

Kesepuluh qawc Jahmiyyah [itu] Laf~iyyah

namanya. Adalah i'tiqad mereka itu dan katanya
yang melafa~kan dan yang dilafatkan i tu sama
keduanya; ya 'ni Qur'an itu kalam All.'l, yang
melafa~kan - ertinya kalm yang dibacha itubukan kalam Allah. Inilah i 'tiqad Wujdiyyah
Hamzah Fansri. Katanya dalam kitab Asraru,l1Arifin bahwa kalarn Allah yang dibawa Jibr'Il itu
104 9..[. Watt, p. 102.


Loc. cit.

~amzah Fan~ri, p.


For the Jahmiyyah cf. Watt, pp. 99-104, and see EI article
and Djahm!Ya.



dapat dikata akan dia makhlq. Maka i 'tiqad yang

demikian i tu kufr, ker ana firman Allah Ta' al a:
~a anzalnahu)
ur 'anan 'Arabi an
iwa.jinl8 - y a n : 1 Bahwa sanya Kami turunkan
Qr'n dibawa Jibra'il dengan bahawa 'Arab
bukannya ia makh1q.l09
The tenth sect of the Jahmiyyah is called the
They believe and say that the one who
pronounces and the thing pronounced are one and
the same. [By t!rls they mean that] the Qur 'an
is God 1 s epeech, but the one who pronounces meaning the speech that is read - is not God's
speech. This is the belief of Hamzah Fansri's
[brand of] Wujdiyyah. He saysin the book
Asraru'l-'rifin that the speech of God conveyed
by Gabriel may be regarded as a thing created.
Such a belief is infidelity, for God says: 1 We
have sent down an Arabie Qur'an conveyed by
Gabriel [and] it is not created. 1110

But what


actually says on this subject is not really

similar to what Rniri reports.

Adapun madhhab Hu'tazilah dan Rafi<}I dan
zindi7, kalam Allah makhlq. Pada hukum
shari atnya, barang siapa mengatakan kalam Allah
makhlq, kafir- na'dhu bi'l-Lhi minhu~ Kalm
Allah peri Dhat; qadJ.m sama-sama dengan sekalian
yang sedia ketujuh itu. Adapun kal~ Allah yang
dibawa Jibra'Il kepada Nabi Mubammad Ras1u'l-Lh
yang tersurat pada mashaf dapat dikatakan -makhlq,
kerana hukumnya sudah bercherai dengan Dhat pada
'ibarat: Adapun kepada haqiqlnya, wa'l-Lhu
a'lam bi'l-~awab.lll


108 Qur'an 39:28. The words I have put m brackets actually do

not appear in the Quranic text. The word in square brackets has
been amitted in Raniri's text.

Tibyag, pp. 77.

llO This is Ran!ri's translation and interpretation of the sra


?amzah Fan~ri, pp. 133-134.


According to the Hu'tazilah and the Rafi9! and

the Zind!q, the speech of God is created. According
to the shari'ah, whosoever says that the speech of
God is created is an unbeliever - may God preserve
us from such! God's speech is as His Essence;
eternal, together with the accompanying seven
[attributes]. As for the speech of God conveyed by
Gabriel to the Prophet Mu~ammad the Messenger of God,
which is written in pages, it may be said to be
created for the judgment concerning it is that it
is already separate - from the point of view of
expression - from the Essence. However in reality
only God knows.
This passage cannot be regarded as an assertion that the Qur'an
in meaning and conceptual content is created. 112 In two places
he says that the Qur'an as such is not created. 113 Furthermore
Ranir!s authority for denouncing


as an infidel which he

bases on the Quranic passages is false, for his translation of

the text is not correct and his interpretation of it very much
stretched to suit his purpose.

What the text of the verse reads

is actually:
Qur'angn 'arabiyyan ghazra dhi 'iwajin la'allahum
Arabie Qur'an without any crookedness that
they may guard (against evil).


112 What ~amzah is saying is in fact what the later Ash'aris, in

particular al-Naturid! and his school, also maintain. .Q!.
Taftazani, pp. 61-66.

~amzah Fan~ri,

pp. 112,



The whole context of the verses in this section of


denotes that the Qur'an is the guiding light, the perfect

Raniri goes on further to say in his accusation that

Book. 11~



to the teachings of certain sects of the Jahmiyyah, that:

Kese~[b]ilan ~awm Jahmiyyah [itu] Zanadiqiyyah
namanya. Adalah 1 tiqad mereka itu dan katanya
bahwa 'alam itu qadim dan ma'dm itu suatu jua;
dan Allah Ta' al a ti ad a ma' dm. Haka inilah
i'tiqad ~amzah Fansri dan Shamsu'l-Din alSumatran~ dan segaia yang mengikut keduanya.
Maka i'tiqad yang demikian itu kufr kerana firman
Allh Ta'ala: 'Wa'l-Lahu khaligu kulli shav'in' ya'ni: 'Allh jua yang menjadikan segala sesuatu.'
Shahdn. Adalah segala Ahlu'l-Sunnah wa'lJama'ah ittifaq mengatakan barangsiapa mengi'tiqadkan oahwa ma'dm itu suatu shay' maka ia
itu kafir. Mereka itulah yang bernama As~abu'l
Hayla; ertinya, yang mengi'tiqadkan a'yanu'lthabitah itu ada berwujd.ll5

The ninth sect of the Jahmiyyah is called the

Zanadiqiyyah. They believe and say that the
World is eternal and is also non-existent, whilst
God [Who is also eternal] is not non-existent.
This is the belief of ifamzah Fan))ri and Shamsu'lD!n al-Sumatrani and ail their disciples. Such
belief is infidelity, for God says: 'God is the
Creator of every thing.'
Shahdn. All the Ahlu'l-Sunnah wa'lJama'ah agree in saying that whosoever believes
that the non-existent is a thing then he is an
unbeliever. They are those who are called the
!r~abu'l-Ha~l, meaning those who believe that
tne fixed essences are existent beings.
Here we have a glaring example of Rniris distortion of


concept of the relationship between God and the Universe, or if


39:22, 23, 27, 28.

"not created".


Tibyn, pp. 76-77.

Nowhere is it said that the Qur'n is


not distortion it can only mean his ignorance of the true nature
of Hamzah's teachings.

The belief of the Jahmiyyah to which he

refers here, that the World is eternal and is also non-existent ,

whilst God is eternal but existent, is also the belief of certain
Philosophers , Ibn Rushd being one of its ramous advocates. 116


in this belief the assertion is that there are two eternal beings God and the Universe.

God is eternal, but He is without agent or

cause; whereas the Universe, being likewise eternal, is with an

agent and a cause.
there is only

This is not what Hamzah believes.

eternal being.

For Hamzah

This eternal being he conceives

now as God, now the Universe.

He draws no distinction between the

contingent and the necessary.

To him these distinctions are

merely mental, not real, for the contingent in reality is the

necessary coupled with a non-existent or subjective relation.


Universe, then, is not created from nothing, for this would mean,
in a sense, that it has acquired existence.
assert that


But that Ran!ri should

believes the non-existent to be a thing (shay'),

and the fixed essences (a'ynu'l-tha bitah) to be existent beings

in the sense the Materialists understand
is absurd.


as substantial reality)

The term shay' has nowhere been used by


for the a'yanu'l-tha bitah, the terms



to describe them are:

116 See Encyclopaedi a of Religion and Ethics; edited by J.
Hastines. New York, Scribner, 1955, vol. 2, p. 263.

in this




Modes of the divine Essence (shu'n dhatiyyah)

as against intelligible being (wujd 1 ilmiyyah);


Formal (~uwari) as against possessing the

attributes of revelation (~ifat w~l!: for
example, revelation possesses an attribute,
among others, of being infallibly effective in
communicating to Man God's message, whereas the
World, though considered as God 1 s manifestation,
is not effective in conveying to Man the Truth
underlying it - revelation in this sense is an
active, infallible agent, the World is passive
and 1 awaits 1 interpretation from Man);


Possible quiddities (mahiyyat al-mumkinat) as

against impossibilities (must~illt);.


Creation (makhla) as against the beloved

(ma' shg);


Mirrors (mir'at) as against not-beings

( 'adamiyyat);


The Universe or World < 'alam) as against

not-being ('adam);


The lover ( 'ashia) as against creator Omalig);


The knmm (ma'lm) as against the non-existent



The poor one (fag~r: 1~ the pe.ssive) es

against the lord amir: 1.~. the active);


Contingent being (ja'izu'l-wujd) as against

impossible being (mumtani 1 u'l-wujd);


Latent modes of being (shu'n thubti) as

against absolute nothingness or pure not-being
( 'adam matJ.~i) ;


Possible not-being ('adam mumkin) as against

static or permanent not-being ( 1 ad~ skin: i.e.
a kind of receptacle for forms to exist). The'adam mumkin has its beginning in the nonexistent (ma'dm).ll7

~amzah Fan~ri, pp.



It should be clear from these examples that


does not

conceive the a'yanu'l-thabitah in the superficial sense as a

kind of indestructible stuff known to sorne philosophers as matter.
From the philosophical point of view, the most serious charge,
worthy of further attention, in Rniri 1 s points against


is the charge of belief in the eternity of the World, and the

logical consequence of denying to God His creative will.
Only on the ground that this charge is true can Raniri brand

as a zindig, for taking into consideration Ghazzali's points

in his refutation of the Philosophers, he would have said in this

case that only the belief in the eternity of the World should
incur upon its believers the branding of infidelity and punishment
of death because of its violent opposition to Islam. 1 18

In this

chapter I have attempted to expose the true nature of Raniri's

criticisms of

~amzah 1 s

teachings and his method of attack, and I

have stated that, on the basis of these findings, they are based
upon prejudice crowned with ignorance of the true nature of Hamzah's

mystical philosophy.
In the next two chapters, I shall attempt to explain


concept of creation and iradah respectively in connection with his

alleged belief in the eternity of the World and the denial of God's
creative will.

It must be pointed out that from the various

quotations from


118 Tahatut, p. 249.

which I have given in this chapter, ideas


1 s concept of creation and God's creative will can

about Hamzah

be formed, as sorne of the passages quoted touch upon this very

problem both implicitly and explicitly.

But before we go on to

this, I would like to return to Rniri's point about ?amzah's


materialistic pantheism.

The fundamental issue which lies at

the bottom of Raniris distortion or misconception is the question

of the definition of Being.

Let us examine what each of them has

to say about this.

According to Rniri:
Wujd itu iaitu dhat - ya'ni keadaan sesuatu
shay'. Naka dhat itu ada kalanya kelihatan dengan
mata kepala seperti 'alarn, dan ada kalanya tiada
kelihatan dengan mata kepala, tetapi menyabitkan
dia 'aql dan shara'i atau kashf dan dhawq. Ia
itulah wujd Allh. 19
Being is essence (dhat), or the constituent
determinant of a thing [i.e. quiddity]. This
essence is at times perceptible to the eyes in
the form of the external World or Universe, and
at times not perceptible to the eyes, although
it is established by the intellect ('aql) and by
religion (shara')l or through mystical revelation
or insight (kashfJ and direct experience (dhawa).
This [essence] is the Being of God.
Rniri endorses his agreement with the Mutakallimin's categorization
of being into

classes: Necessary Being and Contingent Being, or

Real Being and Non-Being. 120 But he does not appear to accept the

Mutakallimin's concept

!ll 121Q,

for he goes on to give a definition

of his own concept of being thus:





p. 3.
p. 4.


Kata Nutakallimin wujud itu dua perkara: pertama

wujd Alliih, kedua wujd 'alam. Maka wujd Allah
itu wajibu'l-wujd lagi qa'im sendirinya, dan wujd
'alam itu mumkinu'l-wujd- ya'ni: dijadikan ~aqq
Ta'ala daripada 'adam kepada wujd khariJI; lagi
ia qa'im dengan ~aqq Ta'ala. Maka jadilah ~aqiqat
keduanya berlain-lainan; ya'ni keadaan keduanya itu
berlain-lainan kerana ~aqq Ta'ala itu qadirn lagi
menjadikan, dan 'alam it~ ~~dath lagi dijadik~.
Maka nyatalah pada istilah mereka itu bahwa wujud
itu dua perkara: suat wuid haaiii; kedua vrujd
majazi. Maka wujd majz it mi ik bagi ttagigi.l21
According to the Hutakallimin, there are two
categories of being: firstly the Eeing of God, and
secondly the being of the Universe or World. God's
Being is Necessary Being and is self-existent, and
the being of the World is Possible Being; that is,
it is created and externalized by God from notbeing [or nothingness] ('adam). Furthermore it is
dependent for its existence upon God. Thus the
two [beings] are in reality not identical; this is
so because the Being of God endures from and to
all eternity and is the principle of creation, whereas the being of the Universe is ever new and is
created. From their [i.e. the Mutakallirnin]
definition it is clear-that being is two: the one
Real Being, and the other Metaphorical Being.
Metaphorical Being belongs to Real Being.

Adapun pada istilh kami bahwa wu~d itu esa

jua; iaitulah dhat.llah Ta'ala. Dan alam itu
tiada berwujd dan tiada layak dinamai akan dia
deng~ wuj~ kerana ia 'adamu 'l.-ma91.
apablla adalah 'alam itu 'adamu'l-mahd dan wujd
~aqq Ta'ala itu wujdu'l-mah~, maka mnatah jadi
sewujd 'adamu'l-m~~ dengan wujdu'l-mah~?
Hanya sanya adalah 'alam i tu mazhar dan ~ill;
milik b~~i-~aqq Ta'ala - ya'nr-tmPat nya~
~aqq Ta ala dan bayang-bayang seperti upama
rupa yang kelihatan dalam chermin bi dal tamthil.
~aq q Ta' ala i tu upama yang maill.ik chermin dan



p. 3.


itu upama rupa lang kelihatan dalamnya.

Maka wujd Vaqq Ta'ala dengan 'alam berlainan
pun tiada dan bersuatu pun tiada, kerana berlainannya dan bersuatu itu menghendaki dua
wujd mustagil sendirinya. Maka apabila adalah
wujd Allb. jua yang esa, dan 'alarn itu tiada
berwujd, maka tiadalah jadi berlain-laina n.
Daripada kerana inilah kami kata wujd Allah
dengan 'alam esa. Jikalau ada 'alam itu mawjd
kelihatan sekalipun tetapi tiada kebilangan
wujdnya dari kerana ia tiada berwujd haqiqi.l22

According to our definition being is one;

and that is the Essence of God Nost Exalted.
The Universe is non-existent and is not qualified
to be considered as a category of being as it is
Absolute Nothingness or Pure Not-Being ('adamu'l1
~~). Thus when the Universe is 'adamu 1-m~~'
and the Being of God is Absolute Being (wujudu 1~~~), whence this identity of 'adamu'l-m~~ and
In truth the Universe is Appearance;
existence upbn the Being of God.
It is the theatre of manifestatio n of the One Real
Being - the image reflected in the allegorical
mirror: God's Being is likened to the looker into
the glass, the World is like the form reflected
therein. Thus God's Being and the Universe are
neither the same nor different, for its identity or
non-identity would require two entities existing
per ~ So when it is only the Being of God that
is existent, and the Universe is non-existent , there
is then no possibility for comparison. That is why
we say that the Being of God and the Universe is
one. Even though to outward perception the Universe
exists, existence cannot be attributed to it for in
itself it does not possess real being.
concept of being and that of the
Mutakallimin are in reality identical. 123 This means that since
Rniri concludes that the


he has already endorsed the Mutakallimin s concept, he is equally

endorsing the







pp. 6-7.

concept which he defines thus:


Adapun pendapat Ahlu'l-~fi itu pun dengan

dalil 'aql dan naql jua, lagl ditambah pula kashf
dan dhawq. Maka ditilik mereka itu dengan mata
hatinya dan dirasanya dengan per~saan~a bahwa
wujd itu esa jua - iaitulah wujud Allah yang
tiada kelihatan dengan mata kepada dalam Daru'lDunya ini; dan yang kelihatan dengan mata kepal~
itu iaitu 'alam yang tiada berwujd seperti wujud
Allah. Maka wujd Allah itu wujd :tJ,aqiqi lagi
mu~laq, dan wujd 'alam itu wujd majazi lagi
muqayyad - till - dan milik bagi wujd Allah.
Maka akan tlll itu tiada dapat dikata akan dia
wujd, dan tiada dapat dikata akan dia 'adam
mu~laq; dari kerana jika dikata.~kan d!a wujd,
nischaya sekutulah ia dengan WUJUd Allah; dan jika
dikata akan dia 'adam mu~laq, maka ~adam itu tiada
ada sesuatu shay' jua pun, dan 'alam itu ada ia
kelihatan. Maka nyatalah 'alam itu mazhar wujd
:traqq Ta 'ala. Haka nisbah antara wujd Allah
an 'alrua itu bersuatu pun tiada dan berlainan
pun tiada kerana 'alam itu mathar dan milik bagi
?aqq Ta'ala.l24
The ~fis too base their view upon the
rational faculties and Tradition, but they add
to t his also mystical revelation or insight (kashf),
and direct experience (dhalt;g). They ~ vli th the
eyes of the internai perception and experience the
existence of only One Real Being - and that is
Allah - ~fuo is imperceptible to the el es in this
World, for that which is perceptible Lto the eyes]
does not possess real being as , does Allah. God's
Being is Real Being and Absolute, and the being of
the Universe is metaphorical and [a thing] determined;
it is the shadow of God's Being. Of this shadow
existence cannot be predicated; nor can absoluteness
be attributed to this nothingness, for if it exists,
then it would mean that the Universe is identical
with God; and if its nothingness were absolute then
it would mean that the Universe is nothing whatsoever.
Yet the Universe is perceptible; so it is clear that
the Uni verse is a manifestation of t he Being of the
Truth Most Exalted. The relationship between God
and the Universe then is neither that of identity
nor that of non-identity, for the Universe is a
manifestation of, and belongs to God.


p. 6.


Having seen Raniris version of the Mutakallimin's and


concepts of being, and taking note that he endorses both, it is

most inconsistant for him, in his own concept of being to assert
that the Universe cannot be nconsidered as a category of beingn
on the grounds that it is Absolute Nothingness" or "Pure NotBeing," for such a concept of Universe is held neither by the
Mutakallimin nor by the


The mumkinu'l-wujd of the

Mutakallimin is not equivalent to the


of Rniri,

for by this they mean a being which is logically possible; and for
them everything is logically possible except the logically

The term is regarded as synonymous with ja'izu'l-wujd

(Contingent Being).

Rniri's meaning of the term


comes under the category of impossible being - that is a being

that has no existence in any category of being.

Raniri therefore

contradicts himself when he says that the World, already defined

by him as "Pure Not-Being" is also the "theatre of manifestation
of the One Real Being."

He does not seem to be aware of this

As for the


concept of the World, Raniri

himself says that they do not conceive the World to be Pure

Not-Being ('adam muflag

= 'adamu'lm~~);

it is not absolute

nothingness as Ran!ri believes, for if its nothingness were

absolute, then it would not exist at all for God to manifest

Furthermore, Raniri says that the being of the World is

neither identical nor non-identical with that of God.

This implies

that the World somehow exists and is not entirely Pure Not-Being,


for if it does not exist (being Pure Not-Being) then even the
allusion to its being neither identical nor non-identical with
God is inapplicable.

Thus in spite of his emphasis on absolute

negation of comparison between God and the World, Raniri in fact

makes the comparison.
In the case of


the question of comparison does not

arise for he draws no distinctionbetween the contingent and the


Raniri, on the other hand, makes a real distinction

between God's Being and that of the World, whereas for


the distinction which Ran!ri considers real is merely mental: the

being of the World is imaginary (wahmi); it is in reality Gods
Being plus a non-existent subjective relation.


is a truer interpretation of the


In this sense
concept of the

Thus he says:
Dhat Allah dengan wujd Allah esa ~ukumnya;
wujd Allh dengan wujd 'alam esa; wujud 'lam
dengan 'lam esa ~ukumnya: seperti ohahayanya,l25
namanya jua lain, pada ~aqiqatnya tiada lain.
Fada penglihat me.ta esa, pada penglihat hati pun
esa. Wujd 'alam pun demikian lagi dengan wujd
Allh: esa; kerana 'alam tiada berwujd sendirinya.
Sungguh pun pada ~hirnya dia berwujd, tetapi
wahmi jua, bukan wujd 9aqiqt; seperti bayangbayang dalam chermin, rupanya ada ~aqiqatnya tiada.l26
The Essence of God and His Being is one; His
Being and the Being of the Universe is one; the being


The pronominal nya refers to the sun.


~amzah Fan~ri,

p. 128.

See below pp. 67-68.


of the Universe and the Universe is one; the like

of 't-Thich is, as it were, its [i.~. the suns]
light; different only in name but not in truth.
To external perception it is one; to the eye of
the interna! perception it is also one. So is
the being of the Universe in relation to God's
Being - it is one; for the Universe considered
independently does not exist. Although outwardly
it exists it is [nothing] but Appearance and not
Reality; like the image [reflected] in the
mirror, though possessing form, does not possess
real being.
A comparison of ?amzah's definition of being with that of Raniri
reveals that there is no real distinction between the real content
of what they conceive as being.
say are those of expression.

Differences between what they

?amzah as a


begins his defini-

tion or conceives being from the point of view of the Absolute,

whereas Raniri, whom I consider not as a


but as a representa-

tive of religious officialdom, begins his definition from the

relative point of view.

The conclusion arrived at by both is

identical: that there is only One Real Being.

seems to have interpreted


However, Rniri

conception of the relationship

between God and the Universe as one which resembles that of the
heretical Wujudiyyah which he explains thus:
Kata Wujdiylah yang mulhid bahwa wujd itu
esa; iaitulah wujud Allah. Mka wujd Allah yang
Esa itu tiada ada ia mawjd mustaqil sendirinya
yang dapat dibezakan melainkan dalam kandungan
sekalian makhlqat jua. Naka adalah makhlqat itu
wujd Alla~1, dan wujd Allan itu wujd makhiqat.
Haka 'alam i tu Allah dan Allah i tu 'alam. Bahwa
sanya adalah mereka itu menyabitkan wujd Allan
yang Esa itu dalam segala makhlqat, serta katanya
tiada mawjd hanya Allan.l27



pp. 9-10.


According to the heretical \rujdiyyah, being

is one; and that is the Being of God. This
Absolute Being of God does not exist by Itself
by which It can be distinguished save in relation
to the creatures. Hence the creatures are God's
Being and the Being of God is the being of the
creatures. The World is then God, and God is
the World. In this way they affirm [as inseparable]
God's Absolute Being with the being of the creatures,
and they say that nothing exists but God.
But vlat Hamzah means when he says that "the Essence of God and

His Being is one; His Being and the being of the Universe is
one; " is not that there are two entities existing ner
identified as one as Raniri believes.




apart from God's Being which is also that of His Essence, all
other similar terms such as the 'being' of the Universe, and so
forth, are to be taken in the metaphorical sense.



gives us his explanation on this point:

Adapun kepada 'Ulama' shari'at Dhat Allah
dengan wujd Allah dua ~ukumnya; wujd 'ilmu dengan
'alim dua ~ukumnya; wujud 'alam dengan 'alam dua
~ukumnya; wujd 'alam lain, wujd Allah lain.
Adapun wujd Allah dengan Dhat Allah mithl matahari dengan chahayanya; sungguh pun esa, pada
penglihat mata dan penglihat hati, dua hukumnya:
matahari lain 1 chahayanya lain.

AdaEun alam, maka dikatakan wujdnya lain

kerana 'alam seperti bulan beroleh chahaya daripada matahari. Sebab inilah maka dikatakan 'Ulama':
11 \vujd 'alam
lain daripada wujd Allah. \vujd
Allh dengan Dhat Allah lain."
Naka kata Ahlu'l-Sulk : "Jika demikian,
Allah Ta'ala diluar 'alam atau dalam 'alam dapat
dikata; atau hampir kepada 'lam atau jauh daripada
'alam dapat dikata." Pada kami, Dhat Allah dengan
~~jd Allh esa ~ukumnya; wujd Allh dengan wujd
alam esa
Adapun ittifaq 'Ulama' dengan Ahlu'l-Sulk
pada Dhat semata. Sungguh pun Dhat dapat di'ibaratkan ,
tetapi tiada lulus pada 'ibarat kerana tiada diatas


akan Dia, tiada dibawah akan Dia, tiada dahulu akan

Dia, tiada kemudian akan Dia, tiada kanan akan Dia,
tiada kiri akan Dia, tiada jauh akan Dia, tiada hampir
akan Dia, tiada diluar akan Dia, tiada dalam akan
Dia, tiada hercherai akan Dia, tiada bertemu akan
Dia; tiada dengan betapanya, dan tiada dimana,
dan ti ad a kemana, dan ti ad a sekarang, dan ti ad a
sekajap mata, dan tiada ketika, dan tiada masa;
tiada Ia jadi, dan tiada Ia menjadi; tiada Ia
tempat dan tiada Ia bertempat, seperti sabda
Raslull-Lab : 11 Kana'l-Lahu wa la shay'a ma'ahu" ya'ni: "Dahulu Allh, tiada suatu sertaNya pun."
Kata Shaykh Junayd al-Baghdad! (r~atu'l-Lhi
'alayhi): "Al-ana kama kna 11 - la'ni: "Sekarang
pun seperti dahulu juga." Firman Allah Ta'ala:
'Subhna'l-L hi 'amma yasifna - ya'ni:
rMafisuchi Allh: tiada dapat diperikan'; lagi
firman Allah Ta'ala: 'Laisa kamithlihi shay'un ya'ni [tafsirnya]: 'Tiada suatu pun barang yang
kita bicharakan dengan hati kita, atau dengan
ma'rifat kita, sama-sama. Ma'rifat itu bukan
Dhat; keadaan Dhat dengan periNya jua. Sebab
inilah maka kata Ahlu'l-Sulk : "Dhat dengan
keadaanNya esa." Tetapi yang kunhinya, Dhat itu
tiada siapa da tang kesana. Jangankan 'awamm,
Wali dan Nabi dan Mala'ikatu'l- Huqarrabin pun
tiada datang kesana.l28
According to the 'Ulama' of the Prescribed
LavT, the judgment concerning the Essence of God and
His Being is that they are two; [similarly,] the
being of knowledge and knower are two; the being of
the Universe and the Universe are two; the being
of the Universe is different fran the Being of God.
The Essence of God and His Being is like the sun
and its light; although they are one, yet to external
and internai perception the judgment is that they
are two: the sun is different from its light.
As to the Universe, the reason why it is said
that its being is different [from that of God],
is because the Universe is like the moon deriving
its light from the sun. This is the reason why the
'Ulama' say: "The being of the Universe is different
from the Being of God. God 1 s Being and His Essence
are different.n

~amzah Fan~ri,

pp. 127-129.


The Itinerants say: "If this is the case,

then God can be referred to as being outside'
or 'in' [the Universe]; or near' the Universe
or 'far' from it." Tous, the Essence of God
and His Being is one; His Being and the being
of the Universe is one 129
In reality the 'Ulama, and the Itinerants are
in complete agreement with respect to the Essence.
Although the Essence can be expressed in words in
reality expression falls s hort of the truth, for
It is not 'above', It is not 'below, It is not
1 before', It is not 'after', It is not to 'the
right', It is not to 'the left', It is not 'far',
It is not 1 near', It is not outside', It is not 'in',
It is not 'separate, It is not 1 joining' [It is]
without 'how' or 1 what, without 'where' ~i.e. bein~
at a place], without 'where' [i.~. being ~a placeJ,
without now, without a 'twinkling of an eye'
without 'instant, without 'time; It does not
1 become, nor is It 'becoming'; It is not a 'place'
nor has It a 'place, as the Messenger of God says:
11 There 'was' only God, no thing [ 1 was 1 ] wi th Him."
Shaykh Junayd al-Baghdad! (God's mercy be upon
him!) says: 11 It is now as i t was then. 11 God says:
'Glory be to God! Who cannet be described'; and
God says further: 'There is no thing like unto Him'
[the interpretation of] which means: not one single
thing which we discuss with our hearts and with
our lmovrledge a ttains to lmowledge of Him. Our
lmowledge is not [of] the Essence; [it is of] the
existence of the Essence and Its modes. This is
why the Itinerants say: "The Essence and Its
existence is one,l30 but in reality none ma~ reach
the Essence. Let alone the general masses Lof the
Faithful], even the Saints, Prophets, and Archangels
may not rea ch It.
The cardinal point about the distinction between the heretical
and the true WUjdiyyah is, as Rniri rightly explains, that with

See above pp. 65-66.

130 Q!. Ibnu'l-'Arabi in 'Affifi, pp. 1-9.


the former, though they too assert that there is only one
being which is the Being of God, ''this Absolute Being of God does
not exist by Itself by which It can be distinguished save in
relation to the creatures."



says in the passage

quoted is self-evident in denouncing such a belief.


clearly says that God is self-subsistent; that He is logically

prier to all ether beings, 'trhich means that His existence is not
determined by His relation to the creatures.
Another important point in connection with this problem is
the identification of essence and existence as one and the same

Raniri says:
_ Maka nya~alah pada i~til9 Ahlu'l-ifi bahwa
wujud dan haq1qat itu esa jua pada ma'nanya;
iaitulah Dhat Haqq Ta'ala. Maka murad daripada
~aqiqat pada !~til~ Ahlu'l-~fi itu iaitu:
Al-9agiqatu ma bihi 1-shay'u huwa huwa. Ertinya:
Yang haqiqat itu suatu shay 1 yang dengan dia
[jadij shay' itu - ia ia (ya'ni barang suatu shay'
yang jadi ia daripada suatu shay'. Maka suatu shay'
itu ~aq!qat - upama ~aqiqat periuk itu ~isaranl31
dan ~aq1qat perahu itu tukang. Dan murad ~aripada
haqiqat pada i~~ilab Man~iqiyyin itu iaitu:
Al-bagigatu ma yaknu'l-shay'u bihi ka'l-hayawani'lni~lqi bi'l-nisbati il'l-insni. Ertinya: Yang
~aqiqat itu barang sesuatu shay 1 yang dengan dia
ia,_seperti ~ayawan natiS dengan nisbah kepada
insan (ya'ni ~aqiqat insan itu hidup yang
berkata-kata). Maka nyatalah pada !s~ilh
Man~iqiyyin ~aqiqat sesuatu shay' 1t diri sesuatu
shay'. }.1aka ikhtilaf ikhtiyar Hutakallimin dan
Ahlu'l-~fi pada menyabitkan wujd Allh dengan
wujud 'alam itu ikhtilaf laf~I jua, bukan


See below p. 155.


ma'nawi; seperti kata orang 'lima belas' dengan

tengah dua puluh'. Maka pada ma'nanya sama jua,
dan pada lafa~nya berlain-lainan.l32
It is clear that according to the definition
of the Sfis existence and real essence are,
in point of meaning, one and the same; and that
is the Essence of God. The meaning of the ~fis
definition of the real essence [of a thing] is that:
'Essence is what makes a thing what it is' - that
is - the tlung from which a thing becornes; and
this 'thing' [or essence] is reality. As for
example~ the reality [or essence] of the pot is the
wheel,lj3 and the reality [or essence] of the boat
is its maker. According to the definition of the
Logicians: Essence is what makes a thing what
it is as rationality is to man' - that is - the
essence of man is his rationality. It is evident
that the meaning of the Logicians' definition [of
the term essence] is quiddity. The differences
between the endeavours of the Mutakallimin and the
~fis in their affirmation of God's Being and that
of the Universe, are differences in expression,
not in meaning; as people say 'fifteen' and twenty
minus five. The meaning is identical although
the expression is not.
All that which Rniri says here is confused and his conclusion is

In the first instance Raniri makes an effort to reconcile

the MUtakallimin's definition of essence with that of the Sufis

by incorporating both, the premises of the former and the conclusion of the latter, into an amalgam.

The Mutakallimin would in

fact define essence thus:

The real essence (al-hagiqatu) of a thing and
its quiddity (al-mahfixatu) are that which
constitutes the identity of a thing (ma bihi'lshaz'u huwa huwa), as is exemplified by the
application of the term "rational (n,i~i9,) animal 11


pp. 6-7.

133 I would have thought, in order to be consistent, that the

reality of the pot should be the potter, not the wheel!


to man in contrast to the application of the terms

"laughing animal" and "writing animal"; in which
case it is possible to conceive of man as not
being described by the terms "laughing" and
"writing", inasmuch as they [laughing and writing]
are accidents. And it may be said further that
that which constitutes the identity of a thing is,
with respect to its being verified as having external
reality, a real essence; and with respect to its
being individualize d, it is a certain particular
thing (huwixxah), but without respect to either of
these it is a quiddity.l34
From this it is clear that according to the Mutakallimin 's point
of view the real essence of the pot is not the patter, nor that
of the boat the maker; but that the real essence of the pot is
the clay which is ultimately reducible to particles whicb cannot
be further divided, and the real essence of the boat is the
combination of vtood and iron and so forth, al1 of which is also
ultimately reducible to their respective atoms.

The Mutakallimin -

the later Ash'aris - conceive the Universe to be a series of

accidents created by God, but t heir theory of the Universe itself
is atomistic, as the following passage shows:
According to the Ash'arite school of thinkers,
then, the '"orld is coi!lpounded of what they ca11
jawhir - infinitely sma11 parts or atoms which
cannot be further divided. Since the creative
activity of God is ceaseless the number of the
atoms cannot be finite. Fresh atoms are coming
into being every moment, and the universe is
therefore constantly growing. As the Qur'n says:
11 God
adds to His creation what He wills." The
essence of the atom is independant of its existence.
This means that existence is a quality imposed upon
the atom by God. Before receiving this quality the
atom lies dormant, as it were, in the creative energy
134 Taftazani, p. 11. It is interesting
translated this work into Malay under the
bi Shar~ al-'Aqa'id! Cf. Winstedt, R.o.,
Malay literature, J~ffiRAS, vol. 31, pt. 3,

to note that Raniri has

title of Durrat a1-Fara'id
A histor~ of classical
June 19~, p. 120.


of God, and its existence means nothing more than

Divine energy become visible. The atom in its
essence therefore has no magnitude; it has its
position which does not involve space. It is by
their aggregation that atoms become extended and
generate space.l35
It is clear here that the Mutakallimin assert that the atom in
its essential nature is independant of its existence, although it
will remain as such only as long as the accidents occur.

If God

ceases to create the accidents, the atoms will cease to exist as


From this two propositions arise: firstly, as a result of

the accidents which are perpetually changed and renewed, nothing

has a stable nature; secondly, atoms exist independently in order
that the accidents may act upon them.




accepted the first proposition, but they violently disagreed, on

the ether hand, with the Mutakallimins assertion that numerous
substances - atoms exist independently upon which the accidents

The Mutakallimin have defined an accident as a being

which is not independant and self-existent, but depends for its

existence an ether accidents, or on essence or substance.


9fis, however, believe that the Mutakallimins theory of accidents

is contradictory, for while asserting that accidents depend upon
the atoms in order to occur, they have failed, according to the

to see that the atoms, which they have put into the category

of essence, will cease to exist if the accidents cease to exist.

135 Iqbal, M., Six lectures on the reconstruction of religious

thought in Islam, Lahore, 1930, p. 95.

Cf. also Taftzni, p. xxv.


Thus both are in reality interdependant, and since the atoms

themselves are continuously prevailed upon by the accidents, it
can be said that there never was a time when the atoms are free of


Fran the point of view of the ?fis, nothing exists

other than the One Real Being, underlying all existence.

According to Jami, the accidents do not pertain to the atoms, but

to a "single substance" - the Reality upon which depends all
existence and which is the cause of all existence:
They [!.~ the Hutakallimin] have not grasped
the fact that the universe, together with all its
parts, is nothing but a number of accidents, ever
changing and being renewed at every breath, and
linked together in a single substance, and at each
instant disappearing and being replaced by a
similar set. In consequence of this rapid
succession, the spectator is deceived into the
belief that the universe is a per~anent existence.
The Ash'aris themselves declare this when expounding
the succession of accidents in their substances as
involving continuous substitution of accidents,
in such wise that the substances are never left
wholly void of accidents similar to those which
have preceded them.l36
The "single substance" Jami speaks of is God Who reveals Himself,
but never during two consecutive moments, in the myriad forms of
the various grades of being making them manifest to the senses.
The Truth


or God, is not to be identified with these

variegated forms of phenomena that make up the universe of change.

136 Lawa'i~ fi bayan ma'ani 'urfaniyyah; translated by E.H.
Whinefield and M.M. Qazvini, London, Royal Asi ~tic Society, 1928,
p. 30. Hereafter cited as Lawa'ih. Cf. Ibnu'l-'Arabi in
Nicholson, p. 154.


It is that all-pervasive, ali-persistent essence of these myriad

Here then we come to the Sfis'
definition of

Jami says:

grades of being.

When one defines man as a "rational 8-j_'l.imal";

and animal as a 11 growing and sentient body, possessed
of the faculty of voluntary movement"; and body as
"a substance possessing three dimensions"; and
substance as an "entity which exists per ~ and is
not inherent in any other subject"; and entity as
"an essence possessed of reality and necessary
being 11 - all the terms used in this definition
come under the category of "accidents", except this
vague essence which is discerned behind these
terms. For "rational" signifies an essence endued
with reason; 11 that which is growing" signifies an
essence endued with the faculty of growth; 11
and so on.137
Jami goes on to affirm that this vague essence is in fact the
Truth, the Very Being - God.
To return to Raniri, it should be clear by now that his
assertion that the differences of the Mutakallimin and that of the

in their affirmation of God's Being and that of the Universe

are merely those in expression and not in meaning, is false for

there is a real difference in what they mean and conceive; and this
real difference has its roots in their conception of the nature
of the real essence of things. But Rniri ignores - or does he not
see? ":"' this real distinction beti.veen the ll.utakallimin 1 s and
point of view, for in spite of this he says:



Maka berhimpunlahl38 sekalian Ahlu'l-Sfi

dan segala Mutakallimin mengatakan: "Al-' aiamu bi
.iami'i a.iza'ihi a'ra9-un wa'l-ma'r"u huwa 51-Lhu" ya'ni: "Yang 1 alam dengan segala suku-sukunya [itu]
beberapa_'arag, dan ma'r9- itu iaitu :tJaqg Ta'ala."
Maka murad daripada 'arad itu pada istilah mereka
itu: "Al-'ara.u la yabgazamanayni"lj~- ya'ni:
"Yang 1arag i"tu tiada ia kekal pada dua masa."
Dan murad daripada ma'r9- itu iaitu wujd Allah
yang azali lagi abadi. Ialah yang qa'im sendiriNya
dan Ialah yang mengqiymkanl4o bagi lainnya. Maka
tiadalah dinamai akan 'alam itu dengan nama wujd;
hanya sanya adalah dinamai akan dia dengan nama
~allat dan la shay', batil dan khayali dan sarabi
dan ~illi jua.
Maka apabila adalah ~al 'alam itu demikian ya'ni tiadalah kebilangan keadaannya itu jikalau
kelihatan pada penglihat mata sekalipun - maka
tiadalah menduai wujd Haqq Ta'ala. Sebab inilah
kata mereka itu bahwa Haqq Ta'ala dengan 'lam itu
esa. Bukan maasd merka itu bahwa 'alaml41 dengan
~aqq Ta'al sewujd dan bersuatu. Kerana itulah
kata mereka itu bahwa ~aq_q Ta'ala dengan 'alam
berlainan ptin tiada dan bersuatu pun tiada, kerana
berlainannya dan bersuatunya itu menghendaki dua
Hanya sanya adalah ia milik bagi ~aqq
All the ~fis and the Mutakallimin are in
concerted agreement in asserting that: "The world
together with all its parts is nothing but a series

See below p. 170.


Raniri's note on the margin says:

Ya'ni adalah 'ara~ itu berubah-ubah lagi bergantiganti dan hilang. Maka datang yang ganti sebagainya
pada tiap-tiap nafas dan ketika.


See below p. 171.


Raniri's note on the margin says:

Ya'ni sebab dinamai akan 'lam itu la shay' kerana ia
tiada shay' ~aqiqi pada tiap-tiap nafsu'l-amr dirinya,
tetapi adalah shay' pada pihak dijadikan Allah akan dia.



pp. 21-22.


of accidents; and that of which they are accidents is

God." The meaning of 'accident' in their terminology
is: "An accident [is a thing that] does not endure
two instants of time.rrl43 The meaning of 'that upon
which the accidents depend' is God's Being, Eternal,
Beginningless. He is the self-subsistent One, and
He is the One Who gives subsistance to others.
Hence the World is not fit to be categorized as
'being' - it is called 'darkness', not-being',
1 false','imagination' and 'mirage'; it is nothing but
a shadovr.
When that the \Vorld is such - that is, its
existence cannot be categorized as 'being' even
though it is perceptible - it cannot tl1en be an
other existent apart from God the Exalted. This is
the reason why they say that God and the Universe is
one. They do not intend it to mean that the Worldl44
and God are one being and identical. This is why
they say that God and the Universe are neither the
same nor different, for their identity and non-identity
would require two entities existing per ~ It
[1~ the Universe] belongs to God.
From all this (!) one cannot help but come to the conclusion
that Raniri is in fact saying the same thing as what
more clearly said.



It has revealed to us a Raniri who is in that

impossible situation of wanting to be both a Mutakallim and a


and who, deceivine himself into the belief that he has

reconciled the two, actually pays his respects to and shows due
reverence for the latter.

143 Raniris note: The accidents change, come in succession,

and disappear. Others like them come and

replace them at each breath and instant.


Raniri's note: The reason whl the World is not-being

[or not-thingJ is because it never becomes
a real thing at each breath of its appearance,
but it is a thing insofar only as God creates

The teachings of

~amzah Fan~ri


~amzah Fan~ri

of the Sfis.

was a wandering mystic learned in the doctrines

He had travelled in the Middle East and in the

Indonesian Archipelago.

He visited Siam, Nalaya, and Java.


had journeyed far and '\vide, he tells us, in quest of God whom he
finally discovered within his self:
Hamzah Fansri didalam Makkah
Menchari Than di Baytu'l-Ka'bah
Di Barus ke Kudus terlalu payah
Akhirnya dapat didalam rumah.l~5
Hamzah Fansri in Makkah once stays
~earching the Ka'bah for God he dismays
from Barus to Kudus weary his gaze
At last in his house he finds that He stays.
He spoke and wrote fluently Malay, and apparently Arabie and
Persian, and perhaps certain other languages of the Indonesian

From one of his stanzas he tells us that he belonged

to the Qadiriyyah Order:

~amzah nin a~alnya Fan~r!
Hendapat wujud ditanah Shahar Nawi
Beroleh khilafat 'ilmu yang 'ali
Daripada 'Abdu'l-Qadir Sayyid Jilni.146

I, ~amzah, who am of Fan~r a son

At Shahar Na,.,r my being have won
The knowledge sublime I acquired from one
Called 'Abdu'l-Qadir Sayyid of Jilan.
In another he informs us that he was of humble Malay origin:
145 ?amzah


p. 45.

Ibid., pp. 107-108.

See also p. 89.


Hamzah miskin orang 'uryani

~eperti Isma'il menjadi qurbni
Bukannya 'Aj~ai lagi 'Arabi
Senantiasa wasil dengan Yang Bqi.l47

Naked and poor is ~amzah Fan~ri

Alike to an Ishmael a sacrifice he
Neither of Persia nor of Araby
Yet he is at one with God constantly.
's dates of birth and deat:1 are unknown and to my

know1edge have not yet been estab11shed.

But it wou1d appear to

me that he flourished during the period of Sultan 'Ala'u'l-Din

Ri'ayat Shh who reigned fran 1588 to 1604.

Ny opinion is based

upon a short poem by ~amzah entitled Ikat-ikatan 'ilmu'l-nisa'.148

From this is evident that he was apparent1y ordered by that


to compose the poem - or at least he dedicated the poem to the



Hamba mengikat sha'ir ini

Dibawah ha9rat raja yang wali 149
There is no doubt that the "saint1y king" referred to in the last
1ine quoted was 'Ala'u'l-Din Ri'ayat Shh, who was also known as
Shh 'A1am1 5 and who in Achehnese tradition was famous under the

~., p.


For this poera see




See Hikazat Acheh, p. 169, para. 243; also p. 192.


pp. 65-70.

p. 69.


title Sayi(id al-Hukammal,l5l for immediately following the above

lines, he says:

'Alam raja yang 'adil

quub yang sempurna kamil
Al ah sempurna waiil
'arif lagi mukarnmil.l52

But there is still a puzzle, as in the same poem



Muda, who reigned from 1607 to 1636, is also mentioned by his title
Mahkota 'Alam.l53

This would give the impression that ~amzah was

still alive at least during the early part of Iskandar Nuda's reign,
for the prince could assume the title only when he has attained to
the Sultanate and not before.

Such titles were to be used postSul~ns

humously, but it became a tradition for the

respective titles as soon as they were installed as

to assume their

it seems to me that the line of reasoning accepting that



lived in the early part of Iskandar Huda's reign, by virtue of the

fact that his posthumous title is mentioned in t his poem, is
un tenable.

Why -vrould


insert Iskandar Nuda' s royal ti tle

when the poem was written for Shan 'Alam?

Furthermore, Iskandar

Muda, at the time the poem was composed, could not have been
and could therefore not have used the title.
151 See Djajadiningrat, p. 213.
R,ara. 74.


There seems to be an

See also Hikayat Acheh, p. 98,

152 The l ast word in the stanza is read mukammil to fit into the
rhyme scheme. The correct form is mukammal (referring to Sayyid
al-Hukar:unal). See ~amzah Faniri, p. 70.153

Ibid., p. 68.


a.nachronism here.

!1y solution to this problem is that the

reference to Mahkota 'Alam in the poem could very well be a later


Interpolations of this nature are not unusual in

Malay works of historical and cultural significance.

The Hikayat

Raja-Raja Pasai and the Sejarah Melayu have been subject to

interpolations of this nature.




author died in 1666) interpolates mention of 'Inayat Shh who

reigned in Acheh from 1678-1688. 1 54 ?amzah's poem in question may
not be excluded from such a possibility in this respect.

But a

more convincing indication that interpolation might have occurred

is to study carefully the problematic stanza itself:
Berkatalah faqir ga'If yang budiman, amat
'aja'ib maqam [diluar pun; ada ia khaba~ di
tanah Jawa, dari Acheh J.iar\lm Mahkota 'Alam]
dihi~punkan sekalian sharat dinazarkan
kepada rasanya yang ni'mat diturunkan 155
It can be seen at once that the who1e stanza as it appears in the
form presented is nothing but a jumble of incoherent, meaningless
phrases having no relation nor relevance, bath in thought and form,
with the preceding and succeeding stanzas, and with the poem as a

But if the words I have enclosed in square brackets were to


See Winstedt, R.o., A history of classical Malay 1iterature,

JMBRAS, vol. 31, pt. 3, June 1958, p. 120.

155 ~amzah Fan~ri, p. 68. I have not a1tered the arrangement of

the form in which it is presented by Doorenbos. The square brackets
are mine. The purpose of my inserting the brackets where they are
no1v will short1y be come c1ear.

-83be removed, and the arrangement of the form slightly rearranged,

their meaning, relevance, and relationship with the whole poem
is established:
Berkatalah faqir ~a' If yang budiman
Amat 'aja'ib maqam dihimpunkan
Sekalian sharat dinazarkan
Kepada rasanya yang ni'mat diturunkan.
In this reading, not only the form but the spirit it conveys runs
in conformity with the spirit and tone of the whole poem.


this analysis it may be concluded that, if my judgment is correct,

:tfamzah Fan~ri lived and flourished during the period of Shah 'Alam.
Itamzah 's 1.-.rri tings reveal that he had a masterly grasp of the
Arabie and Persian languages apart from his own Malay.

In them too

is betrayed a marked influence of Ibnu'l-'Arabi from whom he

undoubtedly derived his inspiration and whom he Inust have regarded
as his master.

But influence also from Jili is not lacking.


must have been well acquainted also, fran what is revealed in his
writings, with the thoughts of Ab Yazid



al-:tfallaj, Ghazzali, Rmi, Shamsu Tabriz 'Iraqi, Maghribi, Jami and

ethers not as famous.

One example here will suffice:

Jika seorang bertanya: "Jikalau

Dhat Allah kepada semesta sekalian
lengkap, kepada najis dapatkah dikatakan
lengkap 11 ? Haka jawab: "Seperti panas lengkap
pada sekelian 'alam, kepada busuk pun
lengkap, kepada baik pun lengkap, kepada
jahat pun lengkap, kepada Ka'bah pun lengkap,
pada rumah berhala pun lengkap, kepada
semesta sellian pun lengkap; kepada najis
tiada ia akan najis; kepada busuk tiada ia
akan busuk; kepada baik tiada ia akan baik;


kepada jahat tiada ia akan jahat; daripada

Ka'bah tiada ia beroleh kebajikan; daripada
rumah berhala tiada ia beroleh kejahatan.
Selang panas lagi demikian, istimewa Allah
Sun9nahu wa Ta'ala, Suchi daripada
segala Suchi, dimana Ia akan naj_is dan busukn?
Haka pahamkan olehmu kata ini.l)6
Should someone ask: "If the Essence of Allah
is all-pervasive and immanent in all things,
can it be said that It is also immanent in impure
and foul things"? Then answer: nin the same
way as the suns light is all-pervasive and
sheds itself over the impure and the foul,
the good and the evil, over the Ka'bah and
the idol-worshippers Temple - over everything;
without itself being affected by the impurity
and the foulness, the goodness and evilness
of the things it pervades; from the Ka'bah it
does not gain goodness, from the Temple it
does not acquire evilness; so it is even
more with respect to Allah Most Exalted, Who
is the Purest of the Pure. How can the
impure and the foul affect Him"? Comprehend
this well.
How can one doubt the origin of the above quoted passage as from
ether than the Lawa'i9, where Jami says:
When the sun sheds his light for all to share,
It shines on foul things equally with fair;
Fair things do not augment its radiance
Nor can foul things its purity 1mpair.l57
Since the devastating attack directed against him by Raniri,

has been regarded as a false


in fact a 'heretic.'

But was he what Raniri would have us believe of him?

In the preced-

ing chapter, I have attempted to show that Raniri's accusations of





pp. 189-190.


p. 22.


'heresy 1 were really not founded upon learned and critical analyses
of his works; that Raniri really did not represent his thou Ghts
fai thfully and truly at all.

I also pointed out that the most

serious charge against him that merits attention is ultimately

focused upon his alle ged belief in the eternity of the vmrld together with the logical consequence of that belief; namely the
auestion as to whether God is the Agent and Naker of the Wor1d in
the sense Gha.zza1I me ans, l58 or the World cornes into Being by
virtue of necessi ty, Y.rhich vTOuld ne gate the idea that God is i ts
Agent and Naker.

I propose hereafter in this chapter to give a

brief surrunary of the salient features of I}amzah 1 s teachin:; s which

have a bearing upon the relevant point in question, in this case,
the relationship between God and the Universe or Wor1d.
According to ?amzah, when the Throne, 1 59 Heaven and He11,
and the entire Universe together vrith a11 its parts were yet dormant,
concealed in non-existenc e, the Essence dwelt in solitude; without
na!! or attributes, signless.

This Essence is cal1ed Huwa [He],

158 See Tahafut 1 chapters I to III.

See also corresponding chapters

in Averroes' T~1afut al-Tahafut (The incoherence of the incoherence) ;
translated from the Arabie with introduction and notes by Simon van
den Bergh, London, 1951+, 2v. Here after cited a s Tahafut al-Tahafut.
159 Conpare \rith Ibnu'l- 'Arabi's various concepts of this term in
'Affifi, pp. 63, 66, 82.


and this is Its highest name. 160

The name Allah which though a

step lower in grade than Huwa is the all-embracing name; for

Allh is the name in which all divine names and attributes are
comprised, in the same manner as Muammad is the


of a person

comprising his ether names by which he may be called: if he

possesses knowledge he is called knower; if he writes, he is
called writer; if he trades, he is called trader - and so on.
160 Huwa as such corresponds with Jili's al-'Ama'. See Nicholson,
pp. 8~-95. Al-'Ama' is translated by Nicholson- at least
once- as the blindness (ibid., p. 94), and on three ether
instances as the dark mis~bid.~ pp. 83, 94, 97). Johns accepts
Nicholson's translation of a~a' as the blindness and entirely
excludes the ether translation given by Nicholson (Johns, pp. 16,
111). Although the dark mist is the more correct of the two
translations given by Nicholson yet both he and Johns are mistaken
in translating the term al-'Ama 1 as Jili uses it as the blindness.
The reason for this errer is that Nicholson and Johns ascribe to
Jili the use of the term al-'Ama ( ~'), which means the
blindness, whereas in fact Jil! uses the term al-'Ama'
( ~\~\'), which means the dark mist, the heavy cloud about to
burst. (See Jili's Al-Insanu'l-Kamil, Caire, Mu~ammad 'Ali
Subai~, 2 vols. in 1, vol. 1, p. 30; see also Lane, E.W.,
An Arabic-English lexicon, London, Williams & Norgate, 8 pts. &
suppl. in 4, 1863-1885, p. 2161). For an interpretation of
al-'Ama', see Nicholson, p. 95 and note 1.


Thus Allah, Glorious and Exalted, by virtue of His creating, is

called Creator; of His providing His creatures, is called
Provider - and so forth. 161
Now when He exists by Himself as Essence He is Necessary
Being, for He is self-existent and is the cause of all existence.
Cause here should not be understood in the Philosophers sense of
the term, rather in al-Ghazzali 1 s sense of the term - as a cause in
the special sense - that is that brought about by a willing agent.

~amzah' s

point of vievr, the 'Ulama' teach that God 1 s Being

(Existence) and His Essence are tvTO different things, just as according to


are not identical.

- the 'Ulama' assert that knowledge and knower

In the like manner, the 'Ulama' maintain that

the Being of God and the being of the Universe are non-identical.
They demonstrate their theory by employing the metaphor of the
sun and its light, which though to internal and external perception
are one and the same thing remain nevertheless two different things
in reality.



argues that if this were so, then it could

be said of God that He is situated in time and space with respect

to the Uni verse - vrhich is absurd.
regard reality from a relative


We may say that the 'Ulama'


subjective) viewpoint whereas

would conceive reality in the opposite manner - since

God alone is real, He alone is the only reality.

161 Jtamzah Fan~ri, pp. 125-126.
pp. 94:ff.

For ?amzah the

Compare with Jili in Nicholson,


relationship between God and the Universe is mere metaphor; since

only God exists how can there be a relationship?l6 2 But God is
not identica1 with the Universe.

We predicate of Him a relative

transcendance and immanence in respect of the modes of being

attributed to Him.
His Being.

The Universe is a reflection of the modes of

Hence it is said that:

Barang kita 1ihat, ~hir atau batin, seka1iannya
1enyap - ombak juga; ya'n! 1aut tiada hercherai
dengan ombaknya, ombak tiada bercherai dengan 1aut.
Demikian lagi Allh Sub~nahu wa Ta'ala tiada
bercherai dengan 'alam. Tetapi tiada dida1am 'alam
dan tiada di1uar 'alam, dan tiada diatas 'alam dan
tiada dibawah 'alam, dan tiada dikanan 'a1am dan
tiada dikiri 'a1am 1 dan tiada dihadapan 'a1am dan
tiada dibe1akang 'alam, dan tiada bercherai dengan
'a1am dan tiada bertemu dengan 'a!am, dan tiada
hampir kepada 'alam dan tiada jauh daripada 'alam.l63
That which we perceive, whether manifest or
hidden, al1 disappear - they are waves. The sea is
not separate from the waves and the waves are not
separate from the sea. Simi1ar1y God the G1orious
and Exa1ted is not separate from the Wor1d. But
He is neither in the Wor1d nor outside it, neither
above nor below it, neither to the right nor to the
1eft of it, neither before nor behind it, neither
separate from nor joined to it, neither near to nor
far fran it.


maintains that the 'U1ama' 1 s endeavour to expound the

relationship between God and the Universe in the metaphorica1 terms

they adopt is fraught with imperfections and may 1ead to absurd

~amzah Fan~ri,


Ibid., p. 153.

p. 128.


conclusions, for analogy cannot reach the Essence.

He emphasizes

that actually the views of t he 'Ulama' with regard to this problem

and those of the Itinerants (Ah1u'l-Su1k), to which he subscribes,
are identical. 164 In Itse1f the Essence is transcendent:
Adapun Dhat itu, sungguh pun dibawa kepada
ibarat, kepada kunhinla tiada siapa tahu, kerana
Ia tiada dapat di ~'ibaratkan. Sungguh pun Esa,
tiada dengan esanya; sungguh pun Tunggal, tiada
dengan tunggalnya. Barang ~ifat, Dhat Asma'
kita nisbatkan kepadaNya 'ibarat juga.l65
The Essence - although It can be described
by means of verbal expression - in reality is
unknowable for It can never b expressed in
words. Although It is Absolute, Its absoluteness
is not related to anything; a1though It is One and
On1y, Its oneness and singleness are not related
to anything. vie attribute to It Essence, Attributes
and Names as expressions only.


means to say is not different from what Ibnu'l-'Arabi

Sublimit~ ('uluww) belongs to God alone.
essences (a 'yan) cf things are in themselves nonexistent, deriving what existence they possess from
God, who is the real substance (~) of all that
exists. P1urality consists of relations (nisab),
which are non-existent things. There is really
nothing except the Essence, and this is sublime
(transcendent) for itself, not in relation to
anything, but we predi cate of the One Substance a
relati ve sublimity (transcendance) in respect of
the modes of being attributed to it: hence we
say God is (huwa) and is not (la huwa).l66

164 12.2. ill

r. a1so, p. 129.




Cf. Nicholson, p. 152.

p. 148.



But he does not follml Ibnu '1- 'Arabi all the way through wi th
respect to the manifestation of the Absolute, for we find him
repeating Jili 1 s systematic scheme of t 'c1e process of "selfdiremption" ascribed to the Absolute: 167
Ketahui olebmu bahwa kunhi Dhat Allh itu
dinamai Ahlu'l-Sulk la ta'ayyun. Maka la
ta'ayyun namanya kerana budi dan bichara, 'ilmu
dan ma'rifat kita tiada lulus padaNya. Jangankan
'ilmu dan ma'rifat kita; Anbiya' dan Awliya' pun
hayran. Olehnya itu maka sabda Nabi: "Subhnaka
'arafna hadga ma'rifatika." (ya'ni:i'AIDat
SuchiNu!, tla a kukenal sebenar kenal akan
Dikau"). Dan lagi sabda Nabi: "Tafakkar fi
khalgi'l-Lhi wa la tafakkar fi Dhti'l-Lhi"
(ya 'ni: "Karnu pikirkan dalam yang dijadikan
Allh; bermula: jangan kamu pikirkan kepada Dhat
All':h.") Kerana ini maka dinamai Ahlu'l-Sulk
la ta'ayyun. Na'na la ta'ayyun: tiada nyata.
Adapun pertama ta'ayyun empat bahagi:
'ilmu, dan wujd, dan shuhd, dan nr. Ya'ni
ta' ayytm keempatnya inilah yang bernama
ta' ayyun aH\val, ker ana daripada 'iJ.mU maka 'alim
dan ma 'lm nyata; kerana wujd maka yang mengadakan
dan yang diadakan nyata; kerana shuhd maka yang
melihat dan yang dilihat nyata; kerana chahaya
maka yang menerangkanl68 dan yang di terangkan
Sekali~ ini daripad~ ta'ayy~ avMal jua;
ma'lum, awv1al dan akhir, zahir dan
- . beroleh
Adapun ma'lm itulah yang dinamai Ahlu'lSulk a'~n thabitah. Setengah menamai [dia]
~agigatu 1-ashy'; setengah menamai [dia]
~uwar 1 1lmiyyah; setengah menamai [dia] rh
i~fi. Sekalian ini ta'ayyun thani ~ukumnya.


167 Cf. Iqbal, M., The development of metaphysics in Persia, London,

1908, pp. 150-174. Hereafter cited as Iqbl.
168 The text reads diterangkan. I have reversed the order so that
menerangkan is read before diterangkan for the sake of 1ogical


Adapun r~ insani_dan r~-~ayawani dan

rh nabati tatayyun thalith hukumnya.
-- Adapun ta'ayyun rabi' dn khamis~ ~a'ayyun
jismni kepada semesta sekalian makhluqat, kepada
tiada berkesudahan dan ta'ayyun juga namanya.
Tiada terhisabkan ta'ayyun itu; tetapi 'ilmu,
dan wujd;dan shuhd, dan nr, tiada hercherai
dengan sekalian ta'ayyun, kerana jika tiada
yang empat ini, yang Empunya ta'ayyun tiada dapat
ta'ayyun. Kerana ini maka kata Ahlu'l-Suluk
[baht.,a] wujd 'alam sekalian [itu] wujd Allah.
Adapun wujd 'alarn, sungguhpun kita lihat berwujd,
tiada ia berwujd kerana wujdnya daripada wujud
Muta'ayyin. Ya'n daripada ghafil kita jua kita
sangka 'alam berwujd.
Adapun ta' ayyun awwal Atl.4 pun namanyal.
Wahid pun namanya. Apabila kita lainkan Dhat
Smata sendi::inya hf.lad namanla Apabi!a ki ta
sertakan ~ifatnya dengan 'ibaratnya, k:@~.!Q. -!:amanya,
kerana A9~ itul~~ bernama w-~id memegang 'alam
sekalian dari pertamanya hingga kesudahannya.l69
Know that the innermost Essence of God Most
Exalted is called by the Itinerants 'indeterminacy.'
It is cal1ed Indeterminacy because our intelligence
and ski11 in verbal exposition, know.ledge and
understanding, are unable to reach It. Let a1one
~ knowledge and understanding, even the Prophets
and the Saints are struck with awe of It. Hence
the Prophet said: "Glory be to Thee~ I cannot
rea1ly lmow Thee". And t:ne Prophet said further:
"Contemp1ate upon His creation and not upon His
Essence." This is why the Itinerants call this
[Essence] indeterminate, meaning non-manifest.
The first [stage] of deter.minacy is fourfo1d:
Know1edge, Being, Sight, and Light. All these
four are called the First Determination, for by
virtue of Know1edge the Knower and the Known
become manifest; by virtue of Being That which
causes to be and That which becomes are manifest;
by virtue of Sight the Seer and the Seen are
manifest; by virtue of Li ~~t the I1luminator and
the Illuminated are manifest. All these - the
Knower and the Known, the First and the Last, the
Manifest and the Hidden - are of the First Determination.



pp. 191-193.


The Known is called by the Itinerants the

Fixed Essences. Sorne call it the Essences of Things,
sorne the Cognitive Forms, and ethers call it the
Relational Snirit. All these are the Second Determination.
The humn, animal, and vegetal spirits are the
Third Determination.
The Fourth and Fifth Determinations encompass
the realm of physical thingsinits entirety,
comprising the whole Universe and all created
things [therein].
Determinations never cease to occur and are
without limit; but Knowledge, Being, Sight, and
Light are never separate frcm them, for without these
four, the Possessor of these Determinations is unable
to determinate. This is why the Itinerants say that
the being of the entire Universe is the Being of
God. The World 1 s being, though perceived as existent
nevertheless does not exist for it derives existence
from the determinate Being. Our lack of awareness
makes us believe that the World exists.
The First Determination may be called [both]
~~ or w~id.
When we regard the Essence by Itself
it is called ~ad, but when we regard the Essence
together with Its attributes and names then It is
called ~~id, for ~~d is ~~id sustaining the
Universe and holding it together from its
beginning to its end.
Employing poetic imagery,


compares the Essence, dwelling

signless without names or attributes, to the motionless Ocean of

Indeterminacy or la ta'ayyun.

The noonday brightness of human

intellect is unable to venture into or fathom this Ocean - it is

beyond the comprehension of the intellect.

The Essence is said

to determinate Itself by descents or tanazzulat which It accomplishes

in six stages or


completing a full cycle.

journeying frcm and returning to Itself

The first stage of descent is whereby

the Essence becomes individualized, as it were, in the fourfold

determinacy which comprises Knowledge, Being, Sight, and Light.


When the Essence or Absolute Being, Who is the Ylower gazes upon
His ovm perfection, the Ocean heaves and waves appear and begin
to surge and churn.

The waves are not separate from the Ocean in

the same manner as the phenomenon is not separate from the noumenon.
These waves are the a'yanu'l-thabitah, that is, the Fixed Essences
or the Essences of Things which have not yet become the things
themselves (that is, the wujud khariji or external existence).
The a'yanu'l-thabitah are therefore coexistent with God as ideas
in His Mind.

This stage of the Knovrer, when God looks upon

Himself, is the stage of the Essences of Things and it is the

Second Determination.

The Third Determination is whereby the Fixed

Essences are imbued with the Relational Spirit or



Relational Spirit is also sometimes identified vri th the Light of

MutJ,ammad (nr
the Pen



the Universal Intellect (al-'Agl al-Kull),

or the Tablet


At this stage the

Relational Spirit becomes separated from the Essence - the waves

of the Ocean ebb and evaporate.

Here occur particularizations into

human, animal, and vegetal spirits.

When the vapour gathers in the

sky and forms into clouds it is the potentialities of the Fixed

Essences at the point of bursting forth into actuality.

The Fourth,

Fifth, and Sixth stages of determination are the materialization of

spirits into the World of Matter.

The Relational Spirit together

with the Fixed Essences actualize their potentialities by virtue

of the Divine Command


-the clouds burst forth into rain.


When the rain falls upon the earth it becomes water flowing in
rivers, that is, the Relational Spirit together with the Fixed
Essences and their original potentialities reacting to the Divine

The rivers flow back to the absolute Ocean which never

shrinks nor grows vaster though Its waves are ever ebbing and
flowing. Thus the cycle is complete. 1 7
It appears to me that


system is not identical with

the Neo-Platonic system of emanations, for there seems to be a

clear line of distinction between emanationism and t his doctrine
peculiar to the


In the system of emanations propounded by

the Neo-Platonists, the emanations emanate in progressive deterioration.l71

They become wor se and worse, so to spe~~ , as they

emanate away from the Source.

Further God, the Source, remains

transcendent, as i t vrere, and not present i n the emanations.

There are a series of emanations that go down in a descending order,
the higher creating the lower and the lower reflecting the being
and perfection of' the higher.
system subscribed to here by



interpretation of the

is that the 'emanations' do not

progressively deteriorate as t hey 'emanate' away from the source,

for God Himself descends (tanazzul) with 'them' in a series of
descents (tanazzulat); and He does soin such a manner t hat we can
ascribe to Him neither transcendance nor immanence with respect to


~amzah Fan~ri,

pp. 155, 193.

171 Inge, W.R., The philosophl of Plotinus, London, 1923, 2 vols.,

vol. l, pp. 122-199, especial1y pp. 19~-196.


In fact there are no emanatio ns in Hamzah' s

system, but only manifes tations (tajalli yat). In making this

His 'emanat ions'.

suggesti on, I am contesti ng the view of Johns who calls ?amzah's

system an "emanat ion" system despite his awarene ss of the fact
that the Neo-Pla tonic emanational theory is not the same as the
theory of the ~fis.l72

The descent of the Absolute is nothing

but the various ways in which He manifes ts Himself to us in the

course of our knowled~e of Him, not in terms of emanati ons.
In this sense therefor e the World cannot be said to exist
eternall y with God, for it h&,S no existenc e - it is a series of
acciden ts, and God's dynamic creative activity annihi1 ates it
after duplica ting it and creates another anew. 1 73 Hamzah agrees

with the 'Ulama, that t he Wor1d as such is a thing created and not

This he clearly aays:

Adapun ittifaq 'Ulama, dan Ah1u,l-S ulk
bahwa 'a1am sekalian makh1q; hukumnya hadith
kerana ia ma~har dibawah kun fa yaknu. Jangan
dikataka n qadim.17 4
Actual1y the 'Ulama, and the Itiner ants
agree that the Wor1d is created; the judgmen t
being that it is somethin g new, for it cornes
into existenc e by virtue of the Divine command:
"Be!" It must not be said that [the World]
is eternal.

172 Johns, pp. 102 , 32 , 19. It seems to me that it is mis1ead ing

for Johns to translat e the term tajalliy at as em~nations ( pp . 19,

:tfamzah Fansrf , p. 137.


Ibid., p. 136.


It would appear at first glanee that

doctrine of creation ex nihilo.


According to

rejects the


if the World

were created frcm nothing it would mean that the World has acquired
existence and exists apart from God.

God then would be limited in

a spatio-temporal system - a view which he dismisses as a metaphysical absurdity.

Similarly, though the form of man may be

annihilated, since form is non-existent, his spirit endures as it

is from God. 1 75

Since all things are from God and must return to

Him, it cannat be - so


they are created from.

things exist in the


argues - that God is the nothing

According to ?amzah fo1lowing Ibnu'l-'Arabi,

of God as potentialities lying dormant,

as it were, in readiness to 1eap into life and fulfil the Divine


God says "Be!", it is to something that He says

this, not to nothing. 1 76 But Ibnu'l-'Arabi's view implies that

the World is eternal, a view which logically follows from the

notion that God's creative will is determined by the Knower to act
as His nature demands; and the nature of His Knowledge - at least
according to Ibnu'l-'Arabi1 77- is determined by the objects which
He knows.

But here


departs from Ibnu'l-'Arabi and approaches

Jili, for if we examine the system of determinations of the Absolute

175 12.2. cit.

176 Ibid., pp.


177 f!. Nicholson, pp. 150-151; Igbl, p. 173; 'Affifi, p. 152.


Being as he conceives it, we will find that he not only implies

but clearly indicates that the judgment that God exists in Himself
(the stage of la ta'ayyun, which he calls

corresponding to

Jili's al-'Ama') is logically prier to the judgment that things

exist in His knowledge:
Adapun Dhat semata tiada dengan ~ifat, itulah
yang pertama hukumnya. Apabila Ia menilik diriNya,
dilihatN~a diriNya dengan sekalian s~u'nNya. Pada
ketikal78 itu yang menilik bernama 'alim, yang
ditilik bernama ma'lm, tilik-menilik bernama
The Essence is without attributes - t~is
is the first judgment. \fuen He gazes upon Himself,
He sees Himself with all His modes. At that
'instant' the Seer becomes the Knower, the Seen
becomes the Known, and Seeing becomes Kno,.rledge.
In this case, as Jili points out:
The former judgment involves the
non-existence of things and the existence of God
alone. God brought things from not-being into
being and caused them to exist in His knowledge,
then He brought them forth fr1 His knowledge and
ased them to exist externally.l80.
From this it should be clear that
of creation


rejection of the doctrine

nihilo in the sense he means is not an affirmation

of the doctrine of the eterni ty oi'

t ~:-: e



he means to

expose in rejecting that doctrine is the errer of conceiving the

178 Doorenbos' readi ng is incorrect: ketiga.
and should be read as ketika.

:tiamzah Fan~uri, p. 130.


Cf. Nicholson, p. 103;

~amzah Fan~uri,

It is out of context

p. 145.


notion of the priority of

of creation.


instead of logic, in the concept

He is consistent enough in his exposition of the

doctrine that God alone is eternal, together with His seven

attributes of Life, Knowledge, Will, Power, Speech, Hearing and

Other attributes such as Creator, Provider, and so on,

become manifest only at the instance of the Divine Command.


God commands the potentialities of the Known to be they become


actualize as external existence) complete and perfect, for

if they are not perfect the implication is that there is some

flaw in God's knowledge and that His creative activity would have
been in vain.

All affairs that come under the sway of the Divine


'after' God's command to be) are created (makhla);


and all that is 'before' God's command to be is neither created

nor uncreated as they are m8des of the divine Essence.
example, the domain of the spirit

(!QQ), as


Thus, for

deduces from

his interpretation of the Quranic passage And they ask you about the spirit. Say: The
spirit is by the commandment of my Lord, and
you are given aught of knowledge but a littlel81 is neither created nor uncreated.l82

The World and man (not his

spirit) are created as they come into existence in obedience to

God's creative Word, without which they will never become actualized
as external existence.

Neither the World nor man is coeternal with

181 Qur'an 17:85.


~amzah Fan~ri,

p. 136.


God, and they cannot be 'identified' with Him.

According to

I}amzah, the 'Ulan' conceive the Knovm and its potentialitie s to

be something new, created, separated from the Essence, like the
building created by the builder.183

His argument is that it would

fol1ow that if He produced them from nothing they were 1ogical1y

unknown to

P~m 'before' He caused them to exist in His knowledge. 184

The concept of creation

nihilo, as I}amzah understands it, must

logically be invo1ved in a notion of time sequence which is

unacceptable with respect to God.

JI1I would say - and


wou1d agree with him - that between the not-being of things and
their existence in His know1edge, there is no time sequence.


knows them as He knows Himself, but He is eterna1 and they are

It is a1so significant that


concept of God's power (qudrah).

fo11ows JI1I in his

For Ibnu'1-'Arab i, God's knowledge

is determined by the things He knows as the condition of the sea

is determined by the waves.

But I}amzah says that the things He

knows exist because of His know1edge of them - the condition of the

waves is determined by the sea. 186 God's knowledge of things is
not derived from the necessity of their natures - rather it is His

Ibid., p. 138.

184 Jjamzah



f.!.. Nicholson,



Fan~r I,


Tahafut, p. 70.

pp. 138, 135-136.

p. 103.

pp. 137, 143.

Cf. J!li in Nicholson, p. 102.


knowing them that caused them to become objects of His knowledge .

The judgment that God has knowledge of things presuppos es His
possession of the power to have knowledge and exercise His creative
Word upon the things


decreeing that every individua l thing

should be wha.t its nature required it to be. 187

What has been said would suffice us to conclude that
in conformity with the teachings of the



never held the

belief in the eterni ty of the \vorld as Ran!ri holds him out to do.
The World is not even the a'yanu'l-t habitah.

It is only a

reflection of them - an idea in the Mind of God.

Only when God

wills it to be does it become, from our point of view, actualized

as external existence .

Hmrever, J}amzah follows Ibnu '1- 'Arabi

again in saying that God acts according to the demancls of His

nature. 188

All action is the necessary result of God's infinite

nature as eternally known to Him.


God then is the only One Who

All other acts including human action are metaphori cal,

for action implies that it proceeds from choice, will, and knowledge
of the thing willed.

According to al-Ghazza li:

If we assume an event which is based on

two facts, t ;~e one voluntary , the other involunta ry,
the mind relates the act to the voluntary fact.
LanguHge expresses i tself in the same \-lay, for if
a man were to throw another into a fire and kill
him, it is the man who would be called his killer,
not the fire. If, however, the term were used in


~amzah Fan~ri,



p. 133.

pp. 139-140, 143-144, 146.


the same sense of the voluntary and the nonvoluntary, why should the killing be related to the
voluntary, by language, usage, and reason, although
the fire was the proximate cause of the killing
and the man who threw the other into the fire did
nothing but bring man and fire together?
Sin ce, hOivever, the bringing toge th er is a
voluntary act and the influence of t ~ 1e fire nonvoluntary, the man is called a killer and the fire
only metaphorical1y so. This proves that the word
'agent' is used of one whose act proceeds from
his vrill 189


concept of agent and will is similar to what

Ghazza1I has exp1ained:

Seperti seorang pandai besi. Ada sebuah
besi padanya, pusaka d2ripada nini moyangnya.
Isti'dad besi itu layak akan keris. Maka
dipandangnya dengan 'ilmunya besi itu layak akan
keris, maka ditempanya keris. Seteleh sudah
di tempanya maka dipakainya. Beberapa lama maka
menikam orang dengan keris itu, dengan ikhtiyar
tuan keris, tiada dengan ikhtiyar keris. Daripada
awwal datang kepada khir, ikhtiyar empunya
keris, tiada ikhtiyar keris 190
Take the example of an ironsmith. He
has with him a piece of iron, a heritage from
his ancestors. The potentiality of the iron is
that it is suitab1e for fashioning into a
keris.l91 He perceives with his knovTledge
that the iron is suitable for fashioning into
a keris, and so he forges it into a keris. Having
forged it into a keris, he uses it. ~ter a
while he stabs a person with the keris. The
act proceeds fran the wie1der of the keris,
and not from the keris. From the beginning
to the end [of the event] t~ e act proceeds
from the wielder of the keris, not the keris

Cf. Tahafut a1-Tahafut, p. 95;


~amzah Fan~ri,


A Ha1ay dagger.

p. 145.


p. 67.



denies free-wi11 as applied to man.

A man is wha t he is

according to the nature of his predetermined capacity or potentiality (isti'dad).l92

Even God's choice in creating good and

evil, belief and unbelief, works in accordance with (muwafagat)

this law of potentiali ty w:1ich He Himself has made necessary and
unchangeable. 1 93 If God's will and power must work in accordance
with this law of potentiality, does it not therefore imply that
will and power is really denied Him?
an emphatic no.

Hamzah's answer to this is

He s ays that, taking his eue from the Quranic

passage, And if Allah please He would certainly make you

a single nation, but He causes to err whorn He pleases
and guides whorn He pleasesl94 God h.. the po'ljrer to will -vrh:. t may seem contrary to the law of
potentiality, 1 95 but that God does not wish to exercise this
power in.o rder to preserve His justice and perfection. 1 96 ~amzah' s
understanding of what the 'Ulama, mean when they say that God is
192 Ibnu'l-'Arabi uses t he term isti'dad in the same sense.
'Affifi, p. 152.

Hamzah Fan~ri,




~amzah Fan~ri,


Ibid., pp. 198 , 200.

pp. 146, 197-200

pp . 145, 199-200.



all-powerful is that


is impossible for God to do.


the impossible cannot be done by God for the simple reason

that it is irrational to affirm such a thing.

In order to give a clearer picture of


concept of

power and will (iradah), I propose in the next chapter to embark

upon the subject following the linguistic approach.

This is,

I think, important, for by revealing the nature of the conceptual

structures of the words he uses in connection with the qudrah and
the iradah, we will infallibly arrive at knowing exactly what

has in mind, without falling into the tantalizing possibility

of reading our o'W!l interpretations into ,.;hat he says.


Hamzah Fansris concept of

the iradahas demonstrated
in the conceptual structure
of the Halay word hendak.



The conceptual structure of the word hendak

The word hendalc ( <.

) devoid of affixes conveys a variety of

meanings: to want, wish, desire, intend; but whatever the variety

there definitely seems to be a consistent sense of will underlying

It will become clear as we proceed that the word hendak has a

limited field of application.

In its concrete sense it is applied

only to the animate, and not to the inanimate.

Animals too are

assumed to possess want, desire, intention; but whenever hendak is

applied to inanimate things then the meanings it conveys are

For the sake of systematic analysis, I will begin

with the application of the word hendak in the animal world.

In the sentence
Kuching itu hendak makan.
(That cat wants to eat).
the actions of the cat are done in such a -vray
we know he wants food.


overtly) that

In the mind the cat, by virtue of a peculiar

action on his part, is dominant.

There seems to be no difference

between English and Malay in the conceptual structure of the word


as applied in the above example.

Hendak is often applied to

animals with the purpose of describing human behaviour.


proverbs describe an upstart as


Pachat hendak manjadi ular.

(A leech eager to become a snake).


Pipit hendak telan jagong.

(A sparrow straining to swallow a




Pipit hendak meminang anak en6gang.

(A sparrovr yearning to be betrothed
to a hornbill)

Or an equivalent to the pot calling the kettle black:

Udang hendak katakan ikan.
(The lobster wanting to reproach the fish
[for being dirty]).
Again, in the above examples, it can be conceived that the subject
is dominant in the mind, for their peculiar actions determine
that they be so conceived.

Although the animais are assumed to be

in possession of the sense of wanting, desiring, intending, yet

their wanting, desiring, intending are restricted; and this can be
clearly conceived by the very mannar in which
to them.


is applicable

Whenever the word hendak is applied to animals, the

subject is dominant in the mind, but this is not necessarily the

case when hendak is applied to human beings - a fact that is
significant in making clear the distinction (as far as it is
conveyed in the conceptual structure of the word hendak) between
human and animal will.

We have seen how hendak applied to animais

makes the subject dominant in the mind, and hovJ this is so by

virtue of the evert activity or the subject.

The same conceptual

pattern or the subject dominating the mind is demonstrated in the

application of the verb ~akkan. 1 97

The application of hendak to

human beings as a kind of challenge too makes the subject dominant


See below pp. 118-119.


in the mind.l98

Again the reason is because the subject's activity

is intense - whether overt or invert - to such a degree that action




Similarly hendakkan when applied to

human beings implies a desire that seems to arise out of natural

instinctive behaviour rather than will.

In both these cases of the

application of hendak and hendakkan to the animal and human world

another important point to note is that the duration of the
experience is discontinuous and short.

This is why according to

Malay linguistic consciousness as conceived in the application of

the word hendak and its derivatives such behaviour, animal or
human, cannat properly be conceived as will - it rather borders upon

It is in the application of the verb hendakkan that,

properly speaking, man approaches animal experience and behaviour.

Such a verb is never applied to God for it is debasing and philosophically absurd; just as the noun kehendak is never applied to
animais for from the point of view of concrete experience such an
application is impossible.l99
The sentence in English:
vfuere are you going?
is to be translated into Halay as:
Engkau hendak kemana?

,.,hi ch

actually has the meaning:


See below pp. 109-110.


See be1ow pp. 122-125.


Where do you want to go?

Where are you wanting to go?
The word hendak in this sense is a one-person, one-term relation

Further, there is a basic difference in conceptual structure

between English and Malay as conveyed in this sentence, for

according to Malay linguistic consciousness the object, and not
the subject, is dominant in the mind here.

To the Malay questioner,

what is dominant in his mind is the object of the action of the

one who is asked the question, which may be the market, a wedding
party, the school and many other alternatives.

In the questioner's

mind, the one who is asked the question is thrust into the background.

But of course the subject may also be dominant in the

mind in certain ca ses.

Supposing that the sequence of the sentence

is rearranged so that the word hendak is said first:

Hendak kemana engkau.
then it may or may not be a question, depending upon how it is said
and upon the circumstances preceding the saying of it.
a question, like one asked


If it is

Tun Teja to the ladies of Melaka:


Hendak kemana tuan-tuan sekalian ini ? 200

(Where do you all ~ to go?)
then the meaning it conveys is generally identical with the one
explained above.

If, hm-Tever, it is not a question it can mean:


you go [now]?

implying a kind of challenge to one whom it is directed.

were to say this to '.Ali,

t ~:en

mind as against the first case.

If Ahmad

he re 'Ali \<Tould be dominant in Atunad' s

It were as though 'Ali had been

forced into a situation - natural or artificial - where the courses

of action were extremely limited, and t he time to decide which
course to take short.

There is a sense of urgency.

In the first

case, it is implied that the one who is asked the question had
taken a decision, as to what course of action he would take, at
leisure, and that at the time when he was asked the question he had
already decided, so that his action was pre-planned.

In the second

case, 'Ali 1 s decision is demanded without his being aware of the

situation beforehand: a problematic situation is experienced and
its solution is demanded there and then.

In both these instances,

the application of the word hendak describes the reality experienced

200 Hikayat Hang Tuah, Djakarta, 1956, p. 219. This is one of the
most important and widely read of Halay literatures. It was
written about the 17th century (an exact date is not found), and it
tells of the heroic exploits of Rang Tuah, the Malay Laksamana
(Admiral) of Melaka. .Host of the stories connected \trith Rang Tuah
are quite legendary. Rang Tuah, according to the story, is said
to be a contemporary of Gajah Macta, the famous Mapatih (Chief
Ninister) of iajapahit (14th century). Hereafter cited as Hikayat
Hang Tuah.



The existence of knowledge and choice is presupposed.

Another thing is that in the second case the intensity of 'Al!'s

action would be greater than in the first case, and it is this
expected intensity of action on 'Al!'s part that makes him dominant

in Ahmad's mind.

A portion of the last lines of Asrul Sani's poem

illustrates the second case:

Elang laut telah
hilang kelunas kelam
topan tiada bertanya
hendak kemana dia 201
In this poem, the poet speaks of a sea-hawk winging her way at
dusk to her craggy nest vrhere her young ones avrai t her return.

the nest at last cornes within sight, a sudden tempest inter-

cepts; her \'Jings fail her and she is hurled into the raging waters
and drowns.

It is obvious that the tempest had intercepted the

sea-hawk many times before, each time suddenly, challenging her

to struggle against his might.

But this time she had succumbed

to his mi z.;ht and is now lost in the murky depths vrhere lie the
rotting keels of wrecked boats.

Now, as the last two lines suggest,

the tempest does not ask

where is she intending to go?

201 Elang Laut,

by Asrul Sani.
Quoted fron Kesusasteraan Indonesia
III, B. Simorangkir Simandjuntak, Djakarta, 1953, p. 134. Asrul
Sani belongs to that important group of avant-garde poets and writers
who appeared in 1945. This group of modern poets and writers
became famous under the name of Angkatan 45, led by Chairil Anwar
(1922-1949). Together with Chairil Anwar, Asrul Sani and Idrus
hold a position of eminence among modern Indonesian poets and writers.
Asrul Sani, born in Rao, \V'estern Sumatra, in 1926, is also a short
story writer. The Angkatan 45 influenced Indonesian literature
f rom 1945 till about the time of the end of the Revolution. Much
of their work , whose language and form depicts the times, has been
markedly influenced by Western cultural forces. Kesusasteraan
Indonesia III will hereafter be cited as Kesusasteraan Indonesia III.


The tempest had never really asked her a question, on the contrary,
he had flung her a challenge, every time, couched in a rhetorical
question. 202

\t/hen v1e say:

Orang itu hendak kena pukul nampaknya.
(That man seems to be asking for a beating).

the subject is again dominant in the mind, and his action must be
such that he warrants a beating.

But this sentence has another

possible meaning which changes what the mind conceives.

If the

word pukul (to beat) is not stressed, as it would be in the above

case, then the mind does not conceive the man and his action, but
also one or more persons n addition to him who are about to beat
him in conseouence of his


Here it is the event that is

dominant in the mind.

We have said in the beginning that when the word hendak is
applied to inanimate things the meanings it conveys are metaphorical.
In the sentence

Gunung itu hendak meletup.

hendak is to be understood as conveying the meaning is about to:
The mountain (volcano) is about to burst (erupt).

Here again what

is dominant in the mind of one who says it is not the mountain, but
the event of bursting or erupting and the imminence of the event.
Applied in this way hendak is a metaphor.


Orang itu tertawa bagai hendak pechah perutnya.

That man laughed so that his belly were
wont to burst.

See above p. 109.




too the event is dominant and hendak is applied meta-


In fact it is significant that, from the philosophical

as well as sema.ntical point of view, when used metaphorically that is, &s applied to the inanimate - hendak always impresses the
event, not the subject or object, upon the mind.
Further illustrations from several famous classics in Malay
li ter a ture will


clearly the meaning of hendak:


Naka ada kira-kira pukul empat petang

keluarlah hendak berlayar.203
At about four o'clock in the evening
[we] set out intending to sail [i.~.
intent upon sailing].

Here hendak conveys the meaning of more than just simply setting
out to sail because the weather was fine and it was therefore good
for sailing.

In that case hendak would simply be based upon a

decision of wanting which arose out of desire requiring no prompting.

But here it is the contrary; hendak arose out of the intention to
203 Hikayat Pelayaran Abdullah: (dari Singapura ke Kelantan); Press
of the Am. Miss. Singapore, 1838 p. 16. The author, 'Abdu'l-Lh
bin 'Abdu'l-Qadir Munshi (1796-1B54), is of Arab-Indian descent and
is regarded as the father of modern N:alay literature. He wrote and
edited many well-la1own literary works in prose, among them:
(i) 1831 [?]: Se,jarah Nelayu (from the old text,
re-edited in 1839-40).
(ii) 1835:
Hikayat Galilah dan Daminah, translated
from the Tamil. Originally in Sanskrit
from the Pancatantra.
(iii) 1837:
Kitab Adat se ala Raa-raa Hela u
dalam segala Negeri.
A collection of
Malay customs and traditions).
1837 [?]: Kisah Pelalaran Abdullah, revised and
re-edited in 1849.
(v) 1854:
Kisah Pelayaran Abdullah ke negeri
Juddah (not completed).
Hereafter cited as Hikalat Abdullah.


proceed sailing, even though the headwind was driving them back and
the mainstay had snapped asunder twice. 204

saya sekalian orang bahru belum tahu

adat, hendak berjalan-jalan kepasar menchari
we are all new people (here), (we)
do not yet know the custom, (we) ~
to wallt around in the market looking
for provisions.

In this case hendak is sim ply want. 'Abdu'l-Iah asks a policeman about
the country, w.hich is ne-vr to him, and about i ts laws and regulations
so that when he goes to the market he would be aware of them.

Naka sebentar itu juga datanglah sebuah

sampan hilir dari sungai, ada tujuhdelapan orang-orang raja hendak
menyambut perahu saya itu.206
At the same time a sampan [kind of junk]
arrived coming dmmstrean fran the river
with seven or eight of the Raja's men
[who came] for the purpose of welcoming
my boat [or purposing to welcome my boat].


Maka ketika memberikan surat itu maka

saya pinta persemblliL~an juGa kebawah
duli hendak menghadap sendiri.207
At the moment of handing over the letter,
I requested it be conveyed to the Raja
that I insist on personal audience.


Hikalat Abdullah, p. 15.

205 I12JJ!.' p. 41.


Ibid., p. 63.


IQ.i<!. ' p. 69.



"Kapitan China dan segala anak bini

China-Chi na seouanya ditangkap nya,
dimasukka nnya keda1am kubu, sebab
ia takut Kapitan China itu be1ot.
Dan jurutu1isn ya dibubuhny a rantai
gajah dibatang lehernya kerana ia
hendak 1ari. Tiada diberinya berjumpa
dengan seorang pun. Haka sekarang
bagaimana hendak berjumpa dengan dia;
jika1au hendak mati bo1eh1ah berjumpa. 11 208
"The Captain of the Chinese and a11
the 1-rives and children of the Chinese
were a11 of them arrested [by the
ru1er of Kelantan] and imprisoned
in the fortress because he [i.e. the
ruler of Kelantan] feared that-the
Captain of the Chinese would take
sides [with us]. He [i.e. the ru1er]
put elephant chains around his [i.e.
the Captain of the Chinese's ] seretary 's
neck because he [i.~. the secretary ]
wanted to run away. He [i.e. the
secretary ] is not permitted -to meet
anyone. So nm-r how .2.@:!! you me et him?;
if y ou \'fant to die, th en y ou can
meet [him].n


"Ketahui o1ebmu, bahwa aku memanggil

engkau ini, aku hendak bertanyaka n
bichara kepadamu: bah\va anakku yang
tiada taranya seorangpu n anak raja-raja
pada zaman ini, i tulah hendak aku
persembah kan kepada raja Iskandar. 11 209
"Know that I now sumnon you to draw
near to me [because] I wish to discuss
vli th you [a certain question] : that
my daughter, who has no equa1




Se,iarah He1ayu, p.





among the daughters of the kings of

this age, she it is whom I ~ to
present to Alexander."


Maka sahut Hang Jebat: "Firasatku

bahwa aku tiada dapat membunuh engkau,
engkau pun tiada dapat membunuh aku
pada hari ini. Adapun aku saja akan
matilah rupanya, tetapi negeri Melaka
ini habis binasa olehku. Itulah maka
aku hendak turun mengamuk, tiada dapat,
kerana engkau tiada jauh daripada pintu ini.
Jika terbuka pintu ini, sekarang juga aku
turun dari istana."
Hang Jebat replied: "My premonition is
that I shall not be able to kill you,
likewise you shall not be able to kill
me today. It seems to me that I alone
must die, but [first, the people of]
Melaka will be eliminated by me. That
is why I wish to descent and run amuk,
[but] cannot, because you are not far
from the door. If the door is open, I
descend from the palace right now."

Wnen the enclitic particle

is joined after hendak, then

it gives emphasis to the vrord, and its meaning becomes it is

desired, should,



"Adapun anak kita ini lagi buak,

jika ada salah dan bebal perbaiki;
jika ia jahat, hendaklah dianta rkan

kembali kepada kita. 11 211

"This our son is yet a child, if

he does wrong and is feeble-minded
improve him; if he i s evil, it is
desi req that he be sent bacle to us."


Hikayat Hang Tuah, p.


Ibid., p. 67.



Here the Raja Sang Purba entrusts his son Sang Jaya Nantaka, who
is his heir, to the tute1age of the Bendahara and Temenggung.


this case hendaklah means it is desired, for it is the Raja's

command that his son be sent back to him, on the condition expressed,
and not the command of social etiquette, which is implied if should
is applied, or of parental responsibility, which is implied if must
is applied instead.

Sesungguhnya hendaklah kita pun

mengambil ibarat daripada hikayat
itu adanya.212
Verily we too should take [heed of]
the parable from the story.

These are the words of 'Abdu'l-Lah during the course of his voyage
from Singapore to Kelantan in 1838.
the monkey and the weaver-bird.

He tells us of the story of

The monkey takes shelter fran a

storm under the weaver-bird's nest.

The weaver-bird reproaches

the monkey for being lazy not to make his own shelter.

The monkey

gets angry and tears the weaver-bird's nest to shreds.

The parable

teaches that it is vain to 'throw pearls to swine.'

Hendaklah then

means should, for the parable is meant to give advice to people in


The consequences of not taking the advice may not

necessarily be injurious to those who are heedless of it - although

in the parable the weaver-bird's nest got torn to shreds on account
of its giving advice, yet in real life giving good counsel to the

Hikayat Abdullah, p. 12.


foolish and feeble-minded would not necessarily result in injury.

Rather it would result in simply a wasting of effort.


hendaklah is to mean must, then what must be heeded is more

emphatic than what should, for if what must be heeded is not
practised, then the implication is that the consequences of such
action would be injurious to the acter.

Hendaklah in this sense

becomes almost a condition for a course of action:

Mengumpat dan memuji hendaklah pikir
Disitulah banyak orang yang tergelinchir.213
If you indulge in or want to do malicious
gossip and praise [you] must think [first].
It is there where many people fall [or slip].
By now these various examples given will suffice, I trust,

to make clear the conceptual structure of the ,.,ord



definitely conveys the sense of voluntary action arising out of

knowledge and choice, that is none ether than will.


structure seldom changes with the application of affixes and

compound affixes, as will be demonstrated in the following analysis.


Derivatives and t heir conceptual structures

Derivatives of the word hendak are formed by means of affixes




and -i (suffix), ke- (prefix), meng- (prefix), and ber-

They may also be formed by means of compound affixes such

Puisi Lama; S. Tadkir Alisjahbana, Djakarta, 1954, p. 80.




ending with the suffix -i,



In the case of

the suffix -kan, origina11y it was derived from the word akan,
which conveys a variety of meanings such as - if applied as a
preposition - towards, as for, concerning, in order to, about;
and - if applied as an auxiliary - shall, will.

The suffix -kan

has come to denote direction towaTds an abject or time.

means to desire tmrards.


It is a two-person relation word, as can

be seen fr an this example:

Jikalau sungguh tuanhamba hendakkan hamba
If you really have desire towards [or



If you really



We must imagine one persan (whatever the sex may be) saying this
to another (who might even be of the same sex).

But for the sake

of convenience let us conceive here a woman saying this to a man

who desires or loves her.

It may be possible that only the man

is active in his love or desire for the woman.


She may not even love or desire him.

then one-way.

She is the passive

The direction is

It is implied that the man's desire for the woman

is experienced at that time when the woman is in his presence

(although this is not a necessary condition, for the abject desired
may be absent to the desiring subject).

It is further implied

that the woman is brought or brings herself to the man rather than
the man going to her:


[s~--- -


[oJ- -+

In the mind the subject is dominant.

Kuching itu


Again in the sentence


That cat is yearning for the fish.

we have more or less the same conceptual pattern: the cat is
dominant in the mind for he is active, his action denotes that he
desires the fish

,.,~: ich

is within his sight.

The inanimate is

therefore excluded in the application of the verb hendakkan whose

field of usage is limited only to living beings.



of the application of hendakkan and the meaning underlying it can

be further illustrated by these quotations fran the Malay Annals:

Adapun apabila Sultan Hahmud hendakkan Seri

Dewa Raja bangat datang, maka Tun Isap
Berakah diti~ahkan baginda memanggil Seri
Dewa Raja.2l'T
'Whenever Sul tan
vriehes for Seri Dewa

Raja to come immediately,

His Majesty would
command Tun Isap Berakah to summon Seri
Dewa Raja.


"Jikalau raja f-1elaka hendakkan aku, perbuatkan

aku jembatan eraas satu, jembatan perak satu,
dari Nelaka datang ke Gunung Ledang ini; akan
peminangnya, hati nyamuk tujuh dulang, hati
kuman tujuh dulang, air mata setempayan, air mu da setempayan, dan dar ah raja semangkuk dan darah anak raja yang bernama Ahmad itu
semangkuk 11 215


Sejarah Helayu, p. 215.


Ibid. , p. 236.


"If the Raj a of Melaka has desire for me,

build for me a golden brid ge and a bridge of
silver that span from Melaka to Gunung Ledang;
for the engagemen t gift, seven trayfuls of
mosquitoes' heart, seven trayfuls of maggots'
heart, a large jar of tears, a large jar of
young areca-nut juice, a bowl of the Raja's
blood and a bowl of blood from t he Raja's son
n amed Ahmad

When the suffix -i is applied it should be to hendak 1dth the

prefix ke-: kehendaki.

It is used interchangeably with hendakkan

as the term kehendakkan is not found.

Both are verbs and the

distinction between them conceptually is quite fine.

In kehendaki,

which means (object) desired, the object desired is absent, and

the -i implies that the subject looks for the object desired:
[s ~-----~


In the case of certain words other than hendak this can be easily


ne ar
to go near to (the object)
to br j ng ne a r to (the subject)

Jikalau beristeri sama anak raja-raja ini,

adalah raja-raja lain pun demikian juga; yang
kita kehenda~i barang yang tiada pada raja
yang lain, itulah hendak kita peristeri.
Akan sekarang kita hendak meminang puteri
Gunung Ledang; Laksamana dan Sang Setia kita
ti tahkan. n216

If I marry a dau e:hter of these Rajas, other

Rajas have the same [choice of wives]; she
whom I desire should be one who is not to be
found with ether Rajas, such is the one whom wi sh to take to wife. We nmv wish to ask
for the hand of the Princess of Gunung Ledang;
the Laksamana and Sang Setia we command [ to
carry out the proposai]."


Ibid., p. 234.


The words are those of Sultan Mahmd of Helaka as he addresses his

dignitaries. His wife is dead and he is planning to marry again.

The object of his desire is the fabulous Princess of Gunung Ledang.
The fact that he speaks of the Princess shows that he must have
contemplated the idea of marrying ber for sorne time.

He is now

hoping to win the object of his desire and if he were to win ber,
he would cherish ber thereafter.
goes forth from the subject
(Princess of Gunung Ledang).

The desire is continuous.



MaQffid) to the object

The Princess' reply to his official

proposal conveyed by his representatives (page 120) makes use of

the verb hendakkan.

She is the passive object.

this case, seem to betray any desire for the

love him.

She does not, in


- she may not

She bas to bri ng herself or be brought to him.

In fact

she will give herself up if only certain conditions are fulfilled.

From thi s example it is clear that the conceptual distinction
between the verbs kehendaki and hendakkan, in addition to what bas
already been established, is the distinction in tine.


implies a continuous desire; hoped f or before achieving the object

and cheri shed after i t h8.S be en achieved.

In the case of

hendakkan, the implication is that t he desire is experienced in a

brief span of time, and although it may be rekindled, it neverthele s s i s discontinuous.

means of prefixing the particle di- to the word kehendaki

is formed dikehendaki, whi ch is a kind of passive voice of kehendaki,

meaning desired.

Here is an example:


"Patik sekalian sembilan orang ini semuanya

patut jadi Bendahara, barang siapa yang
dikehendruci duli Yang Dipertuan itulah jadi
Bendahara. 11 217
"The nine of us here are all vrorthy to become
whosoever is desired by the Yang
Dipertuan he shall become Bendahara."

There is no need here to elaborate upon this p2ragraph any further,

as the analysis is sufficient for the purpose set forth in this

In the next paragraph too, I will dwell only briefly

with the next word for the same reason.

The word hendaki is not found by itself.

It is formed to convey

a definite meaning only when the prefix meng- is attached to it:

menghendaki, meaning reguiring, would reouire.
Naka wujd traqq Ta'ala dengan'a1am
berlainan pun tiada dan bersuatu pun
tiada, kerana berlainannya dan bersuatu itu
menghendaki dua i>Tujd mustaqil sendirinya.218
Thus God's Being and that of t~e Universe
are neither the same nor different, for its
identity or non-identity would reguire two
entities existing ~ ~
With reference to the Divine Will as conceived according to
linguistic consciousness couched within the -vmrd hendalc, the most
important are kehendak (hendak + prefix
compound prefix
ber+ ke-).

+ ~)


, selhendak (hendak +

and berl{ehendak (hendak

Kehendak is a word meaning wish,


Ibid., p. 225.


trujjah, p.


+ compound prefix


desire; and it


is not applied to animals unless metaphorically (the

to the other two vTOrds in this category).



The fact that i t is

not applicable to animals in the real sense is because linguistically 1 t is concei ved that there is in man a pmver of willing which
does not exist in animals - insofar as we are conscious of it.


this modern pantun t he word kehendak is applied in a general way:

Ruh jasmani beta serahkan
Boleh dibuat sesuka hati
Apa kehendak beta berikan
Asal chinta dapat kutiti 219
which literally translated is:
My body's spirit I surrender [to you]
[You] may do with it what you will
Whatever [your] wi sh I will grant [you ]
If only love['s path] I can traverse.
The meaning of kehendak here is quite straightforward.

If Awang

were to say this to Salmah, then what is dominant in Awang's mind

is the object of Salmah's wish or desire.
~ (~)

is wanted (hendak).

Kehendak here means

Here are sorne examples from Malay


"Apa kehendak tuanhamba sekalian pintalah

pada kita: jikalau apa sekalipun tiada
kita tahani. 11 220
"Whatever your ~ [or desire] all of you
please ask from us: even if it be anything
we will not refuse [or reject or deny].n


Kesusasteraan Indonesia I II, p.


Sejarah :t-1elayu, p. 213.



Rere kehendak conveys an exact meaning as contained in the first

example mentioned.

Kehendalc can also mean purpose:

Perahu dari mana datang ini dan siapa
nama panglimanya, a pa kehendak da tang ini ? 11 221

Boats [or ships] coming from where are these

and what is the naQe of their commander,
whatever is the purpose of this coming?"



Strange boats are here approaching Melaka.

The people sound the

a1arm and make preparations for defense against what they think is
an invasion.

The fleet turns out to be a goodwill mission from

To the people of Melaka then, and to t he Shanbandars who

directed the above question to the strange visitors, the object


the purpose) not the subject

was dominant in the ir minds.


the ships and strangers)

But in t:.1e following case the

conceptual structure changes:


"Laksamana tiada , i tulah maka ber ani

Rang Jebat melakukan berat ringan barang
kehendaknya didalam istana Raja ini, kerana
dilihatnya, tiada siapa yang melebihi dia. 11 222
The Laksamana is absent, that is why Rang
Jebat dares to make heavy or light whatever
is his desire in this Raja 1 s palace, for he
sees that there is none who surpasses him
[in raru:] 11

In example (iii) the subject i s dominant in the mind s of the people

who say


he desires.

of Rang Jebat, for he is conceived as the doer of what

In t his sense too is kehendak a pplied to God.


Hikayat Rang Tuah, p. 382.


Ibid., p. 310.


Dengan taqdir Allh melakukan

kehendakNya atas hambaNya .
By the decree of God Who works
His will upon His creatures
~amzah Fan~ri



in this way when he comments upon

the Quranic verse (16:93):

Wa law sha'a'l-Lhu laja'alakum ummatan
whidatan walakin yudillu man yasha'u wa
yahdi man yasha 'u'.
Jika hendak menjadikan kamu ummat suatu,
dapat, tetapi menyesatkan dengan kehendakNya,
menunjukkan jalan yang betul dengan kehendrurNya.223
Had [He] wished to make you a single nation
He could, but [He] causes one to err by His
~' and [He] causes one to be guided on
the right path by His will.
And commenting upon the


tat~arraku ~arratun

illa bi


he says it means:
Tiada bergerak suatu zarrat jua pun
melainkan dengan ~endak Allah jua.224
Not one single atom moves except by
God's !!iJ1..
The word hendak with the compound

ke becomes a

It belongs to the same category as kehendaki and hendakkan.

denotes, in the case of abstract things, the idea of

having, possessing:
223 1farnzah



Ibid., p. 199.

p. 145.


Orang itu tiada berilmu.

That man


no knowledge.

or in the case of tangibl e things, it denotes the idea of with:

Ora>J.g itu berpakaian hitam.
That man is [clothed] with a black dress.
or the ber may denote a state of action:
Dia datang berlari.
He came [or cames] running.
Berkehendak is a two-person relation word and is applicable in the
non-metaphorical sense only to human beings.

In the following

sentence berkehendal.: me ans to be in the state of desiring:

Mereka sedang berkehendak.
They are in the state of desiring
[loving one another].
lN.hen applied to human beings, berkehendak suggests a mutual relationship.

It is necessary that t1vo human bei ngs are involved; and both

are dominant in the mind.

Applied in this way it i mplies a

horizontal relationship between the same level of being.


relationship is not concei ved as mutual only w.:.:en a human being

desires something abstract, as shown in this example:
Maka jikalau kiranya raja-raja yang
bijaksana dan yang bangsawan yang
berkehendak kemenangan dunia akhirat itu 225

Hikayat Abdullah, p.



Thus if it is true that the Rajas who

are wise and noble and who are desiring
success in this vTOrld and the next
When berkehendak is applied to God, the conceptual structure of a
horizontal relationship between the same level of being changes.
It becomes a vertical relationship, for the level of being is not
the same, and the subject, God, is always dominant in the mind.
In this manner, \ve find :fiamzah


translating tne Quranic

verse (36:82):
Innama amruhu idha arada shay 'an an
yaqla lahu kun fa yakunu.
Bahwasanya titahNya, tatakala berkehendak
lcepada sesuatu, bah1va berkata baginya
"jadi engkau!" - maka menjadi.226
Verily rlis Command, when [He] is in the
state of intending a thing, is that [He]
says to it "Be!" and it becomes.
In the case of t he word hendak with the compound prefix

ke (sekehendak), which alway s trute s the pronominal nya, the

meaning it conveys is that of unrestricted power.

A very important

distinction between the word selcehendak and the word hendak and its
other derivatives should be made clear.

In t he case of



its other derivatives, the concept of voluntary action arising out

of knowledge and choice is quite clearly set forth.

But in the

case of sekehendak , thou gh voluntary action is emphasized, yet it

is implied that this action does not arise out of . lmo\vledge and

~amzah Fan~ri,

p. 194.



The idea of knowledge and choice is absent.

is rather one th2t is spontaneous, capricious.

but wi thout wisdom.

The action

Power is emphasized,

The follmving quotation will illustrate what

I mean:
Naka adakah diluluskan Allah akan seorang
mengambil harta seorang dengan tiada relanya? atau seorang mengambil anak isteri seorang
dengan kekerasannya? - atau seorang membunuh
akan seorang dengan tiada sebenarnya? - atau
seorang membuat barang sekehendak hatinya
atas hamba Allah sebab ia raja?227
Would [you think] that it be permitted
[or tolerated] by God for one person to
take the wealth of another without the others
consent? - or one person to take by force the
wife and children of ~nother? - or one persan
killing another without just cause? - or one
person doing whatever his heart desires upon a
creature of God [simply] because he is king?
These are the words of 'Abdu'l-Lh who upon his return to Singapore
from his voyage to Kelantan felt very much distressed at what he
saw in Pahang and Kelantan.


Ke l ant&~,

the Ra j as were then

fighting among themselves for the throae.

'Abdu'l-Lah particularly

blamed the Rajas for their selfish a t titude towards life.


greed lmevT no bounds wi th respect to consideration for others, and

in this respect their behaviour was incredibly capricious.



I think the word sekehendak describes the character of one to whom

it is applied and reveals its true meaning.

Hikayat Abdullah, pp. 155, 157.



Conceptual distinction between hendak and mahu (~~)

In order to comprehend completely the meaning underlying the

word hendak, it is, I think, important that it should be compared

and contrasted with another word whose meaning seems linguistically
to be identical, but whose conceptual structure is definitely
contrary to that of hendak.

This 'IITord is mahu ( ~\..-) which means

The general concept underlying

~' desir~, w~s]l.

is not -

as in the case of hendak - a sense of voluntary action arising out

of knowledge and choice: \>rhat we call will; on the contrary, the
action, in


is not voluntary, although it may arise out of

knowledge of what is desired or wanted.

because what is i.vanted or not wanted in
a proposition.


wishing; rather


It is not voluntary

is al'\-rays determined by

implies not really wanting,



or declining to accept, whether it be

positive or negative as the case may be.

It implies not will,

but determination; and even choice, as implied in mahu, is


This I shall demonstrate in the followi ng analysis.

The field of application of the word maqy is restricted in the

concrete seuse only to human beings and animals - that is, like
hendak, to the anima te.

Whenever it is applied to inanimate things,

t hen its meanings are metaphorical.

We say:

Kuching i tu tidak !l:!.:ill! makan.

That cat does not

to eat.


It is presupposed that


ca.t has been offered food.

The cat 's

action is therefore really determined by tvTO factors: (i) the offer,

which starts his action, and (ii) a certain physical condition ,
like for example, not feeling hunery, which terminates his action.
If we apply the word hendak instead of mahu:
Kuching itu tidak hendak makan.
Tht cat does not want to eat.
we must conceive


the food has not been offered to the cat.


situation conceived would be something like t Dis: The cat is not

in the scene and we are hidden observers.

He see a plate of food

in what is to be the stage where the action is to be played.

cat appears on t he s t age and sees t he plate of food.


He approaches

and, having sniffed it, turns away and ignores the food.



observe would describe the cat's refusal of the food as 'tidak

hendak makan.'

Although, as I h ave pointed out earlier (pa ge 107),

animal will (as conceived in the application of hendak) borders upon

instinct, it can at least be shawn that in t his case wf"len hendak is
applied, the cat 's action is determined not by tvro, but by only
one factor: a certain physical condition which determines his
choice (as in (ii) above).
application of

t l1e ne gative form).

The exaople I h ave given above is the

in the negative form


seems mainly to

t ~~e

In its positive (affirmative) form, the meaning

structure is the sa"'i1e.

Supposing we say:

Kuching itu


That cat wants to eat.


then it is still presupposed that t he cat has been offerred food

before but refused to eat it due to sorne reason or other, and
that novi, finally, he accepts.
The application of !!1:h!l in the huma.n world maintajns the same
essential idea of determination.

We can say:

Aku hendak pergi



to go

Aku m.hlJ. pergi .


But it is implied in the second example that a proposition has been

offerred by another person to go s8mewhere and that I have accepted
tlle offer, whereas in the first case the wanting to go somewhere is
voluntary and does not depend upon an offer.

Asrul Sani's poem

about the sea-hawk can a g ain furnish us vii th an ex ample of the

meaning underlying the 1110rd


Sekali ini jemu dan keringat

tiada akan punya daya
tapi topan tiada mahu
dan mengembus kelam luas.228
The sea-hawk, as mentioned earlier, is winging her way back to her
young ones.

This time she is weary and feels herself without

strength to go on, but for her young ones - but for the call of

She pleads with the tempest to let her pass Kesusasteraan Indonesia III, p. 134.


but the tempest does not ~

[to accept her plea]
and the murky expanse blows forth.
In 'Abdu '1-Lh' s voyage to Kelantan, the fol1ovling sentence occurs:
Haka katanya: "Lekas sekarangl malam
ini sekochi !!!.hll berlayar. 11 229
So he said: "Hurry nov;! tonight the
sloop will sail. .
What is said here is not metaphorica.l; it is plain col1oquial
speech and has a concrete meaning.

But somet11ing is wrong; the

word underlined shou1d be hendak rather t han

The above

sentence from the linguistic point of view is clearly incorrect,

and the reason is that it was spoken by Baba Po Eng , a Chinese
merc:1ant 1:1ho - from many su ch i nstances recorded by 'Abdu '1-Lilll was clearly not conversant with the Halay language and unable to
grasp the subtle distinctions w'-:ich only t :lose possessing a
linguistic consciousness would be able to ma ster. 'Abdu 'l-Lah
himself \rould have said "mal am ini sekochi hendak berlayar. rr230
The saying:

Hakan tak hendak ti dur ta.k mahu.

Umofilling to ea t, unwilling to sleep.

usually applied to descri be t he condition of distracted persons especia lly tho s e in love - must be tru{en t o convey t he idea t hat in
the second hal f of t he phrase the bed was offerred and refused , or

Hikay at Abdullah, p. 9 .


Ibid., p. 15.

See also the example on p. 112 (i) above.


sleep advised and the advice unheeded, for the "Yrord mahu is
applied here not simply for the purpose of variation in expression.
Hore examples fror:J. Nalay literature will reveal beyond doubt the
conceptual structure of the Hord mahu as outlined in this analysis:

Haka jawab segala analc-anak perahu:

"Saya semuanya tidak ~; biarla.h
mati dalam laut ini, kerana chumachumalah lelah saya semua lima enam
hari ini kalau balik 11 231
Then all the members of the crew
answered: "We all do not want to;
even if we perish in this sea, for
our efforts these last five or six
days will be in vain if we [now]
return "

In the above is given the reply of the crew of the boat in which
'Abdu,l-Lh was sailing to Kelantan.

They were experiencing very

strong winds and Here afraid to set out from their sheltered
position near the island into the open sea.
was with


A Chinese merchant who

proposed that they return to the calm waters near the

island, but the crevr refused.



Ibid., p. 17.


Ibid., p. 21.

Naka adalah saya lihat orang-orangnya

dalam seratus baranGkali sepuluh saja
yang ada bekerja; yang lain itu lalai
saja sepanjang hari dalam hal miskin dan
jahat. Melainkan adalah pada seorang
empat lima jenis senjata sentiasa hari
tiada bercherai daripada tubuhnya. Dan
ada yang setengah tabiat mereka itu hendak
berchantik saja; memakai kain baju dan
seluar yang bagus-bagus, tetapi tiada
~ ia menchari jalan kehidupan.232


I savt that of a hundred of i ts people

perlaps only ten have work to do; the ethers
laze about during the whole day in a
condition of misery and evil. [They have
nothing] except that by each persan four or
fi ve 1-re a pons are worn the whole day, ne ver
separate from their bodies. And there are
sorne whose behaviour is only to beautify
themselves; wearing fine clothes, but who do
not want to seek a livelihood.
The application of

here clearly implies that these people have

been asked to seek a livelihood but refused.

here is almost

synonymous with agree or accept.


Na~=a beberapa saya memberi nasihat

kepadanya tiada juga ia ~ pergi.
Naka habis-habis katanya: "Bunuh sama
saya pun saya tidak ~ pergi. Siapa
berani pergilah.u233

Even though I gave him advice [i.~. with

persuasion] he still refused to vTant to go.
Then finally he said: "Even if you kill me
I will not go, who dares can go!"
Here the same Chinese referred to in (i) (who seemed to be the
coward in the group, and who became a laughing stock for his
cowardice and superstition) refused to be persuaded to continue the
journey to Kelantan.

He believed if he joined the rest to continue

the journey, he would not return alive.

refusal to proceed.

He 11as resolute in his

In the sentence above the words


ia pergi really mean 'he still refused to a gree to go.


~., p.


juga mahu



!vfaka jawabnya: "Ada dahulu orang

disebelah memanggil keluar hendak
berperang mendadak. Orang disini
ti ad a rnahu. 11 234He replied: "In the past [sorne]
people from the other side called
to us [or challenged us] to come
out, wanting to give sudden battle.
People here did not want to [accept].


Helainkan sebab takut akan raja, mahu

tiada !!!Sh!:! dikerjakannya adanya. 2rrIt is because of fear of the king;
whether they~ it or not [~ it]
they have to do it.


Naka jawab saya: "Terima kasih, Tengku,

satu pun saya tiada mahu melainkan
melihat-lihat saja. 11'2'30"
I replied: "Thank y ou, Prince, I do not
want anything except only to have a
look around."


Beberapa lamanya, Eaba Po Eng pula hendak

mernbayar separuh sa j a: empat puluh ringgit.
Tiada juga saya rnahu. Kemudian datanglah
ia hendak membayar enam puluh ringgit.
Tiada juga saya rnahu.237
After a while, Daba Po Eng also wants to
pay me half the amount: forty dollars. I
refused to accent. Then finally he came
wanting to pay me sixtl dollars. I [still]


Ibid., p. 107.


Ibid., p. 111.




illQ..' p. 155.

p. 125.


[to acceptj.



11 Katakan kepada si Ali

Hati, mengapa
ia berkata demikian. Jika pada si Ahmad
pun ia diperbaikinya; jika padaku pun,
ia aku perbaiki juga. Kerana aku tiada
mahu membunuh dia "
Mak'a sembah Tun Ali Ha ti: "Jikalau ada
karunia, patik itu minta bunuh jua,
kerana patik itu tiadalah nahu memandang
muka orang yang lain "
Haka beberapa pun Sul ta.':'l ?1ahmud hendak
menghidupi Tun Ali Hati tiada juga Tun
Ali Hati mahu_hidup.238

"Say to 'Ali Hati: 'Why does he say such

things? If he has been well treated by, by me too, him shall I treat vrell,
for I do not want to kill him . '"
Tun 'Ali Hati said: "If there is grace
[in you] I still request to be kil l ed,
because I do not ~ [any more] to look
at the faces of ether people."
Thus no ma tter how much Sultan Natund
wanted to let Tun 'Ali Hati live, Tun
'Ali Hati still did not~ to live.

Haka segala orang bersoraklah: 11 ::-Iai si

Jebat durhaka, mengapa maka engkau takut
hendak turun? Jika engkau tiada mahu
turun, kunaiki istana ini. 11 239
Then all the people shouted: "Ho Jebat,
you rebel! wherefore are you afraid of
wanting to come dmm? If you do not
~ to come down, we will climb into
t J.1e palace 11


Malm jawab saya: "Jikalau Baba pulang,

pasti saya oran[; kedua pun mahu pulang
juga "2lto


Se.jarah IIelayu, p. 305.


Hikayat Han g Tuah, p. 319.


Hikayat Abdullah, p. 33, 35.


So I replied: "If Baba return, [tnen]

it is certain tnat the two of us also
vmnt to return too "


examples reveal beyond doubt that

conceptually disb_nct from henda.k.


It has been demonstrated that

hendak presupposes the initiation of voluntary action in the acter;

the acter possesses will. That actions originate from the acter
without any external influence forcing the actor into action ether than, of course natural influences.

But in the case of mahu,

conceptually it implies that actions arise out of the force of

external, created or man-made influences.

Though a man is pre-

supposed to possess will, yet this \Vll is dependent upon created

man-made challenges.

A situation

created and being offerred -

and acceptance or refusai of this offer is the positive or negative


s concept of the iradah

It is significant that tramza!.1 denies the application of the word

sekehendak with reference to God 1 s


This is because he

conceives God 1 s 'tvill to be an act of wisdom and not that of a

capricious tyrant.

:f!amza:, 1 s polemic against the 'Ulama' on this

point is v1hy call God Just if He "berbuat barang sekehendakNya"24-l -


~amzah Fan~ri, p.



does whatever He uleases or


The 'Ularna' answer:

"Seperti orang berkambing banyak;

disembelihnya, maka dikubaknya,
maka direbusnya, maka ditununya, maka
dipachaknya. Ia juga yang empunya,
bukan benda orang lain. Jika benda
orang lain disembelihnya maka ~alim
1:).ukumnya. 11 242

"The analogy is like one who owns many

goats; sorne are slaughtered by him, then
skinned, then boiled, then roasted and
pierced wi th skewers. It is he 'l.vho owns
them - [and they are] not the possession
or ether people. If [they areJ other
people's possession [and they] are
slaughtered by him, then unjust [is]
the verdict [against him]."
The 'Ulama''s answer betrays that their conception of sekehendak is
that the doing of 1:rhatever one ple-a ses is justified on the condition
that what one does at will one does to ones own.

Logically they

imply that sekehendaknya means the subject doing what he desires

to the object which belongs to the subject.

Whether the abject is

a willing or un\dlling recipient of the subject's action is not


But compare this with 'Abdu'l-Lah's application of

sekehendak wDen he describes the character of t he Malay Rajas

(page 128).

There i t would seem to imply that i f a per son takes

the 11eal th of another wi thou t the o ther 1 s consen t, or take s by

force the 'l.vife and children of another, or takes the life of
another without just cause, then he is committing a \<Jrongful and
unjust action - but only if he takes without consent, by force,
vli tho ut just cause.

Supposing he takes another 1 s weal th wi th the

242 ~., p. 198. Compare with al-Ash' ari, chapter on 'Discussion

of the imputation of justice and injustice to God, ' espec i ally




owner's consent, another's wife and children not by force,


pers on' s life vti th just cause, then the word sekehendaknya -vrill no
longer be applicable to him.

'Abdu'l-Lah there implies that it is

not good and just even for a king, because he is king, to impose
upon his people vrhatever his heart desires.

Here is revealed

another meaning in the conceptual structure of sekehendak in

addition to what has been explained before (pages 127-128).


'Ulama' con ceive that it means the doing of whatever one pleases
upon one's own possessions.

'Abdu'l-Lab's passage reveals that

if one' s m-m possessions are the '\villing objects of one' s desire

(kehendak), then logically sel:ehendak cannot be applied to one;
it is only if t i1e objects of one' s desire are the unwilling
recipients of one's action that sekehendak can be applied to one,
for it is the very essence of sekehendak to include within its
meaning structure the sense of force, of imposition.


is then the imposition of one's kehendak upon t he kehendak of


Linguistically at least ?amzah is more correct than the


'Ulama' in his applicatL:mpf the word sekehendak .

According to

tfamzah the Ho rd cannot be applied to God, for i t -vrould mean that

He is unjust since He purposely allovrs the otherwise unwilling
unbelievers to disbelieve, punishing them vri th Hell for their

243 ?amzah concei ves God to a ct not as He pleases in

the sekehendakNya sense, rather God acts in conformity with the

potentialities of t hings in His knowledge.


~amzru1 Fan~ri, pp.


From His attribute of


Beauty is created the believer, from that of His Glory the

unbeliever, each according to their potentialities.
believes and the unbeliever


The believer

not because God pleases

that they be so, but because of their very natures;


because of

the ir very natures too each \'lill return to i ts found of origin. 244
Kata 'Ulam,: "Apabila demikian ~ukumnya,
tiada berguna lagi iradat dan qudrat kerana
bar~Dg menjadi sendirinya dengan ~ukum
isti'dadnya, tiada dengan ~ukum iradat
dan qudrat. 11 245
The 'Ularna, say: "When such is the case
[then God's] will and power are no more of
use, for things become by virtue of their
potentialities, not by virtue of will
and power. 11
~amzru1 1 s

answer to this is that God has will, and His will works

in conformity with knowledge of the t~ings willed.246

The things

willed are not not ling (as the 'Ulama, 1-1ho hold the doctrine of

nihilo assert); they are the fixed essences or the

potentialities of things.

They cannet exist as a ctuality unless

God wills them to become (as actual existence), according to what

their natures determine, by virtue of the command



cornes forth as the res ult of the Divine command is what we call


~., pp.


245 ~., p. 199.


Ibid., p. 199.


creation, or the external world together with all its parts.

still lie dormant, as i t

'"'~ re,


in the Di vine Knowledge, ready to

leap into being at His command, are neither created nor uncreated they are modes of the Divine Essence. 247
both the doctrine of creation
of the 1vorld "YTi th God.

~ nihil~,

In t h is Hay :tfamzah denies

and that of the coexistence

Creation ha.s i ts beginning in time and

cornes into beinr::; by virtue of Gad s creative corrunand.

creative command that is God's act of willing .

It is tl1is

\'Jhen God ,,.,rills a

thing to be it cornes, complete and perfect, for if it does net

becorr!e complete and perfect then it vrould mean that God still has
to perfect and complete i t; and this implies tha t God v.rills \-Ti thout
prior knmvledge of the thing willed, l.rhi ch is absurd. 2 48

It is

very important at t ;s stage to note the significance of Hamzah 1 s

consistency in translating the fourtb form Arabie verb arada,

which occurs in the Qur'an (36:82; see also page 127) a s berkehendak.
This is of course consistent vli th his mystical philosophy.
Berkehendak applied here to Gad 1 s act of \Alilling is an extreiJely
pm.,rerful expression.

God is concei ved


willin e upon the thin g

willed C.i&. t h e potentiali ty of a t hing vr;. ch is still not separa te

from the Essence) intending irhat i t sha.ll bec orne in such a ma11..ner
that at His command i t

detaches 1 , as i t 1:1ere, and becomes


Ibid., pp . 135-137.

248_ Ibid., pp. 135-136.

Tahafut, p. 88.

Compa re vrith Ibn Rushd in Tahafut al-


'externalized' as part of creation.



willed is present

to God before His command acts upon it and transforms it into being.
When applied to God, the relationship between God and the thing
willed is a vertical one (page 127).

But the important concept

here is that berkehendak conveys the idea that God wills something
A comparison between ~amzah's translation
and that of 'Abdu'l-Ra'f of Singkel 249 of the same Quranic passage

which is 2resent to Him.

will illuminate what I attempt to convey.


translation of the same passage (36:82) is:

Innama amruhu idha arada shay 'an
an yaqla lahu kun fa yaknu.
Hanya sanya pekerjaanNya apabila
dikehendruciNya menjadikan suatu,
bahwa dikatakan baginya "Ada
engkau!" - maka ada suatu itu. 250
'Abdu'l-Ra'f translates arada as dikehendaki meaning is desired, and
this manner of describing God's will in the passive voice deprives
much of the emphasis on the factitive or causative nature of the
action or will.

Another interesting factor is that in the verb

kehendaki, the object desired is absent.

The -i implies that the

249 'Abdul Ra'f (Q. 1620-1693) was regarded as one of the most eminent ~ffs of Acheh and the rest of the Malgy-speaking world. But
he was more of a reli gious teacher and an 'Alim rather than a Sff
in the sense Hamzah was. Though he did not appear to join in the
pole~ic against ?amzah begun by Rniri, he seemed to be on the side
of Raniri. For more about him, see EI, Leiden, 1960, p. 88.
250 This is from 'Abdu'l-Ra'f's Malay translation and commentary
of the Qur'n based on al-Baydawi 1 s. I am quoting the fourth
edition published in Cairo in.l901, vol. 2, p. 446. 'Abdu'lRa'f's translation of the whole Qur'an into Nalay \vith commentary
is, I thi~, the first of its kind to be done i n the Malay-speaking


object desired is sought after by the subject (page 120).

Thus in

expressing it in the passive voice by means of prefixing the

particle gi_ to kehendaki, the implication is that the thing willed
or desired is not present to God - or that God creates from

The implications brought forward by this explanation are

made more plausible by virtue of the fact that 'Abdu'l-Ra'f

translates kun as

'..,rhich means exist


to be in the sense

of appearing) and not jadi as ?amzah does, which means

be in the sense of becoming).
refers, whereas

~ (i.~.


It is only to something that jadi.

conveys the meaning of making something appear

when it was not there before.

Finally, another important point elucidating :tfamzah's conception of te iradah, when he says that God's will works in conformity
with His knowledge of the things willed, is his conception of

Like the philosophers , to whose views on this point even

al-Ghazzali concedes, 2 51 ~amzah asserts that God cannot do what

is logically impossible.

However, like al-Ghazzli, he accepts

this without denying to God infinite possibility for exercising

His power.
Suatu tamthil lagi seperti orang
sempurna lengkap dengan kekayaannya.
Dapat diubahnya kekayaannya: gajah
dijadikannya kuda, atau kuda
dijadikannya gajah; atau kambing

251 Tahafut al-Tahafut, pp. 328-329.


dijadikannya anJ1ng, atau anjing

dijadikannya kambing. Tetapi ia
tiada mahu mengubah dia, kerana
apabila ia mengubah dia binasa
kamalnya. 252
Another analogy is like the person
who is complete and perfect in his
weal th and power. He can change
his power: the elephant he can
transform into a horse, and the horse
into an elephant; or the goat into a
dog, and the dog into a goat. But he
does not want to change and transform
them, for-rr-he does so then his
perfection is destroyed.
What is implied here is that if we discard the notion of a necessary
causal sequence and attribute everything to t he Creator's caprice,
t hen the configurations of things vrould cease to exist in the sense
that they would not possess recognizable natures; knowledge would
possess no


Furthermore, if the Creator transforms

elephants into horses and goats into dogs, then it would mean,
unless it is His caprice, that the Creator has not created something
perfect i n the first instance and t hat what He created is in need
of perfection - an admission of lack of knowledge on the Creator's

Supposing the person i n


analogy effects t he trans-

formations rnentioned, can his will in doing so be properly called


The passage that i t carmot, for the word

that t he person has been challenged to display his power.

If he

252 ~amzah Fan~ri, p. 200. The word kekayaan I have translated

not so much as wealth but pov1er, for this is what is meant in the
context of t he discussion.


wills the transformations, then although his will works in

conformity with his l:nowledge of t he things willed, it is not
based upon his choice; for here the challenge has determined his
The analysis thus far presented in t his chapter is an attempt
to bring into focus concepts underlying the word hendak and its
derivatives, and its implication with respect to
concept of the iradah.

~amzah Fan~ri's

As far as the scope is concerned, this

presentation would suffice.

From what has been analyzed, it seems

not illogical to conclude that by virtue of linguistic facts and

semantic precision,

~amzah Fan~ri's

consistency in his application

of key words gives more weight and plausibility to his arguments.


Romanized Malay edition of the text

of the ~ujjatu'l-~iddiq li daf'i'l-Zindig.



li daf'i'l-Zind!q

karang an

Al-Shaykh Nru'l-Din al-Rru1Iri

(Naskhah Naxwell No. 93)

[Royal Asiatic Society, London]



Hamdan li ilhin huwa bi '1-hamdi haqiqun

fi b~ri nm-.ra1ihi kanati '1-daratu ghariqatan. 253
Segala puji-pujian bagi Allah.

Ialah yang


dengan kepujian.

Adalah segala arwh beroleh limpah daripadaNya anugerahaNya

Wa an'ama 'alayha bijdihi'l-tawfiqa ula'ika

mina'l-nabiyyina wa'l-~iddiqina.

Dan dianugerahaNya akan mereka itu dengan anugerah tawfiq; mereka

itulah daripada segala Nabi dan 'Arif bi'l-Lh.
Fa haoqaq254 bi haqqihim haqqa'l-tahqiqi wa
maiyyz'l-9aqqa mina'l-batili bi'l-ta~diqi.


mereka itulah akan Tuhannya dengan sebenar-benar

taqiq, serta dibezakannya jalan yang benar daripada jalan yang

batil dengan


'lrla l}aqqaa haqa 'iqahum bi '1-tadqiqi fa

~arrar 'ulmahum wa baiyyan'l-fariqah.



mereka itulah segala 'ilmu


dengan daqiq.

Maka di ta~nifkan mereka i tu 'ilmunya dan dinyatakan jalan agama.

Fa man ~a~ala lahu'l-tawfiqu'l-raqiqu tabi'ahum
wa illa las~ra'l-mulhida

Haka barangsiapa senantiasa beroleh tawfiq nischaya diikutnyalah

jala.n segala Nabi dan


dan jika tiada diikutnya akan

i'tiqad mereka itu nischaya jadilah ia daripada qawm


The text reading ghazig is corrupt.


The text reading ~aogaga is corrupt.



Wa'l-salatu wa'l-salamu 'ala'l-nabiyyi'lshafii

- wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi min ahli'l-wathiqi.


Dan ratJmat Allah dan sal'.mii!ya atas Nabi


atas ummatnya, dan atas segala kelua.rganya dan

yang amat penyayang


[2] yang

amat keperchayaan.
Wa ba'du.

Dan kemudian daripada itu.

Fa yaqlu saqi255'1-rasli al-shaykhu Nru'l-D!ni

i bni 'AJ.iyyin i bni Hasanj I i bni l-lutiammadin ~am!din
al-Raniriyyu al-Shati'iyyu.
Maka berkata yang mengedarkan piala minuman Raslu'l-Lh s.a.w. 2 56
iai tu Shaykh Nru '1-Din bin 'Ali bin





nama bangsanya, dan Raniri nama negerinya tempat kediamannya, dan

Shafi'I madhhabnya.
Falamma takhalafa ba'du'l-muta'assibina wa'lmu'anidina mina'l-suf~a'i fi b~thi'l-wujdi
wa nisbati'l-'alami bi'l-tJ.aqqi ta'ala.
Maka tatakala ikhtilaflah setengah daripada Ahlu'l-Ta'~I2(1)
dan Hu'anid( 2 ) daripada segala yang jhil pada memithalkan wujd
Allah dan pada menisbatkan 'alam dan :tJaqq Ta' ala.
Fa altamasa minni





Ya'ni, menegakkan agama yang salah.


Ya'ni, mem[b]antah kepada mem[b]enarkan agama yang salah.




The text reading sagi is incorrect.

256 S.a.w. is the usual abbreviation for ~alla'l-Lhu 'alayhi wa

sallama. I use this abbreviation throughout t his edition whenever
it occurs.


Maka memintak pada aku setengah daripada orang yang besar-besar

daripada segala



wa thabbathu fi dini'l-islami
bibarakati sayyidina r.fuhammadin 'alayhi'l
sala tu 11a '1-salamu.

Dipeliharakan Allah Ta' ala kiranya akan dia dan di tetapkannya akan
dia pada agama Islam dengan berkat Penghulu kita Nabi Nu\lammad s.a.w.
Fa 'allaftu wa tarjamtu hadhihi'l-risalata
bi'l-jawiyyati min kutubi'l-~fiyyati wa ghayrihim.

dan kujawikan risalah ini daripada segala kitab

dan lain daripada mereka itu.

\Va sammaytuha


Maka kunamai akan risalah ini:

li daf'i'l-zindiqi.


li daf'i'l-

Zindigi, ertinya : Dalil [3] segala 'Arif pada 1-1enolakkan I 'tigad

segala Zindiq.

Maka kusebutkan dalar:: risalah ini i'tiqad dan

madhhab empat ta'ifah, iaitu: Mutakallimin dan




Falsifah dan VJujdiyyah yang mul:ttid pada rnenyatakan wujd

Allh dengan 'alal71 i tu berlainankal1 a tau bersuatu seperti yang

lagi akan tersebut kenyataannya.
Maka sekarang kumulai pada menyatakan ma'n wujd itu: iaitu
dhat- ya'ni keadaan sesuatu shay'.(3) Maka dhatC4)itu ada kalanya

Ertinya diri sesuatu.


Ya'ni, iaitu ~u~r 'abd senantiasa dengan ingat akan ~aqq

Ta'ala seperti dirasainya segala asrr Allah.

'Afa, 1-Lllilu


?shiyah minhu.


kelihatan dengan mata kepala, tetapi menyabitkan dia(5)'aql dan

Ia itulah wujd Allah.

shara' atau kashf(6) dan dhawg.

Kata Nutakallimin wujd itu dua perkara: pertama wujd AllB.h,

kedua wujd 'alam.

Haka \rujd


itu vr.iibu '1-wu.jud lagi q 'im

sendirinya, dan wujd 'lam itu mumkinu'l-wujd- ya'ni dijadikan

tiaqq Ta'al daripada 'adam kepada wu,id khari.ii; lagi ia qa'im
dengan tiaqq Ta'al.

Maka jadilah


keduanya berlain-lainan-

ya'ni keadaan keduanya itu berlain-lainan kerana


Ta'la itu

qadim lagi menjadikan, dan 'alam itu mu:Q.dath lagi dijadikan.

nyatalah pada


mereka itu bahwa HUjd itu dua perkara: suatu l).aqioi, kedua " ma.izi.





Haka majazi itu milik baqi

Maka jikalau tiada berlainan keduanya nischaya jadilah

Maka barangsiapa mengi'tiqdkan bahwa



dengan [4] 'alam itu esa maka jadilah ia kafir, kerru1a ketahuan


Ya'ni, firman Allah dan




Raslu'l-Lh dan ijma' segala


Ya'ni, iaitu diperoleh 'abd daripada segala tajalli


Ta'ala; iaitu memushahadahkan ?aqq Ta'ala dengan anugerah daripada

tiaqq Ta'ala, dan diperolah 'abd beberapa asrar iaitulah fa'idah
tajalli dan kashf.

?shiyah minhu.

'Afa'l-Lahu 'anhu.


daripada perkataannya yang demikian itu bahwa wujd Al1h dan

'alam jadi suatu ~aqiqat dan seyrujd [seperti] kata Ahlu'1-~fi. 2 57
Bahwa kami pun qab11ah akan i'tiqad dan perkataan Mutruca11imin itu.

Adapun pada

dhat Allh Ta'a1a.

1i~i1a~ ka~i



bahwa wujd itu esa jua; 1aitu1ah

itu tiada berwujud dan tiada 1ayak

dinamai akan dia dengan nama wujd kerana ia 'adamu '1-m~..

apabila adalah 'al&1 itu



dan wujud ?aqq Ta'ala itu

\oru,jdu'l-m~c}(7) maka manatah jadi sewujud 'adamu'} dengan

wujdu '1-m~-?

Hanya sanya adalah 'alam itu




mililc bagi ?aqq Ta 'ara - ya 'ni tenpat nyata :tJaqq Ta 'ala, dan
bayang-bayang 2 58 seperti upama rupa yang kelihatan dalam chermin
bidal tamthil.

?aqq Ta' ala i tu upama yang menilik chermin dan

'a1am itu upama rupa yang ke1ihatan da1amp:ya. Maka \VUjd

Ta'ala dengan



ber1ainan pun tiada dan bersuatu pun tiada,

kerana ber1ainannya dan bersuatu itu menghendaki dua wujd


Ya'ni, semata-mata wujd




257 The last four words: [seperti] kata Ahlu'l-~fi- shou1d

actual1y be written after the word kerana in the sentence in order
that the meaning intended be conveyed correctly. Otherwise the
whole meaning undergoes a complete change which Raniri would
certainly reject as it wou1d be quite meaningless - and if meaningful at all, it would be contradictory to what he intends to say.
Hence the reading of the whole sentence should be:
Maka barangsiapa mengi'tiqadkan bahwa Haqq Ta'ala
den; an 'alam itu esa, maka jadi1ah ia kafir, kerana[seperti] kata Ahlu'l-Sfi - ketahuan daripada
perkataannya yang demikian itu bahwa wujd Allh dan
'alam jadi suatu ~aqiqat dan sewujud.

The text is corrupt.


mustaqil(8) sendirinya.

Maka apabila adalah wujd Allah jua yang

esa, dan 'alam itu tiada berwujd, maka tiadalah jadi berlainlainan.

Daripada kerana inilah kami kata wu jd Allah dengan 'alam

Jikalau ada 'alam itu mawjd kelihatan sekalipun tetapi tiada.

kebilanggan wujdnya dari kerana ia tiada berwujd


kata [5] orang raja dengan balatenteranya itu esa jua.



ada wujd balatenteranya banyak sekalipun tiada kebilangan.

yang kebilangan itu wujd raja jua.


Dan lagi pula, tamthil bayang-

bayang denga.n yang empunya bayang-bayang; pada penglihat dua

wujd, tetapi tiada dikata akan dia dua wujd kerana bayang-bayang
itu tiada kebilangan wujdnya.

Su'al (jika [di]tanyai orang):

"Bahwa bayang-bayan g deng an yang empunya bayang- bayang i tu seorangkah atau dua?"

Jawab: "Bahwa bayang-bayang dengan yang empunya

bayang-bayang itu seorang jua kerana bayang-bayang itu tiada

kebilangan wujdnya.

Hanya sanya adalah bayang- bayang i tu

yang empunya bayang-bayang jua.


Maka sebab itulah dikata orang

bahwa enpunya bayang-bayang dengan bayang-bayangnya itu esa - tiada

dua dan tiada lain."
Maka adalah


kata Hutakallimin dan .Ahlu'l-S'fi itu

suatu jua - tiada berlainan antara dua




pendapat Mutakallimin itu dengan dalil 'aql dan naql jua.



kepada 'alam<9) maka dilihatnya ada ia mawjd yang mu~dath lagi


Upama yang menilik chermin dan 'alam itu.


Ya'ni, firman Allh dan ~a.dith Raslu'l-Lh dan ijma' segala

'Ulama '.

~as hiyah


'Afa 'l-Lahu 'anhu.



Dan diti1iknya dengan mata hatinya kepada wujd

:tJaqq Ta'ala pun ada mawjd yang qadim.

Haka dithabitkannya dua

vrujud: sua tu .; 'izu '1-wujud, kedua wajibu '

Naka ja 'izu '1-

wujd itu iaitu Nakhlq_ dan wajibu'l-wujud itu iaitu Khaliq.


adalah nisbah antara keduanya itu nisbah Khaliq dan Makhliiq jua.
Maka sebab itulah dikatakan mereka itu berlain [6] -lainan
keduanya supaya jangan pada sangka2 59 'awamm ba>:.ila wujd Allah
dengan wujd 'alam itu sewujd seperti i'tiqad qawm mulQid dan
Adapun pendapat


itu pun dengan dalil 'aql dan

naql jua , lagi ditambah pula kashf dan dhawq. 2 60 Maka ditilik
mereka itu dengan mata hatinya dan dirasanya dengan perasaannya bahwa
wujd itu esa jua - iaitulru1 wujd


yan6 tiada kelihatan

dengan mata kepala dalam Dru'l-Dunya ini; dan yang kelihatan dengan
mata kepala itu iaitu 'alam yang tiada berwujd seperti wujd

Maka wujd Allah itu wujd aqiqi lagi

itu wujd majazi lagi muqayyad -


Haka akan




dan wujd

- dan milik bagi wujd

itu tiada dapat dikata akan dia wujd, dan

tiada dapat dikata akan dia 'adam

mu~l aq;

dari kerana jika dikata

akan dia wujud, nischaya sekutulah ia dengan wujd Allh; dan jika
dikata akan dia 'adam


maka 'adam itu tiada ada sesuatu shay'

jua pun, dan 'alam itu ada ia kelihatan.

Maka nyatala.'-1. 'lam itu

259 The text reading sangkah is incorrect.


The text reading zawg is incorrect.



wujd traqq Ta'ala.

Naka nisbah antara wujd Allah dan 'alam

itu bersuatu pun tiada dan berlainan pun tiada kerana 'alam itu

dan milik bagi traqq Ta'ala.

Maka nyatalah pada

i~~il~ Ahlu'l-~fi

bahwa wujd dan

tJ_aqiqat itu [7] eSl jua pada ma 'nanya; iaitulah dhat traqq Ta 'a.J.a.
i~~il~ Ahlu'l-~fi

Naka murad daripada tJ_aqiqat pada

itu iaitu:

Al-tJ_aqiqatu ma bihi 11-shay 'u - hU'tla hm.;a.


Yang ~aqiqat itu suatu shay' yang dengan dia [jadi]

shay' itu - ia ia (ya'ni barang suatu shay' yang jadi
ia daripada suatu shay').

Maka suatu shay' itu ~aqiqat - upama ~aqiqat periuk itu kisaran, 26l


perahu itu tukang.

Dan murad daripada 9aqiqat pada

i~~i1~ ~1antiqiyyin 262 i tu iai tu:

Al-haqiqatu ma yaknu'l-shay'u bihi
ka' i-~aya,.,rani '1-na~iqi bi '1-nisbati ila '1-insni.

Yang tJ.aqiqat itu barang sesuatu sha :,: ' yang dengan dia
ia, seperti tJ.ayawn natiq dengan nisbah kepada insn
(ya'ni ~aqiqat insn itu hidup yang berkata-kata).

Maka nyatalah pada i~til~ Man~iqiyyin 26 3 ~aqiqat sesuatu shay' itu

iri se sua tu shay'.


Naka ikhtilaf ikhtiyar Hutakallimin dan

pada menyabitkan wuj Allan dengan wujd 'alam itu


jua, bukan ma 'nawi; seperti kata orang 'lima belas'

dengan 'tengah dua puluh'.


Maka pada ma 'nanya sama jua, dan pada



The text reading kisawan (kswn) is corrupt.


The text reading


The text reading mantigin is incorrect.


is incorrect.


Apabila kau ketahuilah i'tiqad dan madhhab Hutakallimfn dan


maka sekarang kunyatakan pula i'tiqad dan madhhab


Kata ta
'if ah Falasifa;, bahwa wujd Allah dan

'alam keduanya qadim kerana [8] ia terbit daripada wujd Allah

dengan ta'thfrnya, tiada dengan ikhtiyar


Ta'ala; seperti

keluar(lO) panas matru1ari daripada dhat matahari.

Maka tiadalah

kuasa matanari menahani panasnya; selama ada matahari adalah


Demikian lagi selama ada dhat Allah adalah 'alam; tiada

bercherai dan tiada tanggal daripada dhat Allh, daripada azal

datang kepada abad berhubung dan bertemu selama-lamanya.


lagi pula katanya bahwa Allah Ta'ala tiada kuasa atas segala
sesuatu, dan tiada kuasa Ia menjadikan sesuatu yang lain daripada
[yang] sudah keluar daripadaNya.

Dan tiada Ia berkuasa pada mengu-

bahkan 'alam yang sudah ada ini.

Dan lagi pula katanya bahwa tujuh



dan tujuh petala bumi tiada dijadikan Allh Ta'ala

akan keduanya daripada tiada kepada ada, lagi baqa' abadi.


lagi pula katanya bahwa mintak tulung kepada Allah itu mem[p]usakai
(10) Ya'ni, keluar 'alam daripada dhat denga.n dirinya, tiada

dengan dijadikan


Ta'ala akan dia.




nafsan264 jua, kerana 'abd itu sanantiasa dal~1 limpah tulung jua.
Adapun fa'idah berbuat 'ibadat itu menjadikan diri serupa dengan
Allah sekira-kira kuasa jua.

Dan lagi pula katanya bahwa Allan

Ta'ala jua yan g 'ashiq dan ma'shq akan diriNya.

Naka adalal:l

segala perkataan dan i'tiqad mereka itu ~alalat lagi kafirna'dhu bi 1 1-Lhi


Apabila kan ketahuilah 1 'tiqad dan madhhab

~a 'ifah


maka kunyatakan pula i'tiqad dan madhhab ~a'ifah Wujdiyyah [9].

Maka adalah Wujdiyyah itu dua qawm: suatu Wujdiyyah yang
muwawid, kedua Wujdiyyah yang multlid; seperti Nurji'ah itu dua
qawm: sua tu Nurji'ah martJ_mah, kedua Nurji'ah mal'nah.(ll)


HurJ i 'ah marhmah

i tu iai tu segala sahabat Raslu '1-Lh 'alayhi '1

sala'11, dan Hurji 'ah mal 'nah itu iaitu suatu qa-vrm yang daripada
qawm tujuh puluh dua yang


lagi isi neraka.

Demikian 1agi

(11) Ya'ni, dinamai Murji'ah ma1'nah itu kerana aclalah i'tiqad

mereka itu dan katanya: "Kami harap akan segalamu tiada kamu
dimasukkan Allah kedalam neraka jika1au kamu berbuat dosa kabir



264 The text reads memushakai nafsan. The word nafsan is prob1ematic. Does it mean two selves or one (nafsan)? The former interpretation would seem to refer to Ibn Sina's theory of the two natures
of man which corresponds to his theory of the t-vm types of prayers
(Q!. Arberry, A.J., Avicenna on theolo&l, London, 1951, pp. 50-63).
I am inclined to think, ho-vrever, that the word is in the Arabie
singular accusative case. The Malay scribe would vite nafsan in
the same manner as it appears in the text. In place of the tanwin
~' the ~ is written after the sin to denote the accusative case,
and the nun to indicate the sound. Renee the alif and the nn
representthe tanvrin .:n.


Wujdiyyah yang


itu iaitu segala



Ta'ala kiranya kita daripada qawm mereka itu!), dan

Wujdiyyah yang
Lahi minha!



itu iaitu segala Zind1q - na'dhu bi'l-

Adapun sebab dinamai Wujdiyyah itu wujdiyyah kerana

dan perkataan dan i'tiqad mereka itu pada wujd Allh.

Maka sekaran[ kunyatakan i'tiaad dan madhhab Wujdiyyah yang


dan Wujdiyyah yang

i 'tiqad keduanya.


supaya [dapat] kubezakan antara

Ka.ta Wujdiyyah yang

iaitulah wujd Allh.


bahr,va wujd itu esa;

Maka wujd Allah yang Esa itu tiada ada ia

mawjd mustaqil sendirinya yang dapat dibezakan melainkan dalam

kandungan sekelian makhlqat jua.

Maka adalah makhlaat i tu wujd

Allah dan wujd Allh itu wujd makhlqat.

dan Allah itu 'alam.

Haka 'llam itu Allah

Bahwa sanya adalah mereka itu menyabitkan

wujd Allh yang Esa [10] itu dalam wujd segala makhlqat; serta
katanya tiada mawjd hanya Allah.

Dan lagi di'tiqadkannya pada

ma'na kalimat la ilha illa'l-Lhu tiada ada wujdku hanya wujud


Maka dikehendakinya ma'nnya 'tiada ada wujdku melainkan

wujd Allah wujdku ini.'

sebangsa dan se1.vujd."

Dan lagi pula katanya: "Kami dengan Allah

Dan lagi pula katanya bahwa Allah Ta 'al


ketahuan dhatNya dan nyata kayfiyyatNya< 12 ) dan kruruniyyatNyaC13)

daripada fihaq ada Ia ma\vjd pada kharij pada zaman dan makan.
Inilah perkataan dan i'tiqad kafir yang nyata, seperti kata Shaykh

ibnu'l-'Arabi (qaddasa'l-Liillu sirrahu!) dalam kitab


pada menyatakan i'tiqad segala


ditolakkannya dan dibatalkannya akan madhhab \vujdiyyah itu.

"Nin huna aydan zallat aqdamu ta'ifatin 'an majra'ltahqiqi fa ql ma than~a illama n ara fa ja'al'l-266
'aiama huwa'l-Lha wa'l-Lha nafsa'l-'alami wa laysa
hadha bi mashhadin li kawnihi ma yatahaqqaqna bihi
t~aqquqa ahlihi fa law t~aqqaq bihl ma qal dhalika."
Daripada perkataan inilah tergelinchir i'tiqad
sesuatu qawm daripada jalan yang sebenarnya, dari
kerana ka ta mereka itu: "Tiada ada mawjd melainkan
barang yang kami lihat. 11 Maka dijadikannyalah 'alam
itu Allah dan Allh itu diri 'alam. Segala-gala
i'tiqad ini tiada benar kerana wujd Allah itulah
yang jadi mereka itu dengan dia (ya'ni, wujd Allh
itulah yang menjadikan mereka itu). Maka jikalau
ben:.r ma 'rifat Lll] me reka i tu akan dia, nischaya
tiada dikata mereka itu seperti yang demikian."



(12) Ya'ni, murad kayfiyyat itu iaitu -vrarna dan rasa dan bahu, dan
hangat dan sejuk, basah dan kering, dan barang sebagainya daripada




(13) Ya'ni, murad daripada kammiyyat itu iaitu besar dan kechil,
pendek dan lebar, dalam dan berat, 2 65 dan barang sebagainya.


'Afa '1-Liiliu 'anhu.



The text reading

is corrupt.


The text reading fa ja'altu is incorrect.


Maka adalah mereka itu malu akan segala Ahlu'l-Islm, dan takut
disalahkan kebanyakan madhhab dan agama.

Jika dikata mereka itu

dengan nyatanya 'kamilah Jlah dan Allah itu kami 1 tiada diqablkan
oleh sekelian mereka i tu akan perkataannya.

J:.1aka dilindungkanlah

dirinya dibalik dinding yang berpesuk-pesuk supaya jangan

kelihatan perkataan-perkataan yang jahat dan i'tiqad yang


Naka disamarkannya dengar.. katanya: "Bah1.ra sanya Allah Ta 'l i tu

diri kami dan wujud kami dan kami diriNya dan wujdNya i tu jua."
Haka yang demikian i tu ti ad a terlindung pada sekelian Budiman yang
bijaksana, dan tiada ter[sem]bunyi pada segala 'Arif yang kamil.

Adalah perkataan dan i'tiqad mereka itu seperti

perkataan dan i'tiqad qavm 'Ali Ilahiyyah dan Isrna'iliyyah daripada



katanya bahwa ?aqq Ta'ala itu tanazzul lalu jadi 'Ali

ibnu Abi falib (xarrama'l-Lahu wajhahu!)

Dan seperti i'tiqad qawm

Yahudi; katanya bahwa Nabi Allah 'Uzayr itu anak Allah; seperti
firman Allh Ta'ala:
'Qalati'l-Yahudu 'Uzayrun ibnu'l-Lahi.

'Kata Yahudi 'Uzayr itu anak Allh.

Dan seperti perkataan dan

'tiqad qawm Nasra bahvra Nabi Allah

'sa itu anak Allah; seperti firman All~~ Ta'la:


'vJa aalati '1-Nasara al-Nasihu ibnu '1-Lahi.' [12]


Setengah daripada mereka itu [mengi'tiqadkan] bahwa Allru1 itu

menigai tiga; seperti firman Allah Ta'ala:
'Ha qad kafara'l-ladhina q_alu inna'l-Lha thalithu


'Sanya telah kafirlah mereka itu [yang] mengata[kan]

adalah Allah itu menigai tiga.'


Dan kata setengah daripada mereka itu bahwa Nabi Allan 'sa itulab.


Dan lagi pula kata qawm

bahi.J"a Allah turun daripada

labt kedalam nast - iaitu lembaga yang Ia jadi daripada 'alam

ajsam - maka kembali pula Ia kepada laht.
i'tiqad mereka itu kafir, seperti firman

Maka perkataan dan



'Laqad kafara'l-ladhina qal inna'l-Lha

ibnu Maryam.'



'Bahwa sanya telah kafirlah mereka itu lang

mengata[kan] bahwa sanya Allah itulah 'Isa ibnu Haryam.'

Dengar olehmu, hai Budiman!, firman Tuhan yang dalam Qur'n


peri kejadian insn dua puluh dualapan tempatnya.

Seperti kata





"Wa qad dhakara'l-Lahu'l-insna fi thamaniyatin wa

'ishrina ma'l.vdi 'an wa aala innahu makhlaun. tt267




"Sanya disebutkan Allh Ta'la al\:an insan itu pada

dua puluh dualanan tempat. l~aka firmWL~ya bahwa
insn itu makhlq."

l'1aka inilah beza antara perkataan \'TUjd Allah itu wujd makhlq,
dan wujd makhlq i tu wujd Allah, dan insn [13] itu Allh, dengan
perkataan Na~ ara katanya Na bi 'sa i tulah Allh.

Naka yang demikian

itu tiada ter[sem]bunyi pada segala Budiman yang berimn.

Shaykh 'Ali ibnu



al-Naha 'imi (qaddasa '1-Lhu sirrahu!)

dalam kitab Ira'atu'l-Daqa'ig:


The text reading ghulgun is corrupt.


"Fa man aala'l-'aglu aw al-nafsu av.r al-tabi'atu'lkulliyat aw ma26~ dnaha mina'l-kawkibi269 wa'l'anasiri wa'l-mawalidi ilahun bi i'tibari ma~hariyyatiha
lahu"ra qad akh~a'a kama akhta'a270 man qala li yadi
Zaydin innahu Zaydun wa 'in kanat yaduhu min jumlati
ma~hirihi fa 'in kana mukh~i'an fi i~laqi'l-ilhi
'ala ma laysa bi ilahin fa qad kafara wa tazandaqa "

"Barangsia~a mengi'tiqadkan 'aql atau nafs atau

segala tabi'at atau barang sebagainya daripada segala
bintang dan segala 'anasir dan ~ayawanat dan nabatat
dan jumadat itu ~aqq Ta~ala dengan i'tibar271 ma~harNya,
maka salahlah ia seperti yang mengatakan 'tangan Zayd
itulah Zayd' - dan jika ada tangannya itu daripada
jumlah segala ma~harnya sekalipun. Apabila adalah
salah i'tiqadnya pada mengatakan yang lain daripada
~aqq Ta'ala itu ?aqq Ta'ala maka sanya jadilah ia
kafir dan zindiq "

" via 'in qulna'l-:ahiru fi kulli'l-'alami

wujdu '1-:tJ.aqqi "tra asma 'ihi fa lays a , jduhu min
haythu hu'\A.&. zhirun fi kulli whidin [14] min
B.hadi'l-ashya'i bi kamalihi :"
~' ~~n jikalau !!:~i kata yan~ ~ahir pada 'alam
1tu WUJUd Haqq_ Ta'ala, atau asma'Nya sekalipun,
maka sekall-kali tiada ada wujd Allah daripada
fihaq ~ahir i tu ada vrujdNya mavrjd pada tiap-tiap
- Il
makhl uq
Wa li'l-qawli bi wa~dati'l-wujdi272 fi'lkulli la yajzu'l qawlu bi ilhiyyati kulli
wtlidin mina'l-ashya'i "


The text reading aW'\vama is corrupt.


The text reading kawab is corrupt.


The text reading khata'a is corrupt.


The text reading i'tiyar is corrupt.


The text reading wahidati is incorrect.



11 Adapun murad daripada kata Ahlu'l-Sfi:

wahdtu'l-wujd273 fi'l-kulli - ya'ni keesaan
Wjd Allah dengan 4alam itu, bukan maqid mereka
itu akan tiap-tiap segala perkara yang tersebut
itu :traqq Ta'ala "

" . Idhi'l-kalamu ayy kalamu man qala bi

"!.rahdati 'rojdi '1-lmlli innama hmra fi anna '1majm' ayy majm' wujdati'l-ashya'i amrun
,.;ahidun vra huwa zuhru '1-haaai fi '1-kulli la
anna kulla wahid:.n mina 'l:mwjdati hU\va '1majm'u'l-ladhi ~ahara fihi'l-~aqqu bi
kulliyatihi "
" Kerana maqsd Ahlu'l .. Sfi dengan katanya
'wahdatu'l' ~ ya'ni keesaan 'alam
. - maqfud
- mereka 1tu
dengan suku-sukunya 1tu
hanya sanya adalah majm' wujud segala ashya'
itu suatu pekerjaan jua; iaitulah zuhr Haqq
Ta'ala pada 'alam. Bukan maqsd mereka itu
bahwa sanya tiap-tiap dariEad segala mawjdat
itulah majm' 'alam yang ~ahir dalamnya Haqq
Ta'ala dengan dhatNya dan ~ifatNya dan asma'Nya "

Dan lagi pula katanya dal~~ kitab I~a~274 [15] al-Naii~ah:

"W~da~u ~1-wujdi



ma bihi '1-t~aqququ 1va


Esa wujd itu iaitu suatu shay' yang dengan

dia jadi shay' yang lain."
(ertinya yang menjadikan segala sesuatu itu iaitu esa).


"W~datu'l-wujdi ma huwa bihi tatahaqqaqu

aq1qatu kul1i mawjdin wa dhalika la
yasihhu an yakna arnran275 ghayra '1-haqqi
'azza~76 sha'nuhu.

Bahvra \vahdatu '1-wujd i tu iai tu baran ?; sua tu

s!1ay 1 yang deng an dia jadi se sua tu shay,.
~4aka yang menjadikan i tu sekali-kali tiada
sah dikata wujd melainkan akan wujd AJ.lh jua."

Maka barang siapa hendak menta'wilkan2 77 Allah itu 'a1rua dan 'alam


itu Allah - dan lagi katanya insan itu Allah - maka sanya ialah


Ta'la dan RaslNya, dan membenarkan i'tiqad

d~D Na~ra.

Lagi dii'tiqadkan mereka itu Islam aja'ib;

sekali-kali betapa perinya hendak dita'wilkan akan perkataan yang

sejahat-jahat dan i'tiqad yang semata-mata 9a1alat 1agi kafirna'dhu bi'1-Lahi minha! -yang tiada terderita tujuh petala 1angit
dan bumi mendengar dia, seperti firman Allan Ta'a1a:
'Takadu '1-sauavrtu yatafattarna minhu wa
tanshagqu'l-ar9u wa takhirru'l-jibalu278 haddan
an da'u li'l-r~ani waladan.'

'Hampir1ah tujuh petala langit belah-belah,

cherak-cherak1ah tujuh petala bumi, dan
runtuhlru1 [16] segala bukit berhamburan
tatakala mendengar kata Yahdi dan Nasara ada
bagi Tuhan yang bernama Ra~n i tu an.k.'

Apabila kau ketahuilah perkataan dan i'tigad Wujdiyyah yang

mulid maka sekarant; kubaynkan pula perl{ataan dan i 'tiqad

The text reading amrun is incorrect.


The text is corrupt.


The text reading menta'wilkan is incorrect.


The text reading tahirru is incorrect.



Wujdiyyah yang


lagi Ahlu'l-?fi (dijadikan

kiranya kita daripada qawm mereka itu!)



Kata Wujdiyyah yang

muwatll:lid bahwa wujd .Allah i tu esa jua; tiada berbilang dan

tiada bersegala dan setengah, tiada berhimpun dan bersuku-


suku, tiada




tiada jawhar


jisim - serta demikian

ada dijadikannya segala perkara yang tersebut itu.


Bahwa wujd Allah itu sekali-kali tiada berubah dan

tiada jadi segala perkara itu kerana Ia al'ana kna- ya'ni,
adalah Ia sekarang seperti adaNya dahulu jua; ya'ni tatakala
belumpa1279 dijadikan ~aqq Ta'ala segala perkara, tiada Ia jadi
segala perkara itu.

Ya'ni, demikian lagi tatakala sudah dijadikan-

Nya segala perkara itu pun tiada jadi Ia serupa dan sewujd dengan
segala perkara itu.

Ya'ni, bahwa wujd Allh itu tertentu pada

dhat Allh jua, sekali-kali tiada jadi Ia wujd makhlq, dan wujd
makhlq itu sekali-kali tiada jadi ia wujd Allah.



Seperti kata

Ibnu'l-'Arabi (qaddasa'l-Lahu sirrahu!) pada


"Wajibu '1-wujd hmva '1-wujd [17] al-mutlaa.


rrWaj i bU '1-WU j d i tUlah \ofU j d yang mU tlaq. 11

(y a 'ni vTUjd Allah i tu bu:::Can 1mjd y~g muqayyad).

Maka adalah 1>1ujd Allah [ tiada] ketahuan kayfiyyatNya dan kammiyyatNya, dan tiada dapat dib~athkan dan ditaf~u~kan 2 80 daripada

f& is arc'-]aic form meaning lagi.


The text reading tafahuskan is incorrect.



haqiqatNya dan kunhi dhatNya.

Seperti firman Al1.h Ta'ala:

'1:la yuhadhdhirukumu ' nafsahu.'

'Diuertakut Alliih akan kamu daripada sampai
ma'rifat kamu kepada kunhi dhatNya.'


Dan sabda Nabi s.a.w.:

"Kullukum fi dhati '1-Lahi tmmqiyyna."
"Ada1ah seka1ian kamu pada ma'rifat
dhat Allah ahmao."



Dan kata nabi Allh Dawd a.s.:

"Subhana man ja'ala i'tirafa'l-'abd bi'1-'ajzi
'an shukrihi shukran kama ja'ala i'tirafahu bi'l'ajzi 'an ma'rifatihi ma'rifatan."
"Mahasuchi Tuhan yang menjadikan iqr2r 'abd
dengan me1emahkan dirinya daripada membawa
shukur akan dia dengan sempurna shukur,
seperti dijadikan iqrar 'abd dengan me1emahkan
dirinya daripada sampai ma'rifatnya pada kunhi
dhat Allah dengan sempurna ma 'rifatnya."







"SubtJ.ana man lam yaj'al likhalqihi sabi1an2 81

i1a ma'rifatihi illa bi'l-'ajzi 'an ma'rifatihi."
y a 'ni:

"Mahasuchi Tuhan ynng tiada menjadikan bagi

makhlqNya jalan kepada ma'rifat dhatNya
me1ainkan daripada melemahkan diri daripada
ma'rifat akan Dia. 11

Maka nyatalah tiada


ma'rifat 'abd dan




Ta'ala melainkan dengan sekira-kira anugerah Tuhannya [18] akan


Seperti kata Shaykh Shibli (qaddasa'l-Lhu sirrahu!) akan

seorang 1ak1-lak1:

The text reading sabilun is incorrect.



"Tadri [lima] lal'!l yasih282 tawhidaka faqala la

qala liannaka ta~lubuhu bika fa ll:t,.r tatlubuhu
bihi la283 wajadtuhu."
y a 'ni:

"Tahukah engkau kerana apa [tiada] ~a:tt tawhidmu?

Haka sahut laki-laki i tu: 1 Ti ad a ham. ba ta...'l!u. ' Haka
kata Shaykh Shibli: 'Dari kerana bahwa sanya engkau
menuntut tawhid itu dengan dikau (ya'ni dengan daya
upayamu jua), maka jikalau kau tuntutnya akan tawhid
itu dengan anugerah ?aqq Ta'ala nischaya kau
peroleh akan dia."

Inilah rahasia sabda Nabi s.a.w.:

"La ya'rifu'l-Lha illa'l-Lahu la
yadhkuru'l-Lha illa'l-Lhu la yara'lLha illa'l-Lahu."

Tiada [ada yang dapat] mengenal Allai! melainkan

Allah, dan tiada [ada yang dapat] menyebut Allh
melainkan Allh, dan tiada [ada yang dapat] melihat
Allh melainkan Allh. (Ya'ni tiada dikenal 'abd
akan ~aqq Ta'ala melainkan dengan semata-mata
anngerahaNya al::an dia, dan tiad.a dapat disebut 'abd
akan ~aqq Ta'ala melainkan dengan semata-mata
anugerahaNya, a...~an dia, dan tiada dapat dilihat 'abd
akan ?aqq Ta'ala melainkan dengan semata-mata
anugerahaNya akan dia)."

Haka adalah i 'tiaad segala 1:/ujudi yyah yang



ma'na kalimat la ilha illa'l-Lh 'tiada mawjd hanya Allah.'


'La wujda li shay'in :ttaqlqatan illa'l-Lahu.'


'Tiada wujd bagi sesuatu shay' Eada haqiqatnya

melainkan tertentu bagi ~aqq Ta'ala. ,


'Ma fi '1-wujdi illa hm.ra nafiyyu '1-mashriki 'an

vrujdihi [19] \ra ithbatu wahdatihi fi wujdihi
bila ghayrihi. '


'Tiada ada wujd pada :ttaqiqat melainkan [wujd]

Haqq Ta'ala jua; iaitu menafikan sekutu daripada
wujd Allah da.~ mengithbatkan keesaan Haqq Ta'ala
pada wujdNya jua dengan tiada ada wujd haqiqi
bagi yang lainnya.'


Text reading li is corrupt.

Text reading tasih is incorrect.


Maka ba?-1wa sanya wujd segala makhlq


lagi wujd majazi jua.

Dan asli
dan haqiqi
itu iaitu wujd H.aq_q Ta 'ala jua. Sekali-kali

tiada wujd ~aqiqi pada wujd yang majazi. Hanya sanya adalah ia
hapus dan lenyap lagi 'adam apabila dibandingkan dengan yang

Seperti kata Shaykh Junayd (qaddasa'l-Liihu


"Al-muhdathu idha qrina bi'l-qadimi lam

yatabaqqa284 lahu atharun."
"Wujd yang mu~dath itu apabila dibandingkan
dengan wujd yang qadim nischaya tiadalah tinggal
baginya bekas (ertinya hapuslah dan fana'lah ia)."


Maka adalah segala


akan segala


Allah yang

rnawjd yang



itu menghapuskan dalam mushahadahnya

rnakhlq pada banding mushhadahnya akan wujd

lagi muflaq.
hanya Allah.'

Serta kata mereka itu 'tiada ada

Naka nyatalah ma siwa Allah itu

'adamu 'l-1pa~9 - sekali-kali ti ad a ber\.rujd


ker ana i ttifaqlah

segala perkataan 'Arif dan Hu~aqq_iq pada isharat dan 'ibarat, pada
dhawq dan wi j dan.

Dan -

"Ma siwa'l-Lhi 'adamu'l-mahd mj_n haythu

~tihi ~a_la ~~afu bi wujdin ma ~a'l

lahi ta' a la." L20]



Bahwa sanya adalah ma siwa Allah i tu

'adam ma9~ daripad a fih a q dhatNya, dan

tiada dapat diperikan akan 'adam mahd

itu ada ia mawjd [ber] serta [dengru1] Allah."
Kata Shaykh Ibn 'At'i'l-Lh (qaddasa'l-Lhu sirrahu!)

Fa ma siwa'l-lahi t a ' al a 'inda ahli 'l-tawhidi

wa 'l-ma 'rifati la ~~ af u bi wujdi wa la
faqada a'zalan wujuda ma'ahu ghayruhu li thubti
a~adiyyatihi wa la faqda li ghayrihi li annahu la
yafqidu285 illa ma wujida . Il

The text reading xabtagr is incorrect.


The text reading yufagqidu is incorrect.


"Ha siwa Allah itu pada Ahlu'l-Tawhid dan Ahlu'lEa'rifah tiada dapat diperikan dengan wujd, dan
tiada dapat diperikan dengan ~adam mu~laq, dari kerana
sekali-kali tiada sesuatu wujud shay' serta ~aqq
Ta'ala lain daripada dhatNya;kerana thabitla~ keesaan
wujd Alla~l pada dhatNya jua. Dan tiada ma siwa Allah
itu 'adam mutlaq dari kerana. bahwa sanya tiada jua
dijadikan ~aqq Ta'ala akan sesuatu shay' melainkan
barang yang dijadikanNya."


Seperti firman Allh Ta'ala yang Nahatinggi:

'Kullu shay'in halikun illa wajhah.'
'Tiap-tiap sl1ay' itu binasa melainkan dhat Allah.'

ya 'ni:

Seperti sabda Nabi s.a.w.:

"Ala kullu shai'in ma khala'l-lha286 bat;ilu
wa kullu na'imin la mahalata

y a 'ni:

"Tiadakah kuketahui tiap-tiap segala sesuatu

baran g yang lain daripada Allah itu sia-sia
jua adanya."


"Tiada dibagiNya wujd ~aqiqi, dan tic.p-tiap

ni'mat itu tidak dapat tiada hilang jua."

Sanya shahdan.


[21] Amat beza antara -uerkataan Ahlu'l-Sfi

Ta'ala dengan 'alam itu esa, dan antara perkataan

\vujdiyyah yang



maq~d Ahlu'l-~fi


Ta'ala jua


bahwa :tiaqq Ta 'ala dengan 'alam itu esa.

daripada perkataan itu iaitu bahwa sanya

mawjd lagi tertentu wujdNya pada dhatNya

jua, sekali-kali tiada wujdNya pada 'alam; seperti kata mereka itu:
"Al-vmjdu hw..ra '1-Lhu."
y a 'ni:


1tlujd i tu iai tu Allah ."

Dan seperti kata Shaykh

Mu~yi'l-Din ibnu'l-'P~abi



The text reading

is corrupt.


The text reading zanidu is incorrect.



sirrahu!) dalan ki tab Fussu '1-Hikarn:


\\Ta '1-wujdu '1-haqqu innama hmra '1-lhu '1l}aqqu kha~~atan.min :tlaythu dhatuhu 'ainuhu dhatuhu."


"Yang '\>!Uj d i tu iai tu Haqq Ta' a1a. Hanya sanya

Ialah Allah sebenarnyalagi tertentu Ia daripada
fihaq dhatNya: itulah wujdNya."

Dan lagi pula katanya:

"Wa inna'l-'alama laysa illa tajalliyahu."
"Dan bahwa sanya 'alam itu tiada ada ia melainkan
tajalli ?aqq Ta'ala (ya'n! ma~harNya)."
Dan lagi pula katanya:
"Fa' 1- 'alamu mutmrahhamun ma lahu wu jdun l}aqiqiyyun."
"Haka 'al am i tu iai tu yang dhrahmikan jua, tiada
ada baginya wujd l}aqiqi."
Maka berhimpunlah 2 88 sekalian Ahlu'l-$fi dan segala Mutakallimin
"Al-'lamu bi jami'i ajza'ihi a'radun wa'lma'rdu


"Yang 'alam dengan segala suku-sukunya [itu]

beberapa 'arac;., dan ma'rc} itu iaitu tfaqq Ta'ala."

Maka murad daripada


itu pada


mereka itu [22]:

"Al-'ara~u la yabqa zamanayni.n(14)

y a 'ni:

"Yang 'arai itu tiada ia kekal pada dua masa."

Dan murad daripada ma'ri itu iaitu wujd Allah yang azali lagi
(14) Ya'ni adalah 'arag itu berubah-ubah lagi berganti-ganti dan

Maka datang yang ganti sebagainya pada tiap-tiap nafas

dan ketika.


?ashiyah minhu.

The text reading berhimpunkan is incorrect.



Ia1ah yang qaim sendiriNya dan Ialah yang mengqiyfunkan 28 9

bagi lainnya.



dinamai akan 'al am i tu deng an nama

vmjd; hanya sanya adalah dinamai akan dia dengan nama ~alalat 2 9
dan la shay', batil dan khayali dan sarabi dan



Haka apabila adalah tlal 'lam i tu demikian - y a 'ni tiadalah

kebilangan keadaannya i tu jike.lau kelihatan pada penglihe.t mata
sekalipun- maka tiadalah menduai wujd
kata mereka itu bahwa




Sebab inilah

Ta'ala dengan 'alam itu esa.


maq~d mereka i tu bah\va 'alan/ 1 5) dengan ?aqq Ta' ala sewujd dan

Kerana itulah kata mereka itu bah11a tiaqq Ta'ala dengan

'alam berlainan pun tiada dan bersuatu pun tiada, kerana berlainannya dan ber sua tunya i tu menghendaki du a
adalah ia milik bagi



";1~ jd.

Hanya sanya

Su'al (jika ditanyai seseorang):

"Bahwa matahari yang dilangi t dengan matahari yang kelihatan

didalam chermin esakah atau dua?"

Jawab: "Bahwa matahari yang dilan-

git dengan matahari yang didalam chermin esa jua."

Su'a1 (jika

ditanyai seseorang): "Bukankah ketahuan daripada perkataan ini

bah\.ra matahari yang dilangi t dengan matahari yang didalam chermin
itu sewujd?rr



Jawab: "Bahwa [23] sekali-kali tiada sewujud matahari

sebab dinamai akan 'a1am itu la shay' kerana ia tiada

shay' tlaqioi pada tiap-tiap nafsu'l-amr dirinya, tetapi adalah shay'

pada fihaq dijadikan Allah akan dia.


289 The text reading pegiymkan is incorrect.


The text reading


is corrupt.



yang dilangit dengan matahari yang didalam chermin.

Maka yang

demikian itu tiada ter[sem]bunyi pada segala Budiman yang tajam

'aqlnya, kerana matahari yang didalam chermin itu tiada kebilangan
adanya, dan hanya yang kebilangan itu matahari yang dilangit jua.
Haka jikalau ada 1-rujd matahari yang dilangit itu pada matahari
yang didalam chermin nischaya berhubunglah dan sewujdlah keduanya.
Naka yang demikian itu sekali-kali tiada diterima 'aql.

Dan jikalau

ada se sua tu suku daripada 1rojd matahari yang dilangi t, a tau

chahayanya ada pada matahari yang kelihatan didalam chermin nischaya
hangat dan tertunulah cl:ermin i tu.

Dan lagi pula jikalau ada

wu jd matahari y ani?; dilangi t i tu pada matahari yang kelihatau

didalam chermin i tu be tapa luas pada 'aql, 1-:: erana matahari yang
dilangit itu kira-kira tiga puluh kian dunia ini besarnya, dan
chermin itu qadar sejari jua besarnya.

Maka betapa dapat chermin

yang luas sejari meluluskan matahari dilangit yang besarnya tiga

puluh kian dunia

. . ' Naka nyatalah bah1va matahari yang kelihatan


didalam chermin itu bayang-bayang dan tempat kenyataan dan bekas

matahari yang dilangit jua."
Adapun maksud Wujdiyyah yang


mengatakan ?aqq Ta'ala

dengan 'lam es a jua, iai tu dikehendakinya 1.ntjd Allah dan 'ala.m


Naka Allh itu 'alam dan 'alan itu Allh- na'dhu bi'l-

Lh [24] daripada beri'tiqad yang demikian itu!


Adalah mushhada.h segala 'Arif yang kamil mukammal

akan H.aqq Ta 'ala dengan 'alam i tu seperti kata Shibu Hifthi '1

Ghayb (qaddasa'l-Lhu sirrahu!):


\.J'a amma '1-kummalu ,.,a '1-mumakkanna la yanfna 'l' alama 'ala nahvri ma yanfihi ahlu '1- shuhudi '1- (16)
haliyyi wa la yuthbitnahu291 'ala n~wi ithbati
~li'l-hijabi ma'a i'tirafihim bi'l-haqqi wa'l'alami \.;a tamyizihim bayna '1-l)aqqi wa ma siwhu."

"Adalah se gala yang kamil yang Ahlu'l-Tamkin

tiada dina.fikan 'ala'TI seperti yang dinafikan
Ahlu'l-Shuhd al-Hali, dan tiada diithbatkan
mereka itu akan 'lam seperti yang diithbatkan
Ahlu'l-Hijab; serta diqabul~an mereka itu akan
Haqq Ta'ala da~ 'alam, dan dibezakan mereka itu
antara ~aqq Ta'ala dengan 'alam.

y a 'ni


Ketahui olehmu, hai Talib!, bahvm perkataan

shat~iyyat(l7) yang terlanchar lisannya setengah 'Arif, pad~al

ghalabah mabolmya, seperti katanya: "Ana'l-Lahu!" dan "Ana 'l~aqqu!"


dan barang sebagainya yang ketahuan daripada perkataan itu



yang demikian itu

den~ an

makhlq suatu


~aqi q at

dan sew;. jd.

sekali-kali tiada



dan tiada

------------------------------------------------------------------(16) Itu tinggal dalamnya: iaitulah rnem[ b]eri manfa'at dan


yang pada

istila~ Ahlu'l-~fi

itu iaitu barang yang keluar

daripada lisannya setengah Ahlu'l-Lh itu t a takala ghalabah


mereka itu.

Maka yang demikian itu tiada mufakat dengan hukum

shara' dan l)aqiqat. Hanya semata-mata dengan dia perangai bashar-

iyyah jua, tiada dengan ikhtiyar mereka itu pamnerkataan





'Afa'l-Lhu 'anhu.

(17) Adapun murad daripada shatl;iyyat itu pada lu ghat, buang ;

seperti dibuang periuk yang mendidih


biuhnya yang tiada berman-

fa'at dan tinggalkan barang yang beri manfa'at.

se gala Ahlu '1-Lah i tu upama periuk


yan E~

mendidih dan


i tu

ia i tulah yang terang lagi tiada beri manfa 'at segala


Demikian lagi qalb

The text reading yushbitnahu is corrupt.

-174disengaja 292 mereka itu akan perkataan sha~~iyyat itu.

Hanya sanya

berlalm a tas li san merel';:a i tu dengan tiada ingat a.kan dirinya serta
[25] terlanchar lisan yang lawas 293 tatakala maboknya, dan yang
mengigau tatakala tidur dan idruni dengan sesuatu pekerjaan, dan
yang ter'adat akan sesuatu perkataan(lB) seperti orang yang latah.
Maka terlanchar lisannya dengan tiada ikhtiyarnya.


Ahlu'l-Lh paa


Demikian lagi

kerana adalah ghalib

pada penglihat mereka itu, fana' [akan] dirinya dan ruran segala ma
siwa'l-Lah, serta mathql dan karam ia pada tiap-tiap ketika pada
siang dan malam dalam mushhadahkan



Lalu berlaku

atas lisannya segala mereka itu daripada segala asma' Allah hingga
ter'adatlah paa lisannya: "Huvia'l-Lhu! - Huvra'l-Lahu! 11 atau



- Huwa'l-:tiaqqu!"

Haka tertukarlah 'Hmra' itu dengan

Maka yang demikian itu diperlakukan :traqq Ta'ala atas

lisn mereka itu, dan dengan tiada ikhtiyarnya.


Ma:{a adalah pada

.Ahlu '1-~fi dinamai akan yang mengata[kan]

s ha~~iyyat

.. .


(18) Adapun murad daripada mabok itu pada istilh Ahlu'l-Sfi

iaitu tiada ingat 'abd akan dirinya dan



ma siwa'l-Lh sebab

waridnya tajalli :traqq Ta'ala padanya.

'Afa'l-Lahu 'anhu.


Tne text reads sahaja (archaic form of sengaja).


The text is corrupt.




dan marf'u'l-qalam pada


Ta'ala jua.


dibiarkan merelca i tu akan dia hanya pada perkataan Ana '1-?aqqu'

Tetapi pada ~hir shara'(l9) di~ukumkan

dan barang sebagainya jua.

akan dia( 20) dar. tiada diberikan mereka itu akan dia( 21) pada
segala i'tiqad yang


dikeri~a'i ~aqq

dan zindiq dan segala perbuatan yang


Jikalau pada


[26] fana'nya dan

maboknya sekalipun tiada gugur daripadanya taklif, iaitu amr dan

nahi, kerana adalah


Ta'ala qa'im dengan memerintahkan

'aqlnya dan dipeliharakanNya

(19) Ya'ni: tiada disiksa
kerana ia mengata[kan]



dia daripada segala perbuatan

Ta'ala akan dia pada hari qiyamat,


itu tiada dengan ikhtiyarnya,

lagi kerana kelu.r daripada lisannya sebab ghalabah kekerasan


Ta'a1a atasnya.


Seperti firman Allah Ta'aia:

'Inni ana'l-Lahu!'
daripada puhun t:aytn dibukit 'frisina.

Naka adalah yang mengata-

[kan] shat~iyyat itu mu'min pada ~aqq Ta'ala.

?shiyah minhu.

'Afa'l-Lahu 'anhu.
(20) Ya'ni jikalau tiada dibunuh akan dia.

?ashiyah minhu.

'Afa'l-Lahu 'anhu.
(21) Ya'ni segala i'tiqad yang bersalahan dengan Kitab Allah dan

Raslu'l-Lah dan ijma' segala 'Ulama', atau

barang yang



Ya 'ni



mereka i tu akan dia

dengan murtad dan zindiq, dan jikalau tiada dibunuh akan dia.
'tlshiyah minhu.

'Afa' 1-Lhu 'anhu.


yang ma'~iat.

Serta [di] anugerahi Nya tawfiq akan dia pada

mengerjak an segala farl, pada :tJ,l ghalabah maboknya serta fana'

fi '1-Lah.

Kata Shaykh Hu:tJ,ammad Ibn Falli '1-Lh demikianl ah

ketahuan [ma'nnya ] d&ripada perkataan segala 'Arif bi'l-Lh.

Hai ralib!, sekali-ka li tiada jadi wujd ~aqq Ta'ala itu
wujd ma~q dan wujd makhlq itu sekali-ka li tiada jadi wujd

Ta'ala jikalau fana' fi'l-Lh dan baqa' bi'l-Lh sekalipun .

Seperti kata Shaykh 'Ali ibn A:tJ,mad al-Haha'im i (qaddasa'l -Lhu

sirrahu:) didalam kitabnya Ira'atu'l-D aoa'iq shar~ Nir'atu'l ~ag 'ig:

Biannahu in bala:::ha ma balagha la takhruju

min :tJ,addi'l-: tJ,aqa'iqi'l -kawniYla ti wa la yablughu
ratbatan ilahiyyata n wa 'in ~ara fniyan fi '1Lahi aw baqiyan bihi khilafi ma tavrahhama ba 'du 'lsufaha'i.11


ya 'ni:

"Bah\;a sanya jikalau wasil 'abd dengan kesudahsudahan w~il kepada "tfaqq Ta'la sekalipun maka
sekali-ka li tiada ia keluar daripada had makhlq,
dan tiada jadi diperwujd nya a:,~ an 1..mjd Allah
jikalau jadi ia fana' fi'l-Lh [atauJ baaa' bi'lLh sekalipun - bersalahan dengan yang di
i'tiqadkan setenga h jahil yang zindiq."


Barang siapa [27] mengata[k an] perkataan


atau dii'tiqadk annya pada ~ahir 'ibarat perkataan itu dengan tiada

hapus294 [dalan] ghalabah maboknya<22 ) seperti ~al segala AQlu'lLah itu, maka jadilah ia multlid dan zin.Iq; l kafir pada Allah
(22) Ya'ni ingat akan dirinya dengan ikhtiyarny a.

The text reading khf or


conveys no meaning.




shara', dan


akan dia didalam dunya dengan

bunuh dan didalam khirat senantiasa kekal dalam neraka se1amalamanya.

Rabbana la tuzigh qu1bana ba'da idh hadaytan
wa hab lana min ladunka rahrnatan
innaka anta '1-wahhab



Hai Tuhan kami!, jangan kiranya Kau palingkan hati

kami kemudian daripada sudah Kau tunjuk pada ka~i
jalan yang benar, dan anugerah kiranya akan kami
daripada a~ratMu ra~at. Bahwa sanya Engkau
jua yang amat menganugerah.



'al sayyidin


Tasliman kathira.Yl kathiran.

wa alihi wa





ar~ama '1-


Tamma t pada

~ijratu'l-Nabiyyi ~alla'l-Lhu

'alayhi wa sa11am

seribu seratus dualapan pu1uh enam tahun kepada tahun waw, kepada
dua belas hari bulan Sha'bn, kepada hari Atlad pada waktu ba'da

Ha l\:tibuhu akhi 'Abdu '1-'Aziz.


English translation of the text


The Proofs of the Truthful in RefUting the Zindiqs

Al-Shaykh Nru'l-Din al-Raniri

Haxwell Text no. 93

[Royal Asiatic Society, London]




In the name of God the Nerciful the Beneficent.


li Ilhin huwa bi'l-~amdi ~agigun fi ba~ri nawalihi

kanati'l-daratu gharioatan.

Every praise be to God - to 'Whom all

praise is due!

All souls are submerged in the ocean of His


an'ama 'alayha bijdihi'l-tawfiga ula'ika mina'l-




And through His generosity He has

bestowed upon them His succour.

Prophets and the Truthful.
!!P.gigi wa

They are t:1ose fran amongst the



~aggihim ~agga'l-'l-~agga mina'l-b~~ili bi'l-ta~digi.

God has

established their veracity by true confirmation, and they had, by

the affirmation of their faith, separated truth from falsehood.
~~aagag ~aaa'igahum

bi'l-tadaiqi fa


'ulmahum wa

They investigated the abjects of their sublime

research scrupulously as even thus did they record their knowledge

and make clear the way of reli gion.

Fa man hasala
lahu li

tawfiqi'l-raqigu tabi'ahum wa illa la~ara'l-mul~ida wa'l-zindiqa.

And so, w:-losoever has the fine suc cour of God then he would
assuredly follo,., them, but as for him ,,rho fails to follov!

t ~em,

verily he is from amongst the Devia tors and the Zindiqs.

\'la ' 1-


wa'l-salrunu 'ala'l-nabiyyi'l-shafiai wa 'ala lihi wa

~~bihi ~in


And prayers and peace be upon the

compa ssionate Prophet, and upon his Follo'l..rers and his Companions [2]
who are people of certainty [in their belief].


Wa ba'du.295

Fayaglu sagi'l-rasli al-shaykhu Nru'l-dini

ibni 'Aliyyin ibni :ttasanji ibni Mul}arnnadin ~arnidin al-Raniriyyu

al-shafi 'iyyu.

Thus nmr speaks the cup-bearer \-rho passes around

the eup of the Messenger of Allah (on whom be peace!) Shaykh

Nru'l-Din ibn 'Ali ibn :trasanji ibn Nul}amma.d :tramid by, of
the land of nnir and of the school of Shafi'I.

Falamm takhalafa

ba'~u'l-muta'a~~ibina wa'l-mu'anidina mina'l-sufaha'i fi ba9thi'l-

wujdi wa nisbati'l-'alami bi'l-aggi ta'ala.

When sorne of those

from among the ignorant and wicked who set up false beliefs, who
are prejudiced tovrards religion [i .~. Islam], (l) and tho se vrho
are obstinate, ( 2 ) disputed concerning the question of [God's]
Being; identifying God with the Universe or World - fa altamasa
minni ba '<}.u '1-ajalli min


- sorne of


friands w>.o are

arnong the ma.ny of the high ranking personages in the land [of
Acheh?] requested me [to \vrite a treatise in cle.rifying for them
the issue involved].


wa thabbathu fi dini'l-

islami bi barakati sayyidina Mul}ammadin 'alayhi


al-~alati vra '1-

May Allah preserve them, and through the blessings of

our lord Nu:Q.ammad (on whom be peace!) may they be guided to, and
confirmed in, the religion of Islam!

Those \Tho set up false beliefs (Ahlu '1-Ta' sib).


Those who prevented the correction of fal se beliefs

29 5 I ~ l'Tovr then! This is the custoiJary phrase '-rhich indi ca tes
that the writer has finished his formal introduction and is ready
to confront his subj ect more di rectly.


Fa 'a11aftu wa tarjamtu hadhihi '1-risaJ.ata bi '1-.iavliYXati



wa ghayrihim.

I now translate and set

into Ja\ri this treatise, the contents of which I have culled from
all the books of the


li daf'i'l-zindiqi.

and of others.

Wa sammaytuha


This treatise I entitle: ?ujjatu'l-

$iddia li daf'i'1-Zindiq - which means The Proofs [3] of the

Truthful in Refuting the Zindigs.

Herein I shall mention and make

coLiparisons betvreen the beliefs of the four groups, namely: the

Hutakallinin and the


the Philosophers and t hose who uphold

the doctrine of a heretical Wujdiyyah, in order to expose their

respective views on the relationship berween God and the Universe
or World; whether He is identical with it or whether this is not
so, as vlill be explained :in the following pages.
Let me begin by elucidating the meaning of [the term] being.
Being is essence (dhat), or the


determinant of a

thing.<3) This essence< 4 ) is at times perceptible to the eyes in



of the external Wor1d or Universe, and at times not

perceptible to the eyes, although it is established by the

intellect(5) ('agl) and by religion (shara'), or through mystical

That is, quiddity.


The 'presence' of the creature is through constant remembrance

of God as the mysteries of God are experienced by him.



t 11e Our 'an, the tJ,adith of the Jvressenger of God, and the

ijma ' of the 'Ulama'.


revelation or insight( 6 ) (kashf), ru~d direct experience (dhawg).

This [essence] is the Being of God.
According to the Nutakallimin, there are two categories of
being: firstly, the Being of God, and secondly, the being of the
Universe or vlorld.

God 1 s Being is Necessar? Being and is self-

existent, Bnd the being of the World is Contingent Being; that is,
it is created and externalized by God from not-being ('adan).
Furthermore it is dependent for its existence upon God.

Thus the

two beings are in reality not identical; this is so because the

Being of God endures fran and to all eternity and is the principle
of creation, \rhereas the being of the Universe is ever new and is

?rom their


the Mutakallimin] definition it is clear

that being is t-vro: the one, Real Being, and the other, Metaphorical

Metaphorical Eeing belongs to Real Being. If [MetaphoricaJ.

Being and Real Being] bot.h are identical, then they are one.
Whosoever holds and believes that the Nost Exalted Truth [4] and the
Universe are one and the same then he is an unbeliever, for - as


say - their words betray that they believe the Being of

God and the being of the Universe to be one reality and one being.


That which the creature aclrleves through God 1 s manifestations;

that is, to contemplate God through His grace.

The creature

attains to several mysteries, these being the benefits of [His]

manifestation, and mystical insight or revelation.


We are in complete a greement with the Hutakallimin concerning

their belief in tl1is matter.

According to our definition, being is

one; and that is the Essence of God Most Exalted.

The Universe is

non-existent and is not qualified to be considered as a category

of being as it is Absolute Nothingness or Pure Not-Being ('adamu'lma.tJ,l).

Thus vrhen the Uni verse is 'adamu '1-ma~<}, and the Being of

God is Absolute Being (wujudu'l-m~~),C7)

of 'adamu '1-mahd and -vru.jdu


whence this identity

In truth the Universe is

Appearance; depending for its existence upon the Being of God.

It is the theatre of manifestation of the One Real Being - the
image reflected in the allegorical mirror: God is likened to the
looker into the glass, the world is like the form reflected therein.
Thus God's Being and ti1e Universe are neither the nor different, for its identity or non-identity would require two entities
existing per ~ (8)

So vrhen it is only the Being of God that is

existent, and the Universe is non-existent, there is then no

possibility for comparison.
and the Universe is one.

That is why we say the Being of God

Even thou gh to outward perception the

Universe exists, existence cannot be attributed to it - for in

itself it does not possess real being.

As people say [5] the king



absolutely real being.



[one,] the looker into the glass and [two,] the world



and his armies are one and the same.

Although his armies are

numerous in number, yet they do not count, for the king 's existence
alone is real.

Furthermore it is likened to an image in the mirror

and the possessor of that image; to external perception they are

two, but in point of fact it cannet be said of them that they are
tvro, for the image in the mirror cannet be considered as existent.
Question (if people should ask): "Are the imap;e in the mirror and
the possessor of that image two beings or one and the same?"
Answer: "The image in the mirror and the possessor of that image
are one and the same, for ti1e image is not considered as existent.
In point of fact the image is merely a manifestatio n of its

That is why people s ay that the image in the mirror

and the possessor of that image are one and the same - neither two
nor any other."
What the Nutakallimin mean when they say this is in reality
the same as what the Sfis mean. There are no differences of

opinion between t he two groups [on this point]. Shahdan. 2 96 The

contention of t~1e Nutakallimin is ba sed upon reas on and Tradition, (9)
for they perceive externally that the World exists and is subject


the Qur 'an, the

J}adit ~1

of the Hessenger of God, the

ijma' of all the 'Ulama'.

296 The use of shahdan before sentences is very common in classical
Malay literature. It is most probably an abbreviation of shahida
~ He testifies that Qt. also Wilkinson, p. 434.


to change, and t hey perceive internally that God's existence is

eternal and not subject to change.


t ~ey

affirm the [existence

of] two beings: the one Contingent Being (ja'izu'l-wujud), and

the other Necessary Being (wajibu'l-wujud).
Creation and Necessary Bei ng Creator.
the two of them


Contingent Being is

The relationship between

the Contingent and the Necessary] is t hat

of Creation and Creator.

Thus they


the Nutakallimin] say

that the two beines are not identical [6] in nature, so tha t the
generality of people '\10Uld not sli p into the error of beli eving
that t i1ey are one and the same, as those who hold the doctrine
of a heretical \.Jujdiyyah and t ;1.e Zindiqs believe.
The Sfis
too bas e t he ir view upon the r a tiona l f aculti es

and Tradition, but they add to this also mystical revela tion or
insight (kashf), and direct experience (dhat.vq).

They see with the

eyes of t he internal perception and experi ence t he existence of

only One Real Being - and that is Allah - Who is imperceptible to
the eyes i n this world, for that \Thich is perceptible [to the eyes]
does not possess r eal being a s Allh does.

God's Being is Real

Being and Abs olute , and t he be i ng o:f t he Uni verse is me taphor ical
and [a thing] determined ; it is the shadow of God's Bein g.


t his shadow existence cannot be pr edicated, n or can absoluteness

be at tributed to t his nothingne ss , f or i f it exis ts t hen it -v;ould
mean ths.t t he Uni verse is identical wi th God, and i f i ts nothi n g1ess
were absol ut e t hen it vrould mean that t he Univer s e is nothi n g



Yet the Universe is perceptible; so it is clear that

the Universe is a manifestatio n of the Being of the Truth Most


The re1ationship between God and the Universe then is

neither that of identity nor that of non-identity , for the

Universe is a manifestatio n of,


be1ongs to God.

It is c1ear that according to the definition of the ~fis

existence and real essence are [7], in point of meaning, one
and the same; and t :1at is the Essence of the Truth.

The meaning

of the Sfis definition of the real essence [of a thing] is

t !lat:

Essence is \..rhat makes a thing l,rhat i t is 1

that is - 'the

thing from which a thing becomes'; and this 'thing' [or essence]
is rea1ity.

As for examp1e, the rea1ity [or essence] of the pot

is the \rhee1, and the rea1i ty [or essence] of the boat is its
maker. According to the definition of the Logicians: 2 97 'Essence
is who.t makes a thing what it is as rationality is to man 1

297 The Logicians may be distinguished from the Hutakallimin

(Loquentes or Dialectician s or Theo1ogians) in that their method
of inquiry was through 1ogic (~~~). In this they were more
akin to the Phi1osophers , a1though they differed with the Natural
Phi1osophers in that they sought to comprehend things from
principles. They were interested in the Idea or Essence of things.
To them God is first of a11 the Necessari1y Existing Being as
against the ~Vise Creator of the Natura1 Phi1osophers . The
Nutakal1imin , hovrever, emp1oyed dia1ectics (ka1m) in their method
of enquiry (Q!. De Boer, T.J., The history of phi1osonhz in Islam,
transl ated into English by E.R. Jones, London, 1961, pp. 42-43i
106-128. Hereafter cited as De Boer. Cf. also EI article Ka1am).
Raniri here confuses the definitions ofthe l'1utakal1imin and the
Logicians. That the real essence of man is his rationality is
a1so the vie\..r of the Nutaka11imin (ft. Taftazni, p. 11). To the
Logicians the existence of a thing is the thing itself (Cf.
De Boer, p. 113).


that is- 'the essence of man is his rationality'.

that the meaning of

t ~'"l..e

It is evident

Logicians' definition [of the term essence]

is quiddity.
The differences between the endeavours of the Hutakallimin
and the Sfis
in the ir affirmation of God 's Being and that of the

Universe are differences in expression not in meaning; as people

say 'fifteen 1 and

tvrenty minus five 1

The meaning is identical

although the expression is not.

W..1.en you have comprehended the beliefs of the Eutakallimin
and the



I shall no~-r proceed to expose the beliefs of the

According to the Philosophers, 298 the Being of God

and the Universe are both co-existent from and to all eternity,
for [8] it


the Universe together with all its parts] is an

emanation from God.

It emanates of its own accord, without any

act [of willing] on God's part - like the emanation(lO) of heat


light] from the sun coming from its essence; as long as the

sun exists so will the heat



Hence in like manner,

as long as t :e Essence of God exists, so will the Universe- never

separate nor existing per


apart, as it were, from the Divine

t J:1e world emanates from the Essence [of God] by i ts

own free will, without bei ng willed into existence by God.


The contentions of the Philosophers intheir doctrine of the

eternity of t be World is exposed by Ghazzali in the Tahafut,
chapters I-III. Cf. also corresponding chapters in Tahatut alTahafut.


Essence from and to all eternity in absolute communi:m.


they say that God has no power whatsoever over all [that which
ernanates from Him], and that He has no power to create anything
other than and apart from'Cthat] w:1.ich emanates from Him.
no power to change the Universe that already is.

He has

Furthermore they

say tha t the seven layers of heaven and the seven layers of earth
are not created

nihilo and that they too exist from and to all

They also say that to ask for God's help is to esteem

oneself [i.~. soul] for indeed the creature is always under F~s
mercy. 2 99 The fruits of worship are nothing but assimilation to
God i nsofar as t his is possible.3 0 They further say that God Most
Exalted is the Lover and the Beloved vdth respect to Himse1f.30l

Ibn Sina summarises tlus idea in a quatrain ascribed to him:

'Tis we who on God's Grace do most rely,
Who put our vices and our virtues by,
For where Tny Grace exists, the undone done
Is reckoned, and the done undone thereby.

Raniri wou1d agree vdth Ab Sa'id ibn Abi'1-Khayr's reply:

0 steeped in sin and void of good, dost try
To save thyself, and thy misdeeds deny?
Can sins be cancelled, or neglect made good?
Vainly on Grace Divine dost thou rely!
Brmme, E.G., A literary history of Persia, Cambridge, 1956, 4 vols.,
vol. 2, p. 267.

Q[. Tru1fut, pp. 16 8-171; a1so Tahafut


Cf. Tahafut al-Tahafut, p. 184.


pp. 293-300.


Such utterances as they have let out and tl1.eir entire belief are
utter ignorance and dmrnright rejedion of the truth - may Gad
preserve us from them!
When you have comprehended t l1e views and beliefs of the
Philosophers, I shall nov! proceed wi th the [ exposition of the]
views and beliefs of the Wujdiyyah [9].
two groups: the one the true
the false



The Wujdiyyah are of

Wujdiyyah, and the ether

Wujdiyyah; in the same manner as the

Murji'ah3 2 are divided into two groups: the first group is the
Hurji'ah !!lli!:,{!mah, and the second is the Hurji'ah mal'nah.Cll)


The Eurji'ah marhmah are the Comnanions of the Prophet (on whom

be peace!), and the Nur ji 'ah mal 'nah are fran amongst the seventytwo heretical sects [all of] which are the contents of Hell.
Similarly, the
are all the



vr!1ich is from amongst the



(may Allh count us from ffinong them!), and the

Wujdiyyah of the mul{lid group are all the Zindiqs (may God preserve
us frora them!).

The reason why ti1e Wujdiyyah are known as

wujdiyyah is because in their discussions, sayings and belief they

(11) They are called t ~--'e Nurji 'ah mal 'na:.1. because t l1ey believe

[erroneously] that "t-J'e must postpone judgment on those \Tho commit

grave sins.

Cf. EI article Murdj i 'a; als o Tibyn, p. 84.


are ,,ront to d"t-rell upon the question of God 's Being [or Existence].
Let me now elucidate the beliefs of bath the groups of the
Wujudiyyah so that I may draw a


between them.


to the heretical Wuj-diyyah, being is one; and that is the Being of

God. This Absolute Being of God does not exist by Itself by which
it can be distinguished save in relation to the creatures.33
Hence t:1.e creatures are God 's Being and t:1e Dej_ng of God is the
being of the creatures.

'Ihe World is then God and God is the vlorld.

In this vray they affirm [as inseparable] God's Absolute [10] Be_ng
vlith the being of the creatures, and they say that nothing exists
but Gad.

Furthermore they believe the formula la ilaha illa'l-Lh

to mean: 'There is no being save God's Being.'

They desire its

meaning to be: 'There is no being in me save God's Being which is

my being.'

They further say that: "We are of the same being and

substance as God," and that God 1 s Essence can be known, and His
qualitiesC12) and dimensions(l3) clearly visible by virtue of
His external existence in space and time.

[Indeed] these are the

----------------------------------------------------------- ---(12)


by cualities \ve mean colour, taste, smell, \Y'armth and

coldness, dryness and all such things that are the attributes of
physical bodies.
(13) By dimension is meant lar geness and sr:1allness, shortness and
width, depth and weight, and so on.
303 Q!. ?amzah Fan~ur1, p. 125. The idea that God does not exist
by Himself by wlch He can be distinguished save in rela tion to
the creatures is rejected by Hamzah


sayings and beliefs of


who are clearly unbelievers.


It.uoyi '1-Din i bnu '1- 'Arabi (may God sanctify his secret!) in his
book the Futoatu'l-Hakkin:ah, wherein he deals with the exposition
of the belief of all the adepts in the mystical doctrine,
[positively] rejects and invalidates the school of [the heretical]

He says:

. From these sayings the belief of a group

has strayed from the path of truth for they say:
"Nothing exists save that ,.,-~ich we see." So they
have made out t he Universe to be God, and God the
Universe itself. All such beliefs are erroneous, for
the Being of God is that upon 1vi1ich [all other]
beings depend for their existence. (That is,
God's Being creates their existence). If indeed
their gnosis were perfect they would not have
said such a thing.
[In reality] they are ashamed of the people of Islam and they fear
that they might be proved wron g by the generality of the schools
and by religion.

If they openly declare: "We are God and God is

us" they will not be accepted by them


the people of Islam].

So they hide themselves behind vells that t11eir evil words and
strayed belief may not be seen


heard and known].

And they

couch the i r vrords: "God is indeed ourselves and our beings and we
are His Self a11.d His Being'' in [crafty] disguise.

But such

deception does not escape [the understanding of] the wise, and are
not hidden from tho se vrho are perfect in the ir

understandin ~ .



Their sayines and beliefs are like the say ings and

beliefs of the 'Ali Ilahiyyah34 and t ;1e Isma 'iliyyah305 of the

Rafidi306 who say that God descended and became incarnated in 'Ali

ibn Abi f'alib (may God glorify his countenance!). They are also
like the Jews


say that God 1 s prophet 'Uzayr is the son of God,

as God Host E-'<alted says:

The Je-v1s say

that 'Uzayr is the son of

.And their sayings and belief are like t~1ose of the

G od. r307

Christial1S 1!!1o say that Jesus is the son of Go, as God Most
Ex al ted says:

of God. r308


t ~:e

Christi ans say that the Hessiah is the son

[12] Sorne of t ;:1em [i.~. the Christians believe] that

God is tl.1e Third of Three, a s God say s: 'They have become unbelievers
who say that verily God is the Third of Three. ,309
them say

th: ~ t

the Prophet Jesus is in fact God.

.!\nd so::1e of

Furthermore the

Christians maintain that God descended from the realm of Divinity

(l."lt) into tha t of Humani ty (nst - that is He assumed a
physical form in the realm of bodies), and that having done so He
30t1- Cf. EI article s 'Ali Ilabi (vol. 1 of the 1960 edition),
Ghulat; Ahli-?~, ~iZ:i:-bash.

Cf. EI articles Isma'iliya, Sab'iya.




Qur'an 9:30.


~., 9:30.


Ibid., 5:73.

EI a r ticle nafic}.it e (Rav.rafic}.).


Tibyan, p. 34.

Cf. Tibyan, p. 40.


proceeded to return to the sphere of Divinity.3 10

Such sayings

afld beliefs are a rej ection of the tru th, for God says: 'They
disbelieved vrho say t i1 at God is Jesus son of Mary.3 11 Harken!,
0 ,,.J'ise, to vrhat God has said in the Qur 'n wherein the creation
of man is mentioned in t\-Tenty-ei ght places. Bayan.3 12 The author
of the ZubaQ-.3 1 3 (may God sanctify his secret!) says: 11 And God
has mentioned concerning man in twenty-eight


and He

says that man is created."

Here then is the clear distj_nction drawn between the statement
that God's Be 1ng is t he being of the creatures, and the being of
the creatures is God's Being, and man [13] is God, and the
statement of'

t ~1e

Christians that Jesus is God.

All these

[erroneous statenents] are not concealed from the learned and wise.
Shaykh 'Ali ibn tfamid al-t1aha'imi in his book entit1ed Ira'at u 'lDaqa'iq314 says:
Whosoever belj_eves that the intellect and the
soul (self) or nature in its entirety - the
uni versals - and 'lr.rhat is belmr [the grade of] the se;
such as the stars and all the elements, the animal,
vegetal and mineral kingdoms, are God vrith regard

Cf. Tibyan, p. 37.


Qur'an 5:72.

312 Ba~an: exposition. A \varning to the reader t[lat an exposition

follows immediately. Cf. also Wilkinson, p. 137.
313 Cf. Br?cke1mann, C., Geschichte der Arabisc ~1en Li tteratur,
Leiden, 1898-1942, Supp1ementband II, p. 113. Hereafter cited as

Q[. GAL3 II, p. 310-11.


to their manif'estation, t .: en he is i n error in

t _le same manner as he 1:rho says that 'Zayd 1 s hand
is Zayd' - even though Zayd's hand is t h e
tota1ity of his manifestation. Hhen he is in
abject error i n aff'irming 1..rhat is not God to be
God, then he becomes an unbe1iever and a Zindiq
And even if vre say that what is manif'ested
and externalized in the vlorld is God, or His
attributes, it does not in the 1east me2~ that
God's Being is externa1 existence manifesting
Itself with al1 Its perfection in each of the
individual things
The meaning of the (~fi) saying 'unity
of existence' is that the totality of existence
of all thin~s is one; and that is the manifestation of God in th.e Universe. They did not mean
tnat each one of the entire beings [existences]
forms a totality in the Universe wi1erein God is
manifested together with His Essence, His
Attributes, and His Names.


Further:m.ore he [i.e. al-: :aha'imi] says in his book Imhadu'1Nasihah:31 5


The uni ty of being is that wl1ereby things are

actua1ized; and this is one.
The author of t he Lata'ifu'1-I'1am3 16 (may God sanctif'y his
secret!) says:
The unity of being is t ~at by vrhich the existence
of things are actualized. That vrhich actualizes
[tl1e existence of' t hings] is never va1i d to be
regarded as 'being' except with reference to the
Being of God.

Thus whosoever 1-1ishes to interpret God as the Lniverse and the

Universe as God, and man - so they say - is God , then he has
committed perfidy against God and His Hessenger, and has upheld as
true t :1e beliefs of the Jews and t h e Christi ans .

They be1ieve in


Cf. GALS I I , p. 113.

This vmrl\: , however, is not recorded.



Also men tioned in the Tibyan, p. 95.

GALS II, p. 280.

- - - - - - - --

- -- - - - .. ..... .......


a kind of

stra~ge Isl~1

to dare to give an interpretation to such

evil words and strayed and utterly unbelieving belief - may God
preserve us from them! - \vhich cannot be tolerated by the seven
layers of heaven and earth.

God says:

The heavens are apt to split asunder and the earth

crack and the mountains to fall [16] apart when
they heard the sayings of the and the
Christians that the God \Vho is called Merciful
begat a son.317
1JJhen you have comprehended the sayings and belief of the
heretic al Wujdiyyah I shall no1J proceed to expound the sayings
and beliefs of the true Wujdiyyah wl1ich represent the
(may God count us from amongst their group!).


According to the

true Wujudiyyah God's Being is One; neither numbered nor limited,

neither in wholes nor in halves, neither united nor in parts,
neither personal nor impersonal (private nor general), neither
atom nor body - and such like.

God's Being is immutable,



all those

attributes mentioned [above] cannot be predicated to Him, for to

Him 'i t is novr as i t \va s t hen' - t hat is, Hhen nothing was yet
created He


not t hose things.

Furthermore \rhen He created all

the t ings He was not those t hings and His Being was not identical
with theirs.

Ve rily God's Being rests solely upon His Essence.

He is never the being of t ne creatures and the creatures' being is

never God's Being .

As Shaykh Hui;Lyi'l-Din ibnu'l-'Arabi (may God

317 our'n 19: 90- 91.


sanctify his secret!) says: "The Necessary Being is the Abso1ute

Being" [17] - that is God's Being is not created being (mugayyad).

God's Being, qua1itatively and QUantitative1y, is


His exister;.ce and His very Essence cannet be discussed or


As God says 'wa zuhadhdhirukumu'1-Lahu nafsahur318 -

that is, 'God has struck you with awe from attaining to know1edge
of His very Essence.'

And the Prophet (on whom be peace!) says:

"Verily you are al1 as fools ,,ri th respect to knowledge of His


And the Prophet David (on whom be peace!) sa:/ s: "Glory

be to Him Who has made the admission of man to his incapacity to

thank Him Hi th adequate t hankfulness, just as He has made his
admission of fai1ure to knovr F.J.n \vi th perfect knowledge."

Ab Bakr

(may .Allah accept him!) says: "Glory be to Him Who has made naught
but the only way for His creatures to know Him the inability to
knovr Him. "
It is therefore clear t ;iat for t he creature to stri ve to
attain perfect knowledge of and unity with God is vain except if
and ,,.rhen He vrills.

[18] As Shaykh Shi bli (may God sanctify his

secret!) says \vi th respect to a certain young man: "Knowest thou

why thy striving for unity (tawhid) is [in]valid'?"
replies "I do not know, sire."

Then Shaykh Shibli continues: "'Tis

because thou seeke st His unity through thineself

own endeavour).

The young man


wi th thine

If thou seekest His unity through His grace then

318 Ibid., 3:27 , 29: Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from)
Himse1f. The text simply means that Allh warns you a gainst disobedi ence to Himself, and not - as in Rliniri's ver sion - a gaL". st
attainin r; to knowledge of His very Essence!


thou wouldst assuredly attain to 1t."3l9

Herein lies the secret

of the saying of the Prophet (may God bless hirn and peace be upon
him!): "Hone can knmr God, except God; none can mention God,
except God; none can see God, except God."

That is, none can

know God except solely by His grace, none can mention God except
solely through His grace, and none can see Him except solely by
His grace.
The belief of all those from amongst the group of the true
Wujdiyyah concerning the meaning of the formula la ilaba illa'lLah (there is no God but God) is that: la vru.ida shay 'an


illa'l-Lahu (nothing exists in reality save God), and that is:

ma fi '1 wujdi il1a
wa ithbatu



nafiyyu '1-mashriki 'an \TUjdihi [19]

fi wujdini bila r4ayrihi (there is nothing

in existence except His existence, and this is to negate any

partner with respect to His existence, and to affirm His oneness
and attribute His unity to Himself without attribut ing existence to

The existence of al1 creation is as if it were a shadow-

a metaphorical being - whereas the original and true being is that

of God ?1ost Exalted.

In metaphorical being there is no reality;

Ibnu'l-'Arabi interprets this very saying:

If you regard Him through Him (i.~. if you
regard the Essence from the point of vievT of the
Essence), then He re gards Himse1f through Himself,
which is the state of unity; but if you regard Him
through yourself (i.~. from your point of view as a
form) then the unity vanishes.

Cf. 'Affifi, pp. 10-11.


i t is annihilated and is nothingness v1hen set against true being.

As Shaykh Junayd (may God sanctify his secret!) says: "That
[existence] which is new, when set against eternal existence, is
left without a trace" - rneaning it is annihilated.
All the [unholders of the true vlujdiyyah]



extinct in their contemplation all the existences of creation

when they contemplate the Existence of God which is Real and
Absolute, and they say: "Nothing possesses real existence save God."
It is evident that that vrhich is other than God is absolute nothingness - at no time possessing real being - s i nce all the learned
and the imbued wi th tru th are :in agreement in their statements,
their analogies, their love and insight; further that which is
other than God is


min haythu


wa la



wujdin ma 'ala'l-Lhi ta'ala - [20] (absolute nothingness by

virtue of Ilis Essence, and it cannot be described as existing
together with God).

Shaykh ibn 'A~a'u'l-Lab3 20 (may God sanctify

his secret!) says: "That which is ether than God cannot, to the
People of Unity and the People of Gnosis, be described a s existent
and cannot be described as having absolute being, for it can never
be that the being of a thing is one vli th God 1 s Bei ng .

Apart from

His Essence the Unity of His Being rests upon His Essence. And
that which is ether than God is not a being that is absolute by
virtue of the fact that God does not create a thing except that



GALS II, pp. 1~5-1~6.


whic.h He has caused to be created."

As the sublime Words of God

Most Exalted convey: 1 All things perish except His face.3 21
.4nd the Prophet (may God bless him and may peace be upon him!) says:
"Be~Vare! - everything save God is vain
and every pleasure is transitory.322

[21] How entirely real is the difference bet1.veen

[the meaning of] the words of the


that God and the Universe

is one, and the words of the Wujdiyyah Deviators that God and the
Universe is identical.



mean, when they say this, that

God alone exists, that His existence alone is real and rests upon
His Essence.

They never mean in the least that God's existence

depends upon the Universe as they

that: 'Existence l l God.'


the Deviators] who assert

And as Shaykh Hu:t1Yi'l-Din Ibnu'l-'Arabi

(may God sanctify his secret!) says in the


And the true Being belongs only to God

the Real and particular in point of His Essence.
His Being is His Essence.323
He further says:
And that t he World is nothing but His

Qur'an 28: 88 .

322 This is not \e!l.1at the Prophet said. They are Labid 's famous
lines for which 'Uthman himself sat among the people to hear him
Why, surely everything save God is but vanity,
and every pleasure must inescapably pass away;
and every man shall one day know what he ha s earned
when the account-books are laid open before God.
Cf. Arberry, A.J., The seven odes, London, 1957, p. 126.
~23 ~sr. F~~~~u'l-~~; wa'l-ta'liaat 'alayhi bi qalam Ab'l-'Ala

Afir ~, [ Qah~r~l365/l946, 2v. in 1, p. 104.

quote Ibnu'l-'Arab1 faithfully.

Raniri does not


That t he Wor1d is on1y an imagination [in
the mind of God?]. It has no real existence.
Al1 the Sfis and the Mutaka11imin are in concerted agreement in

assertlng that: "The World together with a11 its parts is nothing
but a series of accidents; and that of which they are accidents
is God."3 24

The meaning of 'accident' in their terminology [22]

is: 'an accident [is a thing that] does not endure two instants
of time.( 1 4)

The meaning of that upon which the accidents depend

is God's Being, Eternal, Beginningless.

He is the self-subsistent

One, and He is the One Who gives subsistence to others.


the Wor1d is not fit to be categorized as 'being' - it is called

darkness, non-being, imagination and mirage; it is nothing but a
When that t he World is such


its existence cannot be

categorized as being even though it is perceptible) it cannot then

be another existent apart from God the Exalted. This is the reason
why they say t hat God and the Universe is one.

They do not intend

it to mean that the World(l5) and God are one being and identical.
(14) The accidents change, corne in succession and dis appear.


1ike them come and replace at e ach bre ath and instant.
(15) The reason why this world is called not-bei n g Cor no-thing]
is because it never becomes a real thing at each breath of its
appear ance, but it is a thing insofar only a s God creates i t.
324 ft. Lawa,i~, pp. 29-30. Raniri's notes (14) and (15)
elucidating the meaning of 'accidents' bear an identity with what
Jmi s ays in Flash 26 (~.~.).


This is why they say that God and the Universe are neither the
same nor different, for their identity and non-identity would
require two entities existing pe~ ~

It [the Universe] belongs

to God. Question (should someone asl{): "Are the sun in the heavens
and the sun that is reflected in the mirror one and the same or

Then answer:


The sun in the heavens lild the sun reflected

in the mirror are one."

Question (should someone ask [further]):

"Is it not true then that from

t ~1is

saying it is clear that the

sun in the heavens and the sun in the mirror are one being?"
Answer: "Indeed [23] the sun in the heavens and the sun in the
mirror are not in the least one being.

Such an assertion cannot

be accepted by the learned who have a sharp mind for the sun in the
mirror is not regarded as having existence.
only the sun in t l1e heavens.


exists is

If the sun in the heavens also

exists in the mirror then assuredly

both of them are one being.



are in communication and

[But] t_lis is absurd for \vere even a

part of the sun's being or its light immanent in the sun in the
mirror then the mirror would become heated and Hould burn away.
Furthermore if the being of the sun in the heavens is immanent in
the being of the sun in the mirror, then to t he mind it



mirror] would be extremely immense; for the sun in heaven is about

thirty times bigger t han thi s world - and the mirror is merely a
finger's length in size.

How then can a mirror of a finger's length


accommodate the sun in heaven whose size is thirty times this


It is clear then that the sun that is seen reflected in


is the image, the manifestation, and the reflection of

the sun in heaven."

The purpose of the deviating Wujdiyyah when they say that
God is identical with the Universe, is to mean that God and the
Universe are one being.

God [to them] is the Universe, and the

Universe is God - may God preserve us [24] from such beliefs!


Verily the contemplation amongst the learned who

are perfect is their knowledge regarding [the relationship between]

God and the Universe is as expounded by the author of the
Nifttlu 'l-Ghayb3 2 5 (may God sanctify his secret!):
Indeed the perfect and those who have
attained maturity [in knowledge ] did not deny
[the existence of] t be World as it was denied
by the Subjectivists.(l6) They neither affirmed
i ts existence as i t \vas affirmed by the People
(16) That which resides in it [ ?]: that is, it gives benefit [?],


which according to the definition of the 9fis are

that which escape from the tangues of sorne of the People of Allah
vrhen they are in the state of intoxication.

Such utterances are

not in accordance wi th religious lavr and re ali ty.

human and the words they utter in their


They remain
are done

325 This is the work of the celebrated Sadru'l-Din al-Qnawr.
Cf. GALS I, pp. 807-808.


of t~e Veil. But they accepted the existence

of both the World and God and they made a
distinction between the two.
Tanbih.3 26
Know, 0 Seeker!, that ecstatic expressions C~t~iyyt)(l7) 3 27
that escape from the tangues of the wise caused by their extrerne
intoxication such as: "I am God!", and "I am the Truth!" and such
like, [would seem to] reveal to us that God, the Creator, and the
created are one being.

But God forbid that they mean this, for

their ecstatic expressions are involuntary.

Such expressions occur

on their tangues when they are unconscious of themselves and [25]

uttered 1-.rhen in the midst of intoxication; like those who talk in
their sleep vrhen they dream of something they desire; and like
(17) The meaning underlying the term
of view of language, to


is, from the point

t >:rmv away 1 as one throws a-vray the useless

froth from a boiling pot, leavine only what is useful.

In the

same manner, the hearts of all the People of God are like the boiling pot, and their
are clear



are the froth of their states; they

audible] but useless.

326 Tanbih: }Iind you!, a warning of lrhat is to be clarified in the

follm'ling paragraph.
327 Compare with ~amzan 's definition of this term and his interpretation of it in ~amzah Fan~ri, pp. 158, 203. Also see ~amz ah 1 s
definition and interpretation of fana': ~., pp. 202, 163-4 , 166-9.
Cf . Ab Na~r al-Sarraj 1 s i nterpretation in his Kitab al-Luma ' fi'l~~aW\JUf, edited by R.A. Nicholson, Leiden , 1914, pp. 99ff., and
pp~ 375ff of the Arabie text. Also al-Gha zzali's Mishkar-al-Anwr,
translated by W.H.T. Gairdner, London, 1924, pp. 19-21 of the text.
Compare also Ghazzali's def inition of fana' with Hamzah 1 s in Hamzah
~~ri, p. 164; and in connect~on with t his als o"p. 202 . Compare
?amzah's interpretation of t a jr~d (denudati on) and t afrid (isolation)
with Junayd's (Cf. Zaehner, R.C. 1 Hindu and Muslim mysticism, London,
1960, pp. 10, 1~, 152; and Sarraj QQ.cit., pp. 241-3 of the text).


tho se 11l1o be come ha bi tu ally hysterical wi th vrords ( l 8 ) [latah]. 328

These are a.ll involuntary actions.

Similarly this is what the

People of Allah experience during their ecstatic utterances; they

become extinct in themselves of all that is other than God an
they are drowned every instant of the day and night in their
contemplation of God. Then it occurred upon their tongues when they
vrere uttering the habitual "He is God!"- "He is God!", or "He is

the Truth!"- "He is t he Truth!", to transform the 'He' into 'I'.

Such an occurrence is caused by God upon their tongues vdthout
t heir endeavour.

The Sfis
call those who utter 'they who

are i n the state of being overpowered'


and 'they

whom God has caused to be exer;lpt from the recordings of the Pen
(marf 'u '1-aala.m).

It is permi tted to t :.1em to utter in su ch a

state only su ch vrords as 'I am t :e Truth1'

Hmrever according to the

(18) The meaning undrlying the term 'intoxication is, according

to the definition of the


extinction of the creature to

himself, and to vrh at is ether than God.

This is brought about by

virtue of his be i ng overpowered by God's visitation, and His

manifestation to hirn.

328: Fbr latah see Wilkinson, p. 587.


Prescribed LawC19) they are to be condemned.C 20)

permi tted to them to [slip into]


It is not

erroneous beliefs of the

Deviators and the Zindiqs,C 2l) orto do deeds God does not favour.
Should their [26] self-extinction and their intoxication be
complete, they would still not be free from the responsibility of
'Do's' and 'Don't's', for God Host Exalted is ever prevailing upon
their intellect in such a manner th2.t He preserves them from
comitting acts contravening the Prescribed Law.

He bestows upon

them His grace so that they may perform their obligatory duties
even though they may be intoxicated or extinct in the contemplation
(19) I.e. He

s ~1all

not be punished by God in the Day of Resurrec-

tion, for he utters his ecstatic expressions involuntarily, and

also because such utterances escape from his tong ue due to the
overpowering manifestation of God upon him.

As [is the case when]

God says- 'Surely I am God!'3 29- from the olive tree on Nount

The one


utters such ecstatic utterances is a believer

(mu 'min) to God.

(20) I~ if they are not [already] condemned to death.
(21) l~ all beliefs tha t are contradictory to God's Book, the
sayings of the Prophet, and the consensus of all the 'Ulama'.


[such beliefs tha.t] make permissible what God has forbidden.

l~ they [i~ the believers in falsehood] s hall be charged

with apostasy and adherence to dualist doctrines (.z.indig) and if

not they should be condemned to death.
329 gur 'an 28:30; also 19:52, 20:10-14, 27 :7- 9 , 28 :29.


of God. Shaykh Hu\lammad ibn Fa<}lu'l-Lah330 said t11at this is the


~ri th

tho se who are learned in God as gleaned from their



it can never be that God's Be i ng and the being of

the creatures are one being, and the being of the creatures never


Being of God; [and this is so] even if one

becomes extinct in the contemplation of God, or survive eternally

in God.

As Shaykh 'Ali ibn Al}mad al-lIaha ,imi (may God sanctify

his secret!) in his book

Ir~,at al-Daa~'ig shar~

Mir'at al-Haai'ig,

No matter how far he gets, he cannet get

out of the limits of created beings, and he
never attains to the divine rank - and even
though he may become annihilated in God or
subsisting through Him - contrary to '.vhat
sorne silly people have believed.



Whosoever [27] utters


and be1ieves in its

interpretation as being 1itera1 without being truly extinct in his

intoxication< 22 ) in the manner of the People of Allah, then he is a
Deviator and a Zindiq,331 furthermore he is a rejector (!lifir) to
God and to the Prescribed LavJ.

Such a person is to be condemned

to de ath i n this vrorld and eternal Hell-fire in the next.

0 our Lord, do not let our hearts stray
After Thou has shown us the right path,
And bestow upon us Thine Nercy.
(22 )



Cf. GALS II, p. 617.



vo1untarily, consci ous of himself.

~run zah Fan~ri,

pp. 157-158 .


Thou art indeed the Bestower.

And may God bless our Naster Hu~ammad;
His House and Companions,
.And may peace be upon them alll
Completed on the ilijrah of the Prophet (may God bless him and
may peace be upon him!)

One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-Six33 2

years on the Year Waw333 on the Twelfth Day of Sha'ban, Sunday,

after the Mid-day Prayers.

Hy brother, 'Abdu'l 'Aziz is the scribe.

332 The date given here is of course incorrect. TI1e real date
of the completion of this work is unknown. But it is most likely
written between 1634 and 1644 just before he returned to Rnir
(Cf. Voorhoeve, p. 5).
333 There are eight cycles to the Javanese Year, the seventh
being cal led ~ ( ~ )
3ee Pigeaud, Th., Javaans~~lan ds
Handwoordenboek, Batavia, 1938, p. ix.

Facsimile of the text
of the ~ujjatu'l-?iddiq li d a~l-Zindig

---------~~- -- --



~ ~


\ ... t.

' . \ol~



~~ ~\ ~~~,~~
., .., .. ~'
"' ~'J~\



l..o~~ .\:!;. , .. ~~






\ ~~ . ~,< \






~~,~~\(~' o~~~~..~\'!..,~x,<

- - - - - ----- ---

-----~- --- --

- - ---~- -

.~ ~ 1!"

~" ~~ ~ ~

S" ~ , f


~ ~

~:. - ~~'~'
(;.. -~
~~ ~~

( ~ tt~

~cr~ r"'

.... ,

'l r V' ~
~~ \h ~


b ('


\J. '~

~ ~~


~ ~ ~~ ~



~ . ~

-o-~ ~-~
. ~ ~\:
~~ ' ,
, U \.:;;



~ ~-

.l (

V\".. ~





lf:. :

L ~ -~-





~- ~~


f, (,' cc.

f."' \; "'


l. . ;.

r.-r.: ~


~~ '~-~~



..; t. ~ .i~-.~&' ;tr ('_, c::: ~ ~fi~ ~
tj_ G_c,

C- v
~ .- ~ ()iP_ "t ~.. V
~ l, v
U ,l.r

"' c
( v
\' fi, ;~' ' ~ .
~L- u . r
(t ~ f, ~~ ~ t ~
c;. ~ -q
(> . ~
v. ""~ (,
\1 ~
(,.. ~: ~~
. ( f':
~ ~
c. ~
~ _s.
r <i . ' . l z:- Q::; ~ . !
t' ~ ~ t 1:; ~ ~
t (/: {;~; , ,~ Cc;
Gr :\, .. - \
~ .. \! L''
tt ~
~v ~.. ~....., (' f:. {/ {;or .. r <6" , c." "
, tt-

~;; ~.- ,r~ '(


t- ~~.': \;



t \- " : . . .~ ~ j\ v- \.
( e- d ~ .(

1-. ,.;
c c,; L.
~ . ~ ~ -


o P


,.. ~,






~ \: ~' tc- ,

~ ~ - -

, 0


' , 0' '-- ~ -

, _.



---- - - -






1 .






r(' 1!
, ~.:- ~ .~{~ (:';-~
,._, --,, - u
)~ ~ ~ i-\ ...... .

. t...



t c:



.. /"'!<
~. C:
~ll..c'ot;. --~~
:.~ ~ r
\t, ..... t~
~c. ~
t:::... ~~
~: \;
Y.' .~ ~... ~ t.;
c_.. .t. t. u
~.. b~
~ r:,
. \.': ~. v ~ . \il
;;., ft.
\, ~'
K. f;.: ~ (... c::. \' f
.-.;; $ r.: .f. -~ ~

.,... .

~v cf'

~ '~

tL - :\..

1ce~f h !


~- c~y



f. ,[-~- 1~\.'- r.~.. (." '0.~ ~'_;

C ~~~,~
'f\ ,f ~ ~ ~ ~ ..-( .

~ . r,.6'"
'.} ,.;:
~~. "'\:





b ~ r. {.' ~ .(< (~ .~ V' . \' G

.( ..-):: ~ - .-..f: 't'- ?;: c. .{f -:\r .~. s:.;. ~ F: .5:; "' .fi' -t
- G" - ~- '- t v -~ c, -fT ~ f! 1.' ~ ...,_ (.' ._










f;', c(c ~v ,.(< fi

~ ~\J ec :'l ~~-").v ~,
\., ,, v
. r. ~ (; .t ~Y.. " ..~f\ -~(~ ..
(." "-C' ~~ ~~~ .,;: )\,~ lf ~~K C' ~". ~t
~.. t.c (t~ b .~ . vr tt- ~~ ~ C\!r" . v ~,. ~ {.~ f..c~ ~
~ G't'" C"
""' C..c "' ~ '\/ C.,\ ~ ~ f
'1; -~. t.- 't~ ~ 't'- ..._'
\.: ~
li. G't'' fL.. c, . ,[.,
~ '- .(..' f:c l. fc ~ \' :(, ."-. ~ f) t-# <i' L









~ ~
~ ~-

t\ '\'

- . --

.. ...




& v :.(\
'\' Ct' '"~

---- --- - --


-- . . . .

..... _...... --. . . .... --- -.....



s s:







~ ~
~ c'J

h ~
\t '-

- - ~-----

....... - ...... .

-- . ...... .. -------- ... .

, .,


.._. ....

....... .




. -215-


' 'i





. .);\ -.. ~-~~~\;..
- _.1..."""'.
"'' l.}IJ"1


~ ....;."\~~aD
~ A!!!>J\.c'J ~~.l1.:..A.
J~~ (.;~





4~'6~~~~b~~., ,,~~r"'~~,;~

~~--:>0{l' rr~~~~~~.,~'-:--t i-'





... \ '
~ ~






~ ... ~,

t,, (_.


u; .

... rl't~~~~~
~ -;~
~~h.o\~~\ ..
-1.... ,.


.... ,.,






-- ..

/ ..

ci\,,\.?~'~~, J.~~;'~" '~~~' c)b

~"' t.Y,l~:>t' ..Jl.{..o..~~t.l, ~ .,I.$.J..) ~)
' 1

'.1" ' .. \.. '

\.f' ' ... ' '

"\ .

l.' -"' ., -"'

:t~?-' (..) ""'t:J ~y \,.)..) ~~ 'j..,_)' ~.1J '-: ~~ ~








t~.Y.bY~~<!~f~~~~~ ~'-='~
.,~.,~~~~v-\ 2.-\ :J~~ ~' ~\ ~_)_,~~

~~~~,\,;, ~\..).j h.~~ ~~ ~\ ,, ~









~ () '.

c ~



' b


Y (,"






"0} . .,~

{F S."










(!- ( \


v .






~ ~



f"f .
r \;'
v \,., (~

2 ~ ~ .t: ~ (~ ~ \.. --l f;. . (.?\ (c ~ .~~

f:.. ~ ~ (c ~~ ~~ ~G ~ - ~ "~c t::: ,/f ~~ cG- 'Ci}
C:' t" \
~ ~ c~, '( .~ ~. c(;y ~ (, r. {>P

~ 1- ~
~ f:r
, ~ (": (" (; . 4:i

' -- ;\.;
c.. ~ <K ~


i' i}J' ~ ~~

cl~ {~

# 1,
~~ r - -~ ..
<~" 'c-, ~{=.'~ ~ c-

J: _,~_,. Ct't~~:
~ ~~
c.. ...
G . ,
~,fi'"" t <i'!.. ,._ ~ h. t.- ~ t-._. () t:e ~' ~ <.L ~
le ..- ".\
~-[ "~~ f ~ 'cy.. ty .t ~
~~[c ~ ~
~~ ~ V'o \l- r; .~ ,- .<Y ~.. ~cl1 ~
~ '.- ~
i; c(:~' f ~. ~ ct" ~~c, "{;" c,.

~ 'ft ..
J. 0 "'

~c ~-



~ L~"

J ~.

., , (:.
~ ~




~ ~

~. ~



J~ ~,.cf:


.... -~.

~ ...


v v ~ ~ ~ ~. ~

~ "~ ~ ~ 'Ci C (: {.. L , c ( ~

~ ~\ lD v ~
G- C'ih'. r; 1.
G ~ ~ G ~, <,.';". c L e~ .. ~ f
~ ~l! 2 ~ ~' ~ ' tl ~ v:; )!- ( ! ~ ;.,~
~ V
~ fJ ' i


- .....--.-- - ,.- ..... -~ - -.. .. .

. ... - ~-

. ..

l. '\;!
r .

~-- --- - -

.... -.. ..

.. ..

' "



. ~.J~..ryft$~p!~.~~~~,~~<
.,. v

~ . 1.'Q-;~n~~)JJ\&f"~tr~""~~
~J\~.)\S'fl'~'-!_.~~~} ~~~~

~-c?~. ~;~,'-?~'~;.,.\.;.~"\~





~~~~~~~, .~xJ(~~w~~


Jh~~~~~~,t~VJ.~4~w~~ ~







(.; ~.. ...
.c:Y' .. ..

~ ~..


," ~ ~
.., (; ~:

~w ,~,)~~ ,~,~~l.:J~hw~' ,~




~~J. ...


v-;-.. \ &~v:;:~




~ ~~,~ \~\b)~~Aa

....... v--

-~~i!,Y~~ ~~~\-~' ~.f'~

~)'~~,;~a~~t;,~f~J# ,t2








'!.)ld.J '>....f)st';).~ \(~J~~ ~.:.~~.Y.~~

\~ 1. '-"'
'-;.,,..('\ ""<""~ ...... , ... \.


~9~\~*.!~"~ ~~\~ ~ ~\Uf.~.._,.)y~)

~~~.f(~-4~~~\b~!)~~,l~:S.\~b .
(.; '- ~,

. ..


Yr~~b__,.."~P,\.:iil'~ ;.:.,,~_,..~"f~"




~\ ~J \CD '-.s.-~~\s~~~) ~\)\ ~~
n.;.J4~ ~~




W',"~v h~,\=t}~ \.)~cJSI~~J'


.. ':. .. J..









... ,







~~~~'~ ~~vJ.,;r~u\~~
... ..
.... ,,




~ _,t,J~~~,,.~rc.>Vc'. :~r~' 4.~

~..::.1\U>l' ~1:,1, ~ ';.D~b'













:.:;,)~wUL:.~~"-' ~
~\._,\~jb.J' ~~.,1.\o~\-'~'~' ~ '6
tL~-~.::, ~4_,-~_.,. o o~ ~\ t~J. >~~ ~'



\~~,.,~) ~Z>\~~\i \J{S\~~'"' ~~ <.,)\.5

~~~\~~\~~~~-' ~.:;..\s~~.:..

~.) ~~~~~~~' ~_,sb~'~._,l.'~

~~~j.\ ~..,=:, ~"' ~ \.:.,(~~J.,..J \~' ,~
~b,~6\Q, ...:~~'~..,G.,c:~~r~~,


~~J'f~b/'~, ..:.:fy~~r~Jj~~
uD'&yq'~~\:f'jcJU ~h6~1~h~~\!J

----------- - - -- ------------












; t1



---~. --- -- ---



... !.>~~.. .,....,
- y
~ t' ..


<..>\Gul,.,l),j\_,\~'ll.d~ ~"~~




~~~,~~,< ~ '~y~.J,J;/~~'~
,.J\;,1~.::...>"> \.1 d-? \Jj.J w:,~, f:~liJ
~~\~\.e)~4_,.,~, ~\)~~~
~~~v:; t'~ .:>t~<>~ ~I..J:><t~_,~_,.
r" ,.,_


~~\~fy~ J).S.~\~\i_,~.,.S>'~'


~~~, ~'-.:f~\:.;,' ~~,~~ ~\~\_:,\









~\...,~i:lb(J,.....~\)""'\JYif'~\.- f_,.,ll>l


_.;..l~;~, r<\..,~. .P,J~~J.;.b
" l..,-..-.c~._



oJ., &t\...,.;::..::JtLD ~, W.\~b r.::.;.'-1-(j '"'\:.(;


~ r\~., .:.~.:. ,v:..Y.'~,~\,..:; ....s ,..>---~..:.d'

t.~.;-~~~~,~~~~<.::\ 6;)~_, ~h~~"'~"'




~"b-' \D.p'~.!:..~j 12 ~1'.:, l4.



~~~~ ~-<.!.~~,;; >G.:.l.:.g;'; ,/~1>


~'~'tt'w\.AJ' t:J L;~ q\...J~ \Z>LP)~~




-- -- -







~}JA\..~~ '0\~ . ./~-~""~~\~,)~,J\,)~

, r..; w ~ ~ { ;.,::r
__ _/....,~_,.l...!.>}~-~~~~6J.)~~~
., . .,.,;..r- ~ . ~ l: "'

~ .




~.J :'f7,. ~

~~ ~.s-=>f"'::-;>..r'f.:h~~"'_,(~_,..J" ~jD '1,.'(,~~~~

' ~~~"t1~~~~,~~~J'/4~ '~.t!-:'~1)~~ v.~
~.),.J) "'?.; r-" ~J~_,;oy.;.~-::..!1 ~_,..1.. '\_~~....



~~ '~

~.)~ !.{c!>~~~~~~,~~\~,~~~






~j" ~.)~,~\~-\P."'~ \j :H::/~)\ ~.J~

~;\~li~~)~\~\) cj\.:S'~~' )~~\)\





!1 ;.



. 1





~L,~~!) ~\~~~->~~~~..,~ \ ,,,~~\


j: .
~ : '









~. -~
. ~ ~~~-~
- ~
- ~




cr~\c:;.>;, ~~~\:~,~,,~,_, ~.J :> ~_;~ 1

\,l;~6 \ _..._.. \' \!

1.5 l ..."a ':,\.! N'\f 04 ' . 1\ ... "'

~-'"::.>~-...J .)~J' .. :)~ev~~t.:)~<..aD'




''-;><>bofJ'!'.Y..,~ rS' ,,,..~ \.::.1,; "' r\ ~,

<.....:.,.)' "tJIR>.:1:. ~1j_,s" \, ..J.;\~..)>,.JI.::.\) .l>..l ,J(1'
c.r'.f>~J:\;J ~~.~\::!'~;~~'~~ur~,.,;.r.

. o}.../6~\s;, ~J;u~'-"''f~ '' t;a ~" ~' ~.) 'l"J' w
~~ ~_; ~' ') ~'))t; r-.!J,:;~
. ~ l:.(~; J ~' ') ~\ ,\


~~<2~\)~j ...::.;.._,._.._ .;;~.G.,;._m~,,~.>.:-1 ~



"' ..
~~~~<J,)>w\~~~ .. ?\4;..~~~;.(
. !




,_.,, s_':.\\~~~".:.A~~\ ~ -~t\ \ ~\~

., ..
.. ~ J-0 >

~~ ~..... , ~
., \ '\ 1. ~JJ,~~~'
. ~"~ \
~ ~\~"r;.








c:~~~~..)~~~.:.h~~\6~-.; ...:,\>

. ~~"~~,~~~~~\a~\~



~Yb\-~\~6~..;..>\~W~~' ~~~~\











~ ~t~~
~ <.,....)
.. \~~\~v--;<.>
~ ..... ~,
.. J-"~ '6""~.
:;.;r """:" '-'


. /.")~\~;y~~
.. ..~':y-".J..
.. ..
.. ..
l ~\















~~.. \~\l~'!P~~c.?~~'~'~u,;).,
~. uJ!~,;..;~'~rv'-?
~\~\~~~~~Z->\_,,~\ ~~ v'!\v-~

!: 1
.. ;!
i1 ,;



~~~")~,;;.)~,~~_,~_,.)'~,r~~ -



..:....~ '-:><>l~' ~ru~::...~;,, v.~~,-\''.P."'
~-V-'1 '~f\s>~'f:~\.>~.::..\..J,,.:;; ~b ~b

. ~_,~~;\~~~~~~~:>~"~'f\.~_,



~\~~ob~_;,~~ .o~)),\?~'\~~~
~4~~~~\ f\$.~'-=1~~~~,)~



-- -~----------------..~. . . . --_.!'


C.:.,l}W<.)~~"" ~'~'-""'\~t6~~~~,~~~_,\

- ~"'-"''"~}'.,,.~
..~~~~,1~~~~..a>i~w(t,:.nv~\. .
(..!," ~




.:>~!' ~-,~ v 0 ' ~.Z.}.;~~\,)~~'~J_,~t,L li; <..L~~


. ~~~~~~,~~--~Z.,_)l(..?.~_,~~J.:S(~'&~.,~~\::a
l/ .. ""~~'~J.
u ' .#;~_,\u\,::,~J'Yb




,Jbl~6~..!, ~_,J.uf,\f ~\~\~\<!~_,~~~.Y

.r_ ~t ' ... \ t _ ~- .. ,~ ~
{i~\'t.:n,~~,~~:~~~~\tj~: ' ...

... .'.-\




.. l ' ! . . . . . .



..... ,

~~~~,~~~ ~~~~~,c:~~l..)l!:/,






\ , ....
u\~~~~~~~ ~~~v-~~~..r.'~~



, ... ~,:.!


~.:a~~'~'~b~~.,~~ ~~b ~y~\j)

~,~,~~(~t~~~:>,~j~w~.P.--'~ -



- --- -..........

__ _

-~---.............. . _







~1.:{;~_) '}~~J'6~\~' ~~~~\~,r~


~""' .





. ~~~,_.('

}'\!~. ~,~,,~~\~..>'6:-,~~,~\..)~~:>~






~,~~ .. ro\;\~'..t.\s:.~b~9~~ ~\,;\~\J~

~ " -v \



"' \


"' <.; \




i".~ ~~,_,_,J(~~\'0\~~,~~~~.)~.)\?~j'~

~\ f~b"\t->.>~\~~,JblJ-:?~~J~i.~ ..







~~""~ ~ ~~
~~-(; ~ ~
l - ~ ~u

h .\.: .


~ ~ 'l?.:

~ ?; -t \? ,.'f_.
t ~. ' ~ ~:,!-'?'' .t ~ t?
~ ~ ~f ~ ti ~t ~1;~ ~ :F ~ t ~.~ ~ 7
* h<?J"
f ~ .~t;:~ ~~ ~S ~'- ~~ f: {, ~ '~.:(
~~ ~~ ~~ -"1t
~ t;~ :~"' ~
~f,: r,';~,r c~; t ~ _ ~ ~t t t.~ , 0 l~ :(;'



' r-.,







t ~ ~~ ' 1.... ~ (.,..

ct'\_ ')( c._





; b








i" ~ ~c ~: (;t''
~ ~

~-- Cv


c.~ .........,


r: ('- {'.


' -

.~.. c)~ ' ~
u -?-~ '1
~' r,: \1

r~ -~G












t_':! \ ~, fJ
~~ .'-t,\ 'IJ
\f 'y ~' f~
. ,
c'b; v
~ \' ~
IJ ~
Cc ~ {(. ~ b. ~
~ , ~"i.
~ tl.~ Cr: 0
~ u
'!! \
..~~ ~~ ~~ f fi',,
Sc~ ~'-'v
~t'~- ~
~~~ ~
1'- ~~
\.i< t
~ ~ \!
t' <iF ~ '-"' b ~ h. . C."
~/ -~1 v .[
:~ c. .t..'
c{ .l.. ~
c . ~-- ~ c~ rl c(j.. ' c- ~....
'1 .!:
ft (, ;-. oS ~ -~
~, ~~ ~~
.c. ~u:.
~" :i f!! l. ~ - .... <f 01' .~ ~ \l. b
lb ~













~ ~ 'r:. it ~

'\. '& .

.~ .


.. ~





rr ..

.-J~~~ ~ .f. .. '':VJ ~ .

v. . ~

..J :J,)__v -s.'Jy'


l 1:-i \

~''1.~ .(JI'

. r..
' o.~..J:


~" .


~.. r
.. ~


->J~~. /


~~ -~ ~ ~A ~ ; :~., ~

..nt:- .. . )

~~ - .~7





f~ ~





' ...-,;-, ""' ~




/"'1..~ ~

l'~ '?i;. ~~ "r- ?~")

""'*' ~-~~~ ~
~~ ~ "~



---------- -- -- -- - --








~ =
~ . .) ~,)~
~jfir-\~'~Y. ~~ .. ~~~~\:~Y'&

~~~~~J'~ t<>~~a~,~~N~


, e ~~ t\~ "'.\~~
.. :r
.. :.Y"'..;--

:/~~~ ~\., ~~~; ~ ''.:J. c.r'l.-':,\.)s.~s.


&\)../~\ ,~\~ ~\')~)~\~~' ~~~Jw 'w \\


't-' .


-- . - - - ---

--- - - ---- -~----




~: -., \...;/---~- ~

, c;>



. r-



( -.

:( -'


; - _.



-~--- - -- - -


The significance of the term zindig


In Islam in medieval times the significance of what is termed


't'le stern

scholars and students of Islam as 'heresy' was not only

religions, but - depending upon the situation in which it arose was invariably social and political as \'Tell.

There is no doubt

that the dissensions between political factions had in most cases

a religions basis (as in Islam it is difficult to draw a distinction
between the political and the religious).

Beginning perhaps with

examples in the notorious teachings of Ibn Saba' and Ibn Maymn


EI) 'heresy' has since been regarded as a threat to undermine

Islam and the structure of the Nuslim community fran within.

It all started when, betvreen the death of the Prophet and the
fall of the Umawi Khilafat, two main groups arose to challenge
what may be regarded then as the consensus of opinion of the
communi ty.

On the one hand we have the Shi' at 'Ali, ivhi ch was

later to develop during the course of the period into two main
trends, one of vrhich was the Nawla group led by al-Mukhtar, and
the other the Shi'ah proper, or that which developed into the
Ithna 'Ashariyyah.

From the Mawla group was to spring the

Isrna'Ilis and the Qarmatis followed l ater by the Assassins.


Shi'at 'Ali as such was a kind of political party - a healthy

opposition party - without religions overtones; fighting for the
settler1ent of the question of succession to the Khilfat.

On the

other hand 1>re have the Khawari j, a group vrhich soon developed
extremist views and fostered anarchistic tendencies.


The 'Abbsis have, so to speak, hitch-hiked to power on the

vanguard of the Shi'ah revolution which finally overthrew the

They have used the Shi'ah group as a 'cat's paw' to

achieve their own ambition - the mastery of the Khilfat.

sooner had they achieved this than they discarded



Shi'ah group

which had t hen become useless to t :1em and ivhich became instead a
danger to their cause for which they were branded as a kind of

Thus, then, the Shi'ah revolution did not cease; on the

contrary, i t now grew 11i th grea ter vehemence, this time to overthrow
t e 'Abbasl:s who had continued to create revolutionary situations.
The growth of a kind of feudal and military rule in the
eleventh century helped greatly to create situations which became
ideal breeding grounds for the Isma'ilis and the Assassins, whose
seductive teachings appealed to the masses to vrhom they were
largely directed.

To counteract this state of affairs, the Sunni

state built madrasahs all over the Empire to disseminate the views
of the Ahl'l-Sunnah wa'l-Jam'ah.33 4

This was a time when Sfi

brotherhoods arose and al-Ghazzli wrote his great works.

B.Y the time of the Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century

the Shi' ah of the Ism 'iii trend and
become a threat.

t :~ e

Assassins had ceased to

But the experiences which the Sunni State and

the 'Ulam' had in past history taught them much about indoctrination

334 See Taftazni's brief account about the People of the Approved
Way and the Community, Taftazni, pp. 5-10. lUso, EI article
Sunna and related references therein.


of teachings alien and dangerous to Islam and to the Huslim


All such teachings considered as seditious and dangerous

have not been labelled as

heretical 1 in the true sense of the word,

for throughout the entire course of Islamic religious history not

one of the vrords used to denote se di tious and dangerous teachings
contrary to the spirit of Islam conveyed an identical meaning with
the word 'heresy' as it does in Christian religious history.


is a significant fact that, as Lewis has pointed out,335 the ward

hartaga or hartgi or hartigi as used in modern Arabie literature
is a loan-word of European Christian origin.
The first of t hese words to appear in the course of Islamic
religious history denoting a kind of rebel to
bid'ah (q.v. EI), which means 'innovation.'


is the word

Innovation was then

looked upon with suspicion - and rightly so, for by innovation was
implied that of the undesirable sort.
time impressed upon the


But as the vicissitudes of

the need for adaptati on to alien

environment an social chan;;es, innovation be came gradually distinguished by the Community between the bad, or the undesirable, and
the good, or the desirable.

From the reli gious point of view,

however, there can be no division of good and bad bid'ah.


innovation is alHays an innovation - and it is always undesirable

in vrhatever historical period.

But from the historical and

sociological point of view the meaning underlying the term bid'ah

335 Lewis, B., Sorne observations on the significance of heresy in

the history of Islam. Studia Islamica, vol. 1, pp. 43-63.


has come to evolve so that distinctions between the good and the


are established.

Thus, then, in non-religious


it was made possible by the ijma' (q.v. EI) that \vhat \vas
considered bad innovation at a period of time in the past or present
may be considered as good innovation at a period of time in the
future - depending of course upon the circumstances and the
applicability of that innovation insofar as it would promote the
welfare of the


It should be pointed out that when Lewis

said that opposition to a good bid 'ah is also a bid 'ah33 6 the vrord

bid'ah here has a different meaning than it had originally, for

there is nothing added to what already forms the consensus of
opinion prior to the addition of a good bid'ah.

It simply becomes

opposi tien, which means t!1at an addition to what already forms a

body of opinion of the :Q!_?}_ah is opposed.

The re is no UJi addition.

But since what is opposed is good, such opposition is undesirable,

and bid'ah here therefore means opposition to what is good and

A Nuslim who is guilty of a bad bid'ah is not expelled

from membership in the Community and declared outside the pale of


Only when his bid'ah is persistent, excessive, and

agressive is he regarded as such.

Next in chronological order to appear in Islamic religious
history is the word


(q.v. EI), which means 'excessiveness'

or tendency to 'exaggerate' - togo beyond the limit, as Ibn Saba''s

336 .QQ. cit., p. 53.


attitude towards 'Ali illustrates.

Such people are referred to as

the ghulat and are regarded as outside the pale of Islam.

The term zindi..Q. cornes next.

This term is generally translated

by Western orientali sts as 'heresy'.

which is of Persian origin,
in the Sassnid times.


It 'ltlOUld seem that the term,

first applied to the l:anichaeans

It was applied to the ascetic and unorthodox

forms of the Iranian religion by those who upheld orthodoxy.


Islamic times zindig vras also applied to the Hanichaeans, but more
specifically to those who while outvrardly professing Islrn were
inwardly professing dualist doctrines.
case of


dox in general.

A classic exrunple was the

Gradually it came to be applied to the unortho-

Unlike bid.'ah or ghulUW\v the charge of zindiq -vras no

not just si:.tply a theoretical one as in the case of the former two
when all that


'Ulan' could do was to condernn the guilty to

damnation in the next \vorld.

The charge of zindig_ brought about

practical consequences and one so charged was tried in court by

the 'Ulama' and if found guilty was sentenced to death in a peculiar

It has been kno-vrn that such a dangerous charge bad often

been levelled against one not really guilty of it, but one whom the
accusers wished to liquidate for political or personal reasons.


the same time -vrhen zindiq came to denote a Hanichaean or a dualist,

it also denoted suspicious $fi doctrines and beliefs, and atheism



Properly speaking, however, the charge against atheists or

those ".:ho do not believe in any religion at all is denoted by the
term mul:tiid, wllich in the historical context after zindig,.
This means 'deviator' (from the right path).

But again, it later

came to be almost identified with zindig and was used a gainst one
guilty of propagating and holding subversive doctrines.
Fr!l the point of view of Islamic re li gious his tory, the terms
kafir and kufr are perhaps nearest the equivalent of the term
'heresy' in Christian religious history.

The term kafir is the

active participle of the verb kafara, which conveys the meaning

to reject as false what is true'.
and kufr is unbelief.

Kafir denotes the unbeliever

A person guilty of bid'ah, ghuluww, and

other forms of sectarian tendencies may still be considered a

believer - that is, a Huslim.

But a Muslim 1-rho ceases to believe

in what he is required to believe is a kafir and is placed outside

the pale of Isla'il.



is not a member of the Com.muni ty and

he is also considered as a person who does not possess faith (iman),

that is, he is not a Nu'min.

However, we find i n the -vrritings of

the various 'Ulama, that the term kaf'i..r, is loosely hurled about
at each other.

As such it has no practical ef fect.

past-time, which is known as


But such a

became less frequent when

Islamic lavl was systematized a...'l.d codified, and t >e 'Ulama'

gradually be carne unwilling to denounce other Nuslims as kafir.
point of fact there is a


prohibiting such behaviour.


- - - - - - --

------ - - - .

As used by Raniri in the context in which he vehemently

denounces ljanzah


it seems quite clear that he employs the

term zindio as a convenient portmanteau term of abuse for the

suspected 'heresies' of t :1e latter.


is definitely the

more learned of the tvm - at least fr .:Jm his writings - in the

understanding and exposition of the Sfi doctrines in auestion.



does not indulge i n

as far as I am avrare,



uses the term zindil_ perhaps not more

t twi ce in his wri ting s, and even s o t


referring to the Ra\.vafid and the Nu' tazilah

as Raniri does, and

he d oe s when


'Abdu'l-Lh bin 'Abdu'l-Qadir Munshi.

Hikayat pelayaran Abdullah (dari Singapure ke
Kelantan); edited by Press Am. Niss.
Sin gapore,

'Affifi, A.E.

The ~stical philosophy of Huhyid Din-Ibnul

Cambridge, University Press, 1939.

Alisjahbana, S.T.
Puisi Lama.

Djakarta, Pustaka Rakyat, N.V.,

Londo:: , Hurray, 1951.

Arberry, A.J.

Avicenna on theology.


The doctrine of the Sfis.

University Press, 193~
The seven Qes.


London, Allen & Unwin, 1957.

Archer, R. le R.

on mysticism in S~at~. Journal of

the Halayan Bra;1 ch of the Royal Asiatic Society
( JNBRAS) , vol. 15, pt 2 , 193 7.


Arnold, T.W.



of Islam.

London, Constable,


The theolo~~l-Ash'ari; the Arabie texts

of al-Ash'ar1 1 s Kitab al-Luma' and Risalat
Istihsan al-Khawd~~~~~~~~~
fi 'Ilm ar:Kalan, 'tvi thbriefly annotated translations, and
appendices containing ma teri al pertinent to
the study of al-Ash'ari [by] Richa rd J.
Beyrouth, Imprimerie Catholique,


Blagden ,


A note ~n - ~pe Tren~ganu

vol. 2, pt. 3, 192+.




S:h ahbandar and Bendahara.

Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS), pt. 1, 1921.

de Boer, T.J.

The history of philoso2qy in Isl~; translated

by E.R. Jones.
London, Luzac, 1961.




E. G.

Chau Ju-Kua.

Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur.

Leiden, 1898-1942.
A li t erarv his tory of Persi a .
University Press, 1951-56.
Chau Jua-Kua: his Hork on the Chine se and Ar ab
trade in the t"Yrelfth and thirteenth centuries
entitled Chu-fan-chil translated and annotated
by F. Hirth and W. \1. Rockhill.
St. Petersburg,

The commentaries of the great Afonso Dalboaueroue, second
viCE?.r..QLOf India; translated by \valter de Gray
London, Hakluyt Society , 1875-84.
(Hakluyt Society, vols. 53, 55, 62, 69)
Djajadiningrat, R.H.
Critisch Overzicht van de i n Naleische Werken
Vervatte Gegevens over de Geschiedenis van--het SB~Jtan~v~D Atjeh. Bijdragen tot de
Taal-, Land- en Vo U;:enkunde van NederlandschIndie uit gegeven door het Koninklijk Instituut
voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI), vol. 65
(1911 ) , pp. 135-265.
Doorenbos, J.

De Geschriften van Hamzah Pansoeri.

Batteljee & Terpstra , 1933.


of Islan; edited by H.A.R. Gibb~ J. H.

Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal [ and ot hers J
Leiden, Brill, 1960.
vol. 1 (A- B) .



---; edited by H. Th.

T.ltl. Arnold, R. Basset and

Leiden , Brill, 1913-38 .
4v. and supplement.




Encyclopaedi2. of Religion.......QUthics; edited by J. Hastings.

Ne,. r York , Scribner, 1955.
Frqi:, B.A.

The l1u,jaddid' s~ncept ion of t a"t>!J:lid .

Ashraf, 19L1-3.


al-Ghazzali, Ab Hamid .
Mishkat al-An,rar; translated by \>J.H.T. Gairdner,
London, Royal Asiat~_ c Society, 192lr- .


Tahafut al-F~asi f ah [Incoherence of the Philosouhers]; trnslatd into English by Sabih .~ad
Kamali .
Lahore, Pakistan Philosophical Con gr e ss
[1958 ]
(Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 3)


Gibb, Sir H.A.R.

--Ibn BattQta~ travels i~i~Africa~325-13ZT;
translated and selected by H.A.R. Gibb.
Kegan Paul, 1953.
London, Hacnil1an,

Hall, D.G.E.

A history of South East Asia.


Hi3torians of Sout~?t Asia; edited by D.G.E.

Londm1, Oxford University Press, 1961.



Hikayat Hang Tu ah; edi ted by Dinr:.s Pener bi tan Balai Pus talca.
Djakarta, 1956.
Hill, A.H.



Jf.RAS, vol. 33 ,

pt. 2, 1960.


The Ac~~; translated by the late A.w.s.

0 'Su1li van l,.;i t h an index by R. J. Wilkins on.
Leyden, Drill; London, Luzac, 1906.
2v. in 1.

Hussaini, S.A.Q.
Ibn al-' Arab1.

Lahore, Ashraf [1931]

tfuzayyin, 3. A. Ar abia and th2 Far E:..:b their com:n.ercia1 and

cultural relations in Graeco-Roman and
Irano-Arabian tims.
iro, 1942.
Ibnu '1- 'Arabi. Fussu ,1-RikamL wa '1-ta 'li- at 'alayhi bi oalam
Ab~f1 i- 'Ala---r:A'fl.r:r.
[ Qahirah] 'sa al-Babi
a1-Halabi, 1365/1946.
Ibn Rushd.

Averroes' T~~t a1-Tahafut (The Incoheren~

of the Incoh~ill; tra::sla ted from the
Arabie with introduction and notes by Simon
van den Bergh.
London, Luzac, 195Lf-.
(Unesco collection of great works, Arabie ser i es )

Inge, v'l.R.


Green , 1923.

of Plotinus.

London, Longmans,

Iqba1, Shaykh 11.

TI1e develonment of meta~hysics in Persia.
London, Luzac, 1 908.


Six lectures on the reconstruction of religio~

thought in_lslf!m .
Lahore, Pri nted a.t the Kapur
Art Print:ng Works, 1930.


Iskandar, T.

's-Gravenhage, H.L.

De HikQjat Atjeh.
S~its, 1959.

Jami, Nru'l Din 'Abdu'l Rahman.

La~ora 'i:tJ. fi ba_lan me. 'Z"n1 'ur.J.fniyyah; ... t~anslated
by E.H. W'ninefield and Hirza H. Qazvlnl.
London, Royal Asiatic Society, 1928.
( Orie..11tal
Translation fund, n.s. 16)
al-Jili, 'Abdu'l-Karim.
Qahirah, Hu:tJ.ammad 'Ali
Subaih [n.d.J
2v. in 1
Johns, A.H.

'd... I~.

as illustrated in an anonymous
collection of seventeenth-century tracts.
JMBRAS, vol. 30, pt. 2, 1957.



Lav.r in the Hiddle East; edi ted by I'faj id Khadduri

and Herbert J. Lie besny.
\vashington, D. C.,
Middle East Institute, 1955.

Landau, R.

~he p~ilosoB.hY


cc Umnn, 19:J9.

Lane, E.\v.

of .lbn 'Arabi.


London, Allen

London, Hilliams
8 pts. & suppl. in 4v.

& Norgate, 1 63-85.

van Langen, K.F.H.

De Inrichting van het At.iehsche 3taatsbestuur
onder het Soeltanaat, BKI, Leiden, 188S.
van Leur, J.C. Indonesian trade and societv.
van Hoeve, 195).----_._
Lev.ris, B.

The Hague,

Sorne observations on the significance of


here~n the-histor3 of Is!am.

Islam~, vol. 1, 19 3.

Noreland, \>J.H. Shahbandar of the Eastern



Nicholson, R.A. Studies in Islanlic mysticism.

University Press, 1921.
van Nieuvrer:.huijze, C.A.O.
Samsu'l-Din van


JRAS, pt. 4,

Leiden, Brill, 19Lr5.

Paterson, H.S. An e~rly inscription from Trengganu.

vol. 2, pt. 3, 1924.
Pigeaud, Th.

Javaans-Nederlands H~dwoordenboek.
Batavia, J.B. Wolters, 1938:-





Pyrard, F.

Hakluytus Posthu~Qr_Purchas His Pilgrimes,

Contayning a History of the World in Sea
Voyages and Lande Travells by Engli~en and
London, Hakluyt Society, 1905-07.
(Hakluyt Society,Extra Series, XIV-XXXIII)
The voyage of Francois Pyrard of Laval to the
East In.ies~_Maldives, the Noluccas and Brazil;
translation by Albert Gray, assisted by H.C.P.
London, Hakluyt Society, 1887-90.
2v. in 3.
(Hakluyt Society, LXXVI, LXXVII, LXXX)

al-Qur'ang'l-Karim; [a translation into :Halay of the Qur'an and

Bailawi's com.!:tentaries, by Abdu'l Ra'f
Qahirah, Hu~tafa al-Babi alHalabi, 1370/1901.
2v. in 1.
---; tra:1slated into English by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.
Lahore, Ashraf [1938]

[3d ed.]

van Ronkel, Ph.S.

Ca_talogus der Haleische Handschrift~.
Batavia, Albrecht, 1909.
al-Sarraj, Ab Nasr.
Kitab al-Luma' fi'l-Ta~avnmf; edited
critical notes, abstract of contents, glossary,
and indices, by R.A. Nicholson.
Luzac, 1914.
Schrieke, B.

Indonesian sociological studies.

The Hague,
van Hoeve, 1955-57.
2v-.- (Selected studies
on Indonesia by Dutch scholars, 2-3)

Shorter encZQlopaedia of Islam; edited by H.A.R. Gibb and

J.H. Kramers.
Leiden, Brill, 1953.
Simorangkir Simandjuntak, B.
Kesusasteraan Indonesia III.
Djakarta, P.T.
3v. in 2.
Situmorang, T.D.
Sedjarah Melaju; menurut terbitan Abdullah (ibn
Abdulkadir Munsji) diselenggarakan kembali dan
di be ri anotasi oleh T.D. Si tumorang dan A. Teeuvr.
[2d ed.]
[Djal.rta] Djambatan [1958]


Taftazani, Sa'adu'l-Din.
A commentar~ on the creed of Isla.:m; Sa'd alDin
al-Taftznl on the creed of Najm al-Din
al-Nasafi; translated with introduction and
notes by Earl Edgar Elder.
Nev: York,
Columbia University Press, 1950.
Vlekke, B.H.N. Nusantara, a history oU:r;tdmesia.
van Hoeve, 19"5'9.
Voorhoeve, P.

The Hague,

Twee Maleise Geschriften v~~ Nruddin

Leiden, Brill, 1955.

The voyages of Sir Ja~s Lancaster, Kt., to~~st Indies;

edited by Clements R. Markham.
Hakluyt Society, 1877.
(Hakluyt Society, 56)


Free will and predestination in early

London, Luzac, 1948.

vlilkinson, R.J .A Halay-English dictio~;y_.

Kelly and \'Jalsh, 1903.



Winstedt, Sir R.O.

The ~rly IJf~mmadan mi...igparies.
Journal of
the Straits Rranch of the Royal Asiatic Society
(JSBRAS), no. 31, 1920.


Sejarah Nelayu. Raffles MS. no. 18, Royal

Asiatic Society.
JHBRAS, vol. 16, pt. 3, 1938.


A historx of Malaya.


A history of Perak, by R.O. Winstedt and R.J.

JHBRAS, vol. 12, pt. 1, 1934.

Zaehner, R.C.

Hindu :Q.d Huslim @l_Sticism.

[London] Athlone
Press, University of London, 1960.
(School of
Oriental a:1d African Studies, University of London.
Jordan lectures in comparative reli:c;ion, 5)

A history of_Qlassical Nal.,;z_l;iterature.

JMBRAS, vol. 31, pt. 3, 195~.

rev. ed.

JMDRAS, vol. 13, pt. 1, 1935.