See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308702374

Ithaf al-dhaki by Ibrahim al-Kurani: A Commentary of Wahdat al- Wujud for

Jawi Audiences

Article  in  Archipel · January 2011

DOI: 10.3406/arch.2011.4274

CITATIONS READS

10 1,729

1 author:

Oman Fathurahman
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta
18 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Database of Southeast Asian Islamic Manuscripts View project

Female Indonesian Mystics: with Special Reference to the 18th and 19th Centuries of Java View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oman Fathurahman on 19 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Archipel

Itḥāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī: A Commentary of Waḥdat al-

Wujūd for Jāwī Audiences
Oman Fathurahman

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Fathurahman Oman. Itḥāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī: A Commentary of Waḥdat al- Wujūd for Jāwī Audiences. In:
Archipel, volume 81, 2011. pp. 177-198;

http://www.persee.fr/doc/arch_0044-8613_2011_num_81_1_4274

Document généré le 27/09/2016

Résumé
Itḥāf al-dhakī par Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī : un commentaire du Waḥdat al-Wujūd pour des publics Jāwī
Cet article est une introduction à la pensée d''Ibrāhīm ibn Ỏasan al-Kūrānī relative aux concepts
mystiques et théologiques islamiques discutés dans l’un de ses traités soufis, le Itḥāf al-dhakī, en
fait l’une des rares sources arabes adressées à la communauté musulmane Jāwī d’Insulinde au
cours du XVIIe siècle. En tant que tel, ce texte est un élément important pour l’histoire socio-
intellectuelle de la région. Il concerne les enseignements des sept niveaux (Martabat Tujuh), très
populaires en Insulinde à l’époque. Le Itḥāf al-dhakī, probablement

Abstract
This article is an introduction of Ibrāhīm ibn Ḥasan al-Kūrānī’s thought of Islamic theological and
mystical concepts discussed in one of his Sufi treatises, the Itḥāf al-dhakī, in fact one of only few
Arabic sources addressed to the Jāwī Muslim community in Nusantara during the seventeenth
century. As such, this text is an important part of the social-intellectual history of the region. It is
related to the teachings of the Seven Grades (Martabat Tujuh), which were very popular in
Nusantara at the time. The Itḥāf al-dhakī, probably written a few years before 1665, became the
answer to divine questions or, more specifically, to questions about the
waḥdat al-wujūd doctrine, that captivated the attention of readers in various areas of the Muslim
World. After an evocation of the author's life, this article discusses his interpretation of Sufism,
especially in relation to this doctrine. In fact, al-Kūrānī may clearly be considered as an interpreter
and advocate of Ibn al-‘ Arabī’s philosophical Sufi thought.
FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 177

OMAN FATHURAHMAN

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī:

A Commentary of Waỏdat al-Wujūd for Jāwī Audiences

Introduction
This article is an introduction to Ibrāhīm ibn Ỏasan al-Kūrānī’s thought
on Islamic theological and mystical concepts discussed in one of his Sufi
treatises entitled Itỏāf al-dhakī bi-sharỏ al-tuỏfah al-mursalah ilá al-nabī
ś allallāhu ‘alayhi wa-sallama (The bestowal dedicated to one of
discriminating intelligence in explanation of the gift addressed to the spirit of
the Prophet). 1 The text is one of only few Arabic sources addressed to the
Jāwī Muslim community in the seventeenth century, written by Ibrāhīm ibn
Ỏasan al-Kūrānī al-Shahrazūrī al-Shahrānī al-Kurdī al-Madanī al-Shāfi’ī
(1616-1690 CE), to whom I will further refer as al-Kūrānī.
I began philological research on the Itỏāf al-dhakī in August 2006, thanks
to a fellowship award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to do
research at the Malaiologie Institute, Orientalisches Seminar der Universität
zu Köln, Germany, until April 2008. Such research was kindly hosted and

* I would like to thank Henri Chambert-Loir for his comments on the very early draft of this
article, and to the editors of the Journal Archipel for significant advices before publication. A
special thank goes as well to Dick van der Meij, who wrote the English version of the draft.
1. A discussion with A.H. Johns highlighted the fact that some manuscripts of the Itỏāf al-
dhakī consulted bear in their title the word as al-zakī (pure), not al-dhakī (intelligent).
However, since the author himself mentions that the addressed reader is al-dhakī al-munśif, it
is likely that the intended word is al-dhakī. Then, one would need to be very intelligent
(dhakī) to follow closely the argument in the text. Philologically speaking, it is easy for a
copyist to mistake ‘zay’ for ‘dhal’, and vice versa.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011, pp. 177-198

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 178

178 Oman Fathurahman

supervised by Edwin Wieringa, a Professor of Indonesian Philology and

Islamic Studies at the Institute, whose help and advice highly contributed to
the success of doing the research. Seventeen manuscripts of the Itỏāf al-
dhakī, which are preserved in different libraries around the globe, have been
consulted to prepare a scholarly edition, while the total number of the
manuscripts identified so far is thirty. The edition will be published
separately, consisting of an introduction, an annotated text, a translation, and
a commentary of the text. 2
This article is therefore part of my ongoing research on the text, data and
analysis of which have been improved thanks to the Chevening Fellowship
for conducting research at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies during the
Michaelmas Terms (27 September-10 December 2010). The extensive
references on Islamic studies at the Centre and at the Bodleian library, as
well as the opportunity to meet and discuss with other scholars, have greatly
helped me to enrich this article.3
Islam in Southeast Asia
The increased political and trade relations between Nusantara and the
Arabic Islamic world since the 15th century made the first an important part
of the Islamic tradition as a whole. Several theories regarding the coming of
Islam in the Nusantara World have been suggested by scholars in the field, 4
and I do not pretend to overview this aspect here. Regardless of the different
arguments about its early propagation in the Nusantara World, Islam spread
and rooted in the Malay Muslim community, thanks to the global and
international networking developed, both through trading activities and other
mediums, including politics, religion, or marriage.
From the late sixteenth century, such networking continued to flourish
due to the developing of Islamic sultanates in the region. A vigorous
involvement of the local rulers in the international trade activities not only
brought them into contact with Arab merchants but also with authorities in
the Middle East. 5 This in turn encouraged a tremendous exodus of Malay

2. I am keenly aware of my indebtedness to A.H. Johns who gave to me his research

materials for a planned critical edition of the Itỏāf al-dhakī he didn't have the opportunity to
complete. His preliminary research has helped me to figure out the understanding of the text.
My sincere gratitude is for Annabel Teh Gallop who kindly helped me to examine some
materials from the British Library collections.
3. My sincere thanks goes to Francis Robinson who was kind enough to read the draft version
of this article and gave some valuable comments and advice to explore some parts of the
discussion, and to Michael Feener who reviewed it and suggested some revisions.
4. See for instance Drewes 1968, Johns 1975, Ricklefs 1979, Osman 1980, Azra 1994 and
2004.
5. Azra 2004: 9. Bruinessen (1990: 42) mentioned that in the 1630’s, the rulers of Banten and
Mataram competed each other to gain the title ‘sultan’ from the Sharif Mecca, which was

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 179

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 179

Muslims to perform pilgrimage, and eventually a religious journey to follow

Islamic teachings by some prominent scholars in Mecca and Medina
(Ỏaramayn). With the growing number of pilgrims, the Ỏaramayn became
the hub of dynamic networks as the basis of a global Muslim intellectual
community. 6
Later, especially from the seventeenth century when the Islamic world
was going through a political downfall, the Islamic intellectual tradition in
contrast flourished with the Ỏaramayn as the center of scientific activities.
At that time, the Ỏaramayn had become the melting pot where the various
Islamic traditions from all over the world, including the Nusantara World,
met and melted into a highly cosmopolitan intellectual network. Some
Arabic sources referred to the Malay-Nusantara 7 ulamas as jamā‘at al-
jāwiyīn, or “the companions from ‘Jāwā’”. 8
As suggested by Peter Riddell, Islam in the Nusantara World was
derivative of the Middle East countries on the one hand, but on the other
hand, some ‘Jāwī’ scholars such as Hamzah Fanśūrī, 9 Shams al-Dīn al-
Sumatra’ī, 10 Nūr al-Dīn al-Rānīrī (d. 1658 CE), ‘Abd al-Ra‘uf ibn ‘Alī al-
Jāwī al-Fanśūrī (1615-1693 CE), 11 Muỏammad Yūsuf al-Makassārī (1629-
1699 CE), ‘Abd al-Śamad al-Palimbānī, 12 Arshad al-Banjarī (1710-1812

regarded as a formal recognition of their sultanates. Moreover, the sultans believed that such
title would add a supernatural endorsement to their power.
6. Levtzion 1997: 147.
7. The Nusantara World refers to the Archipelago area as a whole, including the Malay
Peninsula.
8. One of the oldest Arabic sources found so far which mentions jamā‘at al-jāwiyīn is Itỏāf
al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī which I am dealing with, probably written in 1665
(Fathurahman 2009: 47-58). A specific discussion regarding the adjectival patronymic form
(nisbah) ‘al-Jāwī’ has been carried out by R. Michael Feener & Michael Laffan (2005: 185-
208). Based on their observation on Tabaqāt al-khawwāś’ by Shihāb al-Dīn Aỏmad al-Sharjī
(1410/1487), and Mir’āt al-jinān’ by ‘Abd Allāh ibn As‘ad al-Yāfi‘ī (1298-1367), the nisbah
‘al-Jāwī’ was already used in the thirteenth century.
9. A recent epigraphy-based argument regarding the date of his death has been proposed by
C. Guillot & L. Kalus, who stated that he died in 1527 (2000: 3-24). Vladimir I. Braginsky
(2001: 20-33), however, disputed this claim, but his criticism was countered furthermore in
the same publication by Guillot & Kalus (2001: 34-38); see also Azra 2004: 171; Feener and
Laffan also support this revised dating for Hamzah Fanśūrī's death, as it fits with their
suggestions about the early Aden-Jāwī linkage in the fifteenth century (Feener and Laffan
2005: 205).
10. On the mystical thought of al-Samatra’ī, see Johns 2009: 148-163.
11. Some sources, including Azra 1994, add ‘al-Sinkili’ at the end of his name. However, his
full name is ‘Abd al-Ra‘uf ibn ‘Alī al-Jāwī al-Fanśūrī, as mentioned in one of his canonical
works, Tarjumān al-mustafīd (Fathurahman & Holil 2007: 32-33). A scholarly edition of his
only Arabic work, Tanbīh al-māshī al-mansūb ilá ţarīq al-Qushāshī, has been published by
Fathurahman (1999).
12. The precise time of his life and his career are still obscure. See Azra 2004: 113.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 180

180 Oman Fathurahman

CE), Dāwūd al-Fatānī (d. 1847 CE), Nawawī al-Bantānī (1813-1879 CE) and
others successfully demonstrated their ability as prolific and distinguished
scholars originating from the region. As scholars, their names were connected
to those of a number of ulamas in the Ỏaramayn who had been their
teachers. 13 Some of them, like ‘Abd al-Śamad al-Palimbānī, even enjoyed
their popularity as teachers for Arab, as well as Jāwī students in Arabia.
Their works on various Islamic subjects were recognized not only by
their local Muslim communities, but also by wider audiences in the Muslim
world. 14 As mentioned by Hooker, they were also formidable in translating
heterogeneous Islamic thoughts from the original in Arabic language into the
local languages and contexts, in order to provide teaching materials for those
who, for some reasons, were not able to access the original sources. 15
One of the Islamic traditions that settled in the Ỏaramayn and bore
significant influence on the formation of the Islamic intellectual tradition in
the Nusantara World was that from India. As will be seen below, one of the
Sufi works that triggered debates in the Nusantara World was the al-Tuỏfah
al-mursalah ilá al-nabī śallallāhu ‘alayhi wa-sallama (the Gift addressed to
the spirit of the Prophet), further to be referred to as the al-Tuỏfah al-
mursalah, written by the Indian Sufi named Faỗl Allāh al-Hindī al-
Burhānpūrī (d. 1619 CE). It became widely known to Nusantara Muslims,
especially through the ulamas network that was set up among the members
of the Ỏaramayn community. 16
It was also thanks to this network established between ulamas with
various backgrounds that intercultural contacts and communication started to
develop. It was not rare that a Ỏaramayn scholar (‘ālim), who had never
visited a specific area, knew, although only in general terms, about social
and religious events which occured in other parts of the Muslim World,
including the Nusantara World, thanks to the information he received from
his colleagues or students from these areas.
Sometimes, relations between Malay-Nusantara scholars and their
Ỏaramayn teachers were apparently very close and strong as recorded in the
written sources we still have at our disposal. A number of Malay-Nusantara
ulamas did not hesitate to speak of, or to report on developments regarding
the religious social life in the Jāwī lands and to request fatwa on many
religious issues that had become a problem.

13. For an extensive discussion on the localisations of Islam in Nusantara as well as the
engaged involvement of local Muslims in the region within a global, cosmopolitan
community of Islamic religious scholarship, see Feener 2010: 471-503.
14. Riddell 2001: 8-9.
15. Hooker 1983: 1-22.
16. Azra 2004: 136.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 181

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 181

The following is an example from the Sultanate of Banten. Sultan

Pangeran Ratu or Sultan Abu al-Mafakhir (Abū al-Mafākhir ‘Abd al-Qādir
al-Jāwī al-Shāfi‘ī, r. 1626-1651 CE) dispatched a special delegation to
Mecca in 1638, carrying a number of inquiries about al-Ghazālī’s Naśīỏat al-
mulūk. The questions were put to Muỏammad ibn ‘Alī ibn ‘Allān al-Śiddīqī
(1588-1647 CE), another famous scholar in the Ỏaramayn Islamic
intellectual tradition. To answer the sultan’s questions, ibn ‘Allān wrote a
book entitled al-Mawāhib al-rabbāniyyah ‘an al-as`ilah al-Jāwīyah (Various
divine gifts in connection with the questions from the Jāwī Lands). 17
Another example is the case of ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf ibn ‘Ali al-Jāwī al-Fanśūrī
who once asked his teacher in Medina, Ibrāhīm ibn Ỏasan al-Kūrānī, a
question about the Unity of Being (wa ỏ dat al-wujūd) and the Seven
Grades 18 doctrines discussed in al-Tu ỏ fah al-mursalah, a Sufi treatise
written in 1590 by an Indian scholar named Faỗl Allāh al-Hindī al-
Burhānpūrī. He asked al-Kūrānī to write a clarification about these doctrines,
because it had caused misunderstanding among the Nusantara Muslim
community, especially in Aceh. As suggested by many sources, Aceh at that
time held a strategic position as ‘the gate to the Holy Land’ (Serambi
Mekkah), 19 and maintained strong political and socio-religious relations with
the Middle East. Therefore ulamas living there at the time were in good
contact with their teachers in the Ỏaramayn.
In answer to this request, al-Kūrānī wrote a text entitled Itỏāf al-dhakī bi-
shar ỏ al-tu ỏ fah al-mursalah ilá al-nabī ś allallāhu ‘alayhi wa-sallama
(Tribute to a pure soul: an elucidation of the book that was bestowed upon
the Prophet). We also know that al-Kūrānī wrote a pamphlet entitled al-
Jawābāt al-gharwīyah ‘an al-masā'il al-Jāwīyah al-jahrīyah (Proper and
clear answers to the questions from the Jāwī Lands). 20
In the following century, Arshad al-Banjarī also asked for a fatwa from
his teacher, Sulaymān al-Kurdī (1715-1780 CE), regarding the policy of the
Sultanate of Banjar to prioritize taxes over zakat. 21 Sulaymān al-Kurdī also
wrote a book entitled al-Durrah al-bahīyah fī jawāb al-as’ilah al-Jāwīyah
(Valuable pearl to answer the questions from the Jāwī Lands).

17. Voorhoeve 1980: 204-205; for a discussion of this text in the context of the tradition of
the Islamic Malay sultanate, see Burhanuddin 2007: 30-31.
18. The seven grades are aỏadīyah (the grade of emptiness), waỏdah (the stage of first
individuation), waỏidīyah (the second grade of individuation where God manifests His
Name), ‘ālam arwāỏ (the world of spirit), ‘ālam mithāl (the world of ideas or prototypes),
‘ālam ajsām (the world of form), and ‘ālam insān kāmil (the world of Perfect Man).
19. Hurgronje 1906: 19; Riddell 2006: 38.
20. Azra 1994: 121.
21. Zamzam 1979: 7.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 182

182 Oman Fathurahman

It is clear from the examples above that a number of works were written
in certain contexts and that they became an important part of the social-
intellectual history of the Nusantara people. For this reason, the study of
these texts is, of course, very important.
In brief, Itỏaf al-dhakī has its own context which makes it important,
especially for the Islamic intellectual tradition in the Nusantara World,
because it was written in response to, in the words of al-Kūrānī, the Jamā’at
al-Jāwīyīn (Jāwī community), 22 and more specifically to shed light on
debates and misunderstandings surrounding the waỏdat al-wujūd doctrine in
Aceh.
On the Itỏāf al-dhakī
As hinted at in the title, the Itỏāf al-dhakī is an Arabic commentary
(sharỏ) on another work entitled al-Tuỏfah al-mursalah written by Faỗl
Allāh al-Hindī al-Burhānpūrī. 23 It is related to the teachings of the Seven
Grades (Martabat Tujuh), which were very popular among the Muslim
community in the Nusantara World. However, in fact, the Itỏāf al-dhakī is
more than just a commentary because its own introduction, which deals with
al-Kūrānī’s elucidation on the concept of Sufism and the Sufi experience,
takes up two thirds of the text.
Even though it was initially written at the request of some Jamā’at al-
Jāwīyīn, the exposition of the divine concepts in the Itỏāf al-dhakī are more
theoretical and of a very general nature. Al-Kūrānī does not seem to have
had any knowledge, because he never touches upon it, of who was engaged
in the study of, and what works had emerged in the Nusantara World at the
time that touched upon the issues he discusses. For instance, he never
mentions Ỏamzah al-Fanśūrī, Shams al-Dīn al-Sumatrā’ī, Nūr al-Dīn al-
Rānīrī, or even ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf ibn ‘Alī al-Jāwī al-Fanśūrī who allegedly
pointed out the issue to him.
It is also because of its very general nature, that in a way the Itỏāf al-
dhakī became the answer to divine questions, or more specifically, the
answer to questions about the concept of waỏdat al-wujūd, that captivated
readers from other areas in the Muslim World, 24 and was quoted, for

22. Azra (1994: 196; 2004: 75), basing himself on another Arabic source uses the term aśỏāb
al-Jāwīyīn (the companions of Jāwī) to denote the Nusantara community in the Ỏaramayn.
However, since the Itỏāf al-dhakī is the main source for our discussion, I will use the
expression jamā’at al-Jāwīyīn instead, as used by al-Kūrānī himself.
23. He was a disciple of Shaykh Wajīh al-Dīn ibn Qāỗī Nasr Allāh ‘Alawī Hindī
Ahmādabadī (910-998 A.H.), and the pupil of Shaykh Muỏammad ibn Kathīr al-Dīn
Ỏusaynī, commonly named Muỏammad al-Ghauth, the author of al-Jawāhir al-khamsah
(Loth 1877, I: 191-192).
24. See, for instance, Johns 1978: 481.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 183

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 183

instance, in an influential Sufi text from West Africa entitled Kitāb rimah
ỏizb al-raỏīm written by al-Ỏajj ‘Umar. 25 It is therefore not surprising that a
rather large number of copies of the Itỏāf al-dhakī have been found (there
are thirty known manuscripts so far), scattered over various libraries around
the world. 26
The earliest date for the redaction of the Itỏāf al-dhakī is found in two of
the oldest copies, namely MS 820 in the collection of Fazil Ahmed Pasa,
Köprülü Library, Istanbul, 27 and MS Arab 250 in the Library of Harvard
University, 28 which mention that the Itỏāf al-dhakī was written starting on
Sunday, 30 Rabī‘ al-Awwal 1076/10 October 1665, and completed in early
Jumādā al-Ākhir of the same year. It may be that this date refers not to the
time of al-Kūrānī’s own writing but to the year the text was copied.
Whatever the case, we may safely assume that MS 820 and MS Arab 250
are the closest to the autograph, which may have been written some years
earlier. Drewes was of the opinion that the Itỏāf al-dhakī was written before
1660 because al-Kūrānī wrote the text at the request of his teacher, Aỏmad
al-Qushāshī who died in 1071/1660. 29 However, as emphasised by Azra,
Drewes failed to offer any evidence to substantiate his hypothesis. 30
Similarly, Basheer M. Nafi, who claims that the Itỏāf al-dhakī was written in
1072/1661, 31 does not mention his source as MS Al-Azhar 288, to which he
refers, does not contain the year of writing but only the year when it was
copied, namely 1302/1884.
A Glimpse on Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī was an ‘ālim known to be reconciliatory and keen on
reaching compromises, as he was inclined to choose the middle way between
two opposite opinions. Not unlike his teacher, al-Qushāshī, al-Kūrānī
focused on sharī‘ah as well as on Sufism so that, in his view, a Sufi should
not let his mystical practices conflict with the sharī‘ah and other religious
obligations. Al-Kūrānī’s character did not build up overnight but, to a large
extent, was influenced both by his educational background and by the social
intellectual context that surrounded him. 32

25. Radtke 1995.

26. Fathurahman 2009: 47-58.
27. Seşen (et. al.) 1986, I: 401.
28. Harvard University Library. 15 October 2010
<http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/10323898>.
29. Drewes 1959: 283.
30. Azra 1994: 121.
31. Nafi 2002: 334.
32. See Johns 1978.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 184

184 Oman Fathurahman

As may be seen from the addition to his name, al-Shahrazūrī, al-Kūrānī

came from Shahrazur, a town in the Hawraman area, presently known as
Iraqi Kurdistan at the border with Iran. 33 Arab biographers assign him a
number of nicknames (laqab) such as Abū al-‘Irfān, 34 Burhān al-Dīn, Abū
Isỏāq, Abū Muỏammad, and Abū al-Waqt, 35 which are found in a number of
copies of his work. 36
Sources differ regarding the lifetime of al-Kūrānī, although most mention
1025/1616 as the year of his birth and 1101/1690 as that of his death. 37 Al-
Murādī (1988, I, p. 6) gives a more precise date for al-Kūrānī’s death, stating
that he died on Wednesday, in the afternoon after Aśar prayers, on the 12th of
Rabī‘ al-Thānī 1101/23 January 1690. However, al-Albānī (1996: 66) has
claimed that al-Kūrānī died a few months later, on 28 Jumādā al-Ūlā 1101/9
March 1690.
It is clear that the young al-Kūrānī enjoyed wandering from place to place
seeking Islamic knowledge. After having finished elementary education at
his birthplace, including Arabic, theology (kalām), logic (manţiq), and
philosophy, he went to Bagdad during Turkish Ottoman times, the place any
Kurdish ulama dreamed of going to study with religious figures there.
After spending two years to study with, among others, Muỏammad Sharīf
al-Kūrānī in Bagdad, al-Kūrānī went to Damascus to study with ‘Abd al-
Bāqī Taqī al-Dīn al-Ỏanbalī (d. 1070/1660) and Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī. 38
The teacher first mentioned was mufti in Damascus and a foremost Ỏanbalī
scholar in the mid 17th century. It was in Damascus that al-Kūrānī specialized
in Ỏanbalī fiqh texts, and in the works written by Ibn Taymīyah (1263-1328
CE) and one of his students, Ibn al-Qayyim (1292-1350 CE). 39 Al-Kūrānī
also seems to have had spare time to study Islamic literature in various
languages because besides Arabic (of course), he was also very versed in
Persian and Turkish. 40
In 1061/1650, al-Kūrānī found the opportunity to study with Abī al-
‘Azā’im Sulţān ibn Aỏmad al-Mazāỏī and Muỏammad ibn ‘alā’ al-Dīn al-

33. For a preliminary discussion on the sources of al-Kūrānī’s biography, including his own
work entitled al-Amam li īqāż al-himam, see Azra 1994: 91.
34. see al-Sawwās 1986, II: 14.
35. See, for instance, the first part of the Maţla‘ al-jūd MS 3765 in the Laleli collection, al-
Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul.
36. al-Zarkalī 1969, I: 28; Brockelmann 1996, II: 505-506; al-Baghdādī 1951, I: 35-36; al-
Murādī 1988, I: 6.
37. Al-Murādī, 1988, I, p. 3.
38. Ibid.
39. Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam…, MS 504, Dār al-Kutub Library, Cairo, f. 43.
40. Al-Zarkalī 1969, I: 35.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 185

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 185

Bābilī in Cairo before he finally studied with various ulamas in Medina such
as Abū al-Mawāhib Aỏmad ibn ‘Alī al-Shanāwī, Muỏammad Sharīf ibn Yūsuf
al-Kūrānī,‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Abī Bakr al-Ỏusaynī al-Kūranī, and especially
with Śafī al-Dīn Aỏmad ibn Muỏammad al-Qushāshī (d. 1660 CE). 41
Al-Kūrānī established a special relationship with al-Qushāshī which went
far beyond that between teacher and student. Apart from succeeding him as
the leader of the Shaţţārīyah mystical brotherhood and studying a wide
variety of Islamic knowledge, he also married al-Qushāshī's daughter; by so
doing, their relationship was both familial and scholarly. 42 This reminds us
of the relationship al-Qushāshī himself had with Aỏmad al-Qūnāwī who was
his intellectual teacher, his murshid in the Shaţţārīyah brotherhood, and his
father-in-law, all at the same time. 43
Although he had acquired comprehensive knowledge from al-Qushāshī,
al-Kūrānī enriched it by studying with a number of other ulamas in Medina,
most specifically with Muỏammad al-Bābilī and ‘Īsā al-Tha‘ālibī. Thus he
became an ‘ālim al-Murādī likened to a ‘jabalan min jibāl al-‘ilm baỏran
min buỏūr al-‘irfān’ (a mountain between numerous other mountains of
knowledge, and a ship among many other barks of wisdom).
It is not surprising that al-Kūrānī’s reputation in scholarship was already
‘extraordinary’ in his lifetime. His studies in ỏadīths, for instance, not only
included the collections of the commonly recognized ỏadīths, but also the
collections of ‘less important’ or commonly unrecognized ỏadīths, which
sometimes escaped attention. The same holds for fiqh. Al-Kūrānī not only
studied and mastered the Shāfi‘ī and Ỏanafī fiqh texts that were the main
focus at the time among the Medina Muslim community, but also the
Ỏanbalī and Mālikī fiqh texts. In theology, he was not only versed in al-
Ash‘arī and al-Mātūridī’s thoughts, but his studies also encompassed those
of ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī in his Kitāb i‘tiqad al-Shāfi‘ī, and al-Bukhārī’s
views in his Khalq af‘āl al-‘ibād. Both were considered as ‘non
mainstream’, as far as theological thought among Sunnī ulamas was
concerned, because they did not always accord with al-Ash‘arī and al-
Mātūridī’s thoughts which were most influential at the time. 44
This complicated scholarly background clearly shaped al-Kūrānī’s
character and made him a moderate, so that he could always empathise with
ideas that differed from his own, and take the middle path between opposing
views rather than clearly siding with any one of them. In his Itỏāf al-dhakī,
al-Kūrānī himself says that:

41. Al-Murādī 1988, I, p. 3.

42. Nafi 2002: 321.
43. Azra 1994: 88.
44. Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam…, ff. 10-12 and 16; see also Nafi 2002: 322.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 186

186 Oman Fathurahman

(Combining [two different thoughts] is preferable over choosing either one

of them, in as far as this is possible)

In this matter, al-Kūrānī quotes ‘Umar ibn al-Khaţţāb’s words, who said:

“... and interprete your brother's stance according to the best perspective,
until you find some proof that can help you change your mind; and do not
regard the words of a Muslim as bad or wicked as long as you can find a
good interpretation of it.” (terjemahan tidak jelas, perlu dibetulkan).
Al-Kūrānī’s stance, as a Sufi himself, towards Ibn Taymīyah is a prime
example of his moderate and polite approach towards conflicting ideas. It is
common knowledge that Ibn Taymīyah was the foremost Sunnī figure who
was most diligent in his criticism against Sufi interpretation, understanding,
and practices because he considered them to deviate from the pillars of the
sharī‘ah, although he had studied Sufism rather in-depth. In one of his
works, al-‘Aqīdat al-wāsiţīyah, for instance, he strongly rejects the views of
Sufi theologians and launchs sharp criticism against the Jahmīyah and
Mu‘tazilah whose theological ideas Sufi figures had adopted.
One of Ibn Taymīyah’s criticisms concerns the Sufi interpretation of
Qur’ānic verses, which he thought far exceeds the inner meaning of the
Qur’ān itself. 45 As sketched by al-Suyūţi in al-Itqān, Ibn Taymīyah idea was
that among the Sufis there were those who interpreted the Qur’ān in a sense
that in reality could be right, but that the Qur’ān itself did not point to that
kind of understanding. 46
Considering this kind of criticism by Ibn Taymīyah, al-Kūrānī thought
that as far as Ibn Taymīyah was only convinced that the interpretation of the
Sufis did not accord with the inner meaning of the Qur’ān, this was
acceptable and need not pose a problem because for al-Kūrānī, the Qur’ān
was all-encompassing and perfect, and contained both an inner and an outer
meaning. Each meaning that was the result of a particular model of
interpretation, as long as it was supported by the rules of Arab grammar and

45. Ibn Taymīyah prefers to interpret the Qur’ān literally. For instance, in the case of the
attributes of Allah, he held the principle to ‘describe God as He described Himself, both in
the Qur’ān as through the ỏadīth of the Prophet’ (Laoust 2003, “Ibn Taymīyah”). He was, for
instance, convinced that Allah, as mentioned in the Qur’ān, had hands, a face, eyes, and
others, although he did not look like any other creature.
46. See al-Suyūţī, 1354, chapter 78, for a discussion on this issue.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 187

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 187

accorded with the law principles of the sharī‘ah, was an inherent aspect of
the Qur’ān and could therefore be justified (al-Kūrānī, Itỏāf al-dhakī, f. 14r).
More than just being tolerant, at the end of his work entitled Ifādat al-
‘allām, al-Kūrānī even stated his earnest defense of Ibn Taymīyah’s
theological ideas and those of his star student, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzīyah. It
was mainly directed at ulamas from Ash‘arīyah circles who accused Ibn
Taymīyah and his students of ascribing human characteristics to God.
According to al-Kūrānī, Ibn Taymīyah merely wanted to describe God with
the description He gave Himself, rejecting characteristics that God did not
mention Himself while emphasising the difference between those
characteristics and those of His creations”. 47 Through this way of looking,
al-Kūrānī tried hard to create a theological reconciliation between the
adherents of Asha‘rīyah and the Ỏanbalīyah, especially in connection with
the basic characteristics of the Qur’ān. Through these kinds of elucidations
he hoped that the Sufi Ash‘arī would be more willing to accept Ibn
Taymīyah’s theological views.
Once again, al-Kūrānī’s tolerance towards, and his simultaneous defense
of Ibn Taymīyah’s thought cannot be viewed without considering his
complex educational background. Although Ibn Taymīyah’s works are never
specifically mentioned in his intellectual biography, it is clear that al-Kūrānī
was well acquainted with his views – that follow those of the Ỏanbalī School
– when he was studying with ‘Abd al-Bāqī al-Ỏanbalī. 48 Moreover, al-
Kūrānī was very familiar with and had intimate knowledge of the ideas of
one of Ibn Taymīyah’s foremost students, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawjīyah (691-
751/1292-1350). 49 Having knowledge of various often-conflicting schools
and currents, al-Kūrānī was able to put himself in a proper position and to
adopt a moderate and far from extreme attitude in expressing his views.
His affiliation with a number of mystical brotherhoods also played a role
in forming his character as a Sufi who was on the one hand, able to defend
the notion of Ibn ‘Arabī’s wa ỏ dat al-wujūd, but on the other hand to
emphatically emphasise the importance of adherence to the principles of the
sharī‘ah by often quoting the views of Sunnī ulamas such as al-Junayd al-
Bagdādī (d. 298/911) or Abū Ỏāmid Muỏammad ibn Muỏammad al-Ţūsī al-
Ghazālī (450-505/1058-1111).
The Naqshbandīyah was one of the brotherhoods that influenced al-
Kūrānī’s intellectual tendencies, and al-Kūrānī was one of its leaders next to
being leader of the Shaţţārīyah brotherhood. Al-Kūrānī must have known
well how Aỏmad al-Sirhindī (1564-1624), an innovative ‘ālim from India

47. Al-Kūrānī, Ifāỗat al-‘allām, f. 62.

48. Nafi 2002: 324.
49. Ibid.: 330.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 188

188 Oman Fathurahman

who was also a Naqshbandīyah leader, once severely criticised Ibn ‘Arabī’s
waỏdat al-wujūd (ontological monism) which he considered pantheistic. He
proposed to replace it with the wa ỏ dat al-shuhūd (phenomenalogical
monism) which he considered more in line with sharī‘ah principles. 50
Although there were already other scholars in the seventeenth century who
rejected any relation between Sufi teachings and the wa ỏ dat al-wujūd
doctrine, al-Sirhindī was the earliest innovator and most outspoken in his
criticism of the formulation of the mystical-philosophical doctrine of
conservative Sufis and offered an alternative doctrine of his own.
As reported by al-Ỏamawī – al-Kūrānī’s own student who came to
Medina in 1083/1672 – there were fierce debates about al-Sirhindī's
teachings among the ulamas in the Ỏaramayn which had resulted in two
contesting factions. On one side there were al-Sirhindī’s followers and a
group of Naqshbandīyah ulamas who actively disseminated his thought,
while on the other side were those who equally aggressively wrote books
against them. Muỏammad al-Barzanjī (1040-1103/1630/1691), for instance,
was a Kurdish scholar and a prime student of al-Qushāshī, and wrote the
Qadỏ al-zind fī radd jahālāt ahl Sirhind attacking al-Sirhindī’s thought. 51
Being an adherent of the Naqshbandīyah brotherhood, al-Kūrānī did not
oppose al-Sirhindī’s ideas about the need for conformity between Sufi
teachings and sharī‘ah principles. Later, this teaching became the essence of
al-Kūrānī’s thought as reflected in his works, including the Itỏāf al-dhakī.
The difference was that al-Kūrānī did not think that the waỏdat al-wujūd
doctrine was pantheistic or in violation of the sharī ‘ ah. Rather than
accepting al-Sirhindī’s ‘offer’ to replace the doctrine with the waỏdat al
shuhūd, al-Kūrānī made a new reinterpretation of the waỏdat al wujūd so
that it would no longer be understood as opposing the sharī‘ah.
Indeed, he lived between two worlds: one was a world where mystical-
philosophical doctrines like the wa ỏ dat al-wujūd together with the
Ash‘arīyah theology strongly influenced the way of thinking of the ulamas,
while in the other there were reform movements to propose new
formulations that wanted to step out of these two established traditions.
While al-Sirhindī and a number of other ulamas before al-Kūrānī used the
‘vehicle’ of reformation to attack the waỏdat al-wujūd ideology and the
Ash‘arīyah theology, al-Kūrānī positioned himself between these two
inclinations that already at the time had started to become extreme and
accused each other of deviance. 52

50. See Muztar 1979: 166-167. Regarding al-Sirhindī and his teachings, see, among others,
Ahmad 1969, Friedman 1971, Ansari 1986.
51. Al-Baghdādī 1951, II: 302-303 lists 62 works by al-Barzanjī, including the Qadỏ al-zind.
52. Nafi 2002: 329.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 189

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 189

In al-Kūrānī’s eyes, an innovation the ultimate objective of which is to

comprehensively destroy Sufi ideology and Ash‘arīyah theology is a futile
endeavour that leads to nothing. Therefore, he preferred to reconstruct and reinterpret
both in such a way that both would be more in line with sharī‘ah principles.
Al-Kūrānī was evidently acutely aware of his position among Ỏaramayn
scholars as a Sufi teacher and leading intellectual with students from various
backgrounds behind him so that he tried to look after all of them. He also did
not seem to want to repeat, or to try to find a solution, to the harsh animosity
he had witnessed between al-Sirhindī and his own colleagues among the
Ỏaramayn ulamas, such as Muỏammad al-Barzanjī.
Fortunately, al-Kūrānī was very authoritative in the field of ỏadīth and
not just because of his pedigree and the chain of his knowledge that
connected him with leading muỏaddiths whose scholarly credibility was
unquestionable, but also because he truly mastered their complicated ins and
outs. Therefore his knowledge of the second most important Islamic source
was so extensive that he could use them to read and reinterpret various Sufi
and theological subjects.
Then, not surprisingly, many students of al-Kūrānī found it convenient to
ask religious matters to him. We may see, for instance, that some of al-
Kūrānī’s works are explicitly written to answer questions asked by his
colleagues and students on various religious issues. Among them are Niżām
al-zabarjud fī al-arba‘īn al-musalsala, written as a response to religious
issues raised by Saiyid Yāsīn ibn a-Saiyid A. al-Ỏusaynī al-Khaţīb al-Jazarī
(Brockelmann 1996, II, 505), Jawāb al-‘atīd li-mas’alat awwal wājib wa-
mas’alat al-taqālīd, al-Jawāb al-kāfī ‘an mas’alat iỏāţat ‘ilm al-makhlūq bi-
al-gayr al-mutanāhī, al-Jawāb al-mashkūr ‘an al-su’āl al-manzūr, Kashf al-
mastūr fī jawāb as’ilat ‘Abd al-Shakūr, al-Jawābāt al-gharāwīyah ‘an al-
masā’il al-Jāwīyah al-jahrīyah, and Itỏāf al-dhakī. The last two works
mentioned clearly indicate that the questions posed to al-Kurānī came from
his students from the Nusantara World (jamā‘at al-jāwīyīn).
Therefore, the transformation of al-Kūrānī’s stance, which was not radical
but courteous and reconciliatory, combined with his argumentative approach
to various main issues in theological and Sufi thoughts and his tendency to
reveal his ideas by basing them on traditional scholarly norms, in its turn left
a strong mark on the scholarly tendencies of many of his students, among
them ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf ibn ‘Alī al-Jāwī al-Fanśūrī in Aceh. In several of his
works, such as the Tanbīh al-māshī, Kifāyat al-muỏtājīn, and Daqā’iq al-
ỏurūf, ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf indeed truly continued al-Kūrānī’s intellectual tradition
as the defender of the waỏdat al wujūd teaching by consistently defending
the Ash‘arīyah theology and being consistent in sharī‘ah principles. 53

53. Fathurahman 2008.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 190

190 Oman Fathurahman

It is interesting to notice that later the intellectual thought of al-Kūrānī

influenced other scholars who came to the Ỏaramayn and interacted with his
students. Quţb al-Dīn Aỏmad ibn ‘Abd al-Raỏīm, popularly known as Shāh
Walī Allāh (1703-1762), a prominent Indian scholar, is a good example. 54 In
India in particular, Shāh Walī Allāh is celebrated as a scholar who attempted
to bring about reconciliation between the various schools of law and
theology, and to carry out a reconciliatory approach regarding the so-called
metaphysical doctrines of waỏdat al-wujūd, typically represented by Ibn
‘Arabī, and waỏdat al-shuhūd, a critical response to the latter by Shaykh
Aỏmad Sirhindī. 55
Shāh Walī Allāh could be regarded as a ‘grand student’ of al-Kūrānī, who
inherited his intellectual attitude, since among the prominent scholars who
influenced him most, was Shaykh Abū Ţāhir al-Kurdī al-Madanī (d.
1145/1733), a disciple and son of al-Kūrānī, whose intellectual genealogy
can be traced back to Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawwānī (d. 1502). 56 It is not
surprising that al-Kūrānī’s thought and approach to Islam were very close to
those of Shāh Walī Allāh’s father, ‘Abd al-Raỏīm (1644-1718), who also
belonged to the al-Dawwānī tradition through the influence of his elder
brother, Shaykh Abū al-Riỗā, and his teacher, Mīr Zāhid Hiravī. 57
Abū Ţāhir even passed the Sufi khirqa he received from his father, al-
Kūrānī, as a recognition of Shāh Walī Allāh’s appreciation for mysticism. Of
their close relationship, Muztar explains that:
“This advanced stage of mutual affection between the teacher and the pupil seems to have
originated from the fact that their fathers, Shaikh Ibrahim Kurdi, and Shaikh ‘Abdur
Rahim respectively, had identical views on Shaikh Muhiy-al-Din Ibn-e-‘Arabi, the great
exponent of ontological monism (wahdat-al-wujud). Both of them interpreted the Qur’an
in the light of the philosophy of Ibn-e-‘Arabi 58…”

Al-Kūrānī’s Sufism Interpretation in the Itỏāf al-dhakī

As a whole, the Itỏāf al-dhakī may be considered as al-Kūrānī’s defense
and his effort to reach a compromise with Ibn ‘Arabī’s main ideas in relation
to the Islamic mystical-philosophical doctrines as mentioned above. Some
parts of this work emphasize the specific Sufi views regarding the position
of the Qur’ān, the ỏadīth of the Prophet, and Sufi theology.

54. For a discussion about his early life and intellectual journey to Hejaz and Ỏaramayn, see
Muztar 1979: 36-62.
55. Al-Ghazali 2001: 5.
56. Ibid.: 30-31.
57. Ghazi 2002: 84.
58. Muztar 1979: 54.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 191

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 191

The basic principle of al-Kūrānī’s exposition is his acceptance of the

general teachings that had been put forward by ulamas from the Sunnī
tradition and by those of the so-called salaf al-śāliỏ (the pious ancestors). 59
He subsequently interpreted and augmented the scope of the intent of these
teachings until they ran parallel with the doctrines in the Sufi tradition. The
result of the amalgamation of these two traditions became the most
important aspect of the discussion in the Itỏāf al-dhakī and with this also an
important part of al-Kūrānī’s true nature as a conciliator, who wanted his
ideas to be accepted by as many circles as possible, including those who
opposed him. 60 On a certain level, the Itỏāf al-dhakī also constitutes a
rectification to, and an orthodox interpretation of heterodox, pantheistic Sufi
understandings considered to circumvent certain aspects of the sharī‘ah,
especially those caused by the misunderstanding of Sufi doctrines in the al-
Tuỏfah al-mursalah.
Looking closely at the very detailed, extensive, and complicated
explanation it offers, the Itỏāf al-dhakī may be viewed as one of the most
important commentaries of Ibn ‘Arabī’s philosophical Sufi teachings,
especially in relation to the concept of the waỏdat al-wujūd, or, as al-Kūrānī
prefers to call it, the tawỏīd al-wujūd (unifying Being). Al-Kūrānī also
extensively discusses the Necessary Being (al-wājib al-wujūd) and the
undelimited Being (al-wujūd al-muţlaq) and he positions his discussion in
the context of the ontological relationship between God and creatures. 61
The Itỏāf al-dhakī is indeed not the only work by al-Kūrānī that offers
explanations of the philosophical ideas of Ibn ‘Arabī, because he also deals
with the same topic, be it with a different approach, in other works such as
the Maţla‘ al-jūd bi-taỏqīq al-tanzīh fī waỏdat al-wujūd and Tanbīh al-‘uqūl
‘alá tanzīh al-śūfīyah ‘an i‘tiqād al-tajsīm wa-al-‘aynīyat wa-al-ittiỏād wa-
al-ỏulūl. It is not the longest work he wrote as well, for the Qaśd al-sabil ilá
tawỏīd al-Ỏaq al-Wakīl – a commentary of the al-Manżūmat, the work of his
teacher, al-Qushāshī – is almost twice as long. However, Itỏāf al-dhakī is the
only al-Kūrānī’s work that could be found so far among those he wrote for
the benefit of Jāwī audiences.
One outstanding methodology al-Kūrānī uses to present his ideas is by
relying on the evidence found in the Qur’ān through literal interpretations
and by emphasising the importance of the hidden meaning and the context of

59. Itỏāf al-dhakī MS 288 of the Al-Azhar Library collection, and its copy, MS 9276 in the
Dār al-Kutub Library, Cairo, note that what is meant by ‘salaf al-śāliỏ’ are those who lived in
the early third century Hijrī/ninth century CE.
60. Johns 1978: 481.
61. See for instance the text of Itỏāf al-dhakī MS 820 of Fazil Ahmet Pasa collection, p. 59r-
65v.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 192

192 Oman Fathurahman

the verses he quotes. Apart from that, al-Kūrānī also put forward very
convincing argumentations in the field of ỏadīth because he based his
analyses on the tradition of its narration as well. In various parts, al-Kūrānī
even shows that he truly masters Arabic grammar by offering linguistic
analyses of the sentences he uses. We also find this kind of methodology in
some of his other works such as the Qaśd al-sabīl and Maţla‘al-jūd.
Through the Itỏāf al-dhakī we may get a picture of al-Kūrānī as someone
who mastered various Islamic sciences, and who does not only follow the
perspective of the School (madhhab) he adheres to, but also other
perspectives that conflict with his own. Even when he wants to oppose a
point of view, he always first sets out these views by referring to both the
persons and their works that have a connection with it. Only after that will he
set forth his own opinions which he bases on proof from the Qur’ān, ỏadīth,
linguistic analysis and other sources.
Unfortunately, al-Kūrānī’s sources cannot always be easily traced because
he often incorporated them directly into his exposition so that an
understanding of the context of the sentence he discusses in the Itỏāf al-
dhakī needs to be considered carefully. This way of quotation or paraphrase
was apparently still customary in the past, because other important works,
such as the al-Durrah al-fākhirah written by Nūr al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raỏmān ibn
Aỏmad al-Jāmī‘ (817-898/1414-1492), also use this way of exposition. 62
The most important references al-Kūrānī uses in the Itỏāf al-dhakī – and
in fact also in his other Sufi works – are of course the thought of Muỏyī al-
Dīn Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muỏammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Muỏammad ibn al-‘Arabī al-
Ỏātimī al-Ţā’ī (560-638/1165-1240), more commonly known as Ibn al-
‘Arabī, especially in his al-Futūỏāt al-makkīyah although al-Kūrānī also
uses Ibn ‘Arabī’s other works such as the Mawāqi‘ al-nujūm wa-maţāli‘
ahillat al-asrār wa-al-‘ulūm and al-Ism al-bārī.
This should not be surprising because from the outset, al-Kūrānī was
apparently already aware of his position as interpreter and advocate of the
philosophical Sufi ideas of te ‘al-Shaykh al-Akbar’. 63 Looking at the parts of
the al-Futūỏāt al-makkīyah he quotes, for instance, it appears clearly that al-
Kūrānī wants to show, by adding proofs, that Ibn ‘Arabī’s mystical-
philosophical ideas indeed do conform to the Islamic orthodox notions that
are based on the Qur’ān and the ỏadīth of the Prophet. To invigorate his
explanation, al-Kūrānī also quotes interpretations made by Śadr al-Dīn
Muỏammad ibn Isỏāq al-Qūnawī (w. 673/1274), one of Ibn ‘Arabī’s own

62. Heer 1979: 8.

63. See Knysh 1995. For a very valuable study of the perception of Ibn ‘Arabī’s personality
and teaching by Muslim scholars throughout the four centuries following his death, see
Knysh 1999.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 193

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 193

students through his work I‘jāz al-bayān fī ta’wīl umm al-Qur’ān 64 and the
al-Nafaỏāt al-ilahīyāt.
Before offering his ideas on the waỏdat al-wujūd, al-wujūd al-muţlaq,
and al-wājib al-wujūd concepts, al-Kūrānī first quotes explanations from a
variety of sources that are related to the understanding of the knowledge of
God (‘ilm al-ma‘rifah) or knowledge of Reality (‘ilm al-haqā’iq) itself such
as ‘Alā’ al-Dīn ‘Alī ibn Aỏmad al-Mahā’imī’s Mashra’ al-khuśūś ilá ma’ānī
al-nuśūś and the Miśbāỏ al-uns bayn al-ma’qūl wa-al-mashhūd fī sharỏ
miftāỏ ghayb al-jam’ wa-al-wujūd written by Shams al-Dīn Muỏammad ibn
Ỏamzah al-Fanārī, although al-Kūrānī consistently quotes Ibn al-‘Arabī as
his main source.
The concept of ‘ilm al-ma‘rifah indeed forms the main framework for all
of al-Kūrānī’s discussions in the Itỏāf al-dhakī so that the topic receives
special attention at the outset of his exposition. Apart from the sources
mentioned above, he also explains the so-called ‘al-tawỏīd al-ỏaqīqī (the
ultimate unity)’ by referring to the views of Jalāl al-Dīn Muỏammad al-
Diwānī in his Risālah khalq al-a‘māl, and the Najāt al-ỏā’irīn fī sharỏ
Manāzil al-sā’irīn 65 written by Kamāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Ka’shānī
(d. 730/1329), and a number of narratives in the al-Riyāỗ al-naỗirah fī
manāqib al-‘ashrah by al-Muỏibb al-Ţabarī that describes the attitudes of
the close companions of the Prophet in connection with the issue of
theology.
However, among the sources that al-Kūrānī evidently considered most
important in connection with the topic of theology is the al-Ibānah fī uśūl al-
diyānah, the last and most often cited work written by Abū al-Ỏasan ‘Alī ibn
Ismā‘īl al-Ash’arī (260-324/873-935). Al-Ash’arī’s theological views as laid
down in the al-Ibānah formed an important starting point for al-Kūrānī in
writing his own Sufi doctrines so that they accorded with the principles of
orthodox Islam.
In setting out his evidence from the Qur’ān and the ỏadīth of the Prophet
in order to support his thought, al-Kūrānī strongly emphasises the
importance of explicit and implicit meanings of the Qur’ānic texts and the
ỏadīth that he quotes. It is thus not surprising that in large parts of his
discussion he tries to convince his readers that the text of the Qur’ān and the
ỏadīth always carry two meanings: the explicit and implicit ones, and that
interpreting the revelations of Allah and His Prophet by using the implicit
and ‘uncommon’ meaning does not mean that the explicit understanding of

64. This work has also been published under the title al-Tafsīr al-śūfī li-al-qur’ān, see ‘Aţā’,
1969.
65. The text of Manāzil al-sā’irīn itself was written by Abū Ismā‘īl ‘Abd Allāh ibn
Muỏammad al-Anśārī al-Harawī (w. 481/1088) (Loth 1877, II: 99-100).

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 194

194 Oman Fathurahman

the text is changed but only that the implicit meaning is exposed as far as the
text itself allows and indicates this and as long as it does not deviate from the
rules of the language.
In his long discussion of the topics that underlie his subsequent
discussions, al-Kūrānī bases his views on a number of trusted sources,
including the Iỏyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn and the Mishkāt al-anwār by Ỏujjat al-Islām
al-Ghazālī, ‘Awārif al-ma‘ārif by Shihāb al-Dīn Abū Ỏafś ‘Umar al-
Suhrawardī (539-632/1145-1234), Miśbāỏ al-uns bayn al-ma’qūl wa-al-
mashhūd by Shams al-Dīn Muỏammad ibn Ỏamzah al-Fanārī (d. 834/1430),
which is an explanation of the Miftāỏ ghayb al-jam’ wa-al-wujūd written by
al-Qūnawī, Tafsir al-kashshāf by Abū al-Qāsim Maỏmūd ibn ‘Umar al-
Zamakhsharī (467-538/1075-1144), and the Tafsir al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-
qur’ān by Abū al-Faỗl ‘Abd al-Raỏmān ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muỏammad Jalāl
al-Dīn al-Khuỗayrī al-Suyūţī (849-911/1445-1505).
Al-Kūrānī had evidently truly ‘fallen in love’ with al-Suyūţī’s ways of
interpreting the Qur’ānic verses. This is not too surprising because both had
a very strong foundation in ỏadīth scholarship so that they shared the same
attitude, namely always seeking support for their ideas in the tradition of the
Prophet, and both loved Sufism so that they were able to uncover the hidden
meaning of the Qur’ān in a Sufi perspective. As we know, al-Suyūţī was not
only a mufassir, muỏaddith, historian, and biographer, but also a Sufi teacher
affiliated with the Shādhilīyah brotherhood. 66
This does not mean, of course, that al-Kūrānī ignored other
interpretations as he also often refers to other works such as the Anwār al-
tanzīl wa asrār al-ta’wīl written by ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar ibn Muỏammad
ibn ‘Alī Abū al-Khayr Nāśir al-Dīn al-Bayỗāwī (716/1316), the compilation
of which was inspired by the Tafsir al-Kashshāf mentioned above. 67
It is interesting to notice that in his Sufi thought, al-Kūrānī also quotes
the Tafsīr al-ỏaqā’iq by Abū ‘Abd al-Raỏmān al-Sulamī (330-412/941-
1021), who was considered by al-Dhahabī as being less reliable (ghayr
thiqah) and his interpretations were even considered to deviate because they
legitimised the philosophical views of the Sufis. 68 However, al-Kūrānī
looked for Quranic explanations that could support his interpretation of the
Sufi philosophical doctrines so that his interpretations were acceptable to a
wider Muslim public.
As mentioned above, linguistic analysis was one of the argumentation
methods al-Kūrānī used in his Itỏāf al dhakī so that his exploration of the
hidden meaning of a text would not look perfunctory. He did this, for

66. Geoffroy, in EI, 2003: ‘al-Suyūţī’.

67. J. Robson, in EI, 2003, “al-Bayỗāwī“.
68. al-Dhahabī 1413/1993, vol. 17: 247, and al-Dhahabī 1999, vol. 6: 118.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 195

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 195

instance, when he offered his defense of the interpretation by some Sufis of

the following ỏadīth of the Prophet: “al-Iỏsān an ta‘buda Allāh ka-annaka
tarāhu fa-in-lam takun tarāhu fa-innahu yarāka” (Iỏsān is to adore Allah as
though thou didst see Him, and thou dost not see Him he nonetheless seeth
thee). Various Sufis al-Kūrānī agreed with considered this ỏadīth as an
indication of the possibility for man to see God because they read and
understood “is” to mean ‘fa-in lam takun’ (if you are not something), that is,
if you are nothing, you are fanā’ 69 from yourself so that it is as if you are not
there, and thus you are ‘tarahu’ (at that moment you see Him).
Al-Kūrānī used linguistic evidence to demonstrate that Arab grammar
supports this kind of reading so that by itself it cancels al-Ỏāfiż Ibn Ỏajar’s
contrary view in his work, Fatỏ al-bārī, which al-Kūrānī extensively quoted
before. Naturally, al-Kūrānī not only based his views on the possibility that
man might see God through linguistic analysis only, because in the following
parts he also refers to various other sources like the Muntahā al-madārik fī
sharỏ tā’iyat ibn al-Fāriỗ by Sa‘d al-Dīn al-Fargānī and the Sharỏ al-
mawāqif written by al-Sayyid al-Sharīf ‘Alī ibn Muỏammad al-Jurjānī (d.
816/1474), which are explanations of the al-Mawāqif fī ‘ilm al-kalām written
by ‘Aỗud al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raỏmān ibn Rukn al-Dīn ibn ‘Abd al-Ghaffār al-
Bakrī al-Shabānkārī al-Ījī (d. 756/1355). The latter work is used to this day
as a source to teach Islamic theology at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo.
Closing remarks
Taking his Sufi thought into account, especially those related to his
interpretation of the waỏdat al wujūd doctrine as evidenced from his Itỏāf al-
dhakī, al-Kūrānī may clearly be considered as an interpreter and advocate of
Ibn al-‘Arabī’s philosophical Sufi thought.
Unfortunately, in general, modern scholars of Ibn al-‘Arabī’s thought
only mention ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (w. 736/1335), ‘Abd al-Karīm al-
Jīlī (d. 832/1428), or ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Jāmī (d. 898/1492), among his
interpreters and never mention al-Kūrānī. The reason is maybe the fact that
his thought is not well known. So far, only three of his almost one hundred
works have been published and they do not include the Itỏāf al-dhakī, which
actually contains a long and in-depth discussion of Ibn al-‘Arabī’s mystical-
philosophical doctrines.
I hope therefore that this article will represent a preliminary contribution
to an introduction of al-Kūrānī’s thoughts, especially those related to the
waỏdat al-wujūd, al-wājib al-wujūd and al-wujūd al-muţlaq concepts that

69. fanā’ is a station of annihilation in God (see Nasr 1972: 66).

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 196

196 Oman Fathurahman

are often related to Ibn al-‘Arabī’s teachings. Regarding the Islamic

intellectual tradition in the Nusantara World in the mid 17th century, the Itỏāf
al-dhakī may be considered as one of the most important sources because it
forms one, if not the only, Arabic source that mentions the
misunderstandings among the Muslim community in this region in
connection with the waỏdat al wujūd.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, Aziz. An Intellectual History of Islam in India. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 1969.
Ansari, Muhammad ‘Abdul Haq. Sufism and Shari‘a: A Study of Shaykh Aỏmad Sirhindī’s
Effort to Reform Sufism. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1986.
‘Aţā’, A. Ahmad. al-Tafsīr al-śūfī li-al-qur’ān, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Ỏadīthah, 1969.
Azra, Azyumardi. Jaringan Ulama Timur Tengah dan Kepulauan Nusantara Abad XVII dan
XVIII. Bandung: Penerbit Mizan, second edition, 1994.
—. The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia: Networks of Indonesian-Malay and
Middle Eastern ‘Ulama’ in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century. Australia &
Honolulu: Allen & Unwin and University of Hawai’i Press, 2004.
Baghdādī, Ismā‘īl Bāshā, al-. Hadīyat al-‘ārifīn: asmā’ al-mu’allifīn wa āthār al-musannifīn,
2 volumes. Baghdād: Manshūrāt Maktabat al-Muthannā, 1951-1955.
Braginsky, V.I. “On the Copy of Hamzah Fansuri’s Epitaph Published by C. Guillot & L.
Kalus”. Archipel 62 (2001): 21-33.
Brockelmann, Carl. Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (GAL) von Carl Brockelmann. 2
Volumes and 3 Supplements. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. The previous edition of these
books has been printed by E.J. Brill: Vol. I (1943), Vol. II (1949), Supplement I (1937),
Supplement II (1938), Supplement III (1942).
Bruinessen, Martin van. “Mencari ilmu dan pahala di Tanah Suci: Orang Nusantara naik haji”
(Seeking knowledge and merit: Indonesians on the ỏajj). Ulumul Qur'an 2.5 (1990): 42- 49.
Burhanudin, Jajat. “Islamic Knowledge, Authority and Political Power: The ‘Ulama in
Colonial Indonesia”. Dissertation at the Leiden University, 2007.
Dhahabī, Abī ‘Abd Allāh Muỏammad ibn Aỏmad ibn ‘Uthmān al-. Mīzān al-i‘tidāl fī naqd
al-rijāl. 4 volumes, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1999.
Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muỏammad ibn Aỏmad ibn ‘Uthmān al-, Siyar a‘lām al-nubalā’ 23
volumes. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 1413/1993.
Drewes, G. W. J. “A.H. Johns PhD: Malay Sufism as illustrated in an anonymous collection
of 17th century tracts”. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 115.3 (1959):
280-304.
—. “New Light on the Coming of Islam to Indonesia”. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en
Volkenkunde (BKI) 124.4 (1968): 433-459.
Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI). WebCD edition. Brill Academic Publishers, 2003.
Fathurahman, Oman. Menyoal Wahdatul Wujud. Bandung: Penerbit Mizan, in collaboration
with EFEO Jakarta, 1999.
—. Tarekat Syatariyah di Minangkabau. Jakarta: Penerbit Kencana, Manassa PPIM UIN
Jakarta, KITLV, and EFEO, 2008.
—. “Further Research on Itỏāf al-Dhakī Manuscripts by Ibrahīm al-Kūrānī.” From
Codicology to Technology: Islamic Manuscripts and their Place in Scholarship. Eds.
Stefanie Brinkmann & Beate Wiesmueller. Berlin: Frank &j Timme, 2009: 47-58.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 197

Itỏāf al-dhakī by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī 197

Fathurahman, Oman and Munawar Holil. Katalog Naskah Ali Hasjmy (Catalogue of Aceh
Manuscripts: Ali Hasjmy's Collection). Tokyo: C-DATS Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies, PPIM UIN Jakarta, and Manassa, 2007.
Feener, R. Michael. “South-East Asian Localisations of Islam and Participation within a
Global Umma, c. 1500-1800”. in David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (ed.), The New
Cambridge History of Islam. Volume 3: The Eastern Islamic World Eleventh to
Eighteenth Centuries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Feener, R. Michael and Michael F. Laffan. “Sufi Scents Across the Indian Ocean : Yemeni
Hagiography and the Earliest History of Southeast Asian Islam”. Archipel 70 (2005):
185-208.
Friedmann, Yohanan. Shaykh Aỏmad Sirhindī: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His
Image in the Eyes of Posterity. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1971.
Ghazali, Muhammad al-. The Socio-Political Thought of Shah Wali Allah. Islamabad: Islamic
Research Institute, 2001.
Ghazi, Mahmood Ahmad. Islamic Renaissance in South Asia 1707-1867: The Role of Shāh
Walī Allāh and His Successors. Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, 2002.
Guillot C. and Ludvik Kalus. « La stèle funéraire de Hamzah Fansuri ». Archipel 60 (2000): 3-
24.
—. « En réponse à Vladimir I. Braginsky ». Archipel 62 (2001): 34-38.
Heer, Nicholas L. The Precious Pearl; al-Jāmī’s al-Durrah al-fakhirah together with his
Glosses and the Commentary of ‘Abd al-Ghafūr al-Lārī, Translated with an Introduction,
Notes, and Glossary. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1979.
Hooker, M.B. “Introduction: The Translation of Islam into South-East Asia.” Islam in South-
East Asia. Ed. M.B. Hooker. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983.
Hurgronje, C. Snouck. The Acehnese II. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1906.
Johns, A. H. “Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Directions.” Indonesia 19
(1975): 33-55.
—. “Friends in Grace: Ibrahim al-Kurani and Abd al-Rauf al-Singkeli.” Spectrum: Essays
Presented to Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana. Ed. S. Udin. Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 1978: 469-
485.
—. “Sufism in Southeast Asia: Reflections and Reconsiderations.” Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies 26 (1995): 169-183.
—. “Reflections on the Mysticism of Shams al-Din al-Samatra'i (1550?-1630).” Lost Times
and Untold Tales from the Malay World. Eds. Jan van der Putten and M.K. Cody.
Singapore: NUS Press, 2009: 148-163.
Knysh, Alexander D. “Ibrahim al-Kurani (d. 1101/1690), an Apologist for Waỏdat al-Wujūd.”
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS) Series 3, 5, I (1995): 39-47.
—. Ibn ‘Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval
Islam. New York: State University of New York, 1999.
Laoust, H. “Ibn Taymiyya.” The Encyclopaedia of Islam. WebCD Edition. Brill Academic
Publishers, 2003.
Levtzion, Nehemia. “Eighteen Century Sufi Brotherhoods: Structural, Organisational, and
Ritual Changes.” Islam: Essays on Scripture, Thought and Society. Riddell, Peter
Gregory and Toy Street (ed.). Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1997.
Loth, Otto. A Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office. 2
volumes. London, 1877.
Murādī, Abī al-Faỗl Muỏammad Khalīl ibn ‘Alī al-. Silk al-Durar fī A‘yān al-Qarn al-Thānī
‘Ashar. Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, 4 volumes, 1988.
Muztar, A.D. Shah Wali Allah: A Saint Scholar of Muslim India. Islamabad: National
Commission on Historical and Cultural Research, 1979.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

FATHURAHMAN O.:Mise en page 1 24/03/11 13:56 Page 198

198 Oman Fathurahman

Nafi, Basheer M. “Tasawwuf and Reform in Pre-Modern Islamic Culture: In Search of

Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.” Die Welt des Islams 42.3 (2002): 307-355.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Sufi Essays. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1972.
Osman, Mohd. Taib. “Islamization of the Malays: Transformation of Culture.” Reading on
Islam in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Eds. Ahmad
Ibrahim, Sharon Siddique, and Yasmin Hussain, 1980.
Radtke, Bernd. “Studies on the sources of the Kitab Rimah hizb al-rahim of al-hajj `Umar.”
Sudanic Africa 6 (1995): 73-113.
Ricklefs, Merle Calvin. “Six Centuries of Islamization in Java.” Conversion to Islam. Ed. N.
Levtzion. London: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Riddell, Peter J. Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission and Responses.
Singapore: Horizon Books, 2001.
—. “Aceh in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries: 'Serambi Mekkah' and Identity.”
Verandah of Violence. The background of the Aceh Problem. Ed. A. Reid. Singapore &
Washington: Singapore University press in association with University of Washington
Press, 2006.
al-Sawwās, Yasin Muhammad. Fihris Makhţūţāt Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhirīyah al-Majāmi’.
Damaskus: Matbu’at Majma’ al-Lughah al-‘Arabiyah, 1983 (I), 1986 (II).
Şeşen, Ramazan, Cevat İzgi, Cemil Akpinar, and Ekmeleddin İhsanoḡlu. Catalogue of
Manuscripts in the Köprülü Library. Istanbul: Research Center for Islamic History, 2
volumes, 1986.
Suyūţī, Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raỏmān ibn Abī Bakr al-. al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān. Cairo:
Ỏalabī, 2 volumes, 1935/1354.
Voorhoeve, P. Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden and
Other Collections in the Netherlands. (Codices Manuscripti). Leiden: Leiden University
Press/The Hague/Boston/London, 1980 [the first edition of this publication was printed
in 1957].
Zamzam, Zafry. Syekh Muhammad Arsyad Al-Banjary sebagai Ulama Juru Da’wah dalam
Sejarah Penyiaran Islam di Kalimantan Abad 13 H/18 M dan Pengaruhnya di Asia
Tenggara. Banjarmasin: Penerbit Karya, 1979.
Zarkalī (Al-Zerekly), Khayr al-Dīn al-. Al-A‘lām: Qāmūs Tarājīm. Third edition, 12 volumes.
Beirut, 1389/1969.

Archipel 81, Paris, 2011

View publication stats