RÀNîRî AND THE WUJÜDIYYAH OF 17th CENTURY

ACRER

A critical study of Nüru'l-Dln al-RanIri'srefutation of Harnzah FansürI's mysticalphilosophy, based on RantrI's HUjJatu'l-SiddIg li daf'i'l-ZindIg and Tlbyan fIMa:rrifati'l-Adyân and other Kalay sources.

by

Sayyid Muhammad Naguib al-Attas

A thesis submitted to the Faculty ofGraduate Studies and Research in partialfulfil1ment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Arts

Institute of Is1amic Studies,NcGi11 University,Hontreal. August 1962

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Preface

Chapters

i

ii

rII

III

IV

V

VI

VII

Introduction: The historical background.

Nür u ' l - DI n al-RanirI.

RanIrI's refutation of Hamzah FansürI.• •The teachings of Hamzah FansürI.. .Hamzah FansürI 1 s concept of the iradah• •as domonstrated in the conceptualstructure of the Malay word hendak.

Ca) Conceptual structure of theword hendak ,

Cb) Derivatives and their conceptualstructures.

(c) Conceptua1 distinction betweenhendak and mahu.

(d2 concept of theiradah.

Romanized Malay edition of the text ofthe li

English translation of the texte

1

233578

104

105

117

129

137

146

178Appendices

Bibliography

r

II

Facsimile of the text of theli

The significance of the term zindIg.

209

238246

-i-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

l would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Wilfred

Cantwell Smith, Director of the Institute of Islamic Studies,

McGi11 University, whose help and encouragement has made this

study possible.

My especial thanks are due to Dr. 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, McGi11 University, and Professor, Central Institute of

Islamic Research, Karachi, Pakistan, for his assistance particularly

in readings of relevant passages from Ibnu'I-'ArabI's Futuhatu'l---•.=.:;...;;.;......-....

MakkQryah 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 work; and to

W.J. Watson, Librarian, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill

University, for giving every possible help in available to

me certain books and journals.

-ii-

PREFACE

The subject of this thesis is a critical study of Nüru'l-DIn

al-Raniri's refutation of Hamzah Fansüri's mystical philosophy,• •based on two of RanirI's works: the li daf'i'l-

ZindIg (Maxwell Text no. 93, Royal Asiatic Society, London), and theTibyan fI (Leiden Text cod. or. 3291), both ofwhich have been reproduced in facsimile in Voorhoeve's Twee Maleise

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

Hamzah FansürI containing various collections of mystical poems and• •two prose works: t he Asraru'l-'Arifin and the Sharabu'l-'AshigIn

or aIl of which have been edited and trans-

literated into the Roman script and bound in a single volume by

Doorenbos in De Geschriften van Harnzah Pansoeri (1933). None of

Raniri's two works mentioned 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 l have

made a Romanized Malay edition of the text of the

li daf'i'l-Zindig including an Engiish translation of it.

As far as l mil aware, this is the first thesis on the subject

dealing with a detailed study of the mystical controversy between

Ràniri and and 1t 1s the second thesis an studies in Malay

mysticism written for an English-speaking university.l Otherwise

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

-iii-

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

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

RanirI insofar as his refutation of ?amzah's mystical philosophy

is concerned, nor wcr-k on ?amzah' s teachings wiVl a view to

bringing together for close comparison the ideas of t hese two 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 gr an t ed as true RànirI's representation of ?amzah's beliefs

and teachings. They believe in Ranlri's claim to being an exponent

of "orthodox mystf.cf.sm;" and in Ranlri 's denunciation of ?amzah as

a "heretical pantheist" and of hi s teachings as "heresies." Thus,

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

Winstedt succumbing to RanIrI's persuasive influence in interpreting

?amzah's mystical philosophy as mer e materialistic pantheism:

For Hamzah God includes heat and cold, goodand evil, the Ka'bah and idolatrous temples. AlIlies potential in the Divine Being like the seed inthe tree. If heat and cold, good and evil, werenot always in God, then He could not becalled perfect. 2

Even in the most recent ·Observation in connection with Hamzah's•mystical philosophy we find it said that:

2 Winstedt, R.O., A History of Classical Malay literature,Journal of t he Malayan Branch, Royal Society, vol. 31, pt.3,June 1958, p. 118.

-iv-

There is not sufficient primary material availableto be absolutely certain of the standpoint of thevarious authors concerned, even in regard to theworks of Hamzah and Shamsu'l-Dln, although itseems safe to say they were Panthe1sts of anextreme kind.3

It is the veracity of what has been reported as beliefs

and teac'ings as conveyed to us by Rani:ri and all those who agree

with him that l now challenge, for from what l understand of

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

a damaging one at that - the reports and presentations are distor-

tions and caricatures of vn1at actually says and means. It

Ls therefore wi th reason thé'.t l nov su ggest we no longer continue

to consign him to the company of that uncultured and antinomian

brand of pedestrian whom RânIri calls t he Heretical or

Wujüdiyyah, for as Sa'di would say, if dust were blown to

the heavens it would still be dust; lli1d if goId were cast into the

dung-heap, gold it still would beJ

l have selected RanirI's li daf'i'l-ZindIg

for translation as l think t lùs work reveals the nature of Ranlri's

concepts of Being, Existence, Essence. These are key concepts in

his polemics against ü le heretical Wujüdiyyah mystics and agatns't

?amzah. The Romanized Malay edition and English translation appears

respectively in chapters six an d seven of this study. The edition

and translation have been briefly annotated to throw sorne light on

3 Johns, QE. p. 30.

-v-

the meaning of the text and to convey critical comments Q1 the texte

The system of transliteration of Arabic characters that r adoptthroughout t 1.1Îs study is as f'o l Lows :-

(a) Consonants:

\ = a = ,4 = b 0 = t 0 = th

= j = t: = kh :;) = d .» = dh

...J = r J = z = s = sh =.-f = d .P = t = z é. = t: = gh• • •

= f 19 = q <-tJ = k U = 1 .;0 = m

0 = n .-9 =w J::, = 11 6 = y..(b) Long voweLs i \.S 6 ...or =a; = u· = 1,(c) Short voweLs e " J i= a; = u' - - -, .,.(d) " / lU (finalDiphthongs: ..9- = aw; 9 = ay; ...J<._ _ = iyy.. ,., forro i),

.J) - = uww (final form ü)

(e) Others: D =ah (as in ma'rifah) and at (as in ma 'rifatu);

J' (article) = al or '1

Throughout t l!is study and in chapter six in particular, the

system of Romanized Malay spelling is not the same as that still

officia11y used in Na1ay schoo1s and textbooks in the Nalay

Peninsula. l 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 wor-ds

usually denoting plurals and emphases) are dropped out, and the

spelling is more phonetic. Thus, for example, sa-suatu is spelled

4 Except when initial.

-vi-

sesuatu; is spelled diperolehnya - and so In

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

RànIrI's notes ta the written text on the margin of t he manuscript;

numerals without brackets are my notes continued in the usual order

from the preceding chapters; numerals in square brackets ([lJ)

indicate paging of the manuscript; a word or words in square

braclcets ([one]) denotes conjecture; a letter or letters in square

brackets ([oJ) indicates missing letters in either the correct

spelling, or the modern forro of spelling, such as, for an ex ample

of the latter, terbunli (archaic) and ter[semJbunli (modern form);

memantah (archaic) and (modern fortl). Arabie words

oecurring in the Malay text, and words of Arabie which have

beeame eommon Malay usage are spelled aeeording ta t he Arabie form

following tine system of transliteration into Arabie charaeters here

adopted. Thus words now regarded as part of common 11alay usage

sueh as maksud, kaum, dunia, ar e Romanized with the addition

of diacritieal marks to indicate their original Arabie derivation

8.S gavnn, 'alam, and dunya.

CRAPTER l

Introduction: The historical background

-1-

Trade has been going on in the Indonesian Archipelago since

ancient times, linking it with the various parts Asia and with

the Middle East and the lands of the North. In Roman times, the

Alexandrian geographer Ptolemy, who flourished in the year 160of the Christian era, mentioned the first time an area in the

Archipelago, referring to it as the 'Golden Chersonese.' This

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

impressions. Islam tao 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

1 The Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboguerg ue,Viceroy of India. With notes and introduction by Walter de GrayBirch.The Hakluyt Society, LII, LV, LXII, LXIX, London, 4 volumes,1875-1884. Volume III, p. 71. Malacca and the Malay Peninsulais referred to as the Golden Chersonese. Camillio Portio in hisGration ta Pope Leo X in 1515 on the capture of Malacca, extollsMalacca as the Golden Chersonese (ibid., pp. 169-187). Hereaftercited as Commentaries. See also VÏëkke, B.R.M., Nusantara, ahistory of Indonesia, The Hague, 1959, p. 18. Rereafter cited asVlekke.

2 See Arnold, T.W., The preaching London, 1913,p. 364. Hereafter cited as ArnolJ!.

-2-

and again in 878,3 and in Java in 1082, in Champa in 1039,4 in

3 See S.A., the Farand cultural relations in and Irano-Arabian tlmes,Cairo, 1942, pp. 274, 164. See a1so on p. 164. Hereaftercited as Ruzayyin. In 878, fo11owing a troub1esome rebe11ionwhich broKe out in South China among the troops of the T'angEmperor Hi-tsung (874-889), Mas'üdI reported that about onehundred and twenty thousand, or two hundred thousand traders fromthe West comprising Mus1ims (the majority), Jews, Christians,and Parsees who had sett1ed jn what was known to the Arabs asKhanfu (Canton)) were massacred (see Chau Ju-Kua: his works on theChinese and Arab trade in and tfiirteenth centuries,entitled Chu-fan-chi, trans1atea and annotated by F. Hirth andW.W. Rockhi11, St. Petersburg, 1912, p. 18. Hereafter cited asChau Ju-Kua). Consequently the Mus l i m traders, who were main1yArabs and Persians 1eft Canton and sought refuge in Ka1ah(Kedah) on the west coast of the Malay Peninsu1a. This consider-able emi i;ration of the Muslim traders to the Malay Peninsu1aeffected a transference of the entrepot for trade vdth the ChineseEmpire from Canton to Kedah. We can reasonab1y assume that sincethe Mus1ims had quite a considerable settlement in Canton, enjoy-ing a high degree of civil and religious autonomy (see referenceto Chu Yu's work written between 1111 and 1117 in Chau Ju-Kua,pp. 16 and 17; notes l and 2 on p. 16, and notes 1 and 2 on p. 17),they must have perpetuated their mode of settlement and socialorganization in Kedah and San-fo-tsi(Pa1embang) in east Sumatra,whither they had simi1ar1y migrated. This event seems to havemarked the beginning of the coming of Islam in these areas. Wemay imagine - if we accept our assumption that the Mus1i msestab1ished settlements similar to those in Canton and elsewherein South China - that the Mus1ims coup1ed trading with missionaryactivities; especial1y in the coastal areas which were theirports of calI and trading centres.

4 Krom, N.J., Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis, The Hague, secondedition, 1931, p. 452 and notes 5 and 6. Cited in van Leur, J.C.,Indonesian and societz, The Hague, 1955, p. 168.

-3-

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

missionary activity when compared with the spread of missionary

activity among the Muslims at the end of the thirteenth century;

and that t his activity, which in the fourteenth century increased

in momentum, dominated the entire Archipelago in the fifteenth

century. 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 with extrene zeal the "priviledge allowed

them through the extraordinary blessing of God"B 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 Arrica near the Nile.

Having crossed the sma11 range of hills from the Red Sea to the

Nile, Albuquerque planned to divert the waters of t he Nile and

ruin Then he dreamed of fitt ing out an expedition of four

hundred horsemen galloping from the eastern shores of the Red Sea

5 See above 3.6 See Paterson, R.S., An earlx from Trengganu,Journal or the Malayan Branch or the Royal Asiatic Society (J}fBRAS) ,1924, vol. 2, pt. 3, pp. 252-258. See also Blagden, c.a., A noteon the Trenggany-inscription, JMBRAS, 1924, vol. 2, part 3, pp.258-264.7 Schrieke, B., Indonesian sociological studies, The Hague,1955-1957, parts l and II. Cited hereafter as Schrieke landSchrieke II respectively. Schrieke II, p. 232.B Schrieke quoting Barros, Schrieke l, p. 39.

-lt-

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

it to the ground. From there the horsemen wou1d rush upon

Mad!nah, exhume the Prophet's bones to trade them for Jerusalem. 9

The Portuguese adventure in world po1itics succeeded to a certain

extent in crippling the economy of sorne Muslirn countries -

particular1y Egypt. There was no need for Albuquerque to divert

the waters of the Ni1e to ruin Egypt, for in 1511 when he

captured Malacca, trade from the Archipelago was diverted round

the Cape of Good Hope to European ports. This was one of the main

causes for the downfal1 of the Mamlüks (another one being the

discovery of America 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

Mamlüks (1250-1517) when the transit trade from the Spice Islands

and the Archipelago was thriving brisk1y. To indicate the grave

economic 10ss suffered by the Mamlüks 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

9 Commentaries IV, pp. 36-37.10 Cited in Schrieke I, p. 10, from Becker's work on the economichistory of Mus1im Egypt to be found in his Is1amstudien, pp. 214,186.

The spices involved in the trade were so much in demand in

Europe, where they were used not only in kitchens but in apothe-

caries as weIl. But ironically enough, just as the destruction

of Baghdad and of the Khilafat by Hùlagü and his Mongols in 1258

diverted world trade from 'Iraq to Egypt,ll and contributed to

promoting the rise of Muslim trade in the East, so did the

attack on Muslim 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

Christians.

However, one point of Schrieke's thesis is unacceptable ta

me as l think the arguments marshalled iIl support of it are

inadequate. This is his magnification of the role of Christianity

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

Archipelago. As a result of this the importance of Malacca's

role as the centre whence Islamic propaganda and missionary

Il Since the rise of the Fatimis, trade was diverted frem 'Iraqto Egypt; and even more 50 after the destruction of Baghdad.Durlng the period of the 'AbbasIs, the trade route used to befrom the Persian Gulf via Baghdad to the Mediterranean ports.Furthermore, it shou1d be noted that the conquest of southernPalestine by the Franks in the twelfth century had resu1ted indiverting the spice trade route in Egypt itse1f. Ras 'Ilba on theRed Sea across from Jiddah became the port of the Indian transittrade. From there it followed through the desert to Qush inUpper Egypt and the Nile te and thence te Alexandria,whence it reached the European ports. See map no. 9,facing p. 168.

-6-

activity radiated to the extremities of the Archipelago is

relegated to the background. Schrieke himself knows that before

the sixteenth century had already spread to many parts of

the Archipelago. 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. Rence

the saying: 'Java was converted in Malacca.' AlI this happened

long before the Portuguese appeared on the scene. Yet to

Schrieke "so little progress was made by Islam before the six-

teenth centurY"1 l do not see how it 15 "impossible to understand

the spread of Islam in the Archipelago unless one takes into

account the antagonism between the Muslim traders and the Portu-

guese" 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

eentury and inereased its momentum in the fifteenth

dominating the sixteenth eentury not so mueh beeause of a "raee

with Christianity" but because - and l do not want to imply that

l am necessarily a disciple of Plekhanov - t he momentum of the

historieal process must progresses.

Whether or not the Portuguese appeared then on the seene wouId nat

-7-

have made that much difference as Schrieke maintains, for Islam

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

progression. Viewed in this way it is easy to see how the

Portuguese factor can be easily magnified at the expense of

other more important ones. l 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 l 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 Moluccas. Thus Pasai, Malacca, and Acheh in turn became

centres of international trade. This period of economic 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 aIl the

other parts of the Archipelago. The courts were

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

the Archipelago, Islam had come, contrary to what seemed to be

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

-8-

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

influence. Apart from the scholars and mystics, there flourished

also the administrators - the Shahbandars who not only represented

a link between Islam and the royal courts, but between the courts

and the outside world as well. 12

According to the Malay 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 twelfth century.13 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 ruling king,

12 For information about the various roles of the Shahbandar,see Moreland, W.H., Shahbandar of the Eastern Seas, Journal of theRoyal Asiatic Society (JRAS), 1920;-Pt. pp. 517-535. See alsoBlagden, c.e., Shahbandar and Bendahara, JRAS, 1921, pt. l,pp. 246-250.

13 See Arnold, p. 366.

14 Raja-Raja Pasai; a revised romanized version ofRaffles M 67, with an English translation, an introduction andnotes by A.H. Hill, JMBRAS, vol. 33, pt. 2, 1960, p. 56.Hereafted cited as Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai.

-9-

Merah Silu, to Islam. The realms of Perlak and Samudra were then

united under this k1ng's rule and called Pasai. The king, whose

Muslim title was died in 1297. Marco Polo,

visiting this part of Sumatra in 1292, witnessed the fact that the

inhabitants were Muslims. During the reign of

(who may have been the eldest son of in the

first half of the fourteenth century, Islamic learning was already

flourishing in Pasai. It was the earliest centre of Islamic

learning in the Archipelago. According to Ibn the

was a lover of religious debates and discourses, and had

himself surrounded by 'Ulama' and Fuqaha'. He mention of

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

advisors to the and his sons. These may have been the

ones he met when he stopped there in 1345-1346.16 Ibn

also mentioned that the was zealous in propagating the

faith in the surrounding country by means of wars and raiding

expeditions.17 From the same source, we know too that the

court maintained close relations with the Indian courts---------,-------

15 Ibn Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354; trans1atedand selecteà by H.A.R. Gibb, London, 1953, p. 274. Hereaftercited as Ibn

16 Ibn p. 273.

17 p. 274.

-10-

and was markedly Indian in character, with a court official who

bore t he Arab-Persian-Indian title of amlr. 18 During the period

of religious transition in Java, Javanese scholars gathered in

the court of Pasai, which had contributed towards the conversion

of west Java by sending there Sunan Gunung Jati, one of the most

i11ustrious missionaries in Java who became the founder of Banten

and vmo converted Sundanese Java to Islam.19 Tt was at the court

of Pasai that in 1407 the great- great grandson of

the last 'Abbasl Khalifah, died. 2O Sumatra in 1365 still owed

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

Acheh in 1412 was still ru1ed by a Maharaja, but by 1416 Chinese

sources reported that Acheh was already Muslim,21 vigourous1y

expanding her power by pushing further south.

In 1401, Parameswara, 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. Re took refu ge in Tumasik (Singapore) and, after

his host, took possession of the island. In 1402, the--,---

18 p. 273. Ibn had been acquainted with the amIrwhen t he l atter had cone as an envoy to the Sultan of Delhi(p. 274). •

19 See Schrieke II, p. 238, 261.

20 See Winstedt, R.a., Journal ofthe Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JSBRAS), 1920,no. 81, p. 5.21 Bee Winstedt, R.O. and Wilkinson, R.J., History of-Eerak,JMBRAS, 1934, vol. 12, pt. l, p. 18. Hereafter cited asof Perak.

-11-

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 uy through marriage with a daughter of

the of Pasai, Parameswara became a MusIim, styl1ng himself

Iskandar Shâh. 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 thëirprecious 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 Archipelago. The development of Malacca

into a great commercial centre and the propagation of Islam in

that part of the world went hand 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 cent ury after Parames-

22 Q!. Commentaries III, pp. 71-84.23_ That Parame swara , or Permaisura, was identical with IskandarShah was shown by Winstedt in several places. Kern was earlierin holding this view. It was Tome Pires, a Portuguese accountantwho wrote his Suma Oriental in Malacca and India between 1512 and1515, who pointed out this fact. See Winstedt, R.a., Thea cultural historz, London, 1953, p. 34. See also his Malaychronicles fI2m Sumatra and Malaya in Historians of South East Asia,edited by D.G.E. Hall, London, 1961, vol. II, p. 25.

-12-

wara became a Mus1im, the theologians of the kingdom were already

f'ormu.La.tLng re1igious questions and taking an active part in

po1emics in metaphysica1 matters, vying "vith those of Pasai. 24

In 'Abdu'l-Lah ibn 'Abdu'l Qadir Munshi's editi Qn of the 3ejarah

Me1ayu,25 chapter twenty26 relates that a certain Shaykh

at Mcl{kah - Abû by - had written a book entitled

Durru 'l-NaIl?ûm. This bock , dea1ing with mysticism, was at first

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

the nature of the (essence), and the second on the nature

of the (attributes) of God. Having cODpleted this work,

the Shaykh Abû then instructed l'lis disciple Abû Bakr

to spread the know1ed ge in Malacca. Before taking 1eave of l'lis

Shaykh, however, Abû Bakr was said ta h2ve suggested to him to

inc1ude in the book a discourse on the af 'al (vror-ks ) of God , sc-------_._- ------

24 See the article on the Pasai auestions, J3BnAS, 1922, no. 86,pp . 264-265.

25 Edited by Situmorang, T.D. and Teeuw, A., Djakarta, 1958.Hereafter cited as Sejarah Melay u.

26 Pp. 168-173. See also Winstedt, R.a., TheJMBRAS, 1938, vol. 16, pt. 3, p. 8; and A history of Malalture, JMBRAS, vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 92.

-13-

that should he be asked questions pertaining to the af'al of God,

he would be weIl prepared. The Shaykh Abü agreed to his

disciple's suggestion and included the discourse required in his

book. The completed book of three parts dealing with the

essence, attributes, and works of God was t&{en to Malacca where

both, the book and Mawlana Abü Bakr, were received with great

pomp and ceremony; drummed aIl the way to the Nalaccan court.

The of Malacca at the time, Shah, himself took a

keen interest in the study of the book and had it sent to Pasai

to the Makhdüm who was instructed to interpret its inner

meanings. Shah also sent Tun Bija Wangsa to Pasai,

offerring presents of gold, slave girls, and cockatoos for the

solution of the problem as ta whether those in heaven and hell

enjoy or suffer eternally. At first Tun Bija Wangsa was told

that they will dwell in heaven or in hell enjoying and sufferring

eternally, but since this was not the answer expected, he was

privately given an esoteric answer: that the sufferings of the

damned would be turned to pleasure. This answer reflects a

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

probably died sorne time between 1406 and 1417. 27 Johns noted

that Maniùr Shah ascended the throne in 1459 and that it is fair

to assume that the contents of the Insanu'l-Kamil and its author-------------------,----------------27 See Nicholson, R.A., mystici2m, Cambridge,1921, pp. 136-137 and note 5. Hereafter cited as Nicholson. Cf.also Johns, A.H., as i11ustrated in an anonymouscollection of seventeenth-century tracts, JMBRAS, 1957, vol. 30,pt. 2, p. 9. Hereafter cited as Johns.

-14-

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

in the Sejarah Melayu, so that the possibility of the work being

known in Indonesia within fifty years of its author's death is not

unreasonable. 28 The foundations of Sufism had already been weIl

laid in Malacca in 1488, and it is not a surprise for us to learn

that the who reigned at that time was himself an enthusiast

in Sufism. Tha ?üfI orders must have already been weIl established

in the Archipelago - particular1y in Pasai - between the fifteenth

and sixteenth centuries, for we could find men whose comprehension

of the doctrines of the and of Muslim theo1ogy and

metaphysics revealed a maturity found only within a society in

which Sufism flourishes.

When in 1511 the Portuguese captured Malacca, Acheh rose

rapidly as the most important Muslim commercial centre in the

Archipelago, for the merchants and traders from Malacca had

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

Arch1pelago. Acheh became an important transit point for Muslim

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

East. In the early sixteenth century, under the first maker of

Greater Acheh, 'AlI Mughàyat Shah 1530), Acheh hadconquered several territories in the regions of southern Sumatra

and in the eastern coastal regions; repulsed the Portuguese fleet

under Ruy de Brito (1521); and expe1led the Portuguese from their

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

-15-

fort at Acheh (1524) which they had occupied since 1521.29 His

successor, 'Alâ'u'l-DIn Ri'ayat Shah al-Qabhar (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 mercenaries were said

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

The tenth from 'AlI Mughayat Shah was also named 'Ala'u'l-

Din Ri'ayat Shah. He reigned from 1589-1604. The opulence of his

court is illustrated by the descriptions 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 weIl as mystics were welcooe. The Englishmen came to anchor in

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

city. They found about eighteen other ships of different nations -

from Gujerat, Malabar, Bengal, Calicut, Pegu, Patani, and even the

Red Sea. 30 On the 8th of June, the Sultan sent to fetch Lancaster:

••• sixe great elephants, with many trumpets,drums and streamers, with much people toaccompany the generall to the court, so thatthe presse was exceeding great. The biggest ofthese elephants was about thirteene or fourteenefoote high, which had a small castle, like a coachupon his back, couered with crimson veluet. In

29 History of Perak, p. 18.

30 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.

-16-

the middle thereof was a great bason of gold, anda peece of silke exceeding richly wrought to couerit, vnder which her Majesties letter was put. Thegenerall was mounted vpon another of the elephants;sorne of his attendants rode, others went a foote.But when he came to the court gate, there a noble-man stayed the generall, till he had gone in toknow the kings further pleasure. But presentlythe said nobleman returned, and willed the generallto enter in. And when the generall came to thekings presence, he made his obeysance after themanner of the country, declaring that hee wassent from the most mightie Queene of England tocongratulate with his hignesse and treat withconcerning a peace and amitie with his Maiestie,if it pleased him to entertaine the same.3l

Lancaster presented the a silver basin with a fountain in

the midst of it, a great silver cup, 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 sorne 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 calico 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 beha1f to

discuss the matter with Lancaster.

31 Voyages, p. 76.

-17-

The one of these noblemen was the chiefe bishopeof the realme, a man of great estimation with theking and aIl the people; and so he weIl deserued,for he was a man very wise and temperate. Theother one was one of the most ancient nobilitie,a man of very good grauitie but not so fit toenter into those conferences as the bishop was. 32

It has been suggested that t :1.e "chiefe bishope of the realme" may

have been Shamsu'l-DIn al-SumatranI the mystic,33 or it may have

been It seems to me that the other man mentioned

may have been iIamzah, who was actually in Acheh at this time, for

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

during the "season of 'olhite menu35 referring no doubt either to the

Dutch or to the English who appeared on the scene at this time.----------------------------------32 p. 81 .

33 See Van Ni euwenhui j ze , C.A.O., Samsu'l-D!n van Leiden,1945, p. 18. Hereafter cited as Van Nieuwenhuijze. Pertinentreferences to Shaykh Shamsu 'l-DIn 1::"1 the Hikayat Acheh seem toconfirm the view that Shamsu'l-DIn was in .fact the 'chiefe bishopeof the realme.' See Teuku Iskandar, De 's-Graven-hage, N.V. De Neder 1ands che Boek -en Steendrukkerij v.h. H.L.Smits, 1959, pp. 137, 153, 168. Hereafter cited as Hikayat Acheh.Shamsu'l-DIn bore the Otto@an tit1e of Shayku'1-Is1am. The DongDawis mentioned on p. 136 was none other than John Davis, thegreat Arctie navigator who had visited the Achelmese court in hisvoyage to the East Indies in a Duteh ship in 1593.

See Schrieke II, p. 393, 149.

35 De van Hamzah Pansoeri, by J. Doorenbos, Leiden,1933, p. 118. Hereafter cited as

-18-

The term putih' could not have referred to the Portuguese

who would have been cal1ed Pertuga1i or Peringgi (from Ar.

faranj!); rather even to this day it refers to Eng1ishmen.

Acheh had grmvn so gr eat and famous on account of her

prosperity that Francois Pyrard, describing conditions in 1602,

writes that:

AlI people in the Indies or on the other side of theCape of Good Hope, when they go to Sumatra, merelysay that they are goine to Achen: for this city andport the name and reputation of theisland. j

In Iskandar Muda, who reigned from 1607 to 1636, Acheh

reached its zenith in military as well as power.

Iskandar Muda conquered Perak and sacked Johore, and with the

exception of Java and the eastern parts of the Archipe1ago, he1d

sway over the reste Captain Best visited Acheh in 1612, he

saw Iskandar l·fuda ua 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 Mogu1 court. 37

When the went to the Friday prayers, it is said that:_____________ -__. 0 _

36 The voyage of Francois pyrard of Laval to the East Indies, theMaldives, the Mo1uccas and Brazil; trans1ated by Albert Gray,assisted by H.C.P. Bell, from the French, Hak1uyt Society, LXXVI,LXXVII, London, 1887-1890, 2 vols. in 3 parts, part l, pp. 159-160.

37 See Schrieke II, pp. 251-252.

-19-

••• He had for his guard, (who) went before him,200 great ollephantes, 2000 small shot, 2000 pikes,200 launces, 100 20 naked swordes of puregould carried before him; 20 fencers went beforehim, plaiinge with swordes and targettes; a horseleed before him, covered with beaten gould, thebridle set with stones; at his sadle-crutch ashafte of arrowes, the quiver of beaten gould setwith pretious stones. Before :him went his towesons, of 8 or 9 years ould, arrayed with jewellesand rich stones. His Majestie rode upon an ollephant,his saddle of pure gould, his slave behind him inrich arraye, with his betel boxe, and a fan of puregould in his hand to keepe the flies fraa the Kinge.The Kinge's robes were 50 rich that l cannot weIl des-cribe them; he had a turband upon his head set withjewelles and pretious stones invalluable; creastand sword of pure gold, the skaberd set with stones.Before him went an ollephant, with a chaire of statecouered aIl with beaten silver, that, if yt shou1dchaunce to rayne, he might change o11ephantes •••38

Not only was Iskandar reputed to be a cODQueror, but

he was also credited with havinG brought a reform in Acheh which,

in accardance with what was believed ta be Islamic, he created into

a theocratic state. As part of his reform programme, he is said to

have created the office of as m1 official of the court. 39-l must, however, point out that the title QaÇlI Haliku'l-'Adil,

38 See Voyages, p. 256.

39 See Van Langen, K.F.H., De Inrichting van het Atjehsche Staats-bestuur onder het Soeltanaat, BKI, Leiden, 1988 , p. 420. Hereaftercited as Van Langen. Hurgronje, C.S. (in The Achehnese, translatedby A.W.S. O'Sullivan, London, 1906, 2 vols, vol. l, p. 97), alsomentions this, but he leaves it an open possibility that anotherearlier sovereign might have instituted the t1tle. lbelieve, however, that it 1s certain that the institution of the

had existed at a much earlier date. See belOH note 40.

-20-

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 other Muslim 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

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 judicial col1ege was

the desire - undoubtedly influenced by the and

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

reconcile it with the shari'ah as it was t hen canceived. Under

'àdat law, aIl decisions of the judicial college were unanimous

decisions of the members which consisted of the Territorial Chiefs

and other Dignitaries of the With the Maliku'1-'Adi1

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

'Ulama' represented by the in favour of those aligned to the

40 See Acheh, p. 150. In par agr aph 196, the chroniclermentions Sultan 'Alâ'u)l-DIn Ri'ayat_Shàh (a1-Qahhar r. 1540-1567)conferring the title Maliku'l-'Adil to a Faqih. -The Sultanalone exercised the prerogative of appointing one to the(see p. 149, para. 194).41 Regarding the jurisdiction of t he in other Muslimcountries, see Tyan, E., "Judicial organization" i n Law in theMiddle East, edited by N. Khaddur â and H.J. Liebesny, Washington,D.C., 1955, p. 245.

-21-

requirements of the In this way too a compromise was

reached between the exponents of 'àdat on the one hand and those

of the shari'ah on the other. Iskandar MUQa prœnulgated statutes

outlining r ules and regulations to be put i nto effect in Acheh. 42

He also appointed astate Qa9I from among the 'Ulama' of the

realm whose dutY it was to ensure that laws regarding matters

within the purview of religion were duly administered. This

would seem to prevail only within the domain of

private law. 43

His reforms and stern rule, however, did not seem to effect

the spiritual climate of Acheh since the time

flourished, had betrayed 'heterodox' tendencies. In this

period flourished 'l-DIn al-Sumatrani, a mystic from Pasai

who may have been influenced by the teachings of

It is possible moreover that these two famous figures in the

domain of Malay mysticism may not have taught 'heterod6x' doctrines,

but that those who claimed to be their disciples have distorted

what they teach. When Iskandar Than!, Iskandar Muda's

42 For the contents of the daftar of rules and regulations, seeVan Langen, pp. 436-4lt-7.

43 See Van Langen, p. 422. Indeed in those times certain partsof privnte law were still in the grip of 'adat law. See thedescEiption of the customs at Acheh in Voyages, pp. 259-260. TheSultan seeus to follm{ the Ottoman Law of Fratricide wi th regardto succession.

44 Van Nieuwel:.huijze, pp. 234-235.

-22-

successor, ascended the throne in 1636, there were marked changes.He was a 'sober' man and encouraged 'orthodox' 'Ulama' at his

court. By this time, the greatness of Acheh, both as a commercial

and religious centre, had be gun to decline. The Dutch capture of

Malacca from the Portuguese in 1641 made Malacca once again the

most important COnŒlercial centre in the Archipelago soon ta

eclipse even Acheh. The level of scholarly activity in the courts

had sunk to a low degree. Pseudo-mystics and charlatans had

taken hold of the minds of the people. But their activities were

put to an abrupt end when Nüru'l-DIn al-RanIrI arrived in Acheh

in 1637 and found favour at court. He soon inaugurated, after

engaging himself in polemics and debates the deviating

Wujüdiyyah mystics in the presence of the a widespread

zindIg hunt.

CHAPTER II

Nüru'l-DIn al-RanIrI

-24-

The latest account about the author of the

li daf'i'l-ZindIg, and probably the most concise1y informative so

far, is that given by Voorhoeve;45 according to whom, on the

authority of Drewes which commands respect, Nüru'l-DIn ibn 'Ali

ibn ?asanji ibn a1-Ranirl came from Ranir (Rander)

in Bikanir, Gujerat. The eminent Indonesian scholar

Raden Hoesein Djajadiningrat had conc1usive1y pointed out the

error of van der Tuuk who asserted that Raniri wrote his Bustànu'l-

in Acheh in the year 1630-1631.46 Djajadiningrat showed

that Ràniri - as far as we can glean from historica1 sources at

our disposaI - arrived in Acheh in 1637,47 and there is so far no

evidence as yet to show that he was in Acheh at sorne ear1ier date.

The same Indonesian scho1ar a1so corrected the error that another

book written by RànirI, the 'l-IlustagIm, was wri tten in 1634.

It is now known that he wrote this work in 1644. 48 Voorhoeve is of-----

45 Voorhoeve, P., Twee Ma1eise Geschriften van NüruddIn ar-RanIrI, Leiden, 5-7. facsimi1es of theTibyân fI Na'rifati'l-Adyan (128p., Leiden text, Cod. Or. 3291),and the Hyjjatu'l-SiddIg li daf'i'1-ZindIg (27p., Maxwell text no.93, Royai Asiatic Society, London). References to Voorhoeve'sintroduction will hereafter be cited as Voorhoeve. The Tibyan fI

will hereafter be cited as Tibyan; theli daf'i'l-Zindia will hereafter be cited as

to Indo-China and

47 Djajadiningrat, R.H., Critisch overzicht van de in Ma1eischewerken vervatte e evens over de eschiedenis van het SoeÏtanaatvan Atjeh, BKI, 65, Leiden, 1911, pp. 136-137. See also note •Hereafter cited as Djajadiningrat. ----

48 Voorhoeve, p. 6, note 4.

-25-

the opinion that it was not necessary for Raniri to acquire such

knowledge of Malay literature as is apparent in that work before

his arrival in Acheh in 1637.49 Furthermore, he went on ta say

that RanIrI did not have to go to Acheh to learn the Malay

language, as in Gujerat there was a considerable Malay population

from which he could obtain the knowledge required. The coastal

tO\1nS of Gujerat were then having an international population.

Trading ships plied regularly between these towns and the Straits

of Malacca. The Malays and Javanese in these coastal areas even

served among the mercenary troops. The Malay language in these

harbour tOl.'11S was then weIl known , RanIri 's family had also kept

contact with Acheh - his mother being a Malay. But the question

as ta how and where RiinIrI the Malay language to be able

ultimately to vanquish the indigenous 'heterodox' mystics who were

surely masters of their ovm language seems to me to be still

problematic. Assuming that he was in Gujerat learning Malay from

the Malays there, it would still be hard to accept that his know-

ledge of the language learned in that manner from traders, sailors

and mereenary troops would suffiee ta equip him to challenge the

Malay mystics who spoke court language and \'J'ho, in t he case of

?amzah FaniùrI, was also an aecomplished poet. Although Voorhoeve

mentioned that most of the sources RanIrI was acquainted with were

aIl famous books by Indian authors not one of those of his aIder

-26-

contemporaries at Makkah,50 it would still seem to me strange that

RanIrI did not appear in his works to betray any knowledge of the

thought and works of AÇmad Sirhindi who died in 1625. One would

have thought that RanIri would be well acquainted with Sirhindi's

well-known criticism directed against Ibnu'l-'Arabi and his

doctrine of for this is an important matter

connected so closely with his own attack on the Wujüdiyyah mystics.

Perhaps it would not be too improbable to conjecture that RanIrI

might weIl have been in Acheh before the year 1637, or more

likely in Pahang wl1ich was then under Achenese domination, or even

in Malacca, and had ac quired a good grounding of the Malay

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

to come.

Raniri's family had always maintained close contact with

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

logic, rhetoric, ethics and figh, but found to his dismay that he

could not generate interest in these subjects, the reason being

that mysticism prevailed then. Only after he had journeyed to

Makkah to study and master Sufism did he, on returning te Acheh,

achieve some measure of success at court. Raniri must have--------,-----

50 Ibid., p. 7.

51 Short of a comprehensive account of Sirhindi's conception ofand of Ibnu'l-'ArabI's see

Burhan A9mad brief work, The Mujaddid's conception ofLahore, 1943. -

-27-

1earned a great deal about the spiritual cllmate of Acheh from

his uncIe, for when he arrived in Acheh fifty years 1ater, as a

teacher of Sufism he was weIl prepared. We lanow for certain that

he returned to RinIr in 1644 and died there in 1666.

RanIrI was a member of the Rifa'iyyah Order and the shaykh who

initiated him, Sayyid Abü 'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l-Lah Ba Shayban,of South Arabian origin <:t!aÇtramawt), was born in Endi a , This man

had studied in Arabia, but India where he was

initiated into the Rifa'lyyah Order by Sayyid al-'Aydarùs

at Sürat. Ba Shayban lived mainly in Bljapür where he enjoyed the

patronage and protection of MU9ammad 'Adi1 Shah. He died in

Bilgram in 1656. The famous Shaykh Yùsuf of Macassar, who

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

of Ba Shayban. RaLirI too is mentioned as one of Shaykh Yüsuf's

teachers. Sayyid al-'Aydarùs, Ba Shayban's teacher, was

born in TarIm in the in 1561. At the age of nineteen

he left his native land for Gujerat and became a theo1og1an there.

Thence he went to Sürat where he died in 1620. Al-'Aydarüs' uncle,

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

as author of several books and treatises. His father came from

South Arabia to settle in Sürat in 1551. There he married an

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

RanIri found himself; nurtured by that spiritual atmosphere which

-.. - - - - - wa-s -t-o- 13r e-par e- hi1D.- f or the- court -of - Acfien . - Tfie- peopl e- who had made

up the milieu whence RanIri sprang were of mixed Arab-Indian blood,

-28-

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 accompli shed them by virtue of the

Sultan's patronage and protection. The spiritual climate in•Acheh during the reign of Iskandar Muda (Mahkota 'Alam) was

1

unhea1 l'oL an t RànirL; - - - -'

for the Sultan, who reigned from 1607 to 1636, was prone to give

a willing ear to the enlightened subtletles of the mystical

teachin6s spread abroad by and to the teachings

of ShamsuJI-DIn al-SumatranI who was then flourishing and holding

sway at court. ShamsuJI-DIn might have been, according to

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

court, whose mystic doctrines attractednumerous disciples includ-

ing the himself. When he died in 1630,53 his disciples

remained in the Su1tan's favour and continued to control the•spiritual life in Acheh. But in 1636, on the Su1tan's death, the

spiritual state of affairs changed. His successor, Sulfan Iskandar

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

temperament, for no sooner was he instal1ed than Raniri decided it---------------------------------------52 Van p. 234.

__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-29-

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

1637. He gained favour at once and in 1638 received the order

from the to write the In 1641 during

the ceremony of the Erection of the Tombstone 55 by the new Sultan,----------------------------5455

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 in gold. Each succeeding kingbefore ascending the throne has cast a goldenimage to represent his person, and they aremost particular tomake offerings of goldenvessels to these images, and the golden ima gesand golden ves sel.s aIl bear inscripti.ons tocaution future generations not to malt themdovrn , (Chau Ju-Kua, p. 61)

John Davis, who was in Acheh in 1599, gi ves this account:As touching their Burials, every Generation or

Kinred have their particular place to burie theirdead; which is in the Fields. They lay the Corpswi th the head towards Mecha, having a free Stone atthe head, and another at the feete curiously wronght,thereby signifying the worthinesse of the person.But in the place of the Kings Burials every gravehath a piece of Gold at the head, and another at thefoot, weighing at the least five hundred poundwei ght, cunningly embossed and wrought. This King[ 'Ala "u 'l-Din Ri 'ayat Shah Sayyid al-MukammalJ hathtwo such Peeces in making and almost finished, vmichwee saw, that are a thousand pound weight a piece,and shall bee richly set with stones.(Purchas, S., Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas HisPilgrimes, Contayning a-liistoryVoyages and Lande Travells and üthers,Hakluyt Society, Extra series, XIV-XXXIII, 20v.,1905-07, vol. II, pp. 321-322)

Schrieke points out that fram what John Davis said it is clearthat the of Acheh had his tombstones made during his life-time. Iskandar Muda too made his tombstones during his lifetimeand even chose his own posthumous title. The ceremony whichRânIr-I attended may weIl have been one in whi ch Iskandar Thfuli

-30-

RanIri was present with the courtiers. At the time of this

ceremony the had a1ready assumed his posthumous title

Marhüm Daru'l-Sa1am by which Raniri addressed him his treatise-.entitled Tibyàn fI-Ma'rifati'I-Adyan. 56 This work must have

therefore been wri by him between 1641 and 1644 - the year

of his return to Ranir. In his very words Ràniri how,

in a polemic against the exponents of the fheretical' Wujüdiyyah

in the presence of the new he banished them forever:

••• Maka tataka1a Qaum Wujüdiyyahyang zindis mulhid lagi sesat daripada muridShamsu'l-D1n yane lisut ••• makaberbahath1ah mereka itu dengan kami beberapa haridihadapan hadrat Sultan yang terlebih salih padamasanya (dldlamkan Ailah Ta'ala kiranya akan diapada sama tengah shurga:)i iaitu Mawlana a1-Sultan Iskandar ThànI 'Ala'u'I-DIn Mughayat Shah,yang bergelar Daru'l-sa1àm. Ia1ah yangmendirikan agama Allâb dengan keteguhan yang amat'ajab ••• Serta kata mereka itu: "Dahwa sanyaAllah Ta'ala diri kami dan wujüd kami, dankami diriNya dan wujüdNya lf ••• Naka [telah]kukaran .; pada membapa.Ikan Kata mereka itu yangsalah dan i'tiqad mereka itu yang sia-sia itusuatu risalah pada menyatakan da'wa bayang-bayang dengan bayang-bayans •••Dan kukatakan [padaJ mereka itu: "Bahwa sanyakamu menda'wa diri ketuhanan seperti da'waFir 'awn, katanya: IlAkaulah Tuhan kamu yang Naha-tinggi If; tetapi bahwasanya adalah kamu qatem

,---------- --,---placed the tombstones for his dead father the ruler of Pahang.This ceremony is called the menanam batu ceremony, and is

••• in origin a megalithic usage in accordance withwhich memorial stones are elected for dead chief-tains. On Java the megalithic usage was Hinduized,50 that there deceased rulers were entombed indeification images of Buddha images with the facialcharacteristics of the deified ruler. Here weencounter the Malay form of the saroe usage.(Schrieke in Schrieke II, p. 260)

56 Tibyan, p. 4.

-31-

yang kafir ••• Il Naka masamlah muka mereka i tu,serta ditundukkan mereka itulah kepalanya, danadalah mereka itu mushrik. Maka mem[b]erifatwalah segala Islam atas kufr mereka itu danakan mem[b]unuh dia ••• Dan setengah daripadamereka itu mem[b]eri fatwa. akan kufr dirinya,maka setengahnya tawbat dan setengahnya tiadamahu tawbat. Dan setengahnya daripada merekaitu yang tawbat itu murtad pula ia; kembali iakepada i'tiqadnya yang dahulu itu jua •• Makaterbunuhlah segala tentera qaum yang kafir.Dan bagi Allah Tuhanserwa 'alam.J'I

••• Wnen there arose that group of thedeviating and strayed Wujüdiyyah from amongst thedisciples of the misguided ShamsuJl-Din al-SumatranI ••• they engaged us in a polemicfor several days before the presence of theSultan, who is the most pious in his time(may Allah include him among the dwellers inParadise:), Mawlana al-Sultan Iskandar ThanI'AlaJuJ J.-Din Mughayat Shah,·who is calledMarhüm DaruJl-Salë.m. He it is who set upflrmly the Religion of Allah with a firmnessthat evokes wonder ••• They [the devlatingWujüdiyyah] asserted: "God ls our selves andour beings, and we are His Self and His Being ••• 11

In refuting them in their erroneous and vainbelief l [have] compose[d] a treatise expoundingthe meaning of the analogicalthe image and the possessor of the lmage'O •••l said to them: IIYou have claimed for yourselvesdivinity in the sarne manner as did Pharaoh whosaid: uI am your Lord Most Exalted;"59 but indeedyou are of the unbelieving group." [When theyheard thisJ their faces betrayed a sour expressionand they bowed their heads, for surely they arepolytheists. The entire 'Ulama J of Islam

57 Tibyàn, pp. 3-6.58 Cf. Van Ronkel, Ph.S., Catalogus der Maleische Handschriften,Batavia, 1909, p. 433. Hereafter cited as Van Ronkel.

59 Qur'àn 79:24.

-32-

pronounced against them the fatwa of unbeliefand condemmed them to death ••• Some of themacknowledged the charge of unbelief levelledagainst them, and some recanted whilst othersrefused to recant. Yet some of those whohave recanted committed apostasy - they fellback upon their former belief ••• Thus wereexecuted the host of unbelievers. Everypraise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.

In order to refute the Wujüdiyyah in their erroneous interpretation

of the formula la flâna illa'l-Lah, RànirI had written a short

treatise entitled Shifa'u'l-QUlÜb. 60 But aIl his works on the

subject are mainly devoted to refuting and

Shamsu'I-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 famous.

However, in this study we shall cancern ourselves mainly with

RanIri's attack on teachings, comparing his

criticism with what actually taught in order to see whether

or not RanIri represented them truly and justly.

From what l have understood of the mystical philosophy and

teachings of gleaned from his works that have

excaped the flames and come down to us,6l it appears to me that

aIl of RànIrI's criticisms of him and the alleged beliefs he

60 Van Ronkel, p. 434.61 See above 35, and preface on p. ii.

-33-

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

In time, RànirI's uncle had taught in Acheh and nowhere

was publicly refuted by him. Ràniri himself did not

publicly refute Shamsu'l-Dln when the latter was alive. Why had

RànIrI to delay his refutation so that there was no possibility

for retaliation on the part of the one (or ones) refuted? It

seems clear to me that when RànIrI began his polemics against the

Wujüdiyyah his opponents were aIl of them inferior with respect

to knowledge and character to either or Shamsu'I-DIn, and

that Ràniri was therefore guilty of taking advantage of this in

order to obtain a high position at court. In fact RànIri, after

his success against the Wujudiyyah, probably did obtain a high

position at court, for "the moorish bishop Sich

Noordijn" mentioned in the Dag Register of May weIl have

been him. 62

It must be pointed out that the success of Raniri's

destructive attack against seems, to my mind, to have been

due not to learned and scholarly critical analyses of his

as one would expect, but rather ta distortions of what Hamzah•actually taught; distortions which he had cunningly branded as

'heretical' and had easily torn to pieces. It seems to have been

a case of attacking the caricature, not the true picture, as will

become apparent in this study. It fails to convince me to say that

62 Cf. Schrieke II, p.

-34-

the motivation underlying RanlrI's attack was one of sincere

attempt at intellectual and religious reform, untainted by bias

and personal interest. Indeed, the contrary seens to have been

the case. 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 writings. l cannot say that l am

impressed by Raniri's apparatus criticus. He betrays in his

writings not only a lack of comprehension of the $üfI 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 Furthermore,

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

of was impaired - apart from bias and personal

interest - by a lack of mastery of the Malay language; that 1s,

a mastery sufficient to enable him to plumb the depths of Malay

linguistlc consc10usness in order to understand the conceptual

structures of the symbols employed so that the thoughts that

underly them May become clear to him.

CHAPTER III

RanIri's refutation Hamzah Fansüri• •

-36-

RanirI's refutation of teachings 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 manner calculated to expose and condemn the

'heresies' which to him are scattered in writings disguised,

so to speak, in the garb of true Sufism. In t hese points of

Raniri's 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:

(a) That ?amzah's 1deas regarding Gad, the world, Man and the

relationsh1p between them, in short, Reality, are 1dentical - to

mention sorne - with those of the Philosophers, the Zoroastrians,

the Metempsychosists, the Incarnat1on1sts, the Brahmins.

(b) That belief is pantheistic in the sense that

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

permeates everything that 1s seen.

(e) That, like the Philosophers, believes that God

is Simple Being.

(d) That like the Qadariyyah and the Mu'tazilah,

believes Qur'an to be created.

(e) That, like the Philosophers, believes in the

eternity of the World.

-37-

Speaking of a sect of the Zoroastrians, he says:

Ketiga ta'ifah daripada MajüsI itu bernama Sumaniyyah.Adalah mereka itu menyembah tiap-tiap chahaya daripadamata hari dan bulan dan bintang dan api dan barangsebagainya. Seperti katanya adalah sekalian chahayaitu daripada suatu chahaya jua dahulu daripadadijadikan Allah segala makhlüq (iaitü 'arsh, danlaw\1, dan tujuh petala langit). Maka tata1caladljadikan Allah Ta'alà segala perkara itu, jadibercherailah segala chahala itu; iaitu pada penglihatmata jua, tetapi pada sekalian chahayaItu suatu jua: ialtulah Nür Allah. Demlkianlahl't!qad Katanya dalam kitabAsraru'l-'ArifIn bahwa chahaya yang pertama-tamacherai daripada Dhat Allah itu Nür Makadaripada perkataan ini chendereng kepada madhhabTanasukiyyah, dan serupa dengan kata Falasifahbahwa adalah Ta'alà itu suatu jawhar yangbasft , Dan demikian lagi i' tiqàd Wathaniyyah yangdaripada qaum Barahimah dan Samiyyah yang mengediaminegeri Tubbat. Dan seperti i'tiqad qawmyang mengediami negeri HalwaniyYah dan banua Hindustan.Demikianlah i'tiqad mereka itu. o3

The third sect of the Zoroastrians64 is calledthe SUrr:aniyyah.65 They worship aIl kinds of light;the sun, the moon, the stars, fire, and the like.They say that aIl light originated from one light[i.e. source] even before God created Creation

the Throne, the Tablet, and the Seven Layersof Heaven). When God Most Exalted created thesethlngs, aIl li ght became separated from their source;that 1s, it is so only to outward perception, forin reality aIl light is cne - that is the Llght ofGod. Such is the be!ief Hesaid in the book Asraru'l-'Arifin that the firstlight to separate from the Essence of God 1s theLight of Mu9ammad.66 From this say1ng [1t 1s

63 Tibyan, pp.

64 For the Majüsi, see the Encyc10paedia of Islam (El); edited byM. Th. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold, R. Basset and R. Hartïnann, Leiden,Bri11 , 1913-38. 4v. and supplement, article Madjüs.

65 Cf. Watt, W.M., Free will and predestination in early Islam,London, 1948, p. 103. Hereafter cited as Watt.

66 p. 141.

-38-

clear that] he tends towards the Tanàsukhiyyahschool. 67 Furthermore it amounts to the sameth1ng as what the Falasifah said; that the TruthMost Exalted is Simple Monad [or Simple Atom,or Simple Being]. And t his is also the beliefof the Wathaniyyah from among the Baràhimah,and the Samiyyah who inhabit the land of Tibet.The same is true also of the whodwel1 in the land of Halwàniyyah and thecontinent of India. Such is their belief.

Notice how in the passage quoted, Raniri connects with

the various groups mentioned. In fact these expertly woven

connections are all of them questionable - aven false - except

perhaps in the case of the connection with the Philosophers.

But even in this latter case, we shou1d not be 1ed to believe in

the kind of connection Raniri creates for us. What

actua1ly says on the point in dispute is:

Antara 'àlim dan ma'lüm itulah asal chahayaMuhammad pertama bercherai daripada -Dhàt Allah.Adapun pada suatu 'ibarat, itulah bernama ruhidati (ya'nI, nyawa berchampur); dan pada suatu'lbarat 'aql al-kull namanya (ya'ni, perhimpunansegala budi); dan pada suatu 'ibarat nur namanya(ya'nI, chahaya); pada suatu 'ibarat qalam al-a 'ala namanya (ya 'nI, qalam yang mahatinggi);dan pada suatu 'ibàrat lawt'- namanya (ya'ni, papantempat menyurat) •••

hidup ruh; kerana 'ilmuma'lumat kellhatan dinamainya nur; kerana 'ilmumencharakan segala ma'lumàt dinamainya kerana'ilmu tersurat rupa ma'lÜInàt dinamainya lawtl;kerana 'ilmu menjadi hurüf sekalian ma'lumatdinamainya Qalam ••• 68

Between Knower and Known , bha t is when theLibht of Mti9ammad first separates from the Essence

67 For this sc:1001, See El, article Tanasukh.

68 pp. 141-142.

-39-

of God. One expression is that it is called theRelational Spirit; another is the UniversalIntellect; another is Light; another is the MostExalted Pen; and another is the Tablet •••

Because knowledge is living, it is calledSpirit; because by knowledge the things known aremanifest it is called Light; because knowledgepatterns the forros of the things known it iscalled Intellect; because in knowledge 1s 1nscribedthe forros of the things known it is called Tablet;because knowledge becomes letters of the thingsknown it is called Pen •••

Now what is saying here is a well-known ?üfI doctrine

which Ibnu'l-'Arabi and Jili and other famous also hold.

It is strange that Raniri should single out and accuse

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

aIl, from Ibnu'l-'ArabI and Jill whose names RarrirI mentions

reverently. Hamzah does not distort the teachings of his•masters, so that RànirI cannot accuse him of this in order that

he may interpret the teachings of these masters according

to his own 'orthodox' brande Rather it would seem that it is

RànIrI who distorts the teachings of the SüfI masters to suit his•own ideas. What Rarriri wants to convey in the passage quoted 1s

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 l1ke the Zoroastrians,

worships light. Ràniri wishes to convey to his readers the notion

that the word 'light' used by 1s meant not in the metaphorlc-

al, but in the real sense. ·In fact RanIri even resorts to using

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

-40-

uses again i n another passage where he elucidates the salient

features of the doctrines of the Tanasukhiyyah school to which

Hamzah has already been assigned. Note in this passage that the•meaning of the word 'fire' is taken i n the real sense:

Katanya bahwa segala arwà9 dan segala sesuatuitu daripada suku-suku Allah dari kerana la berbuatdan menjadikan segala suatu. Maka perbuatanNya danyang demikiannya itu jadi daripada api! kembalipula kepadanya jua. Maka segala makhluqat itusuku-suku daripada Allah. Inilah madhhab Hamzah

dan Shamsu'l-Dinkeduanya. Dan lagi kata setengah darlpada qawmTanasukhiyyah bahwa takwin dan mukawwan,69 dantaf' il dan maf 'ül suatu jua. Dan demiklanlahmadhhab Hamzah FansürI dan al-Sumatran! [itu] kata ma'nawilyah daripada qa8mTanasukhlITah jua: bahwa Allah Ta' ala JJ.ulüldengan DhatNya pada segala sua.tu yang lœlihatan. 70

They the Tanasukhiyyah school] say thataIl spirits and every single thing are parts ofGod by virtue of His doing and creating them aIl.His doings and the 11ke come from [l.e. have theirorigin in] fire and return to it. ThIs ls thestrayed opinion of both Hamzah FansnrI and Shamsu'l-DIn al- SumatranI • Sorne ôr the saythat the Producer and the Production, the Doerand the Thing Done, are identlcal. lsthe and Shamsu'I-DInal-Sumatranl; they really adhere tothe truemeaning of what the Tanasukhiyyah believe: thatGod ln His Essence is incarnate in every thlngthat is seen.

69 The text reads mukawwln. Al-Ash'arI too 'seems to haveldentified the two. See McCarthy, R.J., The theo1ogy of al-Ash'arI,Beyrouth, 1953, p. 168. This work contains al-Ash'arI's Kltâbal-Luma' and Risalat a1-Khaw§ rI 'Ilm al-Kalam (Arabietexts and annotated translations), and relevant Appendices. Here-after cited as al-Ash'arI.

70 Tlbyàn, pp. 26-27.

-4-1-

In this passage, apart from the point mentioned, 15

accused of adhering to the real meaning of what the Tanasukhiyyah

believe, that is the diffl1s1on and distribution of the divine

spirit among the beings of the World. RanIrI here accuses

of pantheism. But what klnd of panthelsm? "There is a

for.m of pantheism which, starting from the assumption that God 1s

an absolute, Infinite and eternal being, who is the source and

ultimate ground of aIl that is, was, and ,dl1

assumes a form of acosmism according to which the Phenomenal

Wor1d is but a passing shadow of the Reality which lies behind it. u7l

Then there 1s another form of panthe1sm which asserts that the

Essence of God or the Abso1ute 1s comp1etely immanent in the

World; Gad, 50 to speak, exhausts Himse1f in the Wor1d, so that

transcendence is denied Hlm. It 1s to this somewhat crude type of

pantheism that RànIrI refers in his accusation of concep-

tion of the relat10nship between Gad and the World. But this

accusation 1s false. Had RànIrI read 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 15 bound to

suffer in the sense that He is a fabrication of the human mind -

that only the Phenomenal World 1s rea1, or that the Universe suffers

71 'AffifI, A.E., The of Muhyid DIn-Ibnul---'ArabI,- -Cambp-id-ge-,-19-39-,-p. 51+. ereafte-r cftetl as 'AtfIti. ----

-42-

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

Real Being. certainly holds the latter view although

RanlrI would have us believe that he holds the former. LikeIbnu'I-'ArabI,72 conceives Reality as having both aspects

of transcendence (tanzih) and immanence (tashbih),73 and takes

care to assert repeatedly that God is not everything and aIl

things in the sense of being an of existents. Almost

aIl of Raniri's attacks on Ipantheism ' seem to prove to

be nothing beyond his own fallacy of jumping to conclusions in

identifying what means metaphorically with what

considers to be real. In this way it is the metaphors that are

attacked and the picture of the real caricatured. Ranlri makes

mention of book entitled MuntahI74 from which he deduces

evidence to denounce the author as belonging to the false brand

of the WUjùdiyyah. 75 In one of the passages, speaking on behalf

of he says:••• TamthIl seperti biji dan puhun; puhunnya

dalam biji itu lengkap [ber] serta dalam biji itu.

72 See 'AffIfi, pp. 18-24.

73 pp. 70-74.

74 This book was apparently consigned to the flames. Fortunately,however, in works of Hamzah that have come dOvm to us, it ispossible to reproduce aIl hIs ideas and even analogies which he hadwritten in the MuntahI (the correct form shou1d be Muwtaha).

himself apparently refers to this in one of his poemsp. 62).

75 Tibyan, p. 97-101.

-43-

Maka nyatalah daripada perkataan Wujüdiyyah itubahwa serwa semesta 'alam sekalian ada lengkapberwujüd dalam Ta'ala. Maka keluarlah 'alamdaripadaNya seperti puhun kayu keluar daripadabiji.76

••• The analogy is like the seed and theplant; the plant resides in its completeness withinthe seed. Hence it is clear from this saying ofthe [false] Wujüdiyyah that the Universe togetherwith aIl its parts exists in its completeness inthe Truth Most Exalted. The World proceeds from Himas 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 willing 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 't o him is:

••• Berkehendak kepada isti'dad yang dalam'ilmuNya kepada 'alam ini. Seperti kataqudsI: -Kuntu kanzan makhfi an fa battu an'urafa" - ya na s "Aku perben aharaan yangter[sem]bunyi, maka kukasih bahwa aku dikenal."Ya'ni: 'alam dengan isti'dadnya sekalian yangdidalam 'ilmuNya itulah maka dinisbatkan dalamnyakepada perbendaharaan yang ter[sem]bunyi hendakmengeluarkan ma'lümat dari dalam 'ilmuNya. Makabersabda "Kuntu kanzan makhfiyyan fa an'urafa. "

Adapun mathal perbendaharaan itu sepertipuhun kayu sepuhun dalam bijinya. Biji ituperbendaharaan, puhun kayu lang dalanmya i tuisi perbendaharàan, ter[semJbunyi dengan lengkapnya;akarnya, dengan batangnya, dengan chabangnya,dengan dahannya, dengan rantingnya, dengandaunnya, dengan bunganya, dengan buahnya -sekalian lengkap didalarn biji sebiji itu. Makabiji itu hendak keluar tumbuh puhun kayu itudaripada dirinya di tengah padang yang mahaluas.

76 Ibiq., p. 97.

-44-

Haka biji i tu berkata: "Kuntu kanzan makhf'iyyanfa ahbabtu an 'urafa" - ya 'nI sekalian kata iniishârat kepada berkehendak jua.

Dan lagi firman Allah Ta'ala: amruhuidha arada shay' an an yagüla lahu kun fa yakunu' '77 -yainI: 'Bahwa sanya barang titahNya tatakalaberkehendak kepada sesuatu 1 bahwa baginya"jadi lu!" - menjadi.' pun isharat kepadaberkehendak jua.'l8

••• Willing the potentialities in His knowledgeto become the World. As the gudsi says: '"1 was a hidden treasure and l loved to be known" -that is: the World together with aIl its poten-tialities in His knowledge is likened to thehidden treasure about to bring forth the thingsknown in His knowledge. Thus it says: "1 was ahidden treasure and l loved to be known."

The treasure is likened to a plant seed.The seed is the treasure, the plant within it isthe content of the treasure; hidden in its complete-ness: its roots, trunk, branches, smaIl branches,twigs, leaves, flowers, fruits - aIl complete withinthe seed. The seed wants to bring forth the growthof plant within 1tself on a field of vast expanse.The seed says: "1 was a hidden treasure and l lovedto be known." AlI this is an allusion to [God'sact of] willing.

And further God the Most Exalted says:'Verily His command is, when He 1s in the state ofwilling a thing, to say to it"Be thou!" - andit becomes.' This too 1s an allusion to [God'sact of] willing.

Then RanIrI goes al to say:

Dan lagi pula katanya: "TamthIl seperti airhu jan didalam sebuah tanaman. Airnya i tu jua1engkap pada sekalian tanaman i tu. Bagimurasanya pada masam, pada tebu manis, padamumba pahit; masing-masing membawa rasanya.

77 Qur'àn 36:82.

78 FaniùrI, pp. 131-132.

-45-

Tetapi haqlqatnya air itu jua pada sekalian itu."Maka i'tiqad yang demikian itu kufr keranadii'tiqadkannya makhluq dengan Ta'âlàmesra seperti mesra air dengan bumi (Mahasuchi[Allâh] Ta'àlà daripada kata kàfir itu!).79

.And he says further: "The analogy is likerain water in a plant. The water permeates theentire plant. To you the taste is, ·f or lemon,sour, for sugar-cane, sweet, for the plant80bitter; each conveying its own taste. But theiressence [or reality] 1s water." Such a beliefis infidelity for it 1s belicved that the TruthMost Exalted permeates the created beings justas water permeates the earth (Pure is the :HostExalted God from the saying of that infidel:).

On this point actually says:

Fa'lam menjadikan makhlüq siang dan malam:la'n! itu yang dinama1 \vujud, keranaLitulah yangJ menjadikan. Wujud makhl.iiqât;seperti bumi; j1ka tiada hujan, dimanakan tumbuhkayu-kayuan? Adapun bumi ditamth!lkan 'ilmu

hujan sepert1 wujud, kayu-kaynan sepert!makhluq. Adapun bumf tanah sendirinya, huj anpun air jua sendirinya. Setelah berchmnpur makaada kayu-kayuan tumbuh. Adapun kayu-kayuan yangtumbuh daripada bum! dan air, -d en gan hukum isti "dâdjua: setengah tumbuh menjadi pahit; sêtengah tumbuhmenjadi manis; setengah tumbuh menjadi kelat;setengah tumbuh menjadi hijau; setengah tumbuhmenjadi merah; setengah tumbuh menjadi putih;setengah tumbuh menjadi hitam. Warna, denganseka1ian rasa, dengan isti'dàd asl! jua. Adapunair serupa semata; tanah pun serûpa semata.Kayu-kayuan itu tumbuh daripada air dan tanahjua, tetapi rupanya dan warnanya menurutisti'dad jua •••

79 pp. 98-99.80 See Wilkinson, R.J., A Malay-English dictionary, Singapore,1903, p. 655. Hereafter cited as Wilkinson.

-46-

Tamthil ini ditamthilkan kepada 'alam:daripada wujüd, maka menjadi siang dan malam;langit dan bumi; 'arsh dan kursI; shurga danneraka1 dan islam; baik dan -hukum :l.sti'dad dirinya jua. Adapun Dhat Allahâmat suchi. Farq makhlüqat berbagai-bagai keranasifatNya banyak, af 'alNya banyak.1 atharNya banlak,kerana isti'dad sekalian makhlüaat didalamjua. Perbuatan yang baik daripada sifat Jamal;_. -perbuatan yang jahat daripada Jalal. Adapunasal Jalal dan Jamal daripada wujüd, wujüddaripada Dhat. Pada 9aqlqat, sekalian keranaNyajua; Iain daripadaNya tiada lulus 'alam ini, keranara la sharIka lahu. 81 .

Know that [by God] creating [His] creaturesday and night is meant His effects that are calledexistence for they give existence to the creatures.The existence of the creatures is like earth;without rain how can plants grow? The earth islikened to God's knowledge, rain is existence, theplants are the creatures. The earth is, in itself,earth, and rain is, in itself, water. When [they]mix, the plants begin to gr ow. The plants that growout of earth and water are determined by the law ofpotentiality: sorne grow becoming bitter; sorne sweet;sorne tart; sorne grow becoming green; sorne red; sornewhite; sorne black. Colour and aIl taste becomeaccording to their original potentiality. The wateris water, the earth is earth, and the plants growout of water and earth, but their forms and coloursare determined by their potentialities •••

This analogy is applied to theWorld:originating from existence there cornes forth dayand night, the heavens and the earth, the Throneand the KursI82 Heaven and Hell, the believer andthe unbeliever, the good and the evil - [all] byvirtue of their respective potential1ties. TheEssence of Gad is Most Pure. The creatures aremany and have contraries, because His attributesare many, His acts are many, His affects are manyfor the potentialities of the 'cr eat ur es are inHis attributes. Works that are good come from His

81 pp. 151-152.

82 See Er article KursI.

-4-7-

attribute of Beauty, works that are evil come fromHis attribute of Majesty. The origin of Beauty andMajesty is from Being, and Being is from Essence.In reality aIl [come to be] because of Him; butfrom Him this world has no existence, for there isnone like unto Him.

Again, quoting another passage from accuses him

of identifying the creator the Creatures thus:

Dan lagi pula katanya pada mere[n]chanakanfirman Allan Ta' àlà: 'Kulla yawm1n huwasha'nin'83 - ya'nI, pada jua berbagai danberubah-ubah kerana la huwa'l-awwalu wa'l-akhiru

- ya'nI: awwal[NlaJ tiadaketahuan, akhirNya tiada berkesudahan,amat nyata, tiada kedapatan. MemandangdiriNya dengan diriNya, melihat diriNya dengandhatNya, dengan sifatNya, dengan af'alNya, denganàtharNya; sungguh pun namanya empat haqIqatNyaesa jua. Maka i'tiqad yang demikian itu kufr keranadijadikannya Khàliq dengan Makhlüq bersuatu. 84-

And he further says in interpreting the wordsof God the Most Exalted: 'Every moment He is in astate of glory' - that it means that He in Hismanifestation is many and is subject to change,for He is the First and the Last, the Manifest andthe Hidden. By this it means that His Firstnessis unknown, His Lastness is endless, Histion 1s so c1early evident [to perception] andHis Hiddenness is unknowab1e. He looks upon Himselfthrough Himself, and sees Himself with His essence,His attributes, His acts and His effects; although[these are] four in name, but in reality [they are]one. Such bellef 1s lnfldellty for the Creator andthe Creatures are identified as being one.

This point is explained by in at 1east two places. In

one he says that everywhere in the Wor1d His effects are manifeste

83 Qur'àn 55:29.84- Tibyàn, pp. 99-100.

-48-

It is these effects that "g1ve existence" to the World. 85

Everything in the World is a mode of His Being. By a mode

means astate (kelakuan), so that the passage 'Every moment He 1s

in a state of glory' is 1nterpreted by hâm to mean that:

••• Segala rupa, rupaNya; segala warna,warnaNya; segala bunyd , bunyiNya; kerana la

la sharlka lahu. 86

••• AlI forms are His form, aIl coloursare His colours, aIl sounds are His sounds,for there 1s none like unto Him.

Here 15 expressing the idea that God, although immanent in

everything, 1s nevertheless transcendent because He i5 above

11mitation and individualization. This 1s of course lbnu'l-'ArabI's

concept of transcendence,87 wh1ch according to 'AfflfI's analysis

which l quote below i5 fundamentally of two d1fferent k1nds:

(1) That which belongs to the divine Essence per seand - the absolute simplicity and unity Ofthe One - the state of the !9adiyyah.

(2) Transcendence asserted by the 1ntellect, whichmust be always coupled with immanence and whichmay assume the following forms:(a)

(b)

God may be called transcendent 1n the senseof being absolute; or,He may be cal1ed transcendent in the senseof being a necessary being, se1f-begotten,self-caused, in contradistinction tothe contingent, created or caused beings ofthe Phenomenal World; or,

85 tl:amzah p. 151.

86 p. 157.

87 See 'Aff!f!, p. 19.

-49-

(c) He may be called transcendent in the sensethat He is unknowableand beyond all

In another place ?amzah speaks of the same idea thus:

••• Pada Ahlu'l-Sulük Allah Ta'ala qadim dan'alim. Apabila la 'alim, ma'lüm dalam 'ilmuNya,hendaknya: barang yang dijadikanNya dahulu atau kemudian,kita lihat, sekaliannya daripada ma'lüm itu jua.Jikalau demikian daripada ada jua diadakanNya,bukan daripada tiada diadakanNya kerana lang namanya"ada" itu wujüd shu'ünNya. Seperti firman AllahTa'àla; 'Kulla *awmin huwa f! sha'nin' - ya'ni:'Kepada segalaari Iaitu dalam kelakuanNya jua1 'hai talib, ker-ana keadaan Allah wa Ta' alaseperti laut yang tiada berhingga dan tiadaber-kesudahan , Semesta sekalian 'alam ini dalamlaut itu seperti buih kechil sebiji 'jua; manusiaseorang didalam buih itu berapa bahagiannya?Ya'nI tiada lagi melainkan seperti firman AllahTa cala: 'Kullu man 'ala;ha fanfn wajhurabbika dhuJl-jalâli - ya nI: 'Barangsegala yang diatas 'âlam ini lenyap; bermula: yangkekal Dhàt Tuhanmu jua, Yang Empunya kebesaran dankemuliaan. '_ Hai talib:, 'àlam ini seperti ombak,keadaan Allah seperti laut; sungguh pun ombakIain daripada lautè kepada tiada Iaindaripada laut •••9

••• According to the Itinerants, God iseternal and knower. Since He is knower, the knownis in His knowledge, that is to say: we see thatthe things He creates, 'before' or 'after,' are allof them from the known. If such is the case, it isfrom being that He creates them, not from nothingness,for what is called "existence" 1s the being or Hismodes. As God says: 'Every day He 1s in a state ofglory,' 0 Seeker, because Godts condition is like alimitless ocean. The World in its entirety is like

88 Ibid., p. 24.89 Quf'an 55:26-27.

90 p. 195.

-50-

a tiny speck of foam within it, and what availsone man to be in this t1ny speck of foam? That1s, it 1s none but as God says: 'Every one9l in1t must pass away. And there will endure foreverthe person92 of your Lord, the Lord of Glory andHonour.' 0 Seeker: this World 1s but a wave, Godtscondition is the sea; though wave is not the sameas sea, in rea11ty it 1s not d1stinct tram the sea.

RanlrIts allegat10n that adheres to the thesis of the

Ph1losophers that God 1s Simple Being93 may be a reterence to

idea of God as the attributeless Absolute Being which

he calls the Dhat or Huwa. 94 However, th1s idea 1s, for that

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

is true that Raniri's allegation refers to this 1dea (which is most

likely the case although he does not mention it), then it 1s

false, for the thesis of the on this point95 -

included - 1s that God in His essence is unknowable and independent

of aIl assertions. The Essence 1s only known to the divine Essence.

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

beyond aIl knowledge and relations that He 1sattributeless,96

91 For tevery onet (kullu has 'every th1ng'.

IWÏJh 1s interpreted by tIamzah as Dhàt • .Qf.. Ibnu'l-'Arabi inAff f , pp. 24-, 1; 55, note 4.

93 Tibyan, p. 18. For the thesis of the Philosophers that God isSimple Being, see Ghazzàlits Tahàfut al-Falasifah, trans1ated bySabih Ahmad Kamali, Lahore, 1958, pp.235-34l. Hereafter cited asTahafut.

94 Fansüri, pp. 125.

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

96 p. 126.

-,1-

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 1ts basis in their

arguments against the attributes and the division into genus and

specifie difference. 97 The thesis of the on this point,

which is also that of ?amzah, is not the same as that of the

Philosophers, for the do not uphold the denial of attributes.

____For_t!a.mzah ,_ as fOL other_§ü.f! s--, _attributes of' .Ood.. aI'e-eternal - -

and never separate frem His Essence - not because God needs them

or does t "ings with them, but because they mean the denia1 of

their opposites and the assertion that they exist in themselves

and subsist through Him. To sorne the attributes are neither God

nor other than God. To the attributes are God - or the

Essence is the attributes (rifat).98

In the following passage Ràniri accuses of adhering

to Qadari views. What is interesting to note in this passage,

as indeed in some 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 conderons

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

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

97 Tahafut, pp. 109-131.

98_ Jil! in_Nicholsonl- p-P._9ü,---95-nQta r. - --pp. 127, 196-7. ff. also a1-Ash'ari, pp. 16-17 note 16, and p. 19.

-52-

associating with this picture - a method which in modern

times we know so weIl as the 'smear campaign':

Shahdfu1. Lagi pula i'tiqad qawm Qadariyyah.Dan katanya bahwa adalah Hagg Ta cala menyuruhkan danmemilikkan [or segala pekerjaanhamba itu kepada hamba jua. Maka hambalah menjadikansegala perbuatan, tetapi dinyatakan Allah akansegala hambaNya amr dan nahI. Maka tiada harusakan Allah menjadikan segala perbuatan hambaNyadengan iradatNya, dan mashiyyatNya, dan qada'Nya,dan qadarNya. Maka i'tiqad yang demikian itukufr kerana mereka itu menyabitkan ada yangmenjadikan [sesuatuJ Iain daripada Allah. Dansetengah daripada mereka itu i'tiqadnya [me]mungkirkan100 sifat Allah. Maka i 'tiqad yang•demikian itu kufr. Dan setengah daripada merekaitu i'tiqadnya bahwa Qur'an itu makhlüq. Makai'tiqad yang demikian itu kUfr; seperti sabdaNabI s i a ,w.: "Man tala 'l-gur 'anu makhlugun fahuwakafiL!ID."lOl - ya zn "Barangsiapa mengatakan Qur 'ânitu ma.kh1üq, maka ia itu kafir." Demikian lagii 'tiqad Fansüri dalam kitab yang bernamaAsraru'l-'ArifIn: katanya Qur'an yang dibawaJibrâ'Il itu dapat dikata makhluq.l02

Shahdàn. Now the beliefs of the Qadariyyah.103They say that God wills and makes as their own [or

99 The text looks ambiguous: Memilikkan preferred.

100 The text i s corrupt. It reads: J101 Cf. Sa'du'l-DIn al-TaftazanI on the creed of Najmu'l-DInal-Nasafi, translated with introduction by EIder, E.E., A commentaryon the creed of Islam, New York, 1950, p. 62. Hereafter cited asTaftâzanI.

102 Tibyan, pp. 70-71.

103 Cf. Watt, pp. 32-57, 93-129, and see El articleal-AsbTarI;:Pp. 39, 74-75.

-53-

places the burden of] the actions of His creatures.Hence the creatures are the doers of aIl [thelr]actions, although God makes manifest to them the'do's' and 'don't's'. God in reallty then does not,by vlrtue of His will, and His desire, and Hisdecislon, and His power, create the actions of Hiscreatures. Such bellef ls infldelity, for theyaffirm that there is an 'other' apart from Godwho creates acts. Some of them refused to believethat God has attrlbutes. l04 Some of them believethat the Qur'an ls created.l05 Such beliefs area rejection of the truth, for as the Prophet says:"Whosoever believes that the Qur'an is created,then he ls an unbellever." Such indeed is thebelief of Hamzah in the book entitledAsraru'l-'Ârlfin: he says that the Qur'an whichls conveyed by Gabriel may be regarded as created. l 06

In the same vein he associates with a sect of the

J ahmiyyah :107

Kesepuluh qawm Jahmiyyah [ituJnamanya. Adalah l'tiqad mereka itu dan katanyayang dan yang dilafazkan 1tu samakeduanya; ya 'nI Qur'an itu kalam yang

- ertlnya kalam yang dibacha ltu-bukan kaLâm Allah. Inilah i 'tiqad WujüdiyyahHamzah Fansüri. Katanya dalam kitab Asraru'l-1Arifin bahwa kal.âm Allah yang dlbawa Jibrâ JrI i tu

104 Cf. Watt, p. 102.

105

106

Loc. cit.--p. 133.

107 For the Jahmiyyah cf. Watt, pp. 99-104, and see El articleDjélÏy!! and Djahmiya. -

-54-

dapat dikata akan dia makhlüq. Maka i'tiqad yangdemikian i tu kufr, kerana firman Allah Ta' ala:

anzalnàhu) ur'anan 'Arabi an haira'iwajinl08 - yan : 'Bahwa sanya Kami turunkan

Qûr'ân dibawa Jibra'il dengan bahawa 'Arabbukannya ia makhlüq.'109

The tenth sect of the Jahmiyyah is called theThey believe and say that the one who

pronounces and the th1ng pronounced are one andthe same, [By t rrls they mean that] the Qur'an1s God's epeech, but the one who pronounces -meaning the speech that is read - is not God'sspeech. This 1s the belief of Hamzah FansürI's[brand of] Wujüdiyyah. He says·in the bookAsraru'l-'Ar1fIn that the speech of God conveyedby Gabriel may be regarded as a thing created.Such a belief 1s infidelity, for God says: 'Wehave sent down an Arabie Qur'an conveyed byGabriel [and] it i5 not created.'110

But what actually says on this subject is not really

similar to what Ràniri reports.

Adapun madhhab Mu'tazilah dan danzindiq, kalam Allah makhlüq. Pada hukumshari 'atnya, barang siapa mengatiakan kal.àm Allahmakhlüq, kafir - na'üdhu bi'l-Lahi minhu1 KalàmAllah peri Dhat; qad!m sama-sama dengan sekalianyang sedia ketujuh itu. Adapun Allâh yangdibawa Jibra'il kepada Nab! Muhammad Rasülu'l-Lahyang tersurat pada mashaf dapat dikatakan makhlüq,.. -kerana hukumnya sudah bercherai dengan Dhat pada'ibarat: Adapun kepada haqIqinya, wa'l-Lahua'lam •

108 Qur'an 39:28. The words l have put jn brackets actually donot appear in the Quranic text. The word in square brackets hasbeen omitted in Raniri's texte

109 T1byag, pp. 77.110 This is RanIrits translation and interpretation of the süraquoted ,

III ?amzah pp. 133-134.

-55-

According to the Hu'tazilah and the Raf1<}! andthe Zind!q, the speech of God 1s created. Accordingto the sharI'ah, whosoever says that the speech ofGod is created is an unbeliever - may God preserveus from such! God's speech is as His Essence;eternal, together with the accompanying seven[attributesJ. As for the speech of God conveyed byGabriel to the Prophet the Messenger of God,which is wr1tten in pages, it may be said to becreated for the judgment concern1ng it is that itis already separate - from the point of view ofexpression - from the Essence. However in realityonly God knows ,

This passage cannot be regarded as an assertion that the Qur'a.n

in meaning and conceptual content is created.112 In two places

he says that the Qur'an as such is not created. 113 Furthermore

RanirI's author1ty for denounc1ng as an 1nf1del wh1ch he

bases on the Quran1c passages 1s false, for his translation of

the text is not correct and his 1nterpretation of it very much

stretched to suit his purpose. What the text of the verse reads

1s actually:

Qur'anan 'arabiyyan ghazr a db! '1wajin 1a'allahumyattaqûna.

An Arabie Qur'an without any crookedness thatthey may guard (against evi1).

112 What 1s saying is in fact what the Iater Ash'arIs, inparticu1ar a1-MaturIdI and his school, also maintain. Qf.TaftazanI, pp. 61-66.

113 pp. 112, 146.

-56-

The whole context of the verses in this section of thirty-nine

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

Raniri goes on further to say in his accusation that adheres

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

Kesem[b]ilan Jahmiyyah [itu] Zanadiqiyyahnamanya , Adalah i tiqad mereka itu dan katanyabahwa 'alam itu qadim dan ma'düm itu suatu jua;dan Allah Ta' ala tiada ma' diin , :Haka inilahi'tiqad Fansüri dan Shamsu'l-Din al-

dan segaia yang mengikut keduanya.Maka i'tiqad yang demikian itu kufr kerana firmanAllah Ta'ala: 'Wa'l-Lahu khaligu kulli shay'in' -ya'ni: 'Allah jua yang menjadikan segala sesuatu.'

Shahdân , Adalah segala Ahlu 'l-Sunnah wa'1_Jama'ah ittifaq mengatakan barangsiapa meng-i'tiqadkan oahwa ma'düm itu suatu shay' maka iaitu kafir. Mereka itulah yang bernamaHayüla; ertinya, yang mengi'tiqadkan a'yanu'l-thabitah itu ada berwujüd. 115

The ninth sect of the Jahmiyyah ls called theZanadiqiyyah. They belleve and say that theWorld is eternal and is also non-existent, whllstGod [Who ls also eternalJ is not non-existent.This is the belief of and Shamsu'l-D!n al-SumatranI and ail their disciples. Suchbellef is infidelity, for God says: 'God is theCreator of every thing.'

Shahdân , AlI the Ahlu 'l-Sunnah wa'1_Jama'ah agree in saying that whosoever believesthat the non-existent is a thlng then he is anunbeliever. They are those who are called the

meaning those who believe thattne fixed essences are existent beings.

Rere we have a glaring example of Raniri's distortion of

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

39:22, 23, 27, 28. Nowhere is it sald that the Qur'an is"not cr-eabed",

115 Tibyan, pp. 76-77.

-57-

not distortion it can only mean his ignorance of the true nature

of Hamaah ' 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, 1s also the belief of certain

Philosophers, Ibn Rushd being one of its famous advocates.116 But

in this belief the assertion 1s 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. This is not what Hamzah believes.- . For Hamzah•there is only eterna1 being. This eternal being he conce1ves

now as God, now the Un1verse. 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. The

Universe, then, is not created from nothing, for this would mean,

in a sense, that it has acquired existence. But that Ran!ri should

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

and the fixed essences (a'yànu'l-thab1tah) to be existent beings

in the sense the Materialists understand as substantial reality)

is absurdo The term shay' has nowhere been used by in this

connection. As for the a'yanu'l-thabitah, the terms uses

to describe them are:

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

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

10)

Il)

12)

-58-

Modes of the divine Essence (shu'ün dhatiyyah)as against intelligible being (wujûd Tilmiyyah);

FormaI as against possessing theattributes of revelation (sifat wgblI: forexample, revelation possesses an attribute,among others, of being infallibly effective in

to Man God's message, whereas theWorld, though considered as God's manifestation,is not effective in conveying to Man the Truthunderlying it - revelation in this sense is anactive, infallible agent, the World is passiveand 'awaits' Interpretation from Man);

Possible quiddities (mahiyzat al-mumkinat) asagainst impossibilities

Creation (makhlüQ) as against the beloved(ma' shüg);

Mirrors (mir'at) as against not-beings( 'adamiyyât) ;

The Universe or World ( 'alam) as againstnot-being ( 'adam) ;

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

The known (ma;'lüm) as against the non-existentCma'dfun) ;

The poor one the pêssive) esagainst the lord amir: the active);

Contingent being (ja'izu'l-wujüd) as againstimpossible being

Latent modes of being (ShU'Üll thubütI) asagainst absolute nothingness or pure not-being( 'adam matLc}.I);

Possible not-being ('adam mumkin) as againststatic or permanent not-being ('adam sâkin: i.e.a kind of receptacle for forms to exist). The-'adam mumkin has its beginning in the non-existent (ma'düm).117

117 pp. 77-78.

It should be clear from these examples that does not

conceive the a'yanuJI-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 Raniri'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. I I B In this

chapter l have attempted to expose the true nature of RanIri's

criticisms of teachings and his method of attack, and l

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, l 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 ?amzah which l have given in this chapter, ideas

lIB Tahatut, p. 249.

-60-

about Hamzah's concept of creation and God's creative will can.be formed, as sorne of the passages quoted touch upon this very

problem both implicitly and explicitly. But before we go on to

this, l would like to return to Ràniri's point about ?amzah's

'materialistic pantheism.' The fundamental issue which lies at

the bottom of RanlrI's distortion or misconception 1s the question

of the definition of Being. Let us examine what each of them has

to say about this.

According to RànlrI:

Wujüd itu iaitu dhat - ya'ni keadaan sesuatushay'. dhat itu ada kalanya kelihatan denganmata kepala seperti 'alarn, dan ada kalanya tiadakelihatan dengan mata kepala, tetapi menyabitkandia 'aql dan shara'i atau kashf dan dhawq. lai tulah wujiid Allah. 19

Being is essence (dhat) , or the constituentdeterminant of a thing ti.e. quiddityJ. Thisessence is at times perceptible to the eyes inthe forro of the external World or Universe, andat times not perceptible to the eyes, althoughit is established by the intellect ('agI) and byreligion (shara')t or through mystical revelationor insight (kashf) and direct experience (dhawa).This the Being of God.

RànlrI endorses his agreement with the Mutakallimin's categorization

of being into hTO classes: Necessary Being and Contingent BeLng , or

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

Mutaka1limin's concept irr 1Q1Q, for he goes on to gi ve a definition

of his own concept of being thus:

119 p. 3.120 p. 4.

-61-

Kata Mutakallimin wujud itu dua perkara: pertamawujüd Allah, kedua wujüd '8:1am. Maka wujüd Allahitu waj1bu'l-wujüd lagi qa'im sendirinya, dan wujud'8:1am itu mumk1nu Jl-wujüd - ya'n!: d1jadikanTa'àla daripada 'adam kepada wujüd kharijI; lagiia qa'im dengan Ta'ala. Maka jadilahkeduanya berlain-lainan; ya'ni keadaan keduanya ituberlain-lainan kerana Ta'àlà itu qadIm lagimenjadikan, dan 'àlam lagiMaka nyatalah pada istilah mereka itu bahwa wujud1tu dua perkara: suatu wuiÜd haaIg!; kedua vrojüdmajazI. Maka wujüd majâz itû milik bagiwujud

According to the Mutakall1min, there are twocategories of being: firstly the Being of God, andsecondly the being of the Universe or World. GodtsBeing is Necessary Being and is self-existent, andthe being of the World is Possible Being; that is,it 1s created and externalized by God from not-be1ng [or nothingness] ('adam). Furthermore it 1sdependent for its existence upon God. Thus thetwo [beings] are in reality not identical; this isso because the Being of God endures from and toaIl etern1ty and 1s the principle of creation, where-as the being of the Universe is ever new and iscreated. From their [i.e. the Mutakal11m!n]definit10n it 1s clear-that being 1s two: the oneReal Being, and the other Metaphorical Being.Metaphor1cal Being belongs to Real Being.

Adapun pada istilàh kami bahwa itu esajua; iaitulah dhàt"Âllah Ta'àlà. Dan àlam itutiada berwujûd dan tiada layak d1namai akan d1adengan nama wujùd kerana ia 'adamu 'l.-mahd. Makaapabila adalah 'àlam itu 'adamu'l-mahd dan wujüd

Ta'àla itu maka mânatah jadisewujüd denganHanya sanya adalah 'alam 1tu mazhar danmilik Ta'ala - ya'nr-tempat{Iaqq Ta ala dan bayang-bayang seperti upamarupa yang kelihatan dalam cherm1n bidal tamth!l.

q Ta' ala 1tu upama yang mœiJ.ik cherm1n dan

121 p. 3.

-62-

itu upama rupa yang kelihatan dalamnya.Maka wujüd Ta'ala dengan 'àlam berlainanpun tiada dan bersuatu pun tiada, kerana ber-lainannya dan bersuatu itu menghendak1 duawujüd mustagil sendirinya. Maka apabila adalahwujüd Allâb. jua yang esa, dan 'alam itu tiadaberwujüd, maka tiadalah jadiDarioada kerana inilah kami kata wujud Allahdengân 'àlam esa. Jikalau ada 'àlam itu mawjüdkelihatan sekalipun tetapi tiada kebilanganwujüdnya dari kerana ia tiada berwujüd haqiqi.122

Accord1ng to our definition being is one;and that i5 the Essence of God Most Exalted.The Un1verse 1s non-existent and is not qualified

- - - - - - - - - - - - t o- be- -consl ùer eù.----as- a- catsgory -crf o eî ng- as --Absolute Nothingness or Pure Not-Being ('adamu'l-

Thus when the Universe isand the Being of God is Absolute Being

whence this identity of andIn truth the Universe 1s Appearance;

dependingfor its existence upon the Being of God.It is the theatre of manifestation of the One RealBeing - the image reflected in the allegoricalmirror: God's Being is likened to the looker intothe glass, the World 1s like the form reflectedtherein. Thus God's Being and the Universe areneither the same nor different, for its identity ornon-identity would requ1re two entit1es existing

So when it is only the Being of God thati5 existent, and the Universe is non-existent, thereis then no possibility for comparison. That is whywe say that the Being of God and the Un1verse isone. Even though to outward perception the Universeexists, existence cannot be attributed to it for initself it does not possess real being.

RànIrI concludes that the concept of being and that of the

Mutakallimin are in reality identical. 123 This means that since

he has already endorsed the MutakallimIn's concept, he 1s equally

endorsing the concept which he defines thus:

122 Loc. cit. _- - - - - - - - - --.--. - ---..

123 pp. 6-7.

-63-

Adapun pendapat Ahlu'l-SüfI itu pun dengandalIl 'aql dan naql jua, lagi ditambah pula kashfdan dhawq. Maka ditilik mereka itu dengan matahatinya dan dirasanya dengan bahwawujüd itu esa jua - iaitulah wujud Allah yangtiada kelihatan dengan mata kepada dalam Daru'l-Dunya ini; dan yang kelihatan dengan mataitu iaitu 'alam yang tiada berwujüd seperti wujudAllah. Maka wujüd Allah itu wujüd l}aqiq! lagi

dan wujüd 'alam itu wujüd majazImuqayyad - fill - dan milik bagi wujüd Allah.Maka akan itu tiada dapat ' dikata akan diawujüd, dan tiada dapat dikata akan dia 'adam_

dari kerana jika d!anischaya sekutulah ia dengan wuJud Allah; dan Jikadikata akan dia 'adam maka 'adam itu tiadaada sesuatu shay' jua pun, dan 'alam itu ada iakelihatan. Maka nyatalah 'alam i tu mazhar wujüdtIaqq Tacala. Naka nisbah antara wujÜd· Allahàan 'alro!l itu bersuatu pun tiada dan berlainanpun tiada kerana 'alam itu mazhar dan milik bagi

Ta'ala.124 •

The too base their v1ew upon therational faculties and Tradit1on, but they addto this also mystical revelation or insight (kashf),and direct exper1ence (dhawg). They w1th theeyes of the internaI perception and 'exper 1ence' theexistence of only One Real Being - and that 1sAllah - tv.ho is imperceptible to the eles in thisWorld, for that which is perceptible Lto the eyes]does not possess real being as; does 'All ah . GodlsBeing is Real Being and Absolute, and the being ofthe Universe is metaphorical and [a th1ng] determined;it is the shadow of God's Being. Of this shadowexistence cannot be predicated; nor can absolutenessbe attributed to this nothingness, for if it exists,then 1t would Mean that the Univers6 is identicalwith God; and if its nothingness were absolute thenit would Mean that the Universe is nothing whatsoever.Yet the Universe is perceptible; so 1t is clear thatthe Universe 1s a manifestation of the Being of theTruth Most Exalted. The relationship between Godand the Universe then is ne1ther that of ident1tynor that of non-1dentity, for the Universe 1s amanifestation of, and belongs to God.

124 p. 6.

-64-

Having seen RànirI's version of the MutakallimIn's and

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

most inconsistent for him, in his own concept of being to assert

that the Universe cannot be "considered as a category of being fl

on the grounds that it is -Absolute Nothingness fl or IlPure Not-

Being,1I for such a concept of Universe is held neither by the

MutakallimIn nor by the The of the

MutakallimIn is not equivalent to the of RanIri,

for by this they mean a being which is logically possible; and for

them everything is logically possible except the logically

impossible. The term is regarded as synonymous with ja'1zu'1-wujüd

(Contingent Being). RanIri's meaning of the term

cornes under the category of impossible being - that 1s a being

that has no existence in any category of being. RànirI therefore

contradicts himself when he says that the World, aIready 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

contradiction. As for the concept of the World, RanIri

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

Not-Being ('adam mUflag = it is not absolute

nothingness as RanirI believes, for if its nothingness were

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

Himself. Furthermore, Ràniri says that the being of the World is

neither identical nor non-identical with that of God. This impI1es

that the World somehow exists and 1s not entirely Pure Not-Be1ng,

-65-

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, Ran!r! 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

necessary. Ran!rI, on the other hand, makes a real distinction

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

the distinction which BarrirI considers real is merely mental: the

being of the World is imaginary (wahmI); it is in reality God's

Being plus a non-existent subjective relation. In this sense

is a truer interpretation of the concept of the

World. Thus he says:

Dhat Allah dengan wujüd Allah esawujud Allah dengan wujüd 'àlam esa; wujud "âl.amdengan 'àlam esa seperti ohahayanya,125namanya jua lain, pada tiada lain.Pada penglihat mata esa, pada penglihat hati punesa. Wujüd 'àlam pun demikian lagi dengan wujüdAllah: esa; kerana 'àlam tiada berwujüd sendirinya.Sungguh pun pada dia berwujüd, tetapiwahmI jua, bukan wujüd seperti bayang-bayang dalam chermin, rupanya ada tiada.126

The Essence of God and His Being is one; HisBeing and the Being of the Universe 1s one; the being

125 The pronominal nya refers to the sun. See below pp. 67-68.

126 p. 128.

-66-

of the Universe and the Universe is one; the likeof which 1s, as it were, its the sun'sJlight; different only in name but not in truth.To external perception 1t is one; ta the eye ofthe internaI perception 1t is also one. So isthe being of the Universe in relation to God'sBeing - it is one; for the Universe cons1deredindependently does not existe Although outwardlyit exists it 1s [nothingJ but Appearance and notReality; like the image [reflectedJ in themirror, though possessing form, does not possessreal being.

A compar1son of definition of being with that of RanirI

reveals that there 15 no real distinction between the real content

of what they conceive as being. Differences between what they

say are those of expression. as a begins his defini-

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

whereas RanirI, whom l 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 15

identical: that there 1s only One Real Being. However, RanirI

seems to have interpreted conception of the relationship

between God and the Universe as one which resembles that of the

heretical Wujüdiyyah which he explains thus:

Kata WujüdiYlah ituesa; laitulah wujud Allah. Maka wujud Allah yangEsa itu tiada ada ia mawjüd mustaqil sendirinyayang dapat dibezakan melainkan dalam kandungansekalian makhlüqat jua. Maka adalah makhlùqat ituwujud Alla:l-, dan wujüd Allan itu wujüd makhâûqât ,Haka 'alam i tu Allah dan Allan i tu 'alam. Bahwasanya adalah mereka itu menyabitkan wujüd Allanyang Esa itu dalam segala makhlüqat, serta katanyatiada mawjüd hanya Allàh.127

127 pp. 9-10.

-67-

According to the heretical Wujüdiyyah, beingis one; and that is the Being of God. ThisAbsolute Being of God does not exist by Itselfby which It can be distinguished save in relationto the creatures. Hence the creatures are God'sBeing and the Being of God is the being of thecreatures. The World is then Gad, and Gad isthe World. In this way they affirm [as inseparableJGod's Absolute Being with the being of the creatures,and they say that nothing exists but God.

But what tIamzah 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 Rer

identified as one as RanIrI believes. In tIamzah's definition,

apart from God's Being which is also that of His Essence, all

other similar terms such as the 'being' of the Universe, and 50

forth, are to be taken in the metaphorical sense. tIamzah himself

gives us his explanation on this point:

Adapun kepada 'Ulama' sharI'at Dhat Allahdengan wujüd Allah dua Qukumnya; wujüd 'ilmu dengan'alim dua wujud 'alam dengan 'alam duahukumnya; wujüd 'alam Iain, wujüd Allah Iain.Âdapun wujüd Allah dengan Dhat Allah mithl mata-hari dengan chahayanya; sungguh pun esa, padapenglihat mata dan penglihat hati, dua hukumnya:matahari lain1 chahayanya Iain. •

AdaEun 'alam, maka dikatakan wujüdnya Iainkerana ' alam seperti bulan beroleh chahaya dar1-pada matahari. Sebah inilah maka dikatakan 'Ulama':"\t/ujüd 'àlam Iain daripada wujüd Allah. \vujüdAllàh dengan Dhâ't Allah Iain."

Naka kata Ahlu'l-Sulük: "Jika demikian,Allah Ta'ala diluar 'àlam atau dalarn 'alam dapat

atau hampir kepada 'àlam atau jauh daripada'alam dapat dikata." Pada kami, Dhâ t Allah dengan

Allah esa wujüd Allah dengan wujüdalam esa •••

Adapun ittifaq 'Ulama' dengan Ahlu'l-Sulükpada Dhat semata. Sungguh pun Dhat dapat di'ibaratkan,tetapi tiada lulus pada 'ibarat kerana tiada diatas

-68-

akan Dia, tiada dibawah akan Dia, tiada dahulu akanDia, tiada kemudian akan Dia, tiada kanan akan Dia,tiada kiri akan Dia, tiada jauh akan Dia, tiada hampirakan Dia, tiada diluar akan Dia, tiada dalam akanDia, tiada bercherai akan Dia, tiada bertemu akanDia; tiada dengan betapanya, dan tiada dimana,dan tiada kemana , dan tiada sekarang , dan tiadasekajap mata, dan tiada ketika, dan tiada masa;tiada ra jadi, dan tiada la menjadi; tiada latempat dan tiada ra bertempat, seperti sabdaRasülu1l-Lah: "Kana'l-Lahu wa la shay'a ma'ahu" -ya'nI: "Dahulu Allâh, tiada suatu sertaNya pun."Kata Shaykh Junayd al-Baghdad! (rahmatu'l-Lahi'alayhi): IIAl-ana kama kâna" - ya'nI: "Sekarangpun seperti dahulu juga. 1I Firman Allah Ta'ala:'Subhana'l-Lahi 'amma yasifüna' - ya'ni:'Màhâsuchi Allâh: tiada dapat diperikan'; lagifirman Allah Ta'a1a: 'Laisa kamithlihi shay'un'ya'nI [tafsIrnyaJ: 'Tiada suatu pun barang yangkita bicharakan dengan hati kita, atau denganma'rifat kita, sama-sama. Ma'rifat itu bukanDhat; keadaan Dhat dengan periNya jua. Sebabinilah maka kata Ahlu'l-Sulük: "Dhat dengankeadaanNya esa." Tetapi yang kunhlnya, Dhat itutiada siapa datang kesana. Jangankan' awamm,Wall dan NabI dan Mala'1katu'l-Muqarrabln puntiada datang kesana.128

According to the 'Ulama' of the PrescribedLaw, the judgment concerning the Essence of God andHis Being is that they are two; [simi1arly,J thebeing of knowledge and knower are two; the being ofthe Universe and the Universe are two; the beingof the Universe is different frem the Being of God.The Essence of God and His Being is like the sunand its 11ght; although they are one, yet to externaland internaI perception the judgment 15 that theyare two: the sun 1s different from 1ts light.

As to the Universe, the reason why it is saidthat its being is d1fferent [from that of GodJ,is because the Universe is like the moon der1ving1ts light from the sun. This 1s the reason why the'Ulama' say: "The being of the Universe is dif:Cerentfrom the Being of God. God's Being and His Essenceare different. fI

128 pp. 127-129.

-69-

The Itinerants say: "If this is the case,then God can be referred to as being 'outsideror 'in' [the Universe]; or 'near' the Universeor 'far' from it." To us, the Essence of Godand His Being is one; His Being and the beingof the Universe is one ••• 129

In reality the 'Ulama' and the Itinerants arein complete agreement with respect to the Essence.Although the Essence can be expressed in words inreality expression falls s hort of the truth, forIt is not 'above', It is not 'beIow', It is not'before', It is not 'after', It is not to 'theright', It is not to 'the left', It 1s not 'far',It is not 'near', It is not 'outsider, It 1s not 'in',It 1s not 'separate', It is not 'joining'· [It is]without 'how' or 'what', without 'where'at a place], without 'where' being 12. a p.Lace l ,without 'now', without a 'tw1nkling of an eye'without 'instant', without 'time'; It does not'become', nor is It 'becoming'; It is not a 'place'nor has It a 'place', as the Messenger of God says:"There 'was' only God , no thing ['was'] with Him. ftShaykh Junayd al-BaghdadI (God's mercy be uponhfml ) says: "It Ls now as i t was tihen ;" Gad says:'Glory be to Who cannot be described'; andGod says further: 'There is no ' thing like unto Him'[the interpretation of] which means: not one singlething which we discuss with our hearts and withour knowledge attains to knowledge of Him. Ourknowledge is not [of] the Essence; [it is of] theexistence of the Essence and Its modes. This iswhy the Itinerants say: "The Essence and Itsexistence is one,130 but in reality none reachthe Essence. Let alone the general masses Lof theFaithfu1], even the Saints, Prophets, and Archange1smay not reach It. .

The cardinal point about the distinction between the heretica1

and the true Wujüdiyyah is, as RànIri right1y explains, that with

129 See above pp. 65-66.

130 Q[. Ibnu'I-'ArabI in 'AffIfI, pp. 1-9.

-70-

the former, though they too assert that there 1s only one

being which 1s 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." What says in the passage

quoted is self-evident in denouncing such a belief.

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

prior ta all other beings, which 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 saroe

thing. RanIrI says:

_ Maka pada Ahlu'l-iüfI bahwawujud dan haq1qat itu esa jua pada ma'nanya;iaitulah Dhat Haqq Ta'àla. Maka murad daripada

pada itu iaitu:Al-9agIgatu ma bihi l-shay'u huwa huwa. Ertinya:Yang haqIqat itu suatu shay) yang dengan dia[jadij shay' itu - ia ia (ya'nI barang suatu shay'yang jadi ia daripada suatu shay'. Maka suatu shay'itu 9aq!qat - upama periuk itu .dan 9aq1qat perahu itu tukang. Dan murad9aqiqat pada itu iaitu:Al-bagIgatu ma yakünu'l-shay'u bihi ka'l-hâyawani'l-

bi'l-nisbati ilâ'l-insâni. Ertinya: Yang9aqIqat itu barang sesuatu shay' yang dengan diaia, seperti hayawan natiq dengan nisbah kepadainsan (ya'nI·9aqlqat insan itu·hidup yangberkata-kata). Maka nyatalah pada 1stilah

9aqIqat sesuatu shay' itû·dirl sesuatushay'. Maka ikhtilaf ikhtiyar Mut akal l i mi n danAhlu'l-Süfi pada menyabitkan wujüd Allah denganwujüd itu ikhtilaf jua, bukan

131 See be10w p. 155.

-71-

ma'nawi; seperti kata orang 'lima belas' dengan'tengah dua puluh'. Maka pada ma'nanya sama jua,dan pada berlain-lainan.132

It is clear that according to the definitionof the Süfis existence and real essence are,in point of meaning, one and the same; and thatis the Essence of God. The meaning of the ?üf i s 'definition of the real essence [of a thing] is that:'Essence is what makes a thing what it is' - thatis - the thing from which a thing becornes; andthis 'thing' [or essence] 1s reality. As for

the reality [or essence] of the pot is thewheel,lj3 and the reality [or essence] of the boatis its maker. According to the definition of theLogicians: 'Essence 1s what makes a thing whatit is as rationa11ty 1s to man' - that is - theessence of man is h1s rationa11ty. It is evidentthat the meaning of the Logicians' definit10n [ofthe term essence] is quiddity. The differencesbetween the endeavours of the Mutakallimin and the

in their affirmation of God's Being and thatof the Universe, are differences in expression,not in meaning; as people say 'fifteen' and 'twentyminus five'. The meaning is identical althoughthe expression 1s note

AlI that which Raniri says here is confused and his conclusion is

false. In the first instance RanIri makes an effort to reconcile

the Mutakal11min's definition of essence with that of the

by incorporating both, the premises of the former and the conclu-

sion of the latter, into an amalgame The Mutakallimin would in

fact define essence thus:

The real essence (al-hagIgatu) of a thing andits quiddity (al-mahrYyatu) are that wh1chconstitutes the identity of a thing (ma bihi'l-shaz'u huwa huwa) , as 1s exemplified by theapplication of the term "rational (nithg) animal Il

132 pp. 6-7.133 l would have thought, in order to be consistent, that thereality of the pot should be the potter, not the wheel!

-72-

to man in contrast to the application of the terms"laughing animal" and "writing animal"; in whichcase it 1s possible to conceive of man as notbeing described by the terms "laughing" and"writing" , inasmuch as they [laughing and writing]are accidents. And it may be said further thatthat which constitutes the identity of a thing is,with respect to its be1ng verif1ed as hav1ng externalreality, a real essence; and w1th respect to itsbeing individualized, 1t is a certain particularth1ng (huwlXXah), but without respect to e1ther ofthese 1t 1s a qu1ddity.134

From this it is clear that according to the Mutakal11min's point

of v1ew the real essence of the pot 1s not the potter, nor that

of the boat the maker; but that the real essence of the pot 1s

the clay which 1s ult1mately reducible to particles whicb cannot

be further divided, and the real essence of the boat 1s the

combination of wood and iron and so forth, all of which 1s also

ultimately reducible to their respective atoms. The Mut akal l i mi n -

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

accidents created by God, but t heir theory of the Un1verse 1tself

is atom1st1c, as the following passage shows:

According ta the Ash'arite school of thinkers,then, the world is compounded of what they calIjawah1r - infin1tely small parts or atoms whichcannot be further dlvlded. Since the creativeactlvity of God is ceaseless the number of theatoms cannot be finite. Fresh atoms are cominginto being every moment, and the universe 1stherefore constantly growing. As the Qur'àn says:"God adds to His creation what He wills." Theessence of the atom is independent of its existence.This means that existence is a quality imposed uponthe atom by Gad. Before rece1ving this quality theatom lies dormant, as 1t were, i n the creat1ve energy

134 TaftazanI, p. Il. It is interesting to note that RanIrI hastranslated this work into Malay under the title of Durrat al-Fara'idbi al-'Aga'id! Cf. W1nstedt, R.a., A of classicalMalay literature, J}ffiRAS, vol. 31, pt. 3, June 195 , p. 120.

-73-

of God, and its existence means nothing more thanDivine energy become visible. The atom in itsessence therefore has no magnitude; it has itsposition which does not involve space. It is bytheir aggregation that atoms become extended andgenerate space. 135

It is clear here that the MutakallimIn assert that the atom in

its essential nature is independent 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

such. 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. The SüfIs wholeheartedly•accepted the first proposition, but they violently disagreed, on

the other hand, with the MutakallimIn's assertion that numerous

substances - atoms exist independently upon which the accidents

depend. The MutakallimIn have defined an accident as a being

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

existence another accidents, or on essence or substance. The

9üfIs, however, believe that the MutakallimIn's 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 existe

135 Iqbal, M. , Six lectures on the reconstruction of rell iousthought in Islam, Lahore, 1930, p. 9. Cf. also p. xxv.

-74--

Thus both are in reality interdependent, 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

accidents. Fran the point of view of the nothing exists

per 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 aIl

existence and which is the cause of aIl existence:

They the Mutakallimin] have not graspedthe fact that the universe, together with aIl itsparts, is nothing but a number of accidents, everchanging and being renewed at every breath, andlinked together in a single substance, and at eachinstant disappearing and being replaced by asimilar set. In consequence of this rapidsuccession, the spectator 1s deceived into thebelief that the universe is a pernanent existence.The Ash'aris themselves declare t his when expoundingthe succession of accidents in their substances asinvolving continuous substitution of accidents,in such wise that the substances are never leftwholly void of accidents similar to those whichhave preceded them. 136

The "single substance" JffinI 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 1dentified with these

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

136 fI bazan ma'anI 'urfaniyyah; translated by E.H.Whlnefield and H.M. QazvInt, London, Royal Asi2tic Society, 1928,p. 30. Hereafter cited as Lawa'ih. Cf. Ibnu'I-'ArabI inNicholson, p. 154. ,. -

-75-

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

grades of being. Here then we come to the sürIs' definition of•essence. Jami says:

When one defines man as a "rational 8.j.'1imal";and animal as a "growing and sentient body, possessedof the faculty of voluntary movement"; and body as"a substance possessing three dimensions"; andsubstance as an "entity which exists per and isnot inherent in any other subjectIf; and entity as"an essence possessed of reality and necessarybeing" - aIl the terms used in this definitioncome under the category of "accidents", except thisvague essence which is discerned behind theseterms. For "rational" signifies an essence enduedwith reason; "that which is growing" signifies anessence endued with the faculty of growth;1Iand 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 Mutaka1limin 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 RànIrI ignores - or does he not

see? this real distinction between the MutakallimIn's and

point of view, for in spi te of this he says:

-76-

Maka berhimpunlah138 sekalian Ahlu'l-SüfIdan segala Mutakallimin mengatakan: "Al-' aiamu bijamI'i ajza'ihi a'radun wa'l-ma'rü<ju huwail-Lâ.hu" -ya 'ni: "Yang 1âlam déngan segala suku-sukunya ITtuJbeberapa_'araçl, dan ma'rüçl itu iaitu -tIaqg Ta'ala."Maka murad daripada 'arad itu pada istilah merekaitu: "Al-'ara(iu la - ya'nI:"Yang 'araçl i'tu tiada ia kekal pada dua masa."Dan murad daripada ma'rüçl itu iaitu wujüd Allahyang azalI lagi abadI. Ialah yang qa'im sendiriNyadan Ialah yang mengqiyamkanllto bagi lainnya. Makatiadalah dinamai akan 'alam itu dengan nama wujüd;hanya sanya adalah dinamai akan dia dengan namazalalat dan la shay ", batil dan khayâ'l.I dan sar-âbf<lan jua.

Maka apabila adalah 'alam itu demikian -ya'nI tiadalah kebilangan keadaannya itu jikalaukelihatan pada penglihat mata sekalipun - makatiadalah menduai wujüd Haqq Ta'ala. Sebab inilahkata mereka itu bahwa Haqq Ta'ala dengan 'àlam ituesa , Bukan mao siid meréka itu bahwa 'alam14l dengan

Ta'ala seWüjÜd dan bersuatu. Kerana itulahkata mereka itu bahwa Ta'ala dengan 'alamberlainan pun tiada dan bersuatu pun tiada, keranaberlainannya dan bersuatunya itu menghendaki dua

Hanya sanya adalah ia milik bagiTa ' àla.11+2 l·

AlI the and the Mutakallimln are inconcerted agreement in asserting that: "The wor-l.dtogether with aIl its parts is nothing but a series

138 See below p. 170.

139 RanIrI's note on the margin says:Ya'nI adalah itu berubah-ubah lagi bergant1-ganti dan hd.Lang, Maka datang yang ganti sebagainyapada tiap-tiap nafas dan ketika.

11+0 See below p. 171.

141 RanirIrs note on the margin says:Ya'nI sebab dinamai akan 'àlam itu la shay' kerana iatiada shay' pada tiap-tiap nafsu'l-amr dirinya,tetapi adalah shay' pada pihak dijadikan Allâh akan dia.

142 pp. 21-22.

-77-

of accidents; and that of which they are accidents isGod." The meaning of 'accident' in their terminologyis: "An accident [is a thing that] does not enduretwo instants of time."143 The meaning of 'that uponwhich the accidents depend' is God's Being, Eternal,Beginningless. He is the self-subsistent One, andHe is the One Who gives subsistence to others.Hence the World is not fit to be categorized as'being' - it is called 'darkness', 'not-being','ralse','imagination' and 'mirage'; it is nothing buta shadow,

When that the World is such - that is, itsexistence cannot be categorized as 'being' eventhough it is perceptible - it cannot t hen be another existent apart from God the Exalted. This isthe reason why they say that Goa and the Universe isone. They do not intend it to mean that the Worldl44and God are one being and identical. This is whythey say that God and the Universe are neither thesame nor different, for their identity and non-identitywould require two entities existing It

the Universe] belongs to' God.

From aIl this (!) one cannot help but come to the conclusion

that RanirI is in fact saying the same thing as what has

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 RanIrI's note: The accidents change, come in succession,and disappear. Others like them come andreplace them at each breath and instant.

Cf. p. 30.

144 Raniri's note: The reason whl the World is not-being[or not-thingJ is because it never becomesa real thing at each breath of its appearance,but it is a thing insofar only as God createsit.

CHAPTER IV

The teachings of Hamzah Fansürr• •

-79-

FaniürI was a wandering mystic learned in the doctrines

of the SufIs. He had travelled in the Middle East and in the•Indonesian Archipelago. He visited Siam, Malaya , and Java. He

had journeyed far and wide, he tells us, in quest of God whom he

finally discovered within his self:

Hamzah Fansuri didalam MakkahMenchari Tühan di Baytu'l-Ka'bahDi Barus ke Kudus terlalu payahAkhirnya dapat didalarn

Hamzah Fansüri in Makkah once staysthe Ka'bah for God he dismays

from Barus to Kudus weary his gazeAt 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

Archipelago. From one of his stanzas he tells us that he belonged

to the Qadiriyyah Order:

Hamzah nin asalnya FansürI. - .Mendapat wujud ditanah Shahar NawiBeroleh khilafat 'ilmu yang caliDaripada 'Abdu'l-Qadir Sayyid Jilani.146

l, who am of a sonAt Shahar NawI my being have wonThe knowledge sublime l acquired from oneCa11ed 'Abdu'l-Qadir Sayyid Jilan.

In another he informs us that he was of humble Malay origin:

145 p. 45. See also p. 89.146 Ibid., pp. 107-108.

-80-

Hamzah miskin orang 'uryan!Seperti Isma'il menjadi qurbàn!Bukannya lagi 'ArabISenantiasa dengan Yang Bàqi. 147Naked and poor isAlike to an Ishmael a sacrifice heNeither of Persia nor of ArabyYet he is at one with God constantly.

Hamzah Fansüri 1s dates of birth and deat: are unknown and to my• •knowledge have not yet been established. But it would appear to

me that he flourished during the per10d of 'Alà'u'l-Dln

Ri'àyat Shâh who re1gned frem 1588 to 1604. My opinion 1s based

upon a short poem by entitled Ikat-ikatan 'ilmu'l-n1sa'.148

From this 1s evident that he was apparently ordered by that

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

same

Hamba mengikat sha'ir iniDibawah raja yang wall •••149

There is no doubt that the "saintly king" referred to in the last

line quoted was 'Alà'u'l-Dln Ri'ayat Shah, who was also known as

Shah 'AJ.am150 and who in Achehnese tradition was famous under the

147 p. 104.

148 For this poem see pp. 65-70.149 p. 69.

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

- 81-

title Sayzid al_Mukammal,151 for immediately following the above

lines, he says:

Shah 'Alam raja yang 'adilRaja qutub yang sempurna kamilWali Allah sempurnaRaja 'arif lagi mukammil. 152

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

Muda, who reigned from 1607 to 1636, is also mentioned by his title

Mahkota 'Alam.153 This would give the impression that 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 post-

humously, but it became a tradition for the to assume their

respective titles as soon as they were installed as Sultan. However,

it seems to me that the line of reasoning accepting that

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

fact that his posthumous title i5 mentioned in this poem, is

untenable. Why would insert Iskandar Muda's royal title

when the poenl was written for Shah 'Alam? Furthermore, Iskandar

Muda, at the time the poem was composed, could not have been

and could therefore not have used the title. There seems ta be an

151 See Djajadiningrat, p. 213. See also Hikayat Acheh, p. 98,Rara. 74.

152 The Iast word in the stanza i5 read mukammil to fit into therhyme scheme. The correct form is mukammal (referring to Sayyidal-11ukar:unal). See p. 7Ô.-

153 Ibid., p. 68.

-82-

anachronism here. My solution to this problem is that the

reference to Mahkota 'Alam in the poem could very weIl be a 1ater

interpolation, Interpolations of this nature are not unusual in

Malay works of historica1 and cultural significance. The Hikayat

Raja-Raja Pasai and the Sejarah Me1ayu have been subject to

interpolations of this nature. Ranir!'s (the

author died in 1666) interpolates mention of 'Inàyat Shah who

reigned in Acheh from 1678-1688.154 ?amzah's poem in question may

not be excluded from such a possibi1ity in this respect. But a

more convincing indication that interpolation might have occurred

is to study carefu1ly the problematic stanza itself:

Berkatalah faqIr yang budiman, amat'aja'ib maqam [diluar pun; ada ia ditanah Jawa, dari Acheh Mahkota 'Alam]

sekalian sharat dinazarkankepada rasanya yang ni'mat diturunkan •.•155

It can be seen at once that the whole stanza as it appears in the

form presented is nothing but a jumble of incoherent, meaningless

phrases having no relation nor relevance, both in thought and form,

with the preceding and succeeding stanzas, and with the poem as a

whole. But if the words l have enclosed in square brackets were to

154 See Wlnstedt, R.a., A history of classical Malay literature,JMBRAS, vol. 31, pt. 3, June 195tl, p. 120.

155 p. 68. l have not altered the arrangement ofthe forro in which it is presented by Doorenbos. The square bracketsare mine. The purpose of my inserting the brackets where they arenow will shortly become clear.

-83-

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

their meaning, relevance, and relationship with the whole poem

1s establ1shed:

Berkatalah faqir If yang budimanAmat 'aja'ib maqam dihimpunkanSekalian sharat dinazarkanKepada 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. From

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

lived and flourished during the period of Shan. 'Alam.

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 must have regarded

as his master. But influence also fram JIll is not lacking. He

must have been weIl acquainted also, frcm what is revealed in his

writings, with the thoughts of Abü YazId Junayd,

Ghazzali, RümI, Shamsu Tabrlz 'Iraq!, Maghribi, Jami and

others not as famous. One example here will suffice:

J1ka seorang bertanya: "JikalauDhat Allah kepada semesta sekalianlengkap, kepada najis dapatkah dikatakanlengkap"? Haka jawab: "Seperti panas lengkappada sekelian 'àlam, kepada busuk punlengkap, kepada baik pun lengkap, kepadajahat pun lengkap, kepada Ka'bah pun lengkap,pada rumah berhala pun lengkap, kepadasemesta sekalian pun lengkap; kepada najistiada ia akan najis; kepada busuk tiada iaakan busuk; kepada baik tiada ia akan baik;

-84-

kepada jahat tiada ia akan jahat; daripadaKa'bah tiada ia beroleh kebajikan; daripadarumah berhala tiada ia beroleh kejahatan.Selang panas lagi demikian, istimewa AllahSUn9anahU wa Ta'ala, Suchi daripadasegala Suchi, dimana la akan na;iis dan busuk"?Maka pahamkan o.Lehmu kata ini. l j6

Should someone ask: IfIf the Essence of Allahis all-pervasive and immanent in all things,can it be said that It is also immanent in impureand fouI things"? Then answer: "In the saroeway as the sun's light is all-pervasive andsheds itse1f over the impure and the fouI,the good and the evil, over the Ka'bah andthe idol-worshippers' Temple - over everything;without itself being affected by the impurityand the foulness, the goodness and evilnessof the things it pervades; from the Ka'bah itdoes not gain goodness, from the Temple itdoes rot acquire evilness; sa it 1s evenmore with respect to Allah Most Exalted, Whois the Purest of the Pure. How can theimpure and the fouI affect Him"? Comprehendthis weIl.

How can one doubt the origin of the above quoted passage as from

other than the Lawa'i:tJ" where Jami says:When the sun sheds his Iight for aIl to share,It shines on fouI things equally with fair;Fair things do not augment its radianceNor can fouI things its purity impair. 157

Since the devastating attack dlrected against him by RanIri,

has been regarded as a false - in fact a 'heretic. 'But washewhat RanIrI would have us be1ieve of him? In the preced-

ing chapter, l have attempted ta show that RanIrI's accusations of

156 pp. 189-190.

157 See p. 22.

-85-

'heresy' were really not founded upon learned and critical analyses

of his works; that RânIrI really did not represent his thouGhts

faithfully and truly at aIl. l he.ve 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 world -

together with the logical consequence of that belief; namely the

auestion as ta whether God is the Agent and Maker of the World in

the sense Gha.zzalI means,158 or the World cornes into Being by

virtue of necessity, which would negate the idea that God is its

Agent and Naker. l propose hereafter in this chapter to give a

brief summary of the salient features of which

have a bearing upon the relevant point in question, in this case,

the relationship between God and the Universe or World.

According to when the Throne,159 Heaven and Hell,

and the entire Universe together with aIl its parts were yet dormant,

concealed in non-existence, the Essence dwelt in solitude; without

names or attributes, signless. This Essence is called Huwa [He],

158 See Tahafut1 chapters l to III. See also corresponding chaptersin Averroes' al-Tahafut (The incoherence of the incoherence);translated from the Arabie with introduction and notes by Simon vanden Bergh, London, 1954, 2v. Hereafter cited as Tahafut al-Tahafut.

159 Cogpare with Ibnu'l-'Arab!'s various concepts of this term in'Aff!f!, pp. 63, 66, 82.

-86-

and this is Its highest name. 160 The nmne Allah which though a

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

Allah is the name in which aIl divine names and attributes are

comprised, in the same manner as is the of a person

comprising his other 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. Al-'Ama' is translated by Nicholson - at leastonce - as the blindness (ibid., p. 94), and on three otherinstances as the dark pp. 83, 94, 97). Johns acceptsNicholson's translation of aï=7Ama' as the blindness and entirelyexcludes the other translation given by Nicholson (Johns, pp. 16,Ill). Although the dark mist is the more correct of the twotranslations given by Nicholson l yet both he and Johns are mistakenin translating the term al-'Ama as JIll uses it as the blindness.The reason for this error 1s that Nicholson and Johns ascribe toJill the use of the term al-'Ama ( which means theblindness, whereas in fact Jill uses the ·term al-'Ama'( which means the dark mist, the heavy cloud about toburst. (See JIII's Al-Insanu'l-Kamil, Cairo, 'Ali

2 vols. in 1, vol. l, 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 ofal-'Ama', see Nicholson, p. 95 and note 1.

-87-

Thus Allah, Glor10us and Exalted, by v1rtue of His creating, 1s

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 aIl existence.

Cause here should not be understood in the Philosopher's sense of

the term, rather in al-Ghazza1I's sense of the term - as a cause in

the special sense - that is that brought about by a wil1ing agent.

From point of view, the 'Ulama) teach that God's Being

(Existence) and His Essence are two different things, just as -

according to - the 'Ulama) assert that knowledge and knower

are not identical. In the like manner, the 'Ulama) maintain that

the Being of God and the being of the Universe are non-ident1cal.

They demonstrate their theory by employing the metaphor of the

sun and its light, which though to internaI and external perception

are one and the same thing remain nevertheless two different things

in reality. But ?amzah 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 Universe - which is absurde We may say that the 'Ulama)

regard reality from a relative subjective) viewpoint whereas

the would conceive rea11ty in the opposite manner - since

God alone is real, He alone i3 the only rea1ity. For the

161 pp. 125-126. Compare with JIlI in Nicholson,pp. 914:ft •

-88-

relationship between God and the Universe is mere metaphor; since

only God exists how can there be a relationship?162 But God is

not identical with the Universe. We predicate of Him a relative

transcendence and immanence in respect of the modes of being

attributed to Him. The Universe is a reflection of the modes of

His Being. Rence it is said that:

Barang kita lihat, atau batin, sekaliannyalenyap - ombak juga; ya'n! laut tiada bercheraidengan ombaknya, ombak tiada bercherai dengan laut.Demikian lagi Allah wa Ta'âla tiadabercherai dengan 'âlam. Tetapi tiada didalam 'âlamdan tiada diluar 'âIam, dan tiada diatas 'àlam dantiada dibawah 'àlam, dan tiada dikanan 'àlam dantiada dikiri 'alam1 dan tiada dihadapan 'âlam dantiada dibelakang 'alam, dan tiada bercherai dengan'alam dan tiada bertemu dengan 'alam, dan tiadahampir kepada 'alam dan tiada jauh daripada 'âlam.163

That which we perceivG, whether manifest orhidden, aIl disappear - they are waves. The sea isnot separate from the waves and the waves are notseparate from the sea. Similarly God the Gloriousand Exalted is not separate from the World. ButRe is neither in the World nor outs1de it, neitherabove nor below it, neither to the right nor to thelaft of it, neither before nor behind it, neitherseparate from nor joined to it, neither near to norfar fran I t ,

maintains that the 'Ulama"s endeavour to expound the

relationship between God and the Uni ver se in the metaphorical terms

they adopt 1s fraught with imperfections and may lead to absurd

162 p. 128.

163 Ibid., p. 153.

-89-

conclusions, for analogy cannot reach the Essence. He emphasizes

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

and those of the Itinerants (Ahlu'l-Sulük), to which he subscribes,

are identical.164 In Itself the Essence is transcendent:

Adapun Dhat itu, sungguh pun dibawa kepadaibarat, kepada kunhinla tiada siapa tahu, keranala tiada dapat di Sungguh pun Esa,tiada dengan esanya; sungguh pun Tunggal, tiadadengan tunggalnya. Barang Dhat Asma'kita nisbatkan kepadaNya 'ibarat juga.165

The Essence - although It can be describedby means of verbal expression - in reality isunknowable for It can never bé expressed inwords. Although It is Absolute, Its absolutenessis not related to anything; although It is One andOnly, Its oneness and singleness are not relatedto anything. We attribute to It Essence, Attributesand Names as expressions only.

What means to say is not different fram what Ibnu'l-'ArabI

says:

Sublimitl ('uluww) belongs to God alone. Theessences (a'yan) ëf things are in thernselves non-existent, deriving what existence they possess fromGod, who is the real substance of aIl thatexists. Plurality consists of relations (nisab),which are non-existent things. There is reallynothing except the Essence, and this is sublime(transcendent) for itself, not in relation toanything, but we predicate of the One Substance arelative sublimity (transcendence) in respect ofthe modes of being attributed to it: hence wesay God 1s (huwa) and is not (la huwa).166- --

164 12.2.. ill.165 p. 148. gr. also, p. 129.166 Cf. Nicholson, p. 152.

-90-

But he does not follow Ibnu'l-'Arabi aIl the way through with

respect to the manifestation of the Absolute, for we find him

repeating Jili's systematic scheme of t he process of "self-

diremption ll ascribed to the Absolute:167

Ketahui olebInu bahwa kunhi Dhâ t Allàh i tudinamai Ahlu'I-Sulük la ta'ayyun. Maka lata'ayyun namanya kerana budi dan bichara, 'ilmudan ma'rifat kita tiada lulus padaNya. Jangankan'ilmu dan ma'rifat kita; Anbiyà' dan Awliya' punhayran. Olehnya itu maka sabda Nabi: "Subhanakama 'arafna ma 'rifatika." (ya 'ni :ï'ïAmatSuchiMu!, tlaâa kukenal sebenar kenal akanDikau"). Dan Iagi sabda NabI: "Tafakkarü fi:khalgi 'l-Lahi wa Hi tafakkarü fi Dhâti JI-Lâhi"(ya 'nI: "Kamu pikirkan dalam yang dijadikanAllah; bermula: jangan kamu pikirkan kepada DhâtAllah.") Kerana ini maka dinamai Ahlu'l-Sulükla ta'ayyun. Ma,na la ta'ayyun: tiada nyata.

Adapun pertama ta'ayyun empat bahagi:'ilmu, dan wujüd, dan shuhüd, dan nùr. Ya'nIta' ayyun keempatnya inilah yang bernamata,ayyun avnval, kerana daripada 'ilmu maka 'alimdan ma'lüm nyata; kerana wujüd maka yang mengadakandan yang diadakan nyata; ker-ana shuhiîd maka yangmelihat dan yang dilihat nyata; kerana chahayamaka yang menerangkanI68 dan yang di terangkan

ini avrwal jua;'alim dan ma'lum, awvlal dan akhir, zahir dan- . .batln beroleh nama.• Adapun ma 'lÜID i tulah yang dinamai Ahlu'1-

Sulük thabitah. Setengah menamai [dia]l-ashyâ'; setengah menamai [dia]

'11miyyah; setengah menamai [dia] rühSekalian ini ta'ayyun thanI

167 Cf. Iqbal, M., The development of metaphysics in Persia, London,1908, pp. Hereafter cited as Iqbâl.

168 The text reads diterangkan. l have reversed the order so thatmenerangkan 1s read before diterangkan for the sake of logicalconsistency.

-91-

Adapun rü:tl insanI_dan rü:tl_:tlayawanI danrüh nabatI tiTayyun tha1ith hukumnya.--. Adapun ta'ayyun rabi' danjismanI kepada semesta seka1ian makhluqat, kepadatiada berkesudahan dan ta' ayyun juga namanya ,Tiada terhisabkan ta'ayyun itu; tetapi 'i1mu,dan wujüd;dan shuhüd, dan nür, tiada bercheraidengan seka1ian ta'ayyun, kerana jika tiadayang empat ini, yang Empunya ta'ayyun tiada dapatta'ayyun. Kerana ini maka kata Ah1u'l-Su1ük[bah'va] wujüd 'a1am seka1ian [itu] wujüd Allah.Adapun wujüd 'alam, sungguhpun kita lihat berwujüd,tiada ia berwujüd1 kerana wujüdnya daripada wujudMuta'ayyin. Ya'n1 daripada ghafi1 kita jua kitasangka 'âlam berwujüd.

Adapun ta'ayyun awwal pun namanya1Wàhid pun namanya. Apabila kita lainkan DhatSëillita sendi::inya hf-lad namanla. Apabi!a kitasertakan dengan 'ibaratnya,kerana Ahad bernama W-ahid memegang 'alamseka1ian·dari pertamanya hingga kesudahannya. 169

Know that the innermost Essence of God MostExalted is called by the Itinerants 'indeterminacy.'It is called Indeterminacy because our intelligenceand skill in verbal exposition, knowledge andunderstanding, are unable ta reach It. Let a10ne

know1edge and understanding, even the Prophetsand the Saints are struck with awe of It. Hencethe Prophet said: "Glory be to Thee! l cannotrea11y lmow Thee". And tne Prophet said further:"Contemplate upon His creation and not upon HisEssence." This is why the Itinerants calI this[Essence] indeterminate, meaning non-manifeste

The first [stage] of determinacy 1s fourfold:Knowledge, Being, Sight, and Light. AlI thesefour are called the First Determination, for byvirtue of Knowledge the Knower and the Knownbecome manifest; by virtue of Being That whichcauses to be and That which becomes are manifest;by virtue of Sight the Seer and the Seen aremanifest; by virtue of the Illuminator andthe Illuminated are manifeste AlI these - theKnower and the Known, the First and the Last, theManifest and the Hidden - are of the First Determination.

169 ?amzah pp. 191-193.

-92-

The Known is called by the Itinerants theFixed Essences. Sorne calI it the Essences of Things,sorne the Cognitive Forros, and others calI it theRelational Snirit. AlI these are the Second Determination.

The humàn, animal, and vegetal spirits are theTbird Determination.

The Fourth and Fifth Determinations encompassthe realm of physical thingsinits entirety,comprising the whole Universe and aIl createdthings [therein].

Determinations never cease to occur and arewithout limit; but Knowledge, Belng, Sight, andLight are never separate frem them, for without thesefour, the Possessor of these Determinations is unableto determinate. This is why the Itinerants say that

- - - - - - - - - - - - - t he -be i ng----of - the-entire -Uni v er s e- ts the-Be-in-g -of- - -God. The World's being, though perceived as existentnevertheless does not exist for it derives existencefrom the determinate Being. Our lack of awarenessmakes us beli eve that t he World exists.

The First Determination may be called [both]ahad or wâhid. When we regard the Essence by Itselfit-rs but when we regard the Essencetogether with Its attributes and names then It iscalled for is sustaining theUniverse and holding it together from itsbeginning to its end.

Employing poetic imagery, compares t he 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 1s

beyond the comprehension of the i ntellect. The Essence is said

to determinate Itself by descents or tanazzulat which It accomplishes

in six stages or journeying frem and returning to Itself

completing a full cycle. The first stage of descent 1s whereby

the Essence becomes indivldualized, as it were, in the fourfold- - - --- --- - ---

-- - - - - deternunacywllich c ompr i se s Knowledge, Be1ng, Slght, and 1ight.

-93-

When the Essence or Absolute Being, Who is the Yùlower gazes upon

His 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 wujüd khariji or external existence).

The a'yanu'l-thàbitah are therefore coexistent with God as ideas

in His Mind. This stage of the Khower, 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 This

Relational Spirit is also sometimes identified with the Light of

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

the Pen (al-Qalam), 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 forros into clouds it 1s 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 'Be:' - the clouds burst forth into raine

-94-

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 potentialitles reacting to the Divine

Command. The rivers flow back to the absolute Ocean which never

shrinks nor grows vaster though Its waves are ever ebbing and

f1owing. Thus the cycle is complete.170

It appears to me that system is not identical with

the Neo-Platonic system of emanations, for there 5eems 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 deteriora-

tion. 17l They become worse and worse, so to as they

emanate away from the Source. Further Gad, the Source, remains

transcendent, as it were, and not present i n the emanations.

There are a series of emanations that go down i n a descending order,

the higher creating the lower and the lower reflecting the being

and perfection oi' the higher. The interpretation of the

system subscribed to here by i5 that the 'emanations' do not

progressively deteriorate as they 'emanate' away from the source,

for God Himself descends (tanazzul) with ' them' in a series of

descents (tanazzulat); and He does so i n such a manner that we can

ascribe to Him neither transcendence nor immanence with respect to

170 ft. pp. 155, 193.

171 Inge, W.R., The phi10sophY of P10tinus, London, 1923, 2 vols.,vol . l, pp. 122-199, especial1y pp.

His 'emanations t•

-95-

In fact there are no emanations in Hamzahts•

system, but only manifestations (tajalliyat). In making this

suggestion, l am contesting the view of Johns who calls

system an "emanation" system despite his awareness of the fact

that the Neo-Platonic emanational theory is not the same as the

theory of the The descent of the Absolute is nothing

but the various ways in which He manifests Himself to us in the

course of our of Him, not in terms of emanations.

In this sense therefore the World cannot be said to exist

eternally with God, for it h&s no existence - it is a series of

accidents, and God1s dynamic creative activity annihilates it

after duplicating it and creates another anew. 173 Hamzah agrees•

with the 'Ulama' that the World as such is a thing created and not

eternal. This he clearly aays:

Adapun ittifaq 'Ularna' dan Ahlu'l-Sulükbahwa 'a1am sekalian makhlüq; hukumnya hadithkerana ia mazhar dibawah kun fa Yakünu.· Jangandikatakan

Actually the 'Ulama' and the Itinerantsagree that the World is created; the judgmentbeing that it is something new, for it cornesinto existence by v1rtue of the Divine command:"Be:" It must not be said that [the World]1s eterna1.

172 Johns, pp. 102, 32, 19. It seems to me that it is misleadingfor Johns to translate the term taja11iyat as (pp. 19,32) •

173 p. 137.

174 Ibid., p. 136.

-96-

It would appear at first glanee that rejeets the

doctrine of creation ex nihilo. According to 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 meta-

physical absurdity. Similarly, though the forro of man may be

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

is from God.175 Since aIl things are from God and must return to

Him, it cannot be - so argues - that God is the nothing

they are created from. According to following Ibnu'l-'ArabI,

things exist in the of God as potentialities lying dormant,

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

command , vlhen God says "Be:", it is to something that He says

this, not to nothing. 176 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'1-'ArabI177 - 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 12.9.. m.176 Ibid., pp.

177 Q[. Nicholson, pp. 150-151; IgbaI, p. 173; 'AffIfl, p. 152.

-97-

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-cAma') is logically prior to the judgment that things

exist in His knowledge:

Adapun Dhat semata tiada dengan itulahyang pertama hukumnya. Apabila la menilik diriNya,dilihatNya diriNya dengan sekalian Padaketikal78 itu yang menilik bernama 'alim, yangditilik bernama ma'lüm, tilik-menilik bernama'ilmu.179

The Essence is without attributes -is the first judgrnent. \Vhen He gazes upon Himself,He sees Himself with aIl His modes. At that'instant' the Seer becomes the Knower, the Seenbecomes the Known, and Seeing becomes Knowledge.

In this case, as Jili points out:

••• The former judgment involves thenon-existence of things and the existence of Godalone. God brought things from not-being intobeing and caused them to exist in His knowledge,then He brought them forth frœl His knowledge andëâüsed them to exist externally.180.

From this it should be clear that rejection of the doctrine

of creation nihilo in the sense he means is not an affirmation

of the doctrine of the eternity of World. What he means to

expose in rejecting that doctrine is the error of conceiving the

178 Doorenbos' reading is incorrect: ketiga. It 1s out of contextand should be read as ketika.

179 p. 130.

180 Cf. Nicholson, p. 103; p. 145.

-98-

notion of the priority of instead of logic, in the concept

of creation. 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

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

become manifest only at the instance of the Divine Commando When

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. AlI affairs that come under the sway of the Divine

command 'after' God's cornmand to be) ar e created (makh1üa);

and aIl that is 'before' God's commônd to be is neither created

nor uncreated as they are m8des of the divine Essence. Thus, for

example, the domain of the spirit as deduces from

his interpretation of the Quranic passage -

And they ask you about the spirit. Say: Thespirit is by the commandment of my Lord, andyou are given au ght of knowledge but a 1itt1e181 -

is neither created nor uncreated. 182 The World and man (not his

spirit) are created as they corne 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.

182 p. 136.

-99-

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

the 'Ulama' conceive the Knovm and its potentialities to

be something new, created, separated from the Essence, like the

building created by the builder. 183 His argument is that it would

follow that if He produced them from nothing they were logically

unknown to FŒm 'before' He caused them to exist in His

The concept of creation nihilo, as understands it, must

logically be involved in a notion of time sequence which is

unacceptable with respect to God. Jill would say - and

would agree with him - that between the not-being of things and

their existence in His knowledge, there is no time sequence. Gad

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

not. 185

It is also significant that follows Jill in his

concept of God's power (gudrah). For Ibnu'l-'ArabI, God's knowledge

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

is determined by the waves. But says that the things He

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

waves 1s determined by the sea. 186 God's knowledge of things 1s

not derived from the necessity of their natures - rather it is His

183 Ibid. , p. 138. g. Tahafut, p. 70.l8l.r pp. 138, 135-136.

185 ff.. Nicholson, p. 103.186 pp. 137, 143. f!. Jili in Nicholson, p. 102.

-100-

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

The judgment that God has knowledge of things presupposes His

possession of the power to have knowledge and exercise His creative

Word upon the t hings kno'in, decreeing that every individual t hing

should be what its nature required it to be.18?

What has been said would suffice us to conclude that ?amzah,

in conformity with the teachings of the never held the

belief in the eternity of the World as Raniri holds him out to do.

The World is not even the a'yanu'l-thabitah. It is only a

reflection of them - an idea in the Mind of God. Only when Gad

wills it to be does it become, from our point of view, actua11zed

as external existence. However, follows Ibnu'l-'Arabi

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

nature. 188 AlI action is t he necessary result of God's infinite

nature as eternally known to Him. God then 15 t he only One Who

acts. AlI other acts including human action are metaphorical,

for action implies that it proceeds from choice, will, and knowledge

of the thing willed. According to al-Ghazzali:

••• If we assume an event which is based ontwo facts, t he one voluntary, the other involuntary,the mind relates the act to the voluntary fact.Language expresses i tself in the same \.;ay, for ifa man were to throw another into a fire and killhim, it is the man who would be called his killer,not the fire. If, however, the term were used in

18? p. 133.

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

-101-

the same sense of the voluntary the non-voluntary, why should the killing be related to thevoluntary, by language, usage, and reason, althoughthe fire was the proximate cause of the ki11ingand the man who threw the other into the fire didnothing but bring man and fire together?Since, however, the bringing together is avo1untary act and the influence of fire non-voluntary, the man 1s ca11ed a ki11er and the fireon1y metaphorically so. This proves that the word'agent' is used of one whose act proceeds fromhis will ••• 189

Now, concept of agent and 1s simi1ar to what

GhazzalI has exp1ained:

••• Seperti seorang pandai besi. Ada sebuahbesi padanya, pusaka déripada nini moyangnya.Isti'dàd besi itu layak akan keris. Makadipandangnya dengan 'ilmunya besi itu layak akankeris, maka ditempanya keris. Seteleh sudahditempanya maka dipakainya. Beberapa lama makamenikam orang dengan keris itu, dengan ikhtiyartuan keris, tiada dengan ikhtiyar keris. Daripadaawwal datang kepada akhir, ikhtilar empunyakeris, tiada ikhtiyar keris ••• 190

••• Take the examp1e of an ironsmith. Hehas with him a piece of iron, a heritage fromhis ancestors. The potentiality of the iron isthat it is suitable for fashioning into akeris.191 He perceives with his know1edgethat the iron is suitab1e for fashioning intoa keris, and so he forges it into a keris. Havingforged it into a keris, he uses it. awhi l e he stabs a person with the keris. Theact proceeds fram the wielder of the keris,and not from the keris. From the beginningto the end [of the event] act proceedsfrom the wielder of the keris, not the keris •••

189 Cf. Tahafut al-Tahafut, p. 95; 67.190 p. 145.

191 A Malay dagger.

-102-

denies free-will as applied to man. A man is what he is

according to the nature of his predetermined capacity or poten-

tiality (isti'dad).192 Even God's choice in creating good and

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

this Law of potentiality w:1ich He Himself has made necessary and

unchangeable. 193 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? Hamzah's answer to this is•an emphatLc 'no'. He says that, taking his eue from the Quranic

passage, -

And if Allah please He would certainly make youa single nation, but He causes to err whom He pleasesand guides whom He pleases194 -

God has the power to will wh&t may seem cantrary ta the 1aw of

potentiality,195 but that God not wish ta exercise this

power in.order to preserve His justice and perfection. 196 s

understanding of what the 'U1ama' mean when they say that God is

192 Ibnu'l-'ArabI uses the term iflti'dad in the saroe sense.'AffIfi, p. 152.

193 Hamzah pp • 146, 197-200.•194- Qur'an 16:93.

195 tramzah pp. 145, 199-200.

196 Ibid. , pp. 198, 200.

Cf.

-103-

all-powerful is that is impossible for God to do. To

Hamzah the impossible cannat be done by Gad for the simple reasan•that it is irrational to affirm such a thing.

In order to give a clearer picture of Hamzah's concept of•power and will (iradah), l propose in the next chapter to embark

upon the subject following the linguistic approach. This is,

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

structures of the words he uses in connection with the gudrah and

the iradah, we will infallibly arrive at knowing exactly what

has in mind, without falling into the tantalizing possibility

of reading our own interpretations into what he says.

CHAPTER V

Hamzah FansürI's concept ofthe iradah·as demonstratedin the conceptual structureof the Malay word hendak.

-105-

(a) The conceptual structure of the word hendak

The word hendak 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. 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 ta the inanimate. AnimaIs too are

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

applied to inanimate things then the meanings it conveys are

metaphorical. For the sake of systematic analysis, l will begin

with the application of the word hendak in the animal wor1d.

In the sentence

Kuching itu hendak makan.(That cat wants ta eat).

the actions of the cat are done in such a way overtly) that

we know he wants food. In the mind the cat, by virtue of a peculiar

action on his part, is dominant. There seems to be no difference

between Eng1ish and Malay in the conceptual structure of the word

as applied in the above example. Hendak 1s often applied to

animaIs with the purpose of describing human behaviour. The

proverbs describe an upstart as

(i) Pachat hendak manjadi ular.(A 1eech eager to become a snake).

(ii) Pipit telan jagong.(A sparrow straining te swallow a

-106-

(iil) Pipit meminang anak ensgang.(A sparrow yearning to be betrothedto a hornbill).

Or an equivalent to the pot calling the kettle black:

Udang hendak katakan ikan.(The lobster wanj1ng 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 animals 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 manner in which is applicable

to them. 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 i5

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 how this is so by

virtue of the overt activity of the subject. The same conceptual

pattern of the subject dominating the mind is demonstrated in the

application of the verb The application of hendak to

human be ings as a kind of challenge too makes the subject dominant

197 See be10w pp. 118-119.

-107-

in the mind. 198 Again the reason is because the subject's activity

is intense - whether overt or invert - ta such a de gree that action

becomes instinctive. Similarly hendakkan when applied to

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

instinctive behaviour rather t han 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, cannot properly be conceived as will - it rather borders upon

instinct. 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 philo-

sophically 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.199

The sentence in English:

vfuere are you going?

is to be translated into Malay as:

Engkau hendak kemana?

which actually has the meaning:

198 See below pp. 109-110.

199 See below pp. 122-125.

-108-

Where do you to go?

or

Where are you wanting to go?

The word hendak in this sense is a one-person, one-term relation

word. 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 back-

ground. But of course the subject may also be dominant in the

mind in certain cases. Supposing that the sequence of the sentence

1s rearranged so that the word hendak 1s said first:

Hendak kemana engkau.

then it may or may not be a question, depending upon how it is said

and upon the c1rcumstances preceding the saying of it. If it 1s

a question, like one asked by Tun Teja to the ladies of Melaka:

-109-

Hendak kemana tuan-tuan sekalian ini?200(Where do you all want to go?)

then the meaning it conveys is generally identical with the one

explained above. If, however, it is not a question it can mean:

Where you go [nowJ?

implying a kind of challenge to one whom it is directed. If Ahmad•were to say this to 'AlI, here 'Ali would be dominant in AQmad's

mind as against the first case. It were as though 'AlI had bean

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

of action were extremely limited, and time to deciàe which

course to take short. There is a sense of urgency. In the first

case, it is implied that t he 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'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 Rang Tuah, Djakarta, 1956, p. 219. This is one of themost important and widely read of Malay literatures. Tt waswritten about the l7th century (an exact date is not found), and ittells of the heroic exploits of Hang Tuah, the Malay Laksamana(AdmiraI) of Melaka. Most of the stories connected with Hang Tuahare quite legendary. Rang Tuah , according to the story, is saidto be a contemporary of Gajah Mada, the famous Mapatih (ChiefMinister) of Majapahit (14th century). Hereafter cited as HikayatHang Tuah.

-110-

fait hfully. The existence of knowledge and choice is presupposed.

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

action wou1d be gr eat er than in the first case, and it is this

expected intensity of action on 'Ali's part that makes him dominant

in Ahmad's mind. A portion of the last 1ines of Asru1 Sani's poem.i11ustrates the second case:

E1ang 1aut te1ahhi1ang ke1unas ke1amtopan tiada bertanya 2hendak kemana dia ••• 01

In this poem, the poet speaks of a sea-hawk winging her way at

dusk to her craggy nest where her young ones await her return.

the nest at 1ast comes within sight, a sudden tempest inter-

cepts; her wi ngs fai1 her and sne is hur1ed into the raging waters

and drowns. It is obvious that the tempest had intercepted the

sea-hawk many times before, each time sudden1y, cha11enging her

to strugg1e against his might. But this time she had succumbed

to his mizht and is now lost in the murky depths where lie the

rotting kee1s of wrecked boats. Now, as the last two 1ines suggest,

the tempest does not askwhere is she intending to go?

201 E1ang Laut, by Asru1 Sanie Quoted from Kesusasteraan IndonesiaIII, B. Simorangkir Simandjuntak, Djakarta, 1953, p. 134. Asru1Sani be10ngs to that important group of avant-garde poets and writerswho appeared in 1945. This group of modern poets and writersbecame f amous under the name of Angkatan '45, led by Chairil Anwar(1922-1949). Together with Chairi1 Anwar, Asru1 Sani and Idrusho1d a position of eminence among modern Indonesian poets and writers. JAsru1 Sani, born in Rao, Western Sumatra, in 1926, is also a shortstory writer. The Angkatan '45 influenced Indonesian 1iteraturefrom 1945 ti11 about the time of the end of the Revolution. Muchof their work, whose language and form depicts the times, has beenmarked1y inf1uenced by Western cultural forces. KesusasteraanIndonesia III will hereafter be cited as Kesusasteraan Indonesia III.

-111-

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 \Vhen we say:

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

the subject is again dominant in the mind, andhis action must be

such that he warrants a beating. But this sentence has another

possible meaning which changes what the m1nd conceives. If the

word pukul (to beat) 15 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 Bere 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 metaphorica1.

In the sentence

Gunung itu hendak me1etup.

hendak is to be understood as conveying the meaning is about to:

The mountain (volcano) is about to burst (erupt). Bere 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. Again:

Orang itu tertawa bagai hendak pechah perutnya.

That man 1aughed so that his be11y werewont to burst.

202 See above p. 109.

-112-

In too t he event is dominant and hendak is applied meta-

phorically. In fact it is significant t hat, from the philosophical

as weIl as semantical point of view, when used metaphorically -

that is, &s applied to t he inanimate - hendak always impresses the

event, not the subject or object, upon the mind.

Further illustrations from several famous classics in Malay

literature will show clearly the meaning of hendak:

(i) Maka ada kira-kira pukul empat petangkeluarlah hendak berlayar. 203

At about four o'clock in the evening[we] set out to sailintent upon sailingJ.

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

1835:

1837 [?]:

1854:

1837:

(v)

(ii)

(iv)

(iii)

203 Hikayat Pelayaran Abdul l ill1: (dari Singapura ke Kelantan); Pressof the Am. Miss. Singapore, 1838 P. 16. The author, 'Abdu'l-Lahbin 'Abdu'l-Qadir Munshi (1796-lB54), is of Arab-Indian descent andis regarded as the father of modern Malay literature. He wrote andedited many well-lcnown literary works in prose, among them:

(i) 1831 [?]: Sejarah Melayu (from the old text,re-edited in 1839-40).Hikayat Galilah dan Daminah, translatedfrom the Tamil. Originally in Sanskritfrom the Pancatantra.Kitab Adat se ala Ra"a-raOa Mel a udalam segala Negeri. A collection ofMal ay customs and traditions).Kisah Pelalaran Abdullah, revised andre-edited in 1849.Kisah Pelayaran Abdullah ke negeriJuddah (not comp1eted).

Hereafter cited as Hikayat Abdullah.

-113-

proceed sailing, even though the headwind was driving them back and

the mainstay had snapped asunder twice. 204

(ii) ••• saya sekalian orang bahru belum tahuadat, hendak berjalan-jalarr kepasar mencharibekal-bekal. 205

••• we are aIl new people (here), (we)do not yet know the custom, (we)to walk around in the market lookingfor provisions.

In this case hendak is simply want. 'fl.bdu'l-Lah asks a policeman about

the country, which is new to him, and about i ts laws and regulations

50 that when he goes to the market he would be aware of them.

(iii) Maka sebentar itu juga datanglah sebuahsampan hilir dari sungai, ada tujuh-delapan orang-orang raja hendakmenyambut perahu saya itu. 206

At the same time a sampan [kind of junk]arrived coming dO\instrean fram the riverwith seven or eight of the Raja's men[who came] for the purpose of welcomingmy boat [or purposing to welcome my boat].

(iv) Maka ketika memberikan surat itu makasaya pinta juga kebawahduli menghadap sendiri.207

At the moment of handing over the letter,l requested it be conveyed to the Rajathat l insist on personal audience.

204 Hikayat 4bdullah, p. 15.

205 p. 41.206 Ibid. , p. 63.

207 lli.<!. , p. 69.

-114-

Cv) "Kapitan China dan segala anak biniChina-China senuanya ditangkapnya,dimasukkannya kedalam kubu, sebabia takut Kapitan China itu beloteDan jurutulisnya dibubuhnya rantaigajah dLbatan g lehernya kerana iahendak lari. Tiada diberinya berjumpadengan seorang pun. Maka sekarangbagaimana hendak berjumpa dengan dia;jikalau hendak mati bolehlah berjumpa.,,208

"The Captain of the Chinese and aIlthe wives and children of the Chinesewere aIl of them arrested [by theruler of Kelantan] and imprisonedin the fortress because he [i.e. theruler of Kelantan] feared that-theCaptain of the Chinese would takesides [with us]. He [i.e. the rulerJput elephant chains around his [i.e.the Captain of the Chinesels] seëretarylsneck because he the secretary]wanted to run away. He [i.e. thesecretary] is not permitted-to meetanyone , So now how .2..§ill. you meet him?;if you want to die, then you canmeet [hini]":"1t

(vi) "Ketahui olehmu, bahwa aku memanggilengkau ini, aku hendak bertanyakanbichara kepadamu: bahwa anakku yangtiada taranya seorangpun anak raja-rajapada zaman ini, itulah hendak akupersembahkan kepada raja Iskandar. 1l 209IlKnow that l now sumnon you to drawnear to me [because] l wish to discusswith you [a certain question): thatmy daughter, who has no equal

208 Ibid., p. 83.

209 Se jarah Melayu, p. 5.

-115-

among the daughters of the kingsthis age, she it is whom l wish topresent to Alexander."

(vii) Naka sahut Hang Jebat: "Firasatkubahwa aku tiada dapat membunuh engkau,engkau pun tiada dapat membunuh akupada hari ini. Adapun aku saja akanmatilah rupanya, tetapi ne geri Melakaini habis binasa olehku. Itulah makaaku hendak turun mengamuk, tiada dapat,kerana engkau tiada jauh daripada pintu ini.Jika terbuka pintu ini, sekarang juga akuturun dari istana."

Rang Jebat replied: "My premonition isthat l shall not be able to kill you,likewise you shall not be able to killme today. It seems to me that l alonemust die, but [first, the people of]Melaka will be eliminated by me. Thatis why l wish to descent and run amuk,[but] cannot, because you are not farfrom the door. If the door is open, lde s cend from the palace right now."

Wnen the enclitic particle is joined after hendak, then

it gives emphasis to the word, and its rneaning becornes it is

desired, should, must:

(i) "Adapun anak kita ini lagi budak,jika ada salah dan bebal perbaiki;jika ia jahat, hendaklah diantarkankembali kepada kita."211

"This our son is yet a child,he does wrong and is feeble-mindedimprove him; if he 15 evil, it isdesireq that he be sent back to us."

210 Hikayat Rang Tuah, p. 340.

211 Ibid., p. 67.

-116-

Here the Raja Sang Purba entrusts his son Sang Jaya Nantaka, who

is his heir, to the tutelage of the Bendahara and Temenggung. In

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 nat the cammand of social etiquette, which is implied if should

is applied, or of parental responsibility, which is implied if must

is applied instead.

(ii) Sesungguhnya hendaklah kita punmengambil 1barat daripada hikayatitu 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. He tells us of the story of

the monkey and the weaver-bird. The monkey takes shelter fram 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 ancry 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 ta give advice to people in

general. 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

212 Hikayat Abdullah, p. 12.

-117-

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

Rather it would result in simply a wasting of effort. If

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 actor. Hendaklah in this sense

becomes almost a condition for a course of action:

Mengumpat dan memuji hendaklah pikirDisitulah banyak orang yang tergelinchir. 213

If you indulge in or want to do maliciousgossip and praise [you] must think [first].It is there where many people fall [or slip].

By now these various examples given will suffice, l trust,

to make clear the conceptual structure of the ward Hendak

definitely conveys the sense of voluntary action arising out of

knowledge and choice, that is none other than will. This

structure seldom changes with the application of affixes and

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

(b) Derivatives and their conceptual structures

Derivatives of the word hendak are formed by means of affixes

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

(prefix). They may also be formed by means of compound affixes such

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

-118-

as di + ending with the suffix -i, or ke. 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 object or time. Hendakkan

means to desire tovrards. It is a two-person relation word, as can

be sean frcm this example:

Jikalau sungguh tuanhamba hendakkan hamba •••

If you really have desire towards [or me •••

or

If you really me •••

We must imagine one person (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 is the passive

objecte She may not even love or desire him. The direction is

then one-way. It i5 implied that the man's desire for the woman

i5 experienced at that time when the woman is in his presence

(although this is not a necessary condition, for the object 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:

-119-

[ s ](----- _... ._.. ---

In the mind the subject is dominant. Again in the sentence

Kuching itu ikan.

That cat is yearning the fish.

we have more or less the same conceptua1 pattern: the cat is

dominant in the mind for he is active, his action denotes that he

desires the fish 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. Sorne

of the application of hendakkan and the meaning under1ying it can

be further illustrated by these quotations fram the Malay ArmaIs:

(i) Adapun apabila Sultan Mahmud hendakkan SeriDewa Raja bangat datang, maka Tun IsapBerakah baginda memanggi1 SeriDewa Raj a. 21'T

Whenever Sultan Mahmüd wiehes for Seri Dewa• •Raja to come immediate1y, His Majesty wouldcommand Tun Isap Berakah to summon SeriDewa Raja.

(ii) "Jika1au ra ja Helaka hendakkan aku, perbuatkanaku jembatan e!:1as satu, jembatan perak satu,dari Mel aka datang ke Gunung Ledang ini; akanpeminangnya, hati nyamuk tujuh du1ang, hatikuman tujuh du1ang, air mata setempayan, airpinang muda setempayan, dan darah raja semang-kuk dan darah anak raja yang bernama Ahmad itusemangkuk ••• "215

214 Se jarah Melayu, p. 215.

215 Ibid., p. 236.

-120-

"If the Raja of l'-felaka has desire for me,build for me a golden bridge and a bridge ofsilver that span from Melaka to Gunung Ledang;for the engagement gift, seven trayfuls ofmosquitoes' heart, seven trayfuls of maggots l

heart, a large jar of tears, a large jar ofyoung areca-nut juice, a bowl of the Raja'sblood and a bowl of blood from t he Raja's sonnamed Ahmad ••• "•

When the suffix -i is applied it should be to hendak ,dth 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 [0 ]

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

explained:

Dekat =Dekati =Dekatkan =

nearto go near to (the object)to bring near to (the subject)

(i) IIJikalau beristeri sama anak raja-raja ini,adalah raja-raja Iain pun demikian juga; yangkita barang yang tiada pada rajayang Iain, itulah hendak kita peristeri.Akan sekarang kita hendak meminan g puteriGunung Ledang; Laksamana dan Sang Setia kitatitahkan. 1I216

"If l marry a dau f,hter of these Rajas, otherRajas have the same [choice of wivesJ; shewhom l desire should be one who is not to befound with other Rajas, such is the one whomwe wish to take to wife. We now wish to askfor the hand of the Princess of Gunung Ledang;the Laksamana and San g Setia we command [tocarry out the proposal].11

216 Ibid., p. 234.

-121-

The words are t hose of Sultan Mahmüd of Melaka as he addresses bis• •dignitaries. Hi s 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 t he idea of rnarrying her for sorne time. He is now

hoping to win the ob ject of his desire and if he were to win her,

he would cherish her thereafter. The desire is continuous. It

goes forth fram the subject MatIDüd) to the object

(Princess of Gunung Ledang). The Princess' reply to his official

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

the verb hendakkan. She is the passive object. She does not, in

this case, seem to betray any desire for the - she may not

love him. She has to bring herself or be brought to him. In fact

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

From this example it is clear that the conceptual distinction

between the verbs kehendaki and hendakkan, in addition to what has

aIready been established, is the distinction in tir.le. Kehendaki

implies a continuous desire; hoped for before achieving the object

and cheri shed after it has been achieved. In the case of

hendakkan, the implication 1s that desire is experienced in a

brief span of time, and al t hough it may be rekindIed, it neverthe-

less is discontinuous.

By means of prefixing the particle di- to the wor d kehendaki

is formed dikehendaki, which 1s a kind of passive voice of kehendaki,

meaning desired. Here is an example;