Tanasukh) in Shaykh Al-Mufıd and Mulla Sadraa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
− − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh− ) in − − −1 Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA Shigeru KAMADA* The concept of transmigration of soul (tanasukh− ) is denied generally in Islam and particularly in Ithna‘asharı− −− Shı‘ism as well. The present paper examines the attitudes toward the concept in the two thinkers in Ithna‘asharı− −− Shı‘ism, a theologian Shaykh al-Mufıd − (d. 413/1022) and a − − mystic philosopher Mulla SadraA (d. 1050/1640). Shaykh al-Mufıd− never accepts the concept of tanasukh− , and he negates the eternity of soul, which may work as the basis of its transmigration, while his teacher Ibn Babuya−− accepts it. In order to deny tanasukh− , Mufıd− refuses any kinds of interpretation to the texts of the Qur’an− and the Traditions, which may support the eternity of soul and − − − then, possibly its transmigration. Mulla SadraA does not accept tanasukh in a usual sense, but accepts a certain type of tanasukh− , which takes place in the world of soul as a form of resurrection in his philosophical system of the tripartite worldview. The difference of attitude between the two thinkers may come firstly from their different historical positions concerning the establishment of the Ithna‘asharı− − orthodoxy, and secondly from their different materials from which they constructed their own system of thought. Keywords: tanasukh− , transmigration of soul, Shı‘ism,−− Shaykh al-Mufıd, − − Mulla SadraA Introduction Shaykh al-Mufıd− (d. 413/1022) is one of the great scholars in the formative − −− −−− period of the Ithna‘asharı Shı‘ism. He comes after Shaykh al-SaduqA Ibn Babuya (d. 381/991) and has among his disciples such important thinkers as Sharıf− al- − − − − MurtadaA (d. 436/1044), Sharıf al-RadıA (d. 406/1016), and Shaykh al-Ta’ifaA al- − − TusıA (d. 460/1067). Among his many-sided scholarly achievements probably he is most well known as kalam− theologian. The basic tenet of the Ithna‘asharı− − Shı‘ism− was constructed by al-Kulaynı− (d. 328/939) and Ibn Babuya−− in the − − − traditionist (naql) manner based on the Imamı Traditions (hadıth,A khabar). *Professor, Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo Vol. XLIV 2009 105 Mufıd’s−−− role in the history of Shı‘ı theology is to introduce the rational reasoning into the theological thinking and to reshape the doctrine so far mainly based on a body of Traditions to a rationally defensible system of teaching. In this paper I would like to examine the notion of transmigration of soul (tanasukh− ) reflected in Mufıd’s− theological works.2 To examine his approach to the tanasukh− may shed a light upon the nature of his theological thinking. In this − − − context I will consider the idea of tanasukh of Mulla SadraA (d. 1050/1640), a great mystic philosopher in the Safavid era. Because to study Mufıd− in contrast − − − with Mulla SadraA may make Mufıd’s thinking clearer. Although there are a number of passages which could be interpreted as tanasukh−− in the Qur’an as well as in the Traditions,3 the notion is generally −− regarded as a wrong and disgusting view. In the BiharA al-Anwar we have a report which depicts with its fully negative connotation how the tanasukh− has − − 4 been understood in Islam (al-Majlisı, BiharA , Vol. 4, 320f.). In this Tradition to a − − − question of the idea of tanasukh, Imam Ja‘far al-SadiqA gives answer: −− “Transmigrationists (ashabAA al-tanasukh) leave behind them the true way of religion, paint themselves in errors, and graze themselves freely in the pasture of carnal desires.” Thereafter he continues his description of the transmigrationists and their beliefs, which may be summarized in the following manner: They hold that all the spirits (souls) are eternal and existed in the pre- existent Adam. Those spirits (souls) never cease to transmigrate from a receptacle to another. The form of a spirit’s receptacle in the next life will be decided, either better or worse, as the result of his conducts in the present life. The resurrection (qiyama− ) means the soul’s departing from a receptacle and passing into another. There is no resurrection in the usual sense, consequently, neither paradise nor hell. It is prohibited to eat meat because all animals are sons of Adam transformed in their forms. The Creator of this world has a form of the creature and transmigrates from a receptacle to another. The transmigrationists, therefore, sometimes appear Christians who believe Jesus to be God incarnated, or Materialists (dahrıya− ) who believe nature to be God. They are antinomian. No religious observances such as fasting and prayer are incumbent upon them. Any sexual relationship is permitted. Consumption of meat of dead animals, wine, and blood is also permitted. Angels are sons of Adam. Those who attain the highest stage in their religion are angels, exempted from God’s ordeal. 106 ORIENT − − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA As shown above, the notion of the soul’s transmigration has very negative connotation among Muslim thinkers.5 In the following section I will examine in detail how Mufıd− deals with this idea. I. Tanasukh− in Mufıd’s− Writings Shaykh al-Mufıd− refers to the notion of tanasukh− in some of his works. One of his references is concerning a group of the Shı‘a.− According to his description, among several groups which had different understandings of the Imam− who − − succeeded the sixth Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq,A was a group which maintained that the seventh Imam−−− Musa b. Ja‘far had not died but lived in occultation with − − entrusting his authority to MuhammadA b. Bishr, a mawla of Banu Asad (al- − − − − Mufıd, FusulA , 254. See also al-Mufıd, FusulA , 255f.). This group is said to believe in tanasukh−− besides the extremism (ghuluw) and the teaching of − antinomianism (ibahaA ). Mufıd− does not explain in his works what the tanasukh− is. Most probably it is too clear for him to give a description. However, Nawbakhtı,−−− a Shı‘ı heresiographer in the third century A.H., gives a concise description of the Basharıya,−− which may offer Mufıd’s untold information. The Basharıya− has several unorthodox teachings with their different identification of the Imams.− According to Nawbakhtı’s− description, they maintain that the duties imposed by God are only their observance of the five prayers (in a day) and the fasting of − RamadanA with refusing the alms tax, the pilgrimage and the other duties (al- Nawbakhtı,− Firaq, 83f. See also Momen 1985, 57). They further maintain that − the abominable sexual relationship with women or boys is permissible (ibahaA ). They hold the teaching of tanasukh− that Imams− are one, simply migrating (muntaqilun− ) from one body to another. Mutual share among them is incumbent in any properties they own, and everything that one of them bequeaths for the − way of God is for Samı‘ b. MuhammadA and his legatees after him. Their − teachings are those of the extremists who maintain the teaching of tafwıdA (delegation of God’s powers to other than God).6 − −− Nawbakhtı has given concrete explanations to the terms: ghuluw, ibahaA , and tanasukh− , while Mufıd− only mentioned these three terms in his refutation of the Basharıya.− We can assume these terms to be used in the same way, since it is certain that both refer to the same group. From Nawbakhtı’s− illustration we may understand that Mufıd’s− tanasukh− is the soul’s transmigration from one body to another and particularly that, according to that idea of tanasukh− , among the Imams− one soul endowed with the authority of Imama− has transmigrated in the different bodies of the successive Imams.− Vol. XLIV 2009 107 To understand Mufıd’s− idea of tanasukh− , probably the most important is the passage in which Mufıd− criticizes Ibn Babuya’s−− understanding of souls.7 Mufıd− quotes Ibn Babuya’s−− words in a succinct way. Our [Ibn Babuya’s]−− belief concerning souls (nufus− ) is that they are − spirits (arwahA ); they are the first of created things; they are created for eternal existence; and they are strangers in the earth and imprisoned in − 8 the bodies. (al-Mufıd, SharhA , 207) After this quotation Mufıd− continues: “Ibn Babuya’s−− discussion on souls and spirits is carried on the method of intuition (hadsA ) without rigid verification − (tahqıqA ). If he had confined his discussion to quoting of Traditions and had not tried to elucidate their meanings, he would have been safe from entering − labyrinth” (al-Mufıd, SharhA , 207). This criticism may be understood in the following way. There would have been no problem if Ibn Babuya−− kept his work within the field of the science of Tradition, of which he is an authority. But he got beyond its limits and lost his way, which resulted in his teaching a wrong idea. In Mufıd’s− understanding, Ibn Babuya−− intuitively expresses in a rationally ordered theological writing, the notion of the souls which are often figuratively − pictured in hadıthA s. After a few pages in the same section, he criticizes his teacher in more harsh words. Mufıd’s− standpoint is clear when we read his criticism of Ibn Babuya’s−− thesis as below. What Abu−−− Ja‘far [Ibn Babuya] explains concerning the meaning of spirit and soul is the very argument of the transmigrationists (tanasukhıya− − ) without knowing that it is their argument.9 The committing of this sin is grave for both himself and others. His statement that souls are eternal is a blameworthy interpretation and contradictory to the Qur’anic− expressions. God—the Most High—said: “Everyone that is thereon will pass away; There remaineth but the countenance of thy Lord of Mighty and Glory” (Qur’an− , 55:26-27).