− − − − 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). That which he related and surmised is a teaching of many of the − − heretical philosophers (falasifa mulhidunA ), who maintain that souls are free from generation and corruption and that they are eternal while only the compound bodies are susceptible to passing away and −− corruption. Some transmigrationists (ashabAA al-tanasukh) hold this view by maintaining that souls never cease to take forms and
108 ORIENT − − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA receptacles repeatedly, neither temporally generate, nor pass away, nor − perish; they are eternal, not perishable. (al-Mufıd, SharhA , 212f.)
In his argument, Mufıd− criticizes Ibn Babuya’s−− thesis of soul’s eternity. If we accept the idea of soul’s eternity, it would be natural to suppose that an immortal soul may take a different body as its new receptacle whenever its abode loses its strength to hold its soul and is about to perish. It would easily result in the idea of tanasukh− . In this sense, Ibn Babuya’s−− understanding of souls could be interpreted as a transmigrationist theory. From his firm conviction that the idea of soul’s eternity which leads to the tanasukh− would jeopardize the faith of Islam, Mufıd− proposes several different ways of interpretation of the Qur’an− and the Traditions. A Qur’anic− verse known as the verse of the primordial covenant (mıthaq− − : Qur’an− , 7:172) is often adduced for a proof of soul’s pre-existence.10 However, he denies this interpretation by saying that this verse is a metaphor (majaz− ) and should be understood in a different way. He interprets this verse as meaning that God made everyone acknowledge His Lordship through his intellect and that He − − − let him know his being generated (huduthA ) by Him (al-Mufıd, Awa’il, 209f., note [quoting al-As’ila (al-Masa’il?)− al-Sarawıya− ]). Without referring to their pre- existence, he stresses the aspect of man’s created-ness in the verse. In his understanding, the Traditions which have such similar stories as the verse of mıthaq− − are regarded as those of the transmigrationists (al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 209, note [quoting Sarawıya− ]). We find a number of Traditions in this category with his interpretation in his works. Mufıd− quotes a Tradition as follows:
The spirits are drafted soldiers (junud− mujannada). Those who were acquainted with one another are united; while those who were not, are disunited. (al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 208, n. 1 [quoting Sarawıya− ])
He says that this Tradition does not refer to the primordial event which occurred when the humans existed in the form of particles (dharr) before their − 11 creation in bodies just as maintained by anthropomorphists (hashwıyaA ). He interpreted it in a different way to keep away from the idea of their pre- existence. He writes:
It means that the spirits which are simple substances support each other in species but leave each other in accidents. Namely, those who
Vol. XLIV 2009 109 were acquainted with each other by the conformity of opinion and desire are united; while those who were not by the disagreement of opinion and desire are disunited. This is concerning something existent in sense and visible. (al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 208, n. 1 [quoting Sarawıya− ])
The meaning of this passage is not necessarily clear, but I think it means as follows: the spirits are one insofar as their species while they are different from each other insofar as their accidents. Some people become very close with each other while others do not, solely because of the conformity and the disagreement in their accidents, that is to say, their opinions and desires. The world concerned − − with this hadıthA is not pre-existential, but sensual and visible. In this way Mufıd interprets the Tradition as explaining the cause of the existence of the different degrees of intimacy among men. He comments on a passage of another mıthaq− − Tradition: “He [God] extracted the descendants from his [Adam’s] back just like particles” in the following way:
What He extracted from his back is the elements of the bodies of his descendants, not their spirits. God did this work so that Adam could see his consequence [his offspring’s increase] and His omnipotence in order for him to increase certainty of his Lord. (summary translation; al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 208f., n. 2 [quoting Sarawıya− ])
Here he makes efforts to avoid the interpretation which might allow the idea of the pre-existence of human spirits. It is evident especially when he writes that what God extracted from him is not spirits, but bodily elements which are perishable in their nature. Concerning the thesis that Imams− were existent before Adam’s creation, Mufıd− writes with a strong denial as follows:
The thesis that their [the Family of Muhammad]A particles existed before Adam is false and far from the truth. Neither an intellectual believes it, nor does a scholar profess it. This thesis is maintained only by some groups of the ignorant extremists (ghulat− ) and the − − anthropomorphists (hashwıyaA ) of the Shı‘a who do not have insight into the essences of the things and the reality of the discussion. (al- − − − Mufıd, SharhA , 211, note [quoting al-Masa’il al-‘Ukbarıya])
110 ORIENT − − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA What Adam saw on the Divine throne are simply Imams’− names inscribed by God, not their real forms existent before Adam. Thus Mufıd− interpreted the idea of Imams’− pre-existence into that of the prediction of future Imams− to escape from the trap of tanasukh− . Mufıd− quotes with his commentary another Tradition which is partially same as one quoted above.12
“The spirits are created two thousand years before the creation of bodies. Those who were acquainted with one another are united; while those who were not, are disunited.” This is one of the single Traditions − − − − (ahadıthA al-ahadA ) and a report with a single channel of transmission − − (turuqA al-afrad). (al-Mufıd, SharhA , 207f.)
− − First, Mufıd examines the quality of the hadıthA and judges it not fully reliable, for it does not attain the level of the tawatur− . Even if it is reliable, he allows no interpretation with the connotation of spirits’ pre-existence. He interprets the Tradition in such a way that the
II. Soul’s Afterlife in Mufıd− We have to take in consideration the soul’s afterlife which is closely related with the notion of tanasukh− as that of the soul’s pre-existence is. Mufıd− mentions the different courses which souls take after death. According to one of his schemes
Vol. XLIV 2009 111 concerning the classification of souls, the souls after death are classified into two: (1) those who receive rewards or torments until the Day of Resurrection when they have their bodies again and live forever in bliss or torment, and (2) those who lose consciousness and perish at the time of their bodies’ corruption − until the Day when they regain their bodies (al-Mufıd, SharhA , 213f.). The first group of souls is either those of unmixed faith (ıman− − ), or those of unmixed disbelief (kufr). Until on the Day of Resurrection he gets back the body in which he used to dwell in this world, every soul of this group is transferred to − − “something similar to him in form” (mithlu-hu fı al-suraA ). The form of the soul during the intermediate period after death is also expressed as “something − − similar to his body in form” (mithl jasadi-hi fı al-suraA ) or “something similar to him in himself” (mithlu-hu bi-‘ayni-hi). The vague and indirect tone in these expressions implies some hesitation about the clear articulation of the soul’s mode of being during this period, since in spite of its having lost a body, it is still a subject of suffering pain or feeling happy, namely, it has a kind of body. It might be rather difficult for him to give clear-cut expression to its mode of being. On the other hand, the second group is those who have faith mixed with disbelief. They are dead during the intermediate period so that we do not have to consider their mode of being. The period has no significance for them. In another scheme of his classification of souls, he divides them into four classes; the first two classes correspond to (1) of the above classification, the fourth does to (2), and the third is those locating somewhere between (1) and (2) (al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 87f. See Sourdel 1972, 69 [281]).15 As for the souls of the fourth class who are to be dead during the intermediate period, he describes them in a manner slightly different from (2) of the first classification. He writes:
They are those who do not attain the perfection of knowledge without being subjected to obstruction and those whom others deem inferior. (al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 87f.)
However, this description is possibly interpreted in the same sense as that of the mixture of faith and disbelief, for they do not master the religious knowledge because of their own intentional negligence. The souls of the third class are those concerning whom Mufıd− hesitates whether he permits their life in the intermediate period, or he counts them among the dead. They are the souls of sinful believers (fasiq− ). Mufıd− writes:
112 ORIENT − − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA It is permitted by God—His name be great and sublime—that death is lifted from them in order that He would put them in torment in the intermediate world (barzakh) against their evil conducts which they committed and herewith purify them from the sins before the time of
the Gathering (hashrA ). [By suffering torment in the intermediate period,] they would make compensation for their exemption from the eternal fire of Gehenna and for their entering the Gardens with their obedience to God. It is also permitted that [in stead of its being given immediately after death] their life would be postponed until the Day of Calculation, on which their punishment or their pardon is as God—Be great and sublime—wills. The matter concerning these two groups is concealed from men. (al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 87)
The fate of the souls of this class is solely based upon the mercy of God. Some might take the same course as that of the fourth class that they would present themselves to the last Judgment without living in the intermediate period and receive their sentence, either eternal torment or eternal bliss. The others might take a route similar to that of the first and the second classes insofar as they have life during the intermediate period. However, in the intermediate period, those of the first and the second classes have in advance a same kind of experience, either happy or miserable, which they will respectively have after the last Judgment, while those of the third class suffer torment during the intermediate period only in compensation for the eternal bliss in future. After their separation from their bodies, souls take different ways until the Day of Resurrection. During the intermediate period some of them perish, and the others continue to exist in a certain mode of being, in which they are placed in one of the three alternatives, namely, Garden (janna), Fire (nar− ) and the intermediate world (barzakh). Although the soul’s mode of being in the intermediate period could be interpreted in connection with the notion of tanasukh− , Mufıd− does not make so much effort to offer anti-tanasukh− interpretations as he eagerly does in case of the Traditions concerning the pre- existence of souls. Mufıd’s− argument about the soul’s afterlife is mainly based on Traditions, and he states at the end of the section:
This argument based on the established commentary is the teaching of the transmitters of the reports of the Imamıya− − and of the way of the revelation (sam‘) and the authentic Traditions. But their rationalist
Vol. XLIV 2009 113 theologians (mutakallim) in the former time have no reported teaching of it. (al-Mufıd,− Awa’il− , 88)
This statement makes clear that Mufıd− adopted the teaching of soul’s afterlife from the Shı‘ı−− Traditionists, and that the mutakallimun− used to have no teaching concerning the soul’s afterlife. Mufıd− simply accepted Traditionists’ idea and incorporated it in his system of the Shı‘ı−− doctrine. Therefore, his discussion concerning this question is simply characterized as quoting their teachings without much elaboration in his own way.
− − −16 III. Tanasukh in Mulla SadraA − − − Mulla SadraA seems to accept a certain type of tanasukh at least from a point of − − view. He quotes several passages from the Qur’an and hadıthA s as alluding to the − − − − − − possibility of tanasukh (Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 5; Mulla Sadra,A Mabda’, 327).17 He quotes also a phrase “There is no teaching (madhhab) in which − − − − − − tanasukh has no firm footing” (Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 6; Mulla Sadra,A Mabda’, 327). The idea enjoyed a great role in the ancient Greek philosophy, − − which was one of the sources of Mulla Sadra’sA thought. He names several philosophers as holding any kind of tanasukh− such as Plato, Socrates, − − Phythagoras, Agathodaemon, Empedocles, Hermes, and Aristotle (Mulla Sadra,A − − − Asfar, Vol. 9, 6; Mulla Sadra,A Mabda’, 327f.). He proposes two kinds of tanasukh− ,18 one of which is the generally understood one as follows:
Untenable is the tanasukh− in the sense of the transmigration of soul from an elementary or natural body to another different from the first, whether it may be in descent or in ascendance; in the former case [descent] it is called naskh when the transmigration occurs to humans, maskh when to animals, faskh when to plants, and raskh when to minerals, while in the latter case [ascendance], it occurs on the contrary to what we have mentioned. It occurs even to the celestial bodies as one of the scholars believes and Shaykh al-Ra’ıs−− [Ibn Sına]− relates.19 The latter approves the former’s statement concerning the souls of both the stupid and the intermediate that they would attach themselves to the celestial bodies after their separation from the bodies − − − through natural death. (Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 4)
He definitely rejects the notion of tanasukh− in the general sense, but he
114 ORIENT − − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA proposes another kind of tanasukh− .
Not against the reality is the tanasukh− in the sense that in the hereafter mode of being (al-nash’a al-ukhrawıya− ) the soul takes a form, either animal, vegetative, or mineral, its being of the inferior degrees according to its despicable difference and evil habits, but rather it is a matter established by the Imams− of illumination and witness and also confirmed by the people of truth among the masters of sacred laws and − − 20 creeds. (Mulla Sadra,A Mabda’, 326)
− − − It is clear that Mulla SadraA confirms a type of tanasukh in which the soul takes different forms in the hereafter according to his conducts in this world. The theory held by the ancient sages is nothing but the tanasukh− approved by Mulla− − −−− Sadra,A namely, the Gathering of human souls (hashrA al-nufus al-insanıya) in the − − − − − hereafter (See Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 26). Thus Mulla SadraA presents two types of tanasukh− : the ‘horizontal’ transmigration in which soul repeats its life in this same world in different forms, and the ‘vertical’ transmigration in which soul transcends into the hereafter. The former is to be rejected and the latter is to be accepted.21 One of the causes which have given birth to a misunderstanding in the tanasukh− theory is the ignorance of the world of soul (‘alam− al-nafs), another − − world intermediate between this world, or the world of nature (‘alam al-tabı‘aA ) − − − − and the world of intelligence (‘alam al-‘aql) (Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 30). His understanding of tanasukh− is based on his theory of the growth of soul, which consists of three levels.22 The first is this world (dunya− ), the visible world (‘alam−− al-shahada), or the world of nature, where everything is attached to matter and not free from motion. It has a locus of manifestation (mazharA ) in such five external senses as sight, listening, smell, taste, and touch. The second is the intermediate world (barzakh) or the world of soul, which is the world of shapes − (ashbahAA) and forms (suwar) not perceptible by the external senses and has its locus of manifestation in such internal senses as common sense, representation, imagination, estimation, and memory. In the world of soul the soul exists independently from the this-worldly body. However, it is not completely free − − from materiality, but acquires an imaginative form (shabahA mithalı) in which his nature and character in this world, either good or evil, manifest themselves. Its − form is concomitant to the soul just as the shadow (zillA ) follows the form (dhu − − − − − − al-zillA ) (Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 31. See also Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 18f.). The world on the second level may be called a ‘hereafter’ (akhira− ) in contrast to
Vol. XLIV 2009 115 ‘this world’ on the first level, and is divided into two: the paradise (janna) and − −− the hell (jahımA ). The former is the abode of the happy (dar al-su‘ada’) who have manifested their good nature and character in this world. The latter is that of the miserable (dar−− al-ashqiya’) who have manifested their evil nature and character. The world on the third level may be called the ‘hereafter’ in its truest sense, the world of intelligence (‘alam− al-‘aql) or the world of the absolute spirits (‘alam− − al-arwahAA al-mutlaqa), which has its locus of manifestation in the human perfect intellect. This is the world of the pure good, of the pure light which souls may finally attain. − − − Mulla Sadra’sA so-called tanasukh theory allows not that the human soul resume a form of such animal as ape and swine in this same world after its separation from its original body, but that in the hereafter, a world free from the this-worldly materiality, it takes a form of animal suitable to his character based on his this-worldly conducts. The soul and the body are essentially unified and considered to be in the process of growth. The soul at first in this world is too weak to sustain itself without its body. However, by becoming more subtle and purer, soul acquires enough strength to subsist without material support. The lifeless corpse as an −− outgrowth of the real body (badan haqıqıA ) will perish at man’s death, but the real body realizes unity with soul on a higher level free from matter. The process of purification, or the spiritual growth, is not a reversible but a unidirectional − − ascending motion from lower to nobler, from coarser to subtler (Mulla Sadra,A Asfar− , Vol. 9, 16). This ascending motion is based on the motion that the existents which emanate from the Absolute, the source of existence, return to Him.23 His tanasukh− is to be understood only in the context of his idea of the Gathering, or the bodily resurrection which is supported by his monistic mystical philosophy that the soul and the body realize their unity in a higher order of existence in the hereafter.
Conclusion Mufıd− definitely refuses the idea of tanasukh− and denies any slight association with it in the Qur’anic− verses and the Traditions. He strongly opposes the interpretation of the Qur’anic− idea of the mıthaq− − and the similar Traditions as a proof of the soul’s pre-existence, while concerning the soul’s afterlife, he rather simply quotes the Traditionists’ statement. By taking such a rigorous stance Mufıd− contributed a lot to the establishment of the Ithna‘asharı− − orthodoxy. − − On the other hand, Mulla Sadra,A naturally denying the notion, accepts a
116 ORIENT − − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA type of tanasukh− , which is a bodily resurrection expressed differently. Where does the difference of their ways of answer to the problem of tanasukh− come from? In my understanding, it comes first from their different historical settings and secondly from the difference of the materials on which they constructed their own versions of thought. Mufıd− lived in the formative period of Shı‘ı−− thought in struggling for establishing the orthodox teaching by making efforts to − − − eliminate risky ideas like tanasukh, while Mulla SadraA was in the much matured period in which Shı‘ı−− doctrine had already established with no anxiety of the − − − tanasukh’s marring up the orthodoxy. Mulla SadraA manipulates more mysticism and philosophy than Mufıd,− whose instrument of argument is mainly rational reasoning with the texts of the Qur’an− and the Traditions. In other words, Mulla− − SadraA is able to locate the soul’s transformation in the mode of being of the intermediate world, which is firmly established in his tripartite worldview, while Mufıd− quotes as proof only the sacred texts without support of an articulated worldview. Shaykh al-Mufıd’s−−− contribution to Shı‘ı thought is not the same as Mulla− −−− − Sadra’s.A Mulla Sadra’sA contribution to Shı‘ism is his proposing an original worldview based on the philosophical speculation. Mufıd− carried out a different task, in which he made tremendous efforts to establish the foundation of Shı‘ı−− theology.
Notes 1 The present article is a revised version of my previous study which I orally communicated at the International Congress of the Millennium Sheikh-e Mofeed, Qumm, Iran in April 1993. 2 − As the basis of my discussion mainly I used the texts of his Awa’il and SharhA . I consulted McDermott 1978 for my understanding of the related passages in Mufıd’s− texts and Madelung 1970 for my understanding of his thought in general. 3 − − See note 17 below and Mulla Sadra’sA texts to which the note refers. 4 − − The same report is also found in al-Majlisı, BiharA , Vol. 10, 176f. and Vol. 58, 33f. (quoted from − − − − the Kitab al-IhtijajA ). The report is transmitted from Hisham b. al-Hakam,AA Ja‘far al-Sadiq’s excommunicated disciple. 5 On this question I treated several Muslim thinkers in a wider scope in Kamada 1995. See also Freitag 1985 and Walker 1991. 6 −−− MuhammadA b. Bashır (Nawbakhtı writes Bashır instead of Bishr) was one of Kufan abominable − − − −− −− − − extremists (ghalı mal‘un) among companions of the seventh Shı‘ı Imam Musa al-Kazim.A Samı‘ − − is a son of MuhammadA ibn Bashır and maintained to be transferred Imama through his father −−− − − −−− from Imam Musa. See al-Nawbakhtı, 83, n. 1; al-Tusı,A 361; al-Ardabılı 1403 A.H., Vol. 2, 80. 7 Besides this point Mufıd− criticizes Ibn Babuya−− in a number of theological points. See Dhakawatı− − Qaraguzlu−− 1371 A.H.S. 8 Concerning this argument, Ibn Babuya−− gives more detailed explanation in his “I‘tiqadat−− al- − − −− −− Saduq”A on whose text Mufıd writes this commentary (Ibn Babuya, “I‘tiqadat,” 75; Fyzee 1982, 45f.). 9 Ibn Babuya−− naturally rejects the idea of tanasukh− . He states in his “I‘tiqadat,”−− 85: “The thesis of tanasukh−−− is false. He who professes tanasukh is unbeliever because tanasukh denies the Garden
Vol. XLIV 2009 117 and the Hellfire.” 10 − −−− − Mulla SadraA quotes the Qur’anic verse of mıthaq as a proof of the human existence previous to his individual material form although the descending process of the origination of existents − −−− from the Absolute takes place neither in time nor in motion (‘ala nahwA al-ibda‘ bi-la zaman wa- − − − harakaA ) in his understanding (Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 195). 11 − − This Tradition ascribed to Imam Ja‘far al-SadiqA is usually interpreted in connection with the primordial covenant in such a way that he who acknowledged God at the mıthaq− − will receive intimacy with God in this world while he who did not will receive a conflict. Mufıd’s− − − interpretation seems rather unusual. See al-Majlisı, BiharA , Vol. 58, 139f. 12 The second half of this Tradition is the same as a part of the Tradition quoted above, which has the same text as Ibn Babuya’s−− on which Mufıd− commented. See Ibn Babuya,−− “I‘tiqadat,” −− 76. 13 Mufıd− ascribes the erroneous transmigrationist understanding to the anthropomorphists of Shı‘a.− According to their conjecture, the persons (dhawat− ) who acted on God’s order and prohibition were created in the form of the particles where they were acquainted with one another, worked their intelligence and understanding, and spoke. Thereafter, God created bodies for them and inserted them into the bodies. This “conjecture” seems closer to its usual understanding (al- − Mufıd, SharhA , 208f.). 14 − − See al-Majlisı, BiharA , Vol. 58, 141, n. 2 as well as McDermott 1978, 363f., concerning the discussion of this type of creation. 15 Because of his use of the term fasiq− , the souls of the third class might correspond to (2) of the first classification (mixture of ıman− − and kufr). But at the same time, their mode of being in the intermediate period is not decided whether they are living or dead. In this sense they cannot be put in that class (2). Therefore, all we can certainly say is that they are placed somewhere between (1) and (2). 16 The discussion in this section is mainly based on Kamada 1995. 17 − − − Mulla SadraA quotes therein Qur’an 5:60/65, 6:38, 11:106/108, 17:97/99, 23:108/110, 41:20/19. 18 −−− He presents three types of tanasukh in his MafatıhA , 557f. 19 Ibn Sına− − expresses this idea in such works as Najat−−−, 333; Isharat, Vol. 4, 35f.; and Mabda’, − − −− −− − − 114f. In his commentary to Ibn Sına’s Isharat (Vol. 4, 36) NasırA al-Dın al-TusıA mentions that Farabı−− −− is the one to whom Ibn Sına− in his Mabda’ refers anonymously as the person who advocates this theory. See also Gardet 1951, 101f. 20 −−− − − − The same discussion is found under the name of the ma‘ad jismanı in the Mulla Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 4. 21 − −− − − − − − − Ilahı Qumshah’ı calls the two types respectively tanasukh-i ‘ardıA ya mulkı or tanasukh-i jismı- − − − − −−− −−− −−− −− o-dunyawı and tanasukh-i tulıA ya malakutı or tanasukh-i ruhanı-o-ukhrawıA (Ilahı Qumshah’ı 1335 A.H.S., Vol. 1, 314f.). 22 The following description of the tripartite spiritual growth of soul is mainly based on the Mulla− − − Sadra,A Asfar, Vol. 9, 21f. See also Corbin 1972, Vol. 4, 115-122. 23 The motion which supports this return process is called a substantive motion (al-harakaA al- jawharıya− ). According to this idea every form is one of the phases of the flux of existence and constantly renews itself in manifestation. Changes occur not only to accidents but also penetrate deeper into their substance. Namely, a thing changes from the depth of its inside without enduring subject of motion. Therefore, soul’s move from the this-worldly mode of being to the hereafter mode of being is to be explained simply as a continuing process of the constant flux of existence. See Kamada 2007; Rahman 1975, 94-98; Dehbashi 1981.
Bibliography [Primary Sources] −− −− −−− − − − − Ibn Babuya: “I‘tiqadat al-Saduq,”A in ‘Allama al-Hillı,A al-Bab al-Hadı‘asharA , Tihran, 1370 A.H. [Chapsangı− − Edition]. − − −− − − −−− − −− Ibn Sına: al-Isharat wa al-Tanbıhat ma‘a SharhAA Nasır al-Dın al-TusıA , ed. by Sulayman Dunya, 4
118 ORIENT − − − − Transmigration of Soul (tanasukh) in Shaykh al-Mufıd and Mulla SadraA Vols., al-Qahira,− 1994. − − −−− − −− − − − Ibn Sına: Kitab al-Najat fı al-HikmaAA al-Mantiqıya wa al-Tabı‘ıyaA wa al-Ilahıya, ed. by Majid Fakhrı,− Bayrut,− 1405 A.H./1985. Ibn Sına:− − al-Mabda’ wa al-Ma‘ad− , ed. by ‘Abdallah−−− Nuranı,− Tihran− 1363 A.H.S./1984. − − −− − al-Majlisı, MuhammadA Baqir: BiharA al-Anwar, 111 Vols., Bayrut, 1403 A.H./1983. − −−−− −−−− − al-Mufıd, al-Shaykh: Awa’il al-Maqalat fı al-Madhahib wa al-Mukhtarat wa-yalı-hi Kitab SharhA − − − − −− ‘Aqa’id al-SaduqA , ed. by ‘Abbasqulı S.A Wajdı, Tabrız, 1371 A.H. − −− − − − al-Mufıd, al-Shaykh: al-FusulA al-Mukhtara min al-‘Uyun wa al-MahasinA , Bayrut, 1405 A.H. − − − − − al-Mufıd, al-Shaykh: SharhA ‘Aqa’id al-SaduqA . See al-Mufıd: Awa’il above. − − − − −− − − Mulla Sadra:A al-Asfar (al-HikmaA al-Muta‘alıya fı al-Asfar al-‘Aqlıya al-Arba‘a), 9 Vols., ed. by − − − −−− − − − RidaA Lutfı,A Ibrahım Amını and FathallahA Ummıd, Tihran,A 1379 A.H. − − − − − − − Mulla Sadra:A al-Mabda’ wa al-Ma‘ad, ed. by S. J.-D. Ashtiyanı, Tihran, 1394 A.H. − − − − − − − Mulla Sadra:A MafatıhA al-Ghayb, ed. by M. Khwajawı, Tihran, 1363 A.H.S. − − −− al-Nawbakhtı, al-Hasan:A Firaq al-Shı‘a, ed. by M. Sadiq,A Bayrut, 1404 A.H. − − − − − − al-Tusı,A Shaykh al-Ta’ifa:A Rijal al-TusıA , Najaf, 1380 A.H.
[Secondary Sources] −− − − − − −− al-Ardabılı al-Gharawı al-Ha’irı,A MuhammadA b. ‘Alı 1403 A.H.: Jami‘ al-Ruwat, 2 Vols., Qumm. Corbin, H. 1972: En Islam iranien, 4 vols., Paris. − − Dehbashi, M. 1981: Mulla Sadra’sA Theory of Transubstantial Motion: A Translation and Critical Exposition, Ph.D. Dissertation, Fordham University. − − −− −−−−− − − Dhakawatı Qaraguzlu, ‘A. 1371 A.H.S./1992: “Ishara-ı bi-Khurda-gırıha-yi Mufıd bar Saduq,”A Ma‘arif− 9/1, 119-127. Freitag, Rainer 1985: Seelenwanderung in der islamischen Häresie, Berlin. Fyzee, A. A. A. (tr.) 1982: A Shı‘ite− Creed: A Translation of I‘tiqadatu−− ’l-Imamiyyah − (The Beliefs −− − − − of the Imamiyyah) of Abu Ja‘far, MuhammadA ibn ‘Alı ibn al-Husayn,A Ibn Babawayh al-Qummı − Known as ash-Shaykh as-SaduqAA (306/919-381/991), Tehran. Gardet, L. 1951: La pensée religieuse d’Avicenne (Ibn Sına)− − , Paris. − −− − − − Ilahı Qumshah’ı, M. M. 1335 A.H.S.: Hikmat-iA Ilahı, 2 Vols., Tihran − − − Kamada, Sh. 1995: “Metempsychosis (tanasukh) in Mulla Sadra’sA Thought,” Orient 30-31 (1995), 119-132. Kamada, Sh. 2007: “Kofuku to Tetsugakusha no Itonami: Morra Sadora no Jittaiundosetsu no Imi” − − [“Happiness and Philosopher’s Work: The Significance of Mulla Sadra’sA Theory of Substantive Motion”], Toyo Bunka [Oriental Culture] 87, 163-180. Madelung, W. 1970: “Imamism and Mu‘tazilite Theology,” in T. Fahd (ed.), Le Shı‘isme− imamite− , Paris, 1970, 13-30. McDermott, M. 1978: The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufıd− (d. 413/1022), Beyrouth. Momen, M. 1985: An Introduction to Shi‘i Islam, New Haven. − − Rahman, F. 1975: The Philosophy of Mulla SadraA , Albany. Sourdel, D. 1972: “L’Imamisme vu par le Cheikh al-Mufıd,”− Revue des études islamiques 40, 217- 296. Walker, P. E. 1991: “The Doctrine of Metempsychosis in Islam,” in W. B. Hallaq and D. P. Little (eds.), Islamic Studies Presented to Charles J. Adams, Leiden, 219-238.
Vol. XLIV 2009 119