BAN ON IBN ARABI WORKS IN EGYPT 1970S

7/29/2019 BAN ON IBN ARABI WORKS IN EGYPT 1970S

1/17

Ibn Arabi in the People's Assembly: Religion, Press, and Politics in Sadat's EgyptAuthor(s): Th. Emil HomerinSource: Middle East Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Summer, 1986), pp. 462-477Published by: Middle East InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4327368 .

Accessed: 30/08/2013 14:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Middle East Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toMiddle East

Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.3.102.242 on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:38:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4327368?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4327368?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mei


2/17

IBN ARABI IN THE PEOPLE'SASSEMBLY: RELIGION,PRESS, ANDPOLITICSIN SADAT'S EGYPTTh. EmilHomerin

ThursdayFebruary 15, 1979,was a long day for manydelegatesof the EgyptianPeople's Assembly. Debate raged for 15 hours over a report on the Amriyaspinning and weaving project, but when the recommendations were finallyaccepted,manyof the delegateshad left the floor. Theopposition, representedbythe Socialist Labor Party and a few independerts, had walked out in protestduringmotions intended to exclude themfromvoting, while the presidentof theAssembly, Dr. Sufi AbuTalib,anda numberof otherofficialshadleft in order toattend the funeral of the respectedjournalist,FikriAbaza. The secretaryof theAssembly,Dr. al-SayyidAlial-Sayyid,was left incharge,and it was probablydueto his effortsthatyet another ssue was introducedat the end of this excruciatingsession. This was the recommendation y the Committee or Social andReligiousAffairs andEndowments,which Dr. al-Sayyid chaired,to ban the writingsof theIslamic mystic Muhyi al-Din Ibn Arabi (d. 1240), especially his al-Futuhatal-Makkiya(The Meccan Revelations). Further,all future publicationsdealingwith Islam were to be submittedto the Academyof Islamic Research (Majma'al-Buhuthal-Islamiya),for certification.Few, if any, of the exhausted delegatesremainingon the floor gave much consideration to the proposal which wasapprovedwithoutdiscussion.'

1. For details of the marathon session see al-Akhbar, Feb. 16, 1979, pp. 1, 4, and 9, andJammal al-Utayfi, "al-Nuqat fawqa al-huruf fi kitab al-Futuhat al-Makkiya," al-Ahram, Mar. 4, 1979,p. 11.Th. EmilHomerin s a graduatestudent n ArabicandIslamicmysticismat the UniversityofChicago.Atpresent,he is completinghis dissertationon theSufipoet Ibnal-Farid. Theauthorwishesto thankDar al-Kutubal-Misriyaand Dr. RudolphPeters and TheNetherlands nstitute n Cairo orgraciouslypermittinguse of theirnewspaperandperiodicalcollections. He would also like to thankDr.AhmadHaridi, andespecially,Dr. WilliamCleveland,whoproofread heoriginalandmade somevery usefulcriticisms.

462 THEMIDDLEEASTJOURNAL,VOLUME40, NO. 3, SUMMER1986.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

On the next day, the newspaper al-Akhbar mentioned the proposed ban underthe heading, "Prohibiting the Circulation of al-Futuhat al-Makkiya." The accountreads as follows:2

The People's Assembly agreed during yesterday's session to discontinue andprohibit he publicationof the remaining ectionsof the book al-Futuhatal-Makkiyaby IbnArabi,as well as the restof his works,and to prohibit he distribution f thosesections already publishedand to collect the publishedmaterial rom the markets.This is due to his extremism tatarruJ), which spreadsconfusionamongMuslims.It also agreedto forma committeeof religiousscholars(ulama) romthe Academyof Islamic Research o preparea thorough eportconcerning he writingsof IbnArabiand to present it to the Assembly.This came after the Assembly's decision that theauthor was an extremist Sufi relying heavily on specific expressions used by otherextremistSufis, as technical terms whose meaningsdiffered rom those well-knownamong hepeopleof religiousknowledge ahlal-ilm).Therefore, hedistribution f hisbooks causes confusionamongthe Muslimmasses, castingthem into bewildermentanddoubt,and it beguilesthe people concerning heirreligion.

The Committeesaid in its decision thatsilence in battling he likes of such bookswas a matterwhich contradicted he obligationsof the faith.The Assembly also decided not to distributeany book involvingIslamicreligiouspositionswithout the consent of the Academyof IslamicResearch,in its capacityasthe committeespecializing n such matters.AhmadFuad Abd al-Aziz, the parliamentaryecretary, announcedthat the gov-

ernmentof the NationalDemocraticPartybelievedintheimportance f protecting heIslamicreligion,and so it hadcarefullystudiedthe decisionof the Committeebeforepresenting t to the Assembly. In fact, the day before yesterday (i.e., Feb. 13), theresolutionof the Ministryof Culturehad already been issued, containingall of theCommittee'srecommendationswhich the Assemblyhadaffirmed.Dr. al-SayyidAli al-Sayyid, presidentof the session, conveyed his thanks to thegovernment or theirpromptresponse to these recommendations.The assembly's recommendations, then, were clearly supported by the

government, and perhaps this too diverted attention from this extraordinaryproposal. The recommendations appeared so routine that al-Ahram, the majorgovernment paper, did not bother to mention them. The matter seemed concludeduntil February 19, when al-Ahram published the editorial, "Why Did We Ban ThisBook?" by Dr. Ibrahim Madkur, president of the Linguistic Academy.3

Dr. Madkur was directly involved with the new edition of the Futuhat editedby Uthman Ismail Yahya, having proofread each volume and written theirprefaces.4 He began his editorial by asserting that the People's Assembly had no

2. "Man' tadwil al-Futuhat al-Makkiya," al-Akhbar, Feb. 16, 1979, pp. 1 and 9. Also seeal-Jumhuriyah,Feb. 16, 1979, p. 11, for anothernoticeon the resolution.3. IbrahimMadkur,"Li-madhanusadirhadhaal-kitab?"al-Ahram,Feb. 19, 1979,p. 11.4. Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Arabi, al-Futuhatal-Makkiya,ed. Uthman Ismail Yahya (Cairo,1972-).

463



4/17

legal basis to recommendbanninga book, since all books belong to the publicsector. Further,the rightto marketand distributea book belongs to individualsand institutions, and not to the government, as established by existing laws. Hewent on to say that while the contents of the Futuhat were not suitable fortreatment in a daily paper due to their specialized nature, one could considerformalaspects of the situation. For example, the new edition of the work wassponsoredby the SupremeCouncil orSupportof theArts, Letters,and the SocialSciences, a qualifiedofficialorganization, ogetherwith The Sorbonne'sInstitutefor Advanced Studies. Did the Assembly consider the Council'sopinionor thisimportantexample of culturalcooperationbefore accepting the recommenda-tions?

Further,Dr. Madkurasked, didthe Assemblybelieve thatbanning his bookwould eradicate its existence in Egyptianlibraries or in those throughouttheworld, not to mention the numerous copies of the work published in threeprevious editions?This work had been sought, studied, and cherished for overseven hundredyears, and it was undeniablya part of Islam's heritage, so howcould Muslimsban it now, when theirforefathers n a less enlightenedage hadnot? Dr. Madkurassertedthat the past opponentsof Ibn Arabi did not burnhisbooks or suppresstheircirculation,ratherthey discussed and debatedhis ideaswith him and his supporters.As for the Futuhat,whichhad been translated nto French andpartially ntoEnglish, it was the focus of manyscholarlystudies abroadandin Egypt. So, Dr.Madkurasked, will the Assemblyclose the departments f philosophy?While thePeople's Assemblyhadthe rightto criticize anddebate,even suspect andopposesomeone, it did not have the right to judge and execute him. Dr. Madkurconcluded by referringto his 15 years of parliamentservice during the pre-revolutionaryperiodin which, he said, he never suspected anyone's religion norcriticized the dead, nor did he believe that anyone would have allowed parlia-mentarycommittees to be turned into "tribunals or an inquisition taftish)."Madkur's editorial was the first salvo againstthe resolution, which wouldundergoheavy firefrom bothreligiousscholars andsecularistsas they jumpedtodefend intellectual and religiousfreedomsagainstinstitutionalcontrol. Madkurraisedmanyof the key issues that would be analyzedanddebated n the Egyptianpress for the next month, questions concerning the Assembly's rights andexpertise, censorship, authority n religiousaffairsand the disseminationof theIslamic heritage, and finally, Ibn Arabi, his doctrines, and the relevance ofbanninga work over seven hundredyears old. In all, the Ibn Arabicontroversywould reveal many of the complexrelationships nvolvingEgyptian politics, thepress, intellectuals,andreligiousauthorities.That Ibn Arabiand his work were involved with controversy was certainlynothingnew. Theproponentof a monistictheosophy,Ibn Arabi s undeniablyoneof the most interestingfigures in Islamic mysticism, and his influence on his464



5/17

contemporariesand later generations has been extensive.5 Yet, he was anabstrusewriter, relyingat times on free associationmore than on logicalthought,and this facilitated misunderstanding.Not surprisingly,a numberof his writingsbecame targets of polemics by Ibn Taymiya(d. 1328),al-Dhahabi d. 1348),andothers, who demandeda moral, if not legalistic, interpretation f the worldtheysought to reform.6The Futuhat al-Makkiya,Ibn Arabi's magnumopus, is probablyhis mostdifficultand formidablewriting, and as such, the focus of intensecriticism.EvenMuhammadAbduh (d. 1905) ook exceptionto the work whenhe was the directorof publications n Egypt. He refusedto publishthe Futuhatbecause, " works ofthis sort should not be looked at save by those who are qualified," since thesymbolism n the works wouldlead the uninitiated stray.7Abduhalso maintainedthat Ibn Arabi's writings were, "filled with what contradictedthe tenets ofreligion."AlthoughAbduhencouragednterior pirituality nda moderate ype ofmysticism, he believed that theosophies like that of Ibn Arabi, neglected thisworld and one's duties in it by encouragingexcessive otherworldliness, thusweakening the basis of the communityandobstructing he renovationof Islamicsociety.8

Disputes involving Ibn Arabi and his works priorto the 1979controversywere largely confinedto the scholarlycommunity,andno matterwhat effect theyhad there, they rarely touched the general populace. Even this most recentcontroversyappearsto have been born and raised among opposingfactions ofEgyptian ulama. Sometime after 1972, the then Shaykh al-Azhar, Dr. Abdal-HalimMahmud d. 1978),requestedan opinionfrom the Academyof IslamicResearch regardingIbn Arabi's commentaryon the Quran entitled Tafsir al-Quranal-Karim.9The Academy's secretary,Dr. MuhammadHusayn al-Dhahabi(d. 1977),10ruled that this commentarycontained matters which were far fromreligionand therefore, the Shaykh al-Azhar should seek to ban the Tafsirandremoveit fromthe marketplace. Anotheropinionwas offeredby a groupof ulamawho opposed this, sayingthat the Tafsirwas a valuablework."'

5. Ibn Arabi'sbiography ndbibliographyre extensive. See theEncyclopaediaof Islam, 2nded., 3: 707-711(A. Ates).6. Concerning he moral stanceof these "neo-Sufis"andtheir ideas on Sufismsee my "IbnTaymiyah'sal-Sufiyahwa al-Fuqara,"Arabica32(1985): 19-224.7. Al-Manar,7 (1904-1905): 39.8. ConcerningMuhammadAbduhand his views on Islamand Sufismsee AlbertHourani,Arabic Thought n the LiberalAge, 1798-1939 London, 1970),pp. 130-160.9. Muhyial-Din Ibnal-Arabi,Tafsiral-Quranal-Karim Beirut, 1968).10. While al-Dhahabi'sreligious positions could be termed conservative, he was not afundamentalist.See BruceM. Borthwick,"Religionand Politicsin Israeland Egypt," Middle EastJournal 33(1979):145-163, esp. 155-58,andbelow n. 12.11. I couldnot find a precise account of the Tafsircase, but it must have occurredduringorafter 1973,Abd al-Halim Mahmud's irst year as Shaykhal-Azhar.Because the Tafsir was neverbanned,some ulamapersistedin callingfor the work's "rectification" taqwim);al-Ahram,Mar. 4,1979,p. 11.Despitehis reservationsaboutthe Tafsir,Mahmuddidnot opposeIbnArabior Sufismas

465



6/17

This incident was used as a precedent by the Assembly in 1979. After itreceived complaintsagainstthe Futuhat,the Committee or Social and ReligiousAffairs and Endowments began its investigation, following a request from adelegate of the Assembly. The Committee was instructedto make temporaryrecommendations regardingthe matter, pending an opinion from a specialcommittee of the Academy of IslamicResearchwhichwould studyIbnArabi andhis writings.The delegatewho requestedthe investigationwas Abd al-Qadiral-Bahrawi,deputyfromTanta,andsponsorof the February15recommendations anning bnArabi'swritings.In supportof his resolution,al-BahrawimentionedIbnTaymiyaand other medievalcritics of Ibn Arabi,but his justificationrested primarilyontwo reports by MuhammadHusayn al-Dhahabi,clarificationsgiven by a Shaykhal-Fiqi, and perhapsmost importantly,on articlesentitled, "Errorsin the Bookal-Futuhat"(Dilalatfi Kitabal-Futuhat), by the late ShaykhKamalAhmadAwn.As directorof the al-AzharTeachers'Institute, n Tanta,Awn hadno doubt beenan importantand influential igure n al-Bahrawi'sconstituency.12Awn's critiqueof IbnArabi's doctrinewas traditional f somewhatupdated.In an open letter sent to the Ministryof Culture n 1975,Awn accused Ibn Arabiof polytheism. He believed that Ibn Arabi's depiction of God's divine namesposited them as independentlyactingentities similarto the gods of Olympus.Inthe 1979controversy,other criticismswere addedto Awn's charges,particularlyaccusationsthat Ibn Arabi had claimedfor himselfknowledgeand powers thatwere denied to the ProphetMuhammad.What makesthis case unusualhowever,is not the accusations, but that opponents of Ibn Arabi took recourse to thePeople's Assembly, a non-religiousbody, in order to accomplishwhat they hadbeen unable to do throughal-Azharitself, namely, to suppress religious ideaswhich they believed to be heretical.'3

Apparently,al-Bahrawi's olein the affairwas to requestaninvestigationandto see that the properrecommendationswere made.He clearlyhadthe supportofthe Committee'schairman,al-SayyidAli al-Sayyid, who maintainedthat evensupportersof Ibn Arabi had forbadereadinghis books which would only lead

such. See hisautobiography, l-Hamdu illahhadhahayati(Cairo,1976).His son Muni'statedthathisfatherapprovedof Ibn Arabi'sFutuhat;Muni'Abd al-HalimMahmud,"Ibn Arabi . . . wa Majlisal-Shaab,"al-Ahram,Feb. 25, 1979,p. 12. Also see MichaelGilsenan,Recognizing slam(New York,1983),pp. 230-231,243.12. Al-Utayfi, p. 11,and Abdal-Qadir l-Bahrawi,"La tazalimuMajlisal-Shaab, al-Ahram,Mar.4, 1979, p. 11.13. See al-Ahram,Feb. 23, 1979, p. 13,andal-Akhbar,Mar. 2, p. 3; Mar. 16, p. 3, and Mar.23, p. 3. Havingwrittenor editednearlya dozenworks on Sufismalone, the Shaykhal-Azhar,Abdal-HalimMahmud,was not about to let Ibn Arabi'santi-Sufi pponentshave theirway;see n. 11.OnewriternotedthatunderMahmud'sdirectorship, he Sufi program t al-Azharhadflourishedand thatSufiwritings-and particularlyhoseof IbnArabi-were readilyavailable;Abd al-AzimAli, "Hurriyatal-fikrwa-al-saytara l-diniya,"al-Ahram,Mar. 1, 1979,p. 11. Dr. Mahmuddied in Octoberof 1978,andperhaps his encouragedopponentsof Ibn Arabito presstheircase in the Assembly.

466



7/17

people astray. Al-Bahrawi'smotives and those of the Committeemay have beensincerely religious, but their comments on the issue reveal that they had onlyscant knowledgeof Ibn Arabi and his doctrines,and most of that was based onhearsay. Interestingly, the reason supportersof the ban most often cited indefense of the resolutionwas the vaguenotion that the FutuhatconfusedMuslimsand caused them to doubttheirreligiousbeliefs.Also importantwas the absence of anti-modernist nd anti-westernrhetoriccharacteristic of contemporaryIslamic fundamentalism. One cannot accepttherefore, the argument put forward by the New YorkTimes that "Muslimfundamentalists in Parliament pushed through the ban. . .," which is simplistic ifnot sensationalist.14This is not to deny thatconservative-not fundamentalist-religiousthinkershad a hand in the matter,for as we have seen they did. But it isquite possible that the action taken by al-Bahrawiand the Committeederivedfrom more politicalthanreligious designs.Religiousissues have alwaysbeen importantn politicalaffairs n Egypt, andin recent years there has been the perception,whether valid or not, thatreligiousconservatismis of increasingmass appeal. A politiciandesiringto maintainorstrengthenhis support may espouse conservative dogma, but he must do socarefullyfor fear of alienatingotherconflictingelements.Inthis light,the banningof the Futuhatmay have been an irresistible nvitationto show one's supportofIslam while not offendinganyone, and at a glance, who woulddisagree?Most ofthe Christianminoritywould not care, and the vast majorityof Muslims knewlittle or nothingaboutthis mystic who had lived andwrittenover seven hundredyears ago. Finally, as if to insure that the controversywould be minimized, therecommendationscould be introducedat an opportune ime, at the end of a longand weary session after the oppositionhadgone.

For the samereasons, the Sadatadministrationmayhave takenadvantageofthe situation,for the governmenthadalreadyforwarded he Committee'srecom-mendationsto the Ministryof Culture.If this was the case, one could agree withthe Times'descriptionof IbnArabi as "a bizarrecasualty of such studiedpiety."Likewise, Sadat's calls for the promulgationof the sharia and higherwages forreligiouspersonnelwereovertures o conservativeelements as he soughtreligiouslegitimationfor his rule and policies. The Assembly had also supportedtheseproposals.5

Whilethe precisemotives for the banningresolutionmaynever be known, itis clear thatboth the governmentand the Assemblywere caughtoff guardby thecries of protestandindignationromreligiousscholars, laymen,and ournalistsas14. "EgyptiansFuriousabouta Ban of 12thCenturyMystic's Work," TheNew YorkTimes,Mar. 15, 1979,p. 16. The anonymousarticlecontained naccurate nformation nd an abundanceofsimplisticanalysisused for dramaticeffect.15. Ibid. Also see al-Ahram,Feb. 9, 1979, p. 1, and Feb. 14, 1979,p. 2.

467



8/17

this religious disputebecamea public politicaldebate. Withsurprisingboldness,critics of the resolution took the Assembly to task for violatingthe freedoms ofthoughtand speech, for exceedingits authorityandexpertise,andfor meddling nstrictly religiousaffairsand obstructing he transmissionof the Islamicheritage.The Egyptiandailiestoo, exhibitingmarked ndependence rom the government'sline, regularlyprintededitorials and letters which severely criticized the Assem-bly and its resolutionparticularlyover the issue of censorship.

Many opponents of the February15 resolution believed that the People'sAssembly hadencroachedon the basic humanrightsthat it was sworn to uphold.This was analarming ituation,particularlyo those who hadexperiencedmarshallaw andcensorship.Perhaps he most thoroughanalysisof the evils of censorshipwas the editorial, "A Word of Caution on a Serious Issue," written by Dr.Husayn Nassar, a notedliterarycriticandprofessorof Arabicat the UniversityofCairo.16Leavingthe contents of the Futuhatto be arguedby religiousexperts,Dr.Nassar concentrated on the "greed and irresponsibility"of censorship. Herecalledthe situationduring 1973,when censorshipwas imposedbecause of theOctoberWar.At first, only militarymatters were censored,but then censorshipextended its grasp to include morals and the intellectual legacy left by pastgenerations.

Another line of attack on the banningresolutioninvolving censorship andfreedom of expression, was well represented by the opinions of al-AhramcolumnistFaruqJuwaydal7 ndthe editorialpositionsof al-Akhbar's eligionpageJaridat al-Jum'a.18Their editorialsemphasized he needfor anopen dialogueandexchange of ideas to promote a healthy and creative intellectualenvironment.They viewed extremismanddogmatismas diseases infecting today's world withthe unwholesomebelief that one's own opinionor positionwas alone right.Thisdogmatism,and not the specializedwritingsof a thirteenth enturySufi, posed thegreatest dangerto youngergenerations.

"Open dialogue"and "intellectualconfrontation"were the answersofferedby a majorityof the resolution's critics-religious and nonreligiousalike-toproblems involving differing deas and viewpoints. Censorship and suppressionwould only obscure the issues and hinderconstructiveproblem solving. In factbanninga work couldhave an oppositeeffect. Onecritic broughtattentionto thisirony by pointingout thatprior to the controversy, the Futuhat was known onlyto a minisculefew, but after the publicdebateover the ban, the book had becomefamous. He wrote that a friend of his was ovejoyed by the resolution since it

16. Husayn Nassar, "Kalimahhadiah i qadiyaazima," al-Ahram,Feb. 26, 1979, p. 13.17. FaruqJuwayda, "Musadirat l-afkar,"al-Ahram,Feb. 25, 1979, p. 12; "Kalimaakhira,"al-Ahram,Mar. 1, 1979, p. 11,and "Sawt al-aql,"al-Ahram,Mar.6, 1979, p. 11.18. al-Akhbar,Mar. 2, 1979,p. 3; "Bi al-hiwar .. wa laysa bi tayyal-kutub,"al-Akhbar,Mar.16, 1979,p. 3, and "Bi al-iqna'wa laysa bi al-ikhda',"al-Akhbar,Mar. 23, 1979,p. 3.

468



9/17

would radicallyincreaseIbn Arabi's popularity n Egypt and abroad.'9Still anothercriticism of censoringthis book and of censorshipin general,

focused on the question of expertise and authority. The Assembly and itsresolution were blastedon this point. Dr. Nassar wondered how the Assembly,half of whose delegates by law were fellahin and workers, could possibly bequalified o ruleon a thirteenthcentury mysticalwork,or for thatmatter,on anyspecialized religious topic. Many critics asked if any delegate had read theFutuhat,not to mentionunderstood t or its voluminouscommentaries.Al-Ahramartist Salah Jahin, drew a cartoon depicting a delegate burningthe Futuhatbecause it was based on zandaqa (heresy), althoughthe delegate did not knowwhat zandaqa meant. Othercriticsstressed thatthe Assemblyhad no authority oban a book, this being an executive, not a legislativepriority.20

Al-Bahrawi, Sufi Abu Talib, and some other delegates, answered thesecharges by claiming hattheresolutionwas advisoryandin no way bindingon, theSadat government. Further, they pointed out that the ban would only betemporaryuntila decision was reachedby the qualified nvestigatingcommittee.One delegate, however, bemoanedthe sluggishnessof such investigationswhichoften became mired in trivialities, and another delegate protested that therecommendationswere phrasedin such a way as to appearas finalized decrees.

Supportersof the resolutiontriedto divertcriticismby placingblame on theEgyptian NationalBook Organizational-Hayaal-Amma 1ial Kitab al-Misriya),forpublishing he new edition of the Futuhatwithoutal-Azhar'sconsent,and withthe tax-payers' money. The resolution's sponsor, al-Bahrawi,proclaimed al-Azhar,and not the SupremeCouncil for Supportof the Arts, Letters, and SocialSciences, whichhadapproved he publicationof the new edition,to be the expertandjudge in this matter.But Dr. SaadDarwish,director-general or distributionat the Egyptian National Book Organization,was quick to point out that theorganizationhad never been required o consult al-Azhar.21

Bahrawi'sdefense of his resolution crumbleddue to a fundamentalcontra-diction in the Committee'srecommendations.For while he and the Committeedeclaredal-Azharthe authority n religious affairs,they madetheir decision on areligious work and had taken action without first consulting that institutionthemselves. It was not surprising, herefore,that religious scholarsand officialsreactedagainstthis threatto their influence and authority.

19. Abd al-AzimRamadan,"Hurriyatal-fikrbayn al-ibahawa al-musadira,"al-Jumhuriya,Mar. 17, 1979, p. 5, and MahmudKamal, "Letters," al-Ahram,Mar. 12, 1979, p. 7.20. al-Ahram,Mar.3, 1979,and Feb. 25, p. 12; Feb. 26, p. 13; Feb. 27, p. 11; Feb. 28, p. 11;Mar.9, p. 11, andal-Akhbar,Mar.7, 1979, p. 12.21. Al-Bahrawi,p. 11; al-Utayfi, p. 11; "Majlis al-Shaabyuqarrir . .," al-Ahram,Mar. 6,1979, p. 11, and Ahmad al-Baathi,"al-Kitab alladhiman' Majlisal-Shaab tadwilahu:al-Futuhatal-Makkiya,"al-Ahram,Feb. 23, 1979, p. 13.

469



10/17

Dr. Muni Abd al-HalimMahmud,an al-AzharUniversity professor and sonof the former Shaykh al-Azhar, criticized the Assembly for ruling on matters ofwhich it was ignorant.He noted that the Assembly was unaware hat al-Azharhadapproved and sponsored publication of studies on Ibn Arabi and his thought.Mahmudalso claimedthatresolutions ike thatof February15wouldonly spreadconfusionamongthe scholarly community,for if this was the Assembly's stancevis-a-vis one of the great works of the Islamic heritage, what would it do withlesser works? Did the Assembly think it could treat the scholarly communityandprofessors of philosophyin particular, ike childrenand ban a work which theformer Shaykh al-Azhar,Abd al-HalimMahmud,had approved? Further, Dr.Mahmudaskedif the Assemblywas awareof the positionof al-Azhar's acultyonthis book, and notjust thatof al-Azhar'sadministration.22

Another religiousscholar, HasanaynMuhammadMakhluf,a formermuftiofEgypt andpresidentof the Society for the Advancementof the IslamicMission,(Jamiyatal-Nuhud bi al-Daawa al-Islamiya), took a more traditional egalisticapproachto the resolution. Since the Assembly had not presented substantialevidence tojustify theiraction, nor even a clearexplanation,the resolutionwas,therefore, "a great dangerand a hazardousprecedent." In the former mufti'sview, the only correctcourse of action wouldbe to forma learned committeeofsenior scholarsfrom al-Azharwhich wouldthen properlyresolve the issue.23

In another critic's opinion, the flippancywith which the Assembly hadignored the religious scholars was greaterthan that of the absolutist Mamluksultans.The writer Abd al-Mun'imShumays suggestedthat an incidentinvolvingthe mystical poet Ibn al-Farid(d. 1235) paralleledthe Ibn Arabi situation. Ibnal-Faridwas accusedafter his death of heresies similar o those leveledagainstIbnArabi. The charges were brought before the sultan Qaitbay (d. 1495), whorequesteda decisionfrom a mufti.Themuftiexonerated hepoet andcensuredhiscritics. If an absolutist monarchneededa learnedopinionin order to decide suchan issue, then how could the People's Assembly, a democratic nstitution,not dothe same?

Like Shumays,a numberof religious scholars, includingsome criticalof IbnArabi, deploredthe censureor suppressionof any religiouswork.They declaredcensorshipto be un-Islamic,since at its zenith Islamic civilization had alwaystoleratedmultipleviews and opinionsin accordancewith the Quran.The Quranhad establisheda clear precedent by refutingthe polytheists' claims with soundevidence and irrefutableproofs. The Quranhad not suppressedthe disgracefulcharges leveled against the Prophet Muhammadwhich claimed him to be

22. Muni' Abd al-HalimMahmud,"IbnArabi," p. 12.23. HasanynMuhammadMakhluf,"Ta'qibala kitabIbnArabi," al-Ahram,Mar. 13, 1979,p.14.

470



11/17

possessed or a soothsayer. Rather, it disprovedthem with ample evidence andreasonable arguments.24

Some critics, perhapssensitive to conservativeforces at work, stated that thereligious committees at al-Azhartoo, should refrainfrom denouncing a work.They argued that the idea of an Islamicconsensus (ijma'), was fictional, Islambeingdividedinto numerous schools and sects. All too often, the suppressionofcertain beliefs andthe endorsementof otherswere based on politics, not wisdom.These critics cited examplesfromthe early yearsof Islamto demonstrate hat hadreligious conservative trends had their way, the Quran mightnever have beencollected, while manyof the existingtraditionsof the Prophetwould surelyhavebeen lost. The Islamicheritage hen, of whichtheFutuhatal-Makkiyawas a part,must be preservedand spread,andnot suppressed,if futuregenerationswere todiscover theirreligious heritageand Islamic civilization survive and flourish.25

In addition to protesting censorship, those religious scholars and laymeninterested in Ibn Arabi and his work, also defended his beliefs, particularlyhisdoctrine of the "unity of being" (wahdat al-wujud).Dr. Muni Abd al-HalimMahmud n his article entitled, "Concerning he Issue of the Unity of Being,"unequivocallystatedthat Ibn Arabi neverembracedpantheism,which maintainsthat God and creation are one. Nevertheless, he noted, narrow-minded riticshave been content with false allegationsand deceptions since they are bent ondestroyingthe adversaryand not on finding he truth.Being ignorantof mysticalexperienceand its doctrines,Ibn Arabi'scriticshave confused Sufi thought withtheologyandphilosophy, doinga disservice to all. Anotherdefenderof Ibn Arabiably refuted the charge that Ibn Arabi's doctrine of the divine names waspolytheism, by stressingIbn Arabi'sallegorical ntent. Still others defended IbnArabi's personal religious integrityand his scrupulousconduct.26

Questionsof humanrights,state andreligiousauthority,and interpreting hepast, cast doubts on the soundness of the Assembly's resolution, but a simpler,thoughno less devastating ssue also took its toll, relevancy. The thoughtthat thePeople's Assembly was debatingthe merits of a specialized thirteenth centurymysticalworkwas startling o some andinfuriating o others. MuhammadFahmiAbd al-Latif stated the matter:

24. MustafaMahmud,al-Ahram,Mar.27, 1979,p. 11. Muhammad ahmiAbd al-Latif,"IbnArabi fi Majlisal-Shaab,"al-Akhbar,Mar.7, 1979, p. 12, and "Bi al-Iqma',"p. 3.25. Ali, "Hurriyat," p. 11; Nassar, p. 13; MuhammadBayyumi al-Gharib, "Letters,"al-Ahram,Mar.5, 1979, p. 11. Also see Juwayda'sarticlescited in n. 17and Abdal-GhafurAhmadBakhit,"al-Islamwa al-turath,"al-Ahram,Mar. 1, 1979, p. 11.26. Muni'Abd al-HalimMahmud,"Hawlaqadiyatwahdatal-wujud,"al-Ahram,Mar.1, 1979,p. 11.and Ahmadal-Baathi,ed., "Ibn Arabi .. fi mizanal-din,"al-Ahram,Mar. 9, 1979,p. 15. Asthese defenses and theirauthorsdemonstrate, omeEgyptianMuslimsof the educatedstrataare stillattracted o a theosophicalSufism whichmay providea meaningfulnterpretation f life compatiblewith a modem intellectualworld view.

471



12/17

Theamazinghings firstof all,that hePeople'sAssembly oesnothave hedutytojudgeaperson'sslam r nfidelity,nd econdly,hat heAssembly nowsnothingabout his bookwhich axestheunderstandingndstudyof theulama,andthirdly,thatIbnArabis nota contemporaryssue nor s hisbookal-Futuhatl-Makkiyacontemporaryegalcase,such hat heman houldbeanobjectofcensureoday,andthathisbooksshouldbe censored ndbanned.27Even those individualswho believedthe Futuhatto be important,wondered

why the Assembly would ban it instead of the many volumes of Lenin orpornographicworks which were widely disseminatedand easily hadin Cairo.28In the opinionof the majorityof the critics, the Assembly was squanderingvaluabletime and resources on the Ibn Arabi controversy, creatingan embar-rassment at home and abroad. Dr. Nimat Ahmad Fuad, former professor ofliteratureat Ain Shams University, asked, "Has the People's Assembly broughtan end to the country's problemsso that it can devote itself to banningbooks?"Afterlistinga numberof problemsstillplaguingEgypt, fromstolen antiquities ohomelessness and starvation,Dr. Fuad concludedthat any society in which theindividual s oppressed, is backwardeven if thatsociety possess greatwealthandthe latest technology. But if this is so, what of Egypt, which has neither?29

Themost succinct statementon the questionof relevance appeared n a letterto al-Akhbar.Deploringthe utter waste of time in debatingIbn Arabi'sbooks inthe Assembly, the writerrecalleda proverb:al-fadiyaamal qadi, "The idle manacts as judge." 30 Finally,the absurdityof the entirecontroversywas humorouslydepictedin a cartoonpublished n al-Akhbar.A groupof delegatesis gathered nfrontof the AssemblybuildingdiscussingIbnArabi.In the foreground,a harrieddelegatesays, "Whatarethe allocationof housingandfood suppliesthat you talkto me about them now? Wake up people! Now we are involved in a mostimportantcrisis about Ibn Arabi's books!" In the background,many delegatesmumble Ibn Arabi's name while others say, "It is said that they will removesubsidiesfrom Ibn Arabi!"and, "Some want to remove his immunity!"Then anaive person asks, "WillbrotherIbnArabi attendthe next session?"'31By March5, 1979, 18 editorialshad been publishedon the controversy,andthree of these were translated n the Englishlanguagenewspaper, The EgyptianGazette.Pressurewas quicklybuildingagainst he resolution,andmanydelegatesof the Assembly were uneasy. On that day in the Assembly's morningsession,some delegatesvoicedtheirdisapprovalof the February15resolution,contendingthat it had been improperly introduced to the Assembly by al-Sayyid Alial-Sayyid,who had overseen the resolutionboth in committeeand in the session

27. Abd al-Latif, p. 12.28. MustafaMahmud,p. 11.29. Nimat AhmadFuad, "Ja'adawral-fikrbaadaal-turath!"al-Ahram,Feb. 28, 1979, p. 11.30. UsamaSayyid Ahmad, "Letters," al-Akhbar,Mar.10, 1979,p. 8.31. Al-Akhbar,Mar.7, 1979,p. 12.

472



13/17

of its presentation.Further,the oppositionhad withdrawnearlierin the sessionand so, had not seen the recommendations.Althougha spokesmanfor the Sadatgovernmentprotestedfurtherdiscussion of the Ibn Arabiissue, he too, criticizedthe form of the Committee'sreportwhich others believed had been phrasedinsuch a way as to appear adopted.32Then Abd al-Munimal-Sawi of the National DemocraticParty spoke up,callingthe delegatesto confrontthe test before them.They were sworn to upholdhumanfreedoms,but now because of the resolution,many people perceived theAssembly as an oppressor. He was shocked when he returnedfrom businessabroad, to read the recommendation o ban Ibn Arabi that the Assembly hadpassed in his absence. He declared suchattemptsto disparagea person'sfaith tobe doomed to failure; great care should be taken before suspecting anyone ofheresyor atheism.Afterreiteratinghe fact thatthe Futuhathad been previouslypublishedin Egypt with the approvalof Azharitescholars, and other experts,al-Sawiemphasizedthatthe work had been intendedonly for an intellectualeliteand so, posed no threat to the Muslim masses. The book should, therefore,beaccepted and the resolution sent back to a committee of experts.33On the heels of al-Sawi's eloquent presentation,the government's spokes-man, Ahmad Fuad Abd al-Aziz, assured the Assembly the Sadatadministrationabsolutely supported he freedomof opinionwhichhe called, "the hallmarkof theSadatera." He addedthat the Futuhat issue which had stirredup oppositioninthe public opinion,hadalreadybeenturnedoverby the Ministryof Culture o theappropriateauthorities, foremost of which was the Academy of Islamic Re-search.34

Then, SufiAbuTalib concluded the debateby stressingthat the controversyhad touched upon the honor of the Assembly which, in spite of that, wouldpersevereas "the protectorof freedom andthoughtandthe guardianof society'svalues." Admitting hatthe Assemblylacked the expertise in the Ibn Arabiaffair,the presidentof the Assembly defended its action as being only temporaryandadvisory. Furthermore,he investigationhadstemmedfrom received complaintsand a delegate's request which the Assembly had an obligation to consider.Although the Assembly had followed the precedent for investigation set byal-Azhar when dealing with Ibn Arabi's Quranic commentary, due to theconflictingopinions regarding he Futuhat,the February15resolution shouldbereturnedto the committees on religiousand culturalaffairsfor additionalstudyanda decision. TheAssembly agreedto thisproposal,bowing to public pressure,embarrassed,and perhaps, chastenedby their hasty and ill-consideredaction.35

32. "Majlisal-Shaabyuqarrir . .," p. 11,and TheEgyptianGazette,Feb. 28, 1976,p. 6, andMar. 7, p. 3.33. "Majlis . . .," p. 11.34. Al-Akhbar,Mar. 6, 1979,pp. 1-2, andal-Jumhuriya,Mar.6, 1979, p. 1.35. "Majlis . . .," p. 11, and al-Jumhuriya,Mar. 6, 1979, p. 11.

473



14/17

Ibn Arabi and his al-Futuhatal-Makkiyawere not discussed on the Assemblyfloor again,and in the next few weeks the Assembly would endeavor to show itsconcern for human rights by supportingPresidents Sadat and Carterin theirefforts to promote peace in the Middle East.

Four days after the March5 session, the Ibn Arabicontroversy was officiallyresolved. An al-Ahram article entitled, "Ibn Arabion the Scales of Religion,"featured the opinions of Dr. H. Hashim, secretary-generalof the Academy ofIslamic Research, and those of the grand Shaykhof the Sufiorders, MuhammadMahmudal-Satuhi.The Academyhad been asked by the Assembly to render adecision on Ibn Arabiand his writings,and Dr. Hashimpromptlyanswered thatall works, includingmystical ones, which were a partof the Islamicheritagemustnot be censored or suppressed.Rather,a soundanalysis shouldbe appendedtothem to distinguishthose ideas which conformto widely held Islamicteachings,from those whichwere debatableor unacceptable.Dr. Hashimdeclaredthis to bethe Academy's policy vis-a-vis all classical Islamicwritings,whetherthey wereQuranic commentaries,works on jurisprudence,or Sufi treatises. Althoughthesecretary-general isagreedwith Ibn Arabion certaindoctrinalpoints, he saw noreason to ban his Futuhat or other writings.36

Al-Satuhi (d. 1983),who was also presidentof the Supreme Sufi Council,vigorously defended Ibn Arabi as the greatest mystical theorist in Islam. Hisdifficult iterarystyle andexpressionhad sometimes caused critics to brandhim aheretic, "but the truthis that ... Ibn Arabiwas an Islamic scholarunitingthemethodsof the legists, theologians,and logicians,and there is no doubt thathewas amongthe best monotheists."Anothermemberof the SupremeSufiCouncil,Dr. Abu al-Wafaal-Taftazani,professorof Islamicphilosophyand Sufism at theUniversityof Cairo, supportedal-Satuhi'sclaims and elaboratedon the sourcesofmisunderstanding nd criticismof Ibn Arabi'sdoctrines.Those who didnot sharethe mystic's intuitive vision of the Absolute and Its manifestations,could neverfully comprehendand appreciateIbn Arabi's accomplishments.Although IbnArabimay havegone to extremesin a few places, "he nevertheless,remainsoneof the high points of Islamicand humanthought.37The two endorsementsof IbnArabiby membersof the SupremeSufiCouncilwere probablyas importantas that by the secretary-general f the Academy ofIslamicResearch.The Counciltoo, was anofficialorganization,beingestablishedin 1978 by the Sadat administrationo oversee and regulate the activities of thevarious Sufi brotherhoods,and to encourage proper Islamic doctrineand prac-tice.38Theirsupportfor Ibn Arabithen, togetherwith the acceptanceof him by

36. Al-Baathi,ed., "IbnArabi ... fi mizanal-din,"Mar.9, 1979, p. 15.37. Ibid.38. The SupremeSufi Council s regulatedby the rules listed in Law #118 (1976), concerningthe Sufiorders; he executivedecreefinalizinghe Councilwas #45 (1978).See al-Tasawwuf l-Islami,I(May, 1979):26-27.

474



15/17

the Academy,gave the Futuhat certification romreligiousauthoritiesandprovedgovernment acquiescence on the matter. Not surprisingly,the last substantialstatementon the Ibn Arabiaffairappeared n the first issue (May, 1979), of themagazine al-Tasawwufal-Islami, the official publicationof the Supreme SufiCouncil.The article was written by Dr. Muhammad Kamal Jaafar, head of theDepartment of Philosophy at the University of Cairo. He had delayed inexpressing his opinion, he said, until the controversyblew over as he knew itwould when the press had tired of it. He was confidentthat the Assembly onlydesiredthe best interests of the peopleand had not actedhypocritically.Then, nodoubtechoingthe concernsof the governmentandsponsorsof the resolution,Dr.Jaafarlaunched into a discussion on the negative aspects of criticism. Whilecriticismis a vital means for establishing he truth andfurtheringprogress,

... it can be turnedinto an incurabledisease which spreads throughout ntellectualand cultural life due to schisms, disparity, exhaustion, and disintegrationof thatcommunity n which this disease has spread.39Dr. Jaafarmaintainedthat throughoutIslamic history, some Muslims hadspenttheirlives in disputationandname-calling,andso had falleninto the handsof Islam's enemies, who cleverly aroused controversy to further weaken theMuslimcommunity.In a cry for Islamicunityandtolerance,Dr. Jaafardeclared"openness" (infitah),and mutualunderstanding etweenpeople and cultures, as

the properclimate for reasonto flourishas it exposedthe false andestablishedthetruth.Turning o the Futuhat,Dr. Jaafarpraised t as a definitivepart of the Islamic

heritage,but as a work meantonly for the greatestthinkers. If it was too dense,and misunderstoodby lesser minds, it was no fault of Ibn Arabinor should thebook be suppressed for that. Certainly,Ibn Arabi was not infalliblebut then,neither were his critics. Nevertheless, disagreementandcontroversy n this case,as in all others, shouldbe resolvedby Islam's truth and sound view point. Withthisvaguebutpositiveconclusion,Dr. Jaafarhopedto putanend to the Ibn Arabicontroversyand re-establishcommunalharmony.Thehostilitiessubsidedandpeacewas restored,but the battle forIbn Arabi'sal-Futuhatal-Makkiya eft a numberof engagingconsiderations. First of all, theoriginsof the Committee'sinvestigationand its recommendationsmay reveal astrategy by religiousconservativesto enlist politiciansin their ranks in order tomanipulatethe democraticpolitical process and to suppress ideas they deemheretical. Thisplanwas furtheredby the Sadatadministration nd some members

39. MuhammadKamalJaafar, "Maghaliq l-Futuhat," al-Tasawwuf al-Islami, l(May 1979):51. The tone andcontentof this articleprobably nsured hat it would be well receivedby the Sadatadministration.

475



16/17

of the Assembly who may havecollaborated n hopes of politicalprofits romwhatthey viewed as a harmless,but symbolic issue. The government,however, wasable to protect itself from chargesof usurpingreligious prerogativesby referringthe matterto the "proper"authoritieswhen the controversyarose and beforetheMarch 5 congressionaldebate. Therefore, the People's Assembly and not thegovernment,took the heat for the recommendations,and it is possible that thegovernmentscreened its activities and measuredpublic opinionat the Assembly'sexpense.

Secondly, it is significantthat the issue was debated in the press at allfollowingSadat's 1977crackdownonjournalistic reedom.From 1971until1977,such confrontationsbetween the Assembly and the press were frequent,as eachinstitutionsought to speak for the people and guardtheir interests. Both sidescarefullywatchedthe otherlest someoneoverstepthe limitsof his responsibilitiesand encroach on others. The press was broughtmore into line with the govern-ment's opinionsafter the riots of January1977,40but the Ibn Arabicontroversyshows that public dissent was still possible. Most of the editorials were anti-resolution, accusing the Assembly of censorship, oppression, ignorance, orincompetence,and as the controversygrew, the potentialfor politicalembarrass-mentincreased.True,the Sadat administrationwas nevernamed,not to mentioncriticized, in a single editorial, but it was known that the government hadsupportedthe resolution. But critics persisted, and the secular and religiousscholarsandlaymenwho expressedtheiropinionsin the press, were a key factorin the resolution's retraction and in maintainingreasonableguidelines for thepublication,of recognized religious works. The critical editorials regularly ap-pearedin the state-rundailies with no signs of interference,and so the Egyptianpressretainedsome of the freedomof expressionthat it hadbrieflyenjoyedin theearly 1970s.41Thirdly,editorialsby religiousscholars andlaymen clearly demonstrate hata tolerantand liberalIslam is still alive and well, a fact that may surprisethosecontent with popular depictionsof Islam as a monolithic,fundamentalistmove-ment bent on the suppressionof individual reedoms. The numberof articlesbyMuslimscholars, officials,andreligious aymenwho opposed censoring religiousworks and the legislation of a creed far exceeded those of their opponents.Evenantagonistsof Ibn Arabi arguedagainst the ban, while other religious leaderssoughtto distinguishbetween thepositionsof al-Azhar he institutionand those ofits faculty.42What is more, manydesiredto maintain-not dissolve-the separa-

40. Concerning he pressduring he Sadat administrationee MarkCooper,The Transforma-tion of Egypt (Baltimore,MD: The JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1982),pp. 171-175.41. Editorialsappeared o frequentlyn al-Ahram hat they wereoften grouped ogetherunderthe heading,"Ibn Arabi fi Majlisal-Shaab,"("Ibn Arabi n the People's Assembly").42. Of the 39 articles and editorialsprinted n the Egyptianpress on the Ibn Arabi ssue, fivewere accountsof parliamentaryroceedings,32 opposedthe ban, and of these 12specificallydefended

476



17/17

tion between politicalandreligiousauthority.Perhaps he resolution'ssupporterswanted to enforce doctrinal conformityand give the reigns of authority to anIslamic elite, butif so, they werefirmlyresisted by otherswho believedinthe laityof all believers.Finally, this controversy proves that Ibn Arabi and his thought are stillvolatile material over seven hundredyears after the mystic's death. Spiriteddefenses of his moral characterand mystical ideas by contemporaryEgyptianscholarsrepresentingal-Azharandgovernmentuniversities, togetherwith lettersfrom individualswho had read and appreciatedhis work, attest to Ibn Arabi'srelevance to Muslimsin Egypt today. Perhapshis creative mystical philosophywill help to revitalize a people and theirculture, perhapsnot, but the importanceof his ideas to others demandsour attentioneven if mysticismseems strangetoouLr wn worldview, which is no less ephemeral.

Ibn Arabiand his work. There were six pieces criticalof him on at least some points, but only two ofthemsupported he ban.

477

Documents

BAN ON IBN ARABI WORKS IN EGYPT 1970S