THE SUFI POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS

	(A paper read at the 1970 annual meeting of the American Oriental
Society in Baltimore, Maryland, and updated in December 2006)

	The Sufi position on the existence of universals cannot be discussed
except as part of the problem of universals in Islamic thought as a whole. I
should like, therefore, by way of introduction, to summarize the positions of
the various Islamic schools on this question.

	Muslim works on logic distinguish between three kinds of universal:
the natural universal (al-kulli al-tabi`i), the logical universal (al-kulli
al-mantiqi), and the mental universal (al-kulli al-`aqli).  The difference
between each of these is usually explained as follows:

	If one says for example, that humanity is a universal (al-insan kulli)
three concepts are involved: first, the concept of humanity as it is in itself
(min hayth huwa huwa), without regard to whether it is universal or
particular. This is the absolute quiddity or essence (al-mahiyah al-mutlaqah)
unconditioned by anything (la bi-shart).  It is known as the natural
universal; second, the concept of universality, which is predicated of
humanity. This is known as the logical universal; and third, the combination
of these two concepts, that is humanity plus universality, or humanity insofar
as universality is predicated of it. This is called the abstracted quiddity
(al-mahiyah al-mujarradah), or the quiddity conditioned by nothing (bi-shart
la) rather than unconditioned by anything (la bi-shart). This is known as the
mental universal.  It was generally agreed that both the logical universal and
the mental universal existed only in the mind. What was in question was the
external existence of the natural universal.(1)

	In the histories of Western philosophy the problem of universals is
usually traced back to the passage in Porphyry's Isagoge in which he states
that he will "refuse to say concerning genera and species whether they
subsist, or whether, subsisting, they are corporeal or incorporeal, and
whether they are separated from sensibles or placed in sensibles and in accord
with them."(2)

	Although no one as far as I know, has traced the controversy over
universals in Islam to this passage in Porphyry's Isagoge, it is, however,
fairly clear that the various positions taken by Muslim thinkers with respect
to universals do, in fact, correspond to the four alternative answers which
can be given to Porphyry's question. These alternatives are, first, that
universals exist in the mind only and have no existence in the external world;
second, that universals exist outside the mind as corporeal substances; third,
that universals exist outside the mind not as corporeal substances but as
incorporeal substances placed in sensible substances; and fourth, that
universals exist outside the mind as incorporeal substances but separated from
sensible substances rather than placed in them.

	Of these four alternatives the third corresponds to the position of
the Islamic philosophers in the tradition of Ibn Sina who asserted that
universals existed externally as incorporeal substances within particular
sensible objects. They argued that any particular substance, such as an
individual man, is made up of the universal, in this case humanity, plus
individuation.  And since the individual man is known to exist and the
universal,"humanity", is a part of the existent individual man, it also must
exist, although it is not perceived by the senses except as individuated.(3)

	The first alternative, on the other hand, represents the position of
the so-called "modern" theologians, such as Qutb al-Din al-Razi and
al-Taftazani, who rejected the preceding argument of the philosophers
maintaining that if universals were a part of each particular then it would be
impossible to predicate a universal of its particulars because the universal,
being a part of each particular, would have to exist prior to the particular
and thus would differ from the particular with respect to existence.  Since
identity of existence is necessary for predication, the universal could not be
predicated of its particulars, which is absurd.  A wall, for example, is part
of a house but exists prior to the house and therefore cannot be predicated of
it. Furthermore, if universals, which are single entities, existed as parts of
particulars they could then exist with contradictory qualities and in
different places at one and the same time. The theologians therefore concluded
that universals existed only in the mind.(4)

	Porphyry's fourth alternative represents the position of the Ishraqis
and other Platonists, who maintained that universals existed externally as
incorporeal substances, called muthul, which were not placed in particulars
but existed in the non-material world of ideas, or `alam al-mithal, completely
separated from the world of sense.(5)

	These, then, are three of the positions taken by Muslim thinkers in
the medieval period on the question of the existence of universals. Let us
turn now to the position of the wahdat al-wujud school of Sufism on this
question.  One might well wonder at first why the Sufis, who base their
doctrine not on reason but on mystical experience, should find it necessary to
take a position with respect to universals.  The reason becomes apparent,
however, when one considers that the central doctrine of wahdat al-wujud
Sufism is that God is Absolute Existence (al-wujud al-mutlaq), and that,
according to the logicians, any absolute quiddity is by definition a natural
universal.  This means that God is a natural universal, and, if God is to
exist outside the mind, then natural universals must also exist in some way
outside the mind.

	We consequently find that during the ninth century of the hijrah in
particular Sufi writers frequently took up the question of natural universals
and attempted to refute the arguments of the theologians against the external
existence of universals.  Shams al-Din al-Fanari (d. 834), for example, deals
with this question in his commentary on al-Qunawi's (d. 672) Miftah al-Ghayb,
(6) as does al-Jami (d. 898) in his al-Durrah al-Fakhirah(7) and his Risalah
fi al-Wujud,(8) as well as al-Maha'imi (d. 835) in his Adillat al-Tawhid.(9)

	Although there was general agreement among Sufi writers that the
natural universal, Absolute Existence, did exist externally, there was some
question as to which of the three alternative positions asserting the external
existence of universals was most in harmony with Sufi doctrine as a whole. For
example, a cardinal belief of the wahdat al-wujud school was that particulars
and, in fact, the entire physical universe did not exist externally but
existed only in the mind.  Thus the Sufis could not adopt the position of the
philosophers with respect to the external existence of natural universals
because that was based on the premiss that particulars really existed
externally. Consequently some Sufis turned to the Ishraqi position on
universals and made God a sort of Platonic mithal existing externally but
completely separated from particular material objects. This is the position
presented by the unknown author of the work entitled al-Muthul al-`Aqliyah
al-Aflatuniyah,(10) which was extensively quoted by al-Fanari in his
commentary on al-Qunawi's Miftah al-Ghayb in support of the view that Absolute
Existence existed externally.(11)

	According to Muhibb Allah al-Bihari (d. 1119) in a work on logic
called Sullam al-`Ulum, other Sufis adopted the position that universals
existed externally as sensible substances. The commentators on this work
explain that Absolute Existence, in the Sufi view, is the only real existent
and the only externally existing universal. Consequently all forms of
individuation (ta`ayyun), whether genera, species or particulars, exist only
in the mind, and what is perceived and sensed as the universe is in reality
nothing but Absolute Existence.  They further explain that this view is in
accord with the actual experience of many Sufis who are quoted as having said
that they never saw anything without seeing God in it.(12)

	Except for the fact that al-Bihari uses the word "sensible" rather
than "corporeal", this Sufi position seems to correspond almost exactly to the
second of Porphyry's four alternatives, namely, that universals are corporeal
substances.

                               END NOTES

1. See Ibn Sina, al-Shifa', al-Mantiq, al-Madkhal, pp. 65-72; al-Katibi,
al-Risalah al-Shamsiyah, pp. 7, 11; Majmu` Shuruh al-Shamsiyah, I, 289-294;
al-Urmawi, Matali` al-Anwar, p. 53.

2. See W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, pp. 422-430; Richard
McKeon, Selections from Medieval Philosphers, I, 91 (Boethius), 219
(Abailard); Porphyry, Isogoge, p. 1 (Greek text), p. 25 (Latin translation).

3. See Ibn Sina, al-Shifa', al-Ilahiyat, pp. 202-212.

4. See al-Razi, Qutb al-Din, Lawami` al-Asrar fi Sharh Matali` al-Anwar, pp.
53-56; al-Razi, Qutb al-Din, Risalah fi Tahqiq al-Kulliyat, MS Leiden Or. 
958(21), fols. 68b-69a; al-Taftazani, Sharh al-Shamsiyah, pp. 46-47;
al-Jurjani, Hashiyah `ala Sharh Matali` al-Anwar, pp. 134-138. 

5. See al-Suhrawardi, Hikmat al-Ishraq, pp. 92-96, 229-235, 154-164; Abu
Rayan, Usul al-Falsafah al-Ishraqiyah, pp. 187-208. 

6. See al-Fanari, Misbah al-Uns bayn al-Ma`qul wa-al-Mashhud fi Sharh Miftah
Ghayb al-Jam` wa-al-Wujud, p. 35. 

7. See al-Jami, al-Durrah al-Fakhirah, Cairo 1328, pp.  254-256; Tehran 1980,
pp. 6-8; The Precious Pearl, pp. 38-40. 

8. See al-Jami, Risalah fi al-Wujud, MS Yahuda 3872, fols. 25b-27b; al-Jami's
Treatise on Existence, pp. 239-242, 250-254.

9. See al-Maha'imi, Ajillat al-Ta'yid fi Sharh Adillat al-Tawhid, MS Yahuda
4601, Princeton University, fols. 7b-8a.

10. See al-Muthul al-`Aqliyah al-Aflatuniyah, pp. 119-145.

11. See al-Fanari, op. cit., pp. 182-189; also al-Maha'imi, op. cit., fols.
10a-10b. 

12. See Mubin, Muhammad, Mir'at al-Shuruh, pp. 165-166.  See also
al-Ghazali's, Ihya' `Ulum al-Din, I, 259, and his Miskkat al-Anwar, p. 63
(Gairdner trans. pp. 117-118).


                          LIST OF WORKS CITED

Abu Rayan, Muhammad `Ali, Usul al-Falsafah al-Ishraqiyah, Cairo, 1959.

al-Fanari, Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Hamzah, Misbah al-Uns bayn al-Ma`qul
wa-al-Mashhud fi Sharh Miftah Gayb al-Jam` wa-al-Wujud.  Tehran 1323.
(Commentary on Miftah al-Ghayb of Sadr al-Din al-Qunawi)

Gairdner, W. H. T., Al-Ghazzali's Mishkat Al-Anwar (``The Niche for Lights'').
A Translation with Introduction.  Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1952.  (A
reprint of the edition published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London 1924)

al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad, Mishkat al-Anwar.  Edited by Abu
al-`Ala `Afifi.  Cairo 1383/1964.

al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad, Mishkat al-Anwar.  Translated by
W. H. T. Gairdner.  Reprinted, Lahore 1952

al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad, Ihya' `Ulum al-Din.  Four
volumes.  Cairo 1352/1933.

Ibn Sina, Abu `Ali al-Husayn ibn `Abd Allah, al-Shifa', al-Ilahiyat.  Edited
by al-Ab Qanawati, Sa`id Zayid, Muhammad Yusuf Musa and Sulayman Dunya.  Two
volumes.  Cairo 1380/1960.

Ibn Sina, Abu `Ali al-Husayn ibn `Abd Allah, al-Shifa', al-Mantiq, al-Madkhal. 
Edited by al-Ab Qanawati, Mahmud al-Khudayri, and Fu'ad al-Ahwani.  Cairo
1371/1952.

al-Jami, Nur al-Din `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad, al-Durrah al-Fakhirah, Cairo,
1328.

al-Jami, Nur al-Din `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad, al-Durrah al-Fakhirah.  With the
Arabic commentary of `Abd al-Ghafur al-Lari and the Persian commentary of
`Imad al-Dawlah.  Edited by Nicholas Heer and A. Musavi Behbahani.  Wisdom of
Persia Series XIX.  Tehran 1980

al-Jami, Nur al-Din `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad, al-Durrah al-Fakhirah.
Translated by Nicholas Heer under the title The Precious Pearl.  Albany 1979.

al-Jami, Nur al-Din `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad, Risalah fi al-Wujud, MS Yahuda
3872, Robert Garrett Collection, Princeton University.

al-Jami, Nur al-Din `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad, Risalah fi al-Wujud.  Edited and
translated by Nicholas Heer under the title al-Jami's Treatise on Existence in
Islamic Philosophical Theology, edited by Parviz Morewedge.  Albany: SUNY
Press, 1979. Pp. 223-256.

Jones, W.T., A History of Western Philosophy, New York, 1952.

al-Jurjani, al-Sayyid al-Sharif `Ali ibn Muhammad, Hashiyah `ala Sharh Matali`
al-Anwar.  Printed with al-Razi's Lawami` al-Asrar.  Istanbul 1303.  (A gloss
on Qutb al-Din al-Razi's Lawami` al-Asrar fi Sharh Matali` al-Anwar, which is
a commentary on Siraj al-Din al-Urmawi's Matali` al-Anwar)

al-Katibi, Najm al-Din `Umar ibn `Ali al-Qazwini al-Katibi, al-Risalah
al-Shamsiyah.  Edited and translated by Alois Sprenger.  Bibliotheca Indica:
Calcutta 1854.

al-Maha'imi, `Ala' al-Din `Ali bin Ahmad, Ajillat al-Ta'yid fi Sharh Adillat
al-Tawhid, MS Yahuda 4601, Princeton University.

Majmu` Shuruh al-Shamsiyah, Volume I, Cairo 1323-1905, Volume II, Cairo 1327.
(A collection of commentaries and glosses on al-Katibi's al-Risalah
al-Shamsiyah)

McKeon, Richard, Selections from Medieval Philosphers.  Two volumes.  Charles
Scribner's: New York, 1929-1930.

Mubin, Muhammad, Mir'at al-Shuruh `ala Kitab Sullam al-`Ulum.  Two volumes. 
Cairo 1327. (A commentary on Sullam al-`Ulum of Muhibb Allah al-Bihari)

al-Muthul al-`Aqliyah al-Aflatuniyah, edited by `Abd al-Rahman Badawi, Cairo,
1947.

Porphyry, Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium.  Porphyry's Greek
text and Boethius' Latin translation.  Edited by Adolfus Busse.  Berlin 1887. 
(Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Vol. IV, Part 1)

al-Razi, Qutb al-Din Muhammad ibn Muhammad, Lawami` al-Asrar fi Sharh Matali`
al-Anwar, Istanbul, 1303

al-Razi, Qutb al-Din Muhammad ibn Muhammad, Risalah fi Tahqiq al-Kulliyat, MS
Leiden Or. 958(21).

al-Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Yahya, Hikmat al-Ishraq.  Edited by Henri Corbin. 
Tehran and Paris, 1952.

al-Taftazani, Sa`d al-Din Mas`ud ibn `Umar, Sharh al-Shamsiyah, n.p. 1312.  (A
commentary on Najm al-Din al-Katibi's al-Risalah al-Shamsiyah)

al-Urmawi, Siraj al-Din Mahmud ibn Abi Bakr, Matali` al-Anwar, Istanbul, 1303.


					Nicholas Heer
					heer@u.washington.edu