Aĥmad b. Muĥammad al-Qazābādī and His Treatise Entitled ‘Ilm al-bāŧin: A Critical Edition and an Analytical Interpretation

Abstract

Aĥmad b. Muĥammed al-Qazābādī, who was born in Tokat, a scientific hub
in Anatolia at the time, was a prominent scholar during the Ottoman Empireera in the 18th century. Afer completing his education in Tokat and Sivas, hetraveled to Istanbul and taught at several madrasas, was teacher to Abū Saīd al-Ĥādimī, and worked as a judge. However, as a one of the prominent scholars ofhis time, Qazābādī continued with his scholarly activities and published severalexegetical works, glosses, and treatises.
Qazābādī was an authority in many fields includingtafsīr(Quranic exege-sis),kalām(speculative theology),balāgha(rhetoric),manṭiq(logic), anduśūl
(methodology or first principles). However, he was not qualified in the studyofĥadīth(prophetic narrations), and lacked expertise intakhrījal-ĥadīth(thesource-critique ofĥadīth). Accordingly, he did not publish a great deal onĥadīth
andtaśawwuf(Islamic mysticism or Sufism). Also, it seems that he used weakand factitiousĥadīthreports and, as is common in the case of Sufi scholars,he also did not follow a meticulous method in the examination ofĥadīths and
ĥadīthreports. These matters present some uncertainties in view of Qazābādī’sauthority and expertise in such disciplines.
In his Sufi treatise entitled‘Ilm al-bāŧin, Qazābādī interprets the discipline
of “bāŧin” (hidden or esoteric) as the purview of Sufism and the discipline of
“žāhir” (apparent or exoteric) as a field determined by scholars of Kalām andFiqh through rational and transmitted knowledge. He addresses the context of
“žāhir” and “bāŧin” disciplines by comparing and pointing out the commonal-ities and differences between them and other disciplines. Qazābādī highlightsthat every Sufi has a different perspective concerning the discipline ofbāŧinandcriticizes abāŧinand Sufi approach that is in agreement with a “žāhir” perspective. Furthermore, he suggests that Sufism is a type of firewall againstbāŧin,and that the sources of Sufism andžāhirdisciplines are based on Islam, and thatboth are identical in this regard. However, Qazābādī does not entirely disregardthe field ofbāŧinas he considers it to be important when being consistent withthat ofžāhir, and addresses the statements of some Sufis who claim that every
žāhiris to be rejected if it is goes against thebāŧin. Making abāŧinclaim againstthe Sharī‘a is an abjuration and perversion according to him. Nonetheless, whenanyžāhirincident that goes against the Sharī‘a occurs among the Sufis, he as-sesses them under the conditions that they occurred. He further excuses Sufisif thežāhirincidents take place in the state ofsakr(spiritual intoxication). Ifsome incident is said to occur when Sufis are conscious, he excuses them if in-terpretation permits us to conceive them in such a way. Otherwise, he suggeststhat the events should be rejected and the subjects (Sufis) should be ignoredand punished. In this regard, he gives the example of the judgement and pun-ishment sentenced by the scholars for Ĥallāj and ‘Arabī. Qazābādī’s point ofview here is like the scholars fom the field ofžāhirwith regards to the situa-tion of the Sufis. In other words, he does not take into consideration the Sufis’spiritual condition and experience when they consciously have experiences thatare against the religion.
While assessing thežāhirdiscipline vis-à-vis theghayb(unseen) field, Qa-zābādī acknowledges that theghaybfield is not clear to us and that it can scantilybe known through some form of assistance, wondrous deed, or miracle. In thisregard, he exemplifies this issue with a parable in the Quran by drawing on thestory of Khidr and Moses. Qazābādī harshly criticizes the perspectives and ap-proaches of some ignorant Sufis. Accordingly, he addresses what some of theseignorant Sufis claim regarding the rejection of abāŧinissue as tantamount to therejection of the Sharī‘a, and they think that the people ofbāŧinare exclusivelyacquainted with such an issue. Qazābādī also emphasizes thatbāŧinperspectivesof such kinds are blasphemous, perverse, and deviant. Qazābādī states that thestatement of Abū Hurayra, “I was given a modest portion of wisdom fom theprophet Muĥammad,” cannot be a proof ofbātinknowledge, and criticizes peo-ple who make such arguments based on this. Also, he stresses that there shouldnot be both ažāhirandbāŧinmeaning in an inunction of the Quran that is con-tradictory; however, there might be abāŧinmeaning which is not against ažāhir
one, which does not cancel out thežāhirmeaning and mutually applies to all of humanity. He claims that there is no Quranic inunction that has two meaningsfor two different tribes or nations. Therefore, by exemplifing the story of Khidrand Moses, he criticizes scholars who claim that it is possible for individuals toact with knowledge that is of eitherbāŧinoržāhir. According to him, the essen-tial point regarding the inunctions of the Quran is thezāhirmeaning, and forsomeone who abandons this type of meaning is indicative of blasphemy. Fur-thermore, Qazābādī discusses the debate and quarrel between Moses and Khidrin the Quran by addressing the views of Qāđī al-Bayđāwī. Accordingly, whatKhidr essentially does in the story is that he prevents the upright one fom twoevils. Also, the reason for the controversy between Khidr and Moses is the dif-ferences that define their respective Shari‘as. Indeed, Khidr makes this situationclear by stating that he carried everything out by the decree of Allah.
In conclusion, Qazābādī rejects the perspective that seesžāhirandbāŧin as two opposing fields. However, he is not against abāŧinand Sufi view pointthat does not consideržāhirandbāŧinas two opposing fields and also does notignore thežāhir. Throughout history, there are many arguments that tookplace between scholars ofžāhirandbāŧinregarding the contexts, assessments,and principles of these two disciplines. In this regard, both sides are knownto have harshly criticized one another. In fact, having expressed interest in thearguments dealing withžāhirandbāŧinat the time, Qazābādī wrote his treatiseto assess these arguments fom his own point of view. Consequently, he aimedto establish a wisdom-based connection between the two perspectives ofžāhir
andbāŧinand to also determine the boundaries and principles of the latter in a
way that was consistent with the former discipline.

Keywords