Conclusion: miscellaneous useful notes on the stray points of this question

Conclusion

« On miscellaneous useful notes drawn from the stray points of this question »

( alif ) Those who have inquired into the taking on of form (tamaththul) by spirits hold numerous opinions and views of many kinds, of which we mention a portion. It is said in al-Khulāṣah: the belief of the ancient Jews concerning the essence (māhīyah) of the hidden spirits was that they are either pure air or a flame of fire. (Then he said:) On this view, then, the angels have subtle airy bodies which are not seen unless they take on a form — like the air we breathe, which is a body and yet is not visible to us. (Then he said:) The closest witness to such taking on of form is air: though in its rarefied state it admits of neither shape nor colour, yet once it condenses it can be shaped and coloured, as is plain in the clouds. On this same pattern it is possible that the bodies of the angels condense, by divine power, to the measure required to constitute the body they mean to assume, and that after embodiment they are able to perform vital acts. End of quotation.

We have already reported from the judge Abū Yaʻlā that he said: the satans have no power to alter their own constitution or to pass over into other forms; all that is admissible is that God should teach them some one class among classes of acts, such that when one of them performs it God transfers him from one form to another — and so on. al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar reported in Fatḥ al-bārī, from Imām al-Ḥaramayn, that Jibrīl's taking on human form means that God annihilated the surplus of his frame, or removed it from him, and then restored it to him afterwards. Ibn ʻAbd al-Salām decided firmly for removal rather than annihilation, and established this on the ground that the removal need not entail his death; rather the body may remain alive, since the death of a body upon the spirit's parting from it is not necessary in reason but follows a custom which God Most High has set running in some of His creatures. Its parallel is the passage of the spirits of the martyrs into the breasts of green birds that range through the Garden. Our shaykh, the Shaykh al-Islām — Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī — said: what Imām al-Ḥaramayn mentioned does not exhaust the case; it is also admissible that the one who came was Jibrīl in his original shape, save that he drew himself in and so came to the measure of a man's figure, and when he left off doing so he returned to his own figure. An example of this is cotton when it is pressed together after having been teased out: by the teasing it takes on a large form while its essence has not changed. This is by way of approximation. The truth is that the angel's appearing as a man does not mean that his essence was turned into a man, but that he appeared in that form so as to put at ease the one he was addressing. What appears to be the case, further, is that the surplus measure neither departs nor is annihilated, but is merely hidden from the beholder — and God knows best. End of al-Ḥāfiẓ's words. The whole of it is built upon construing the unqualified expressions, in the places where they occur, in their literal sense (ḥaqīqah) — so let this be pondered. The Master and Imām, Shaykh Muḥammad ʻAbduh — God have mercy on him — said in Risālat al-tawḥīd: as for the existence of certain high spirits — namely the honoured angels — and their appearing to the people of that lofty rank (the prophets, peace be upon them), there is nothing impossible in it, given what we have come to know of our own selves and what science, ancient and modern, has guided us to: that existence comprises what is subtler than matter, even if it is veiled from us. What, then, prevents some of this subtle existence from being a place where something of the divine knowledge dawns, and the souls of the prophets from having a vantage over it? So when truthful report brings word of it, we are brought to assent to its soundness. As for the taking on of voice and of shapes by those spirits within the perception of one whom God has singled out for that station: there is known, among the enemies of the prophets, something not far removed from it in certain persons afflicted — on their own account — with particular maladies. For they have conceded that some of their intelligibles take on form in their imagination and reach the degree of the sensible, so that the sick man speaks truly when he says that he sees and hears — indeed that he grapples and wrestles — while in reality nothing of it takes place. If, then, such taking on of form is admissible in the case of intelligible forms that have no source save in the soul, and if it occurs when some accident befalls the brain, why should it not be admissible that intelligible realities take on form in the high soul, and that this befalls it when it is drawn off from the world of sense and joins the precincts of holiness; and that this state should be among the concomitants of soundness of intellect in the people of that degree, because their temperament (mizāj) is marked by what is not found in the temperament of others? The utmost that follows from it is that the bond of their spirits to their bodies has a character not known in that bond in others — which is easy to accept, and indeed unavoidable, since their standing among men is likewise other than the familiar standings. This difference is among the most important of the things by which they were set apart, and from it the proof of their prophetic mission stood up. And the proof of the soundness of their witnessing and the truth of what they report is that the maladies of hearts are healed by their remedy, and that weakness of resolve and of minds is exchanged for strength in the communities that take up their teaching. It is self-evidently absurd that the sound should issue from the diseased, or that order should be set straight by what is disordered. End of quotation. We have already reported a statement from al-Ghazzālī on the angel's taking on form, so recall it.

( bāʼ ) The describing of the jinn as « spirits » is widespread in the transmitted lore and in the speech of the philosophers. Ibn al-Athīr said, on the ḥadīth "I treat people for these spirits": 'spirits' here is a figure for the jinn; they were called spirits because they are not seen, so they stand in the position of spirits. Except that the word « spirit » in the singular is predominantly used of the angel in the noble Revelation. It is said in al-Khulāṣah: the word « spirit » by which the angels are described carries a sense that points to their essence, namely that they are stripped of the density of bodies and so are not like us. (He said:) For the root sense of 'spirit' in Hebrew and Greek, as in Arabic, is wind — that is, moving air — and it is as though the language of men falls short of expressing the inner reality and the truth of the thing in full, so it made do with a word that makes the reality plain even if it does not make it wholly plain. End of quotation. Ibn al-Athīr said, on the ḥadīth "the angels are rūḥānīyūn": it is transmitted with u and with a on the rāʼ, as though it were a relative form from al-rūḥ (spirit) or al-rawḥ, which is the breath of the wind; the alif and the nūn are among the augments of the relative form. What is meant by it is that they are subtle bodies which sight does not apprehend. End of quotation. And in the Kullīyāt of Abū al-Baqāʼ: al-rūḥ, with u, is the air that passes back and forth in man's ducts and passages, and it is also a name for the soul (nafs), and so on. And in al-Tāj, from al-Farrāʼ, who said: I heard Abū al-Haytham say: the spirit is nothing but the breath (nafas) that a man breathes; it runs through the whole body, and when it goes out he breathes no more after its going out. And in al-Ṭūsī's Naqd al-muḥaṣṣal: the philosophers distinguish between souls and spirits, for souls in their view are simple immaterial substances attached to bodies, whereas spirits are bodies compounded of the vapours and fumes that rise from the blood confined in the veins. Ibn Jarīr transmitted from Qatādah, on the interpretation of the verse « And they ask you about the Spirit », that he said: the Spirit is Jibrīl. Qatādah said: and Ibn ʻAbbās used to keep this concealed. Then he traced back to Ibn ʻAbbās that the Spirit is an angel; and likewise from ʻAlī, God be pleased with him, that he said: he is one of the angels.

( jīm ) It is stated in the Larousse dictionary that Socrates used to claim that he had a satan of his own who revealed to him his purposes and all the principles of his philosophy and his wisdom. Some have therefore alleged that this was a spirit, or an agent above the power of men; while others applied the name to a subtle moral sense and a fine natural faculty, swift in apprehension, which long experience had developed. They hold, as they see it, that Socrates' satan was nothing but inward inspirations, occurring to his heart and his intellect for a time, when he conceived the highest objects of philosophy. So the meaning of Socrates' consulting his own satan is that he consults his inward inspiration, his intellect and his judgements, which he does not see as a breath and a bounty bestowed upon him, but rather as issuing from divinity and as a part of it. Others have held that this claim was, on Socrates' part, a stratagem by which he wished to reach the accomplishment of a great political reform. What appears to be the case is that Socrates was convinced of the soundness of what had occurred within his soul, so that neither he nor his pupils was touched by the least doubt about his claim; and that was among the most decisive of the causes of his being sentenced to death.

— It is also stated in it, under the entry « jinnī », that the jinn in the Roman legends point to what the Greeks called the satan, and that they stand for the spirit or the vital principle; so they used to hold that every act a man performs is dictated to him by his own satan. What appears to be the case is that it was among the effects of natural heresy (zandaqah) that the common people of the Latins imagined that a man has two satans, and this so that they might settle the question of good and evil as they pleased: the satan of good reveals sound and beneficial thoughts, and the satan of evil prompts wicked deeds and troubling events. And so it was that the two commanders Brutus and Cassius saw their two evil satans when defeat was written upon their standards.

The people in Rome used to worship the personal satans and the local satans: when a child was born to them they would hold a celebration in honour of its satan, and fruits and produce were often offered to the satans of the place. In the age of the Empire the emperor's satan was worshipped with a special worship, by way of honour and reverence. End of quotation.

( dāl ) There occurs in the Encyclopaedia Britannica what, rendered into Arabic, is as follows:

The word 'Satan' is a name laid down in the Gospel and in the Christian creed for a great evil one who is supposed to preside over a kingdom of malignant spirits, being the king within it, and to be an enemy of God perpetually. The Hebrew word — that is, al-shayṭān, which denotes the sense of opposing — is likewise used for this great evil one, or the king of the kingdom of evil. There is no doubt that a malignant spirit of this sort is often put to use in the New Testament, and he has been called by several names besides those mentioned, such as the word 'the Tempter', Baʻalzabūb, the king of the satans, the Strong One, the sinning Evil One, the bitterest Enemy; and these names are used synonymously in the Gospel, and wherever they are used they point to the same evil moving power, which is outside man and works upon him, or which has authority over him. Among the questions is how far the Messiah himself believed in the existence of such a malignant power. Yet there is no doubt that a power of this sort was acknowledged in the beliefs of the Jews in his day. It is likewise established that this belief among the Jews did not grow up all at once but arose slowly, and that the reader does not trace it clearly in the Old Testament as we find it clear in the New Testament. In fact the word 'Satan' is not found in the Torah except in five places; and in the remains of the earlier Hebrew prophets there is no acknowledgement of an evil spirit resisting the will of God, while the picture in which this evil spirit was drawn in the remains of the later ones among them differs greatly from the picture drawn by the later scholars of theology. What, then, is the origin of the belief in Satan as a malignant, outcast spirit? « The answer » which the critical scholars among contemporaries give is that this belief arose from the mingling of the Jews with the Persians when they were exiles in the land of Persia. For the Persian belief divides the world between two existing and differing gods, one good and the other evil, save that each of them has a share in creation and in man. Ahurmazdah was holy and truthful, and worship and reverence are due to him; whereas Ahriman, the spirit of darkness, of evil mind, was no less powerful, and laid claim to a right of equality with Ahurmazdah as regards man's obedience to him. « And in the Middle Ages » the belief in Satan was immense, for the saints reckoned themselves and others to be in perpetual strife with him; and it is hard for us now to conceive how great this belief's influence was upon people's lives at that time, for it was the fixed thought in every man's head, especially from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth — a period in which we may reckon this superstition to have reached its utmost. It is established that this doctrine diminished but little in the fifteenth century, and indeed even in the sixteenth or the seventeenth. Luther constantly felt the touch of the evil spirit and its opposition: in his library, in his bed and in his chamber, Satan would interfere with his work or his rest; and once when he was setting about his study he heard a sound which he knew at once came from his enemy, « Satan ». « He said: » When I found that he meant to return a second time to his work, I gathered up my books and went to my bed; and I heard him a second time in the night, walking in the corridor. But as I knew that it was Satan, I paid him no heed, and instead sank into my sleep. Luther likewise says: and when I awoke early this morning, the Evil One came to me and began to dispute with me, saying to me: you are a great sinner. I answered him: can you not bring me some new report, O Satan? When rational inquiry advanced in the eighteenth century this belief in the spread of satanic influences dwindled, and the sense of what is above nature shrank on every side, especially the old belief in Satan's absolute authority over man's destiny. And although religious feeling has increased greatly since that time, it cannot be said that the old belief in Satan and his works has been renewed. It may be that the belief of Christianity today is that there is an evil power in the world which opposes the will of God; but is this power a person, and what is its action upon man's will? And again, is there an earthly kingdom of the satans presided over by a king, and what is the relation of this satanic kingdom to man's destiny? All of that consists of questions not yet settled, or else doubted, in any of the creeds of the Church. Our task is to note this change in the belief of the Christians without setting out its benefits or anything else; and it is established that the belief in Satan does not occupy a great place in the conceptions of the Christians today as it did before, and that his authority no longer has the effect upon man and upon his experience that it once had. End of the words of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. We have adduced it, along with the words of the dictionary before it, only so that whoever takes up this question may have a complete view of the opinions of the remaining thinkers of the other religious communities upon it.

( hāʼ ) The Persians claim that the jinn dwell in a land called Jinnistān, which their poets call the land of the ʻafārīt and the she-jinn. They say that it lies at the western extremity of Africa; and some of them say that their seat is on the Isle of Serpents in the Indian Sea. They depict them in a terrifying figure, with long horns, tails, eyes slit lengthwise, and hair standing on end. Thus in the Encyclopaedia.

( wāw ) Walī al-Dīn said: certain shaykhs of error and apostles of calumny claim that they have incantations (taʻāzīm) by which they summon the jinn and place them at their disposal; and these delusions still leave a trace worth mentioning, which people pass on one from another and believe to be sound. End of quotation.

( zāy ) al-Rāzī said, in the introduction to his commentary, in the discussion of seeking refuge (istiʻādhah): those who practise the craft of incantation, when they repent of their lies, confess that they have never once witnessed any trace of these jinn. « al-Rāzī said: » and that is among the things that make the non-existence of these things preponderant in one's judgement. « He said: » I heard one of those who had repented of that craft say: I kept at such-and-such an incantation for so many days, and I left out not a single one of its fine points but performed it; and then I witnessed of those states that are spoken of neither trace nor tidings. End of quotation.

( ḥāʼ ) Some of the critical scholars have mentioned that Iblīs is a generic proper name for Satan, Arabised from diyāqūlīs in Greek, whose meaning is the one who brings about discord, or the one who drives to excess, or the one who puts man far from his way; and his name carries another sense in the books of revelation, namely the chief of the evil spirits. « He said: » The poets of the Persians who composed verse upon fabulous matters used to describe him with a black colour, two eyes that hurl out fire, a sulphurous smell, horns and a tail, crooked nails and two cloven hooves. End of quotation.

( ẓāʼ ) The word shayṭān is Hebrew, in the sense of an adversary or an opponent; it was then applied to an unseen evil spirit that calls to acts of disobedience and to sins. « Thus in al-Murshid. » al-Rāghib said, on the authority of Abū ʻUbaydah: shayṭān is a name for every insolent one among the jinn, mankind and the animals. « He said: » and every blameworthy trait of character in man may be called a satan. End of quotation. al-Sayyid al-Zabīdī transmitted it from him in Tāj al-ʻarūs, the commentary on al-Qāmūs.

( yāʼ ) One of the men of excellence said: among the widespread beliefs is that the jinn inhabit certain places, especially ruins, graves, springs, wells and deserted houses — and even inhabited ones, so that their occupants are put to the need of going out of them. In the age of ignorance (al-Jāhilīyah), when they wished to take up residence in a house, they would slaughter a victim for the jinn so that they should not harm them; and this belief, old as it is, has not ceased to remain until now in many places, and some of the common folk will relate visions and legends of this kind. Yet all that is nothing but fancies and imaginings issuing from the imaginative faculty, upon which the currency of most such reports has stamped traces that are not effaced save by the turning of the days, and by the spreading of the banners of knowledge in every region, so that the veils of fancy are torn apart and the realities take their place in the thoughts of mankind. May God make easy the treading of the path of knowledge and gnosis (ʻirfān); He is the Generous, the All-Knowing.

Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī