Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T08:52:18.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Man, nafs, rūḥ, 'aql1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

A. S. Tritton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This essay takes for granted articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and papers by D. B. Macdonald and W. E. Calverley but a brief summary may be allowed. Nafs and rūh were used loosely to mean almost anything connected with life, but acquired new meanings as the years went by. Men differed about the nature and activity of all three constituents of man. ‘Soul’ is almost the equivalent of nafs in its precise sense though it may be hard at times to decide if ‘self’ is not more appropriate. It is easier to admit the existence of soul than to define it for it has neither genus nor proprium; any definition is imperfect and any description inadequate. It is part of the world soul as intellect is part of the world intellect, it is part of the spirit of God, torn off by the instrumentality of intellect, it is simple, incorruptible, and unchangeable. Many were the suggestions; it is a compound of constituents (rukn), union of elements('unsur), a self-moving accident, hot spirit, a nature in perpetual motion. It is a living substance(jawhar) but is not in the body in the same way as rūh is. Another idea is close to a Jewish view that all souls are one and are made different by the influences of the spheres and stars through or by which they pass on their journey to earth. The threefold division of soul into vegetal, animal, and rational was known and may have something to do with the religious division into the soul at rest in faith, the censorious soul, and the lusting soul. Instead of censorious the meaning ‘changeable’ is also given.8 A variant is that a believer has three souls while a hypocrite and an unbeliever have each one.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , October 1971 , pp. 491 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 IM, III, 108; cf. II, 114.

3 M, 318.

4 IM, III, 111.

5 According to the Lisān, Ibn Sīda said that his dictionary was not the place for a full discussion of this word. In this essay it has been translated ‘substance’ though the context often makes this`1 term unsuitable. It can mean (1) anything that exists in itself, or (2) essence; in these senses it can be used of God. Al-Ghazālī in al-Maḍnūn al-șaghīr can say the jawhar which understands, is the rūḥ, a term he often uses for the essential man. Theologians apply it to the possible, philosophers use it for the immaterial and the substantial. Thus it may be an idea in the mind or an object in the external world; in other words, a body, a condition, or anything in which accidents can inhere. (DTT; Jurjāni, Ta‘rifāt, Constantinople, 1883, s.v.)

6 IM, III, 113.

7 Goldziher, , Wesen der Seele, Berlin, 1907, 58Google Scholar; KR, 144; Rāzī, , Mabāḥith, Hyderabad, 1925, II, 391Google Scholar.

8 KR, 355.

9 KR, 345.

10 IM, III, 110.

11 M, 315, 318.

12 M, 185.

13 M, 181.

14 IM, III, 113, 202.

15 IM, III, 115.

16 IM, III, 202.

17 M, 243.

18 M, 257.

19 IM, III, 115.

20 M, 307.

21 M, 325; Niffari, , Mawagif (GMS), 1935, 90Google Scholar.

22 IM, II, 113.

23 Al-Fārābī, , Madīna fāḍila, Leiden, 1895, 58Google Scholar.

24 IM, II, 114.

25 al-‘Adīm, Ibn, Zubdal, Damascus, 1951–1968, II, 250Google Scholar.

26 Malaṭī, , Tanbīh, Leipzig, 1936, 84Google Scholar.

27 Rāzī, , Mabāḥith, II, 420Google Scholar.

28 KR, 345.

29 Al-Ghazālī, , Madnun, Cairo, 1886, 13Google Scholar.

30 Commentary, (sura xxvi, 193/194).

31 Al-Ghazālī, , Madnun, 17Google Scholar.

32 Al-Ghazālī, , al-Munqidh, Beyrouth, 1959, 41 fGoogle Scholar.

33 Niffari, , op. cit., 94, 177Google Scholar.

34 KR, 249, 274.

35 KR, 345.

36 KR, 67, 148.

37 KR, 57.

38 al-Rāghib, Ḥusain b. Muḥammad, al-Dharī‘a, Cairo, 1299/1881–1882, 53Google Scholar.

39 IM, III, 116.

40 M 371.

41 M, 289.

42 M, 371.

43 Dharī‘a, 70.

44 IM, III, 119; DTT, 1030.

45 IM, III, 110.

46 Al-Fārābī, , op. cit., 67, 36Google Scholar.

47 Al-Fārābī, , op. cit., 58Google Scholar; DTT, 1030.

48 M, 235.

49 IM, II, 89.

50 M, 237.

51 DTT, 1027.

52 DTT, 1029.

53 DTT, 1033.

54 sura xxxiii, 32/31.

55 Dharī‘a, 70.

56 Al-Fārābī, , op. cit., 35 fGoogle Scholar.

57 KR, 348.

58 KR, 398.

59 KR, 394.

60 Al-Ghazālī, , Iḥyā' bk. I, ch. 3Google Scholar.

61 M, 324.

62 DTT, s.v.