![\"\"](\"http:\/\/erenyesilyurt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/\u0642\u0628\u0631_\u0627\u0644\u0634\u064a\u062e_\u0645\u062d\u064a\u064a_\u0627\u0644\u062f\u064a\u0646_\u0628\u0646_\u0639\u0631\u0628\u064a-1-1024x576.jpg\")
This question points directly to the heart of what some have called the “theologico-political” question in Islam. In my view, it is not confined to Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee’s thought, but concerns Sufism as a whole and, ultimately, the Islamic religion itself. The question might be formulated as follows: to what “form of life”\u2014to borrow Agamben’s expression\u2014or “way of life”\u2014in Hadot’s sense\u2014should the human experience of Islam, of Sufism, and of Islam as conceived by Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee give rise? Between the life of the spirit and the organisation of the community, how are the various dimensions of human existence to be ordered, ranked, and articulated?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is ultimately the entire question of the shar\u00ee’a<\/em> and its purpose: is it a rule of life for human communities, a path of individual realisation grounded in personal ethics and ascetic discipline, or both at once?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The entire history of Muslim communities may be read as the unfolding of the various possible answers to this question. Throughout this history, Sufism in particular has served as an interface between the individual and the community. From the earliest period, Sufi masters sought, on the one hand, to centre religious life upon the individual’s inward spiritual experience and, on the other, to make sense of the full range of Islamic rituals and norms as means of cultivating and deepening that experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Returning to the political question in the strict sense, two tendencies thus emerged and became formalised at an early stage within Islam, and within Sufism in particular. On the one hand were those who legitimised the established authority, political and institutional stability, and conformity to prevailing norms as means of preserving the conditions necessary for an authentic spiritual life. On the other were those who, by contrast, opposed forms of power, institutions, and normative systems that they considered unworthy of Islam’s spiritual demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is distinctive about Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee’s thought is perhaps its refusal to yield entirely to either tendency. Instead, it seeks to sustain the tension between them so as to preserve Islam’s spiritual vitality as fully as possible. In other words, for Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee, the shar\u00ee’a<\/em> concerns both the individual, in the innermost intimacy of his or her conscience, and the community, in its endeavour to secure appropriate conditions for each individual’s spiritual journey according to their particular dispositions and inclinations. In this respect, Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee clearly stands in continuity with his predecessors in the Sufi tradition, although he gives this approach its greatest possible scope and breadth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee, there is no ontological distinction between the spiritual and the political, because his ontology is what I have called “correlative”[^1]: it understands things as relations<\/em> woven into<\/em> being. Each reality is what it is only by virtue of its relation to another reality. The things that make up the world are so many nodes at which an indefinite number of relations converge; taken together, these relations weave the fabric of reality. His approach therefore invites us to enter more deeply into the complexity, paradox, and tension inherent in reality as it is. Yet this form of perspectivism does not amount to a horizontal relativism, since the web of relations unfolds according to a definite metaphysical and cosmological order or hierarchy. This order is that of the human being itself: from the metaphysical reality of the Perfect Human Being (al-ins\u00e2n al-k\u00e2mil<\/em>), the supreme relation in which all the relations of the world converge, to the concrete presence on earth of the human being as “caliph”, situated at the farthest end of the cosmological fabric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is therefore unsurprising that such a body of thought could be used both to formulate a metaphysical justification for a totalitarian political order and, conversely, to inspire a radical critique of every political order\u2014and, a fortiori, every theologico-political order\u2014each in the name of the same conception of the metaphysical nature of human reality. What I find particularly interesting in Agu\u00e9li, and in Gu\u00e9non to a different extent, is that each attempted, in his own way, to reformulate this metaphysical anthropology and its relationship to religious normativity in response to the challenges of his time. They did so in a new language that yielded neither to the sterile conservatism of past forms nor to the compulsive anti-conformism characteristic of a certain modernity. In my view, this is precisely what places them within the intellectual and spiritual undertaking of Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ernst J\u00fcnger’s concepts of the “Anarch” and the “Forest Rebel” (Waldg\u00e4nger) embody an existential quest to safeguard inner autonomy against the totalizing surveillance of the modern state and mass society. This stance bears an uncanny structural alignment with the Sufi doctrine of Melamet and the principle of Halvet der Enc\u00fcmen. Beyond mere conceptual parallels, both share a fundamental concern for preserving man’s authentic existence. How can Sufism, and specifically the tradition of Futuwwa (spiritual chivalry), offer a viable alternative to the modern individual facing an existential crisis caught in the matrix of technology, bureaucracy, and hyper-surveillance?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n There is indeed a connection to be drawn between certain modern quests for inward emancipation from forms of life that have become increasingly constraining and standardised, and certain principles lying at the heart of Sufi spirituality. The notion of futuwwa<\/em> initially referred to concrete forms of association independent of the state: armed bands whose members upheld a demanding ethical code and radical virtues, which they sought to place at the service of local populations while remaining entirely independent of established social structures. These forms of politico-spiritual militia were gradually dismantled or absorbed by successive states. Their governing principles, however, were fully incorporated into Sufism and contributed in particular to the development of the initiatic and symbolic dimensions of craft guilds, which survived into the twentieth century in many countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What futuwwa<\/em> brings to light is precisely the question of “lordship” and its relationship to freedom. According to the Qur’\u00e2nic account of the primordial covenant (7:172), all human souls collectively acknowledged the One God as their “Lord”. Consequently, none can claim the slightest lordship over another\u2014nor can any collectivity, whether informally constituted as a society or formally organised as a state. In other words, by collectively acknowledging divine lordship, humanity thereby acknowledged the very principle of its freedom. This does not prevent human beings, individually or collectively, from recognising and conferring a certain precedence upon others\u2014those whom the Qur’\u00e2n calls “those vested with authority” (ul\u016b l-amr<\/em>, 4:59). Yet such authority can only be founded upon the individual’s full recognition of it; it cannot be imposed as a lordly fait accompli<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Any society that is not founded upon the radical human freedom guaranteed by divine lordship therefore constitutes, at some level, a betrayal of Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sufi masters accordingly found in the principles of futuwwa<\/em> a means of inwardly resisting the hegemony of the state and the imposition of forms of life that disregard this immutable principle upon which humanity is founded from an Islamic perspective. Rather than attempting to subvert the framework of social life\u2014an undertaking that generally ends in the most brutal repression\u2014they cultivated an inward emancipation from that framework, thereby preserving the possibility of a fully “free” humanity. The political project of Sufism might almost be summarised as follows: to cultivate an inner<\/em> freedom which, through being held in common, might recreate the conditions for outward<\/em> freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ivan Agu\u00e9li is a uniquely striking figure who emerged from within Western modernity, traversing seemingly contradictory domains as a painter, an anarchist, and a Sufi. Does Agu\u00e9li remain merely a marginal and eclectic anomaly in the West, or does he deserve to be re-evaluated as an authentic, sophisticated theorist within Islamic thought? Could you elaborate on the highly original concepts he brought to the forefront?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n Agu\u00e9li is undoubtedly one of the most original authors in his attempt to produce an Islamic thought fully rooted in its modern Western context. If we take Agu\u00e9li’s thought\u2014and the way in which he himself presents it\u2014seriously, he must be situated within the continuity of the Islamic tradition, and of Sufism in particular, rather than too readily dismissed as an eccentric and romantic modern Westerner. Agu\u00e9li described himself as a “servant of the saintly friends of God” (kh\u0101dim al-awliy\u0101\u02be<\/em>). It therefore seems important to approach his work as a sincere effort to translate the reality of Islam and Sufism into a modern language\u2014one that fully embraces the context of Western modernity, both in its socio-political concerns and in its aesthetic explorations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this respect, Agu\u00e9li displays a double radicality: he is radically Muslim<\/em>, radically faithful to the tradition that preceded him and within whose continuity he situated himself, yet also radically modern<\/em>, in the sense that he repudiates nothing of his original context\u2014that of Europe at the turn of the twentieth century. Agu\u00e9li’s style is consequently disconcerting, moving freely from theological considerations to reflections on modern painting, and from doctrinal explanations to political reflections on the future of Western societies. Yet, as I have attempted to show in a recent study,[2] behind the veil of this apparent eclecticism lies an extraordinarily coherent body of thought\u2014one that most often expresses, in an original yet highly precise manner, principles drawn directly from the work of Ibn ‘Arab\u00ee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most striking examples of his ability to conceptualise and translate principles derived from traditional Islamic thought into a new language is his understanding of the shar\u00ee’a<\/em>. According to Agu\u00e9li, its underlying principle is to preserve what he calls “lordly freedom”\u2014or, more precisely, in the original French, libert\u00e9 dominicale<\/em>\u2014, the radical freedom of the human being as the corollary of humanity’s primordial acknowledgement of divine lordship. The entire apparatus of the shar\u00ee’a<\/em> is thus intended to provide human beings with the means to cultivate this freedom and protect it against every attempt at alienation. Islamic law is therefore there to serve individuals and safeguard their freedom, not to impose upon them an order to which they are required to conform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By making freedom both the principle and the ultimate end of the shar\u00ee’a<\/em>, Agu\u00e9li thus outlines a perspective that offers a new understanding both of the Islamic religious ethos and of the modern idea of freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]:<\/strong> See “L’ontologie corr\u00e9lative d’Ibn \u02bfArab\u012b : M\u00e9taphysique de l’\u00eatre et de ses relations”, in La non-dualit\u00e9 : Perspectives philosophiques, scientifiques, spirituelles<\/em>, ed. J.-M. Counet, Leuven, Peeters, 2021, pp. 89\u2013102. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/j.ctv2114g8d.8<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]:<\/strong> “Akbarian Anarchism: Ivan Agu\u00e9li (d. 1917) on Islam, Freedom and Shar\u012b\u02bfa”, Religiographies<\/em>, vol. 3, no. 2 (2024). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.69125\/Religio.2024.v3.n2.6-24<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ibn al-Arab\u012b\u2019s legacy has been reinterpreted in various forms\u2014ranging from political legitimacy to the quest for radical freedom\u2014across a broad spectrum extending from the Ottoman era to modern figures such as Ivan Agu\u00e9li and Ren\u00e9 Gu\u00e9non. We spoke with Gregory Vandamme about the ontological structure of Ibn al-Arabi\u2019s thought, the alternatives the futuwwa tradition might… Continue reading ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/erenyesilyurt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Ivan_agueli_bild-2.jpg\")
\n\n\n\n