I shall now outline the setting of the 17th century and the introduction of the Shattariyyah in Indonesia. In this period, Sufism and the tarekat were dominated by the North Sumatran school which followed the philosophy of Iban al-Arabi (d.1240) and was led by Hamzah Fansuri of Aceh. This was attacked as pantheistic in a great controversy by contemporary opponents such as Nûr al-Dîn al-Raniri (Johns 1965).
However, both Hamzah and his opponents often quoted Ibn al-‘Arabî’s pantheistic teaching regarding the nature of creation: that there is no separation between inner and outer worlds. Agreement was never reached on exactly how God manifests Himself in the world. Hamzah Fansuri’s work explains that the phenomenal world is the external manifestation (tajallî) of the Ultimate Reality. In Hamzah Fansuri we read
La ilaha il-Allah itu kesudahan kata
Tauhid marifat semata-mata
Hapuskan hendak sekalian perkara
Hamba dan Tuhan tiada berbeda (Alisjahbana 1961: 76)La ilaha il-Allah is the final word
The way, nought but the Unity of God
Banish other matters from within your heart
Servant and Lord are not apart.
The poem in its entirety expounds a system which is generally designated by the term ‘The Unity of Being’ (wahdat al-wujûd). In Hamzah Fansuri’s view, the world is an outpouring of God’s love. Borrowing Anne-Marie Schimmel’s image, the relation between Creator and creation is like that between water and ice, the same essence, a unity, but evident in different modes of manifestation (Schimmel 1994, 1986).
Hamzah’s follower, Shams al-Dîn of Pasai (d. 1630) developed this idea but for the first time in Sumatran Sufi practice, he adopted the concept of the ‘Seven Levels of Being’ from al-Tuhfah al-Mursala ila ruh al-nabi, or The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet. Johns, in his critical textual edition of the Tuhfah, argues that the understanding of the ‘Seven Levels of Being’ in the Sumatran Sufi’s work is more systematic than that expounded by Shams al-Din’s predecessors (Johns 1965). The ‘Seven Levels of Being’ is a cosmology which explains the relation between the Absolute and the relative. The concept resembles that of Ibn al-‘Arabî in thso far as the relative is an outward manifestation of the Absolute (al-Attas 1966). The main advantage of Ibn al-‘Arabî’s concept, which was adopted by Shattriyyah, is that the notion of levels supplies a metaphor which appears to solve the philosophical problems of the relation between the Absolute and the relative, or the One and many-ness.
However, such a solution can and does only appear on a metaphorical level. The difficulty with it for scripturalist or legalist is that mystical expressions applying unconventional metaphors such as ‘I am God’, or ‘Servant and Lord are not apart’ are simply unacceptable (Schimmel 1994).
Thus, the ‘Seven Levels of Being’ had to be interpreted in different ways. Certain Sumatran Sufis, such as Shams al-Dîn al-Samatrânî, interpreted the doctrine in the above heterodox terms but Nûr al-Dîn al-Raniri of Gujerat and ‘Abd al-Raûf al-Singkel comprehended it in other more orthodox ways.
Nûr al-Dîn al-Raniri, like Hamzah, applied the metaphor of light and its shadow (zill) to describe the relationship between God and His creation. According to him, the world is God’s shadow (‘wujud makhluk itu terang dan benderang yang jadi ia daripada nur wujud Allah’) (Christomy 1986:64). Both Hamzah and al-Raniri subscribe to the same assumption about reality. In their terms, reality is the shadow of the Ultimate. The big differences between them lie in their interpretation of ‘shadow’. For Hamzah, the shadow is the logical consequence of the light. It is not created but projected. On the other hand, al-Raniri assumes that the shadow is created by the Ultimate.
In this ‘catechismus’ al-Raniri asserts that
Jika demikianlah ditamsilkan segala ahli Sufi akan Haq Ta’la dengan makhluk, bahwasanya wujud Haq Ta’la itu sekali-kali tiada wujud Allah. Seperti kata jâbib al-Insân al-Kâmâl….Maka jika ada engkau itu Haq Ta’la, maka tiada engkau itu engkau, tetapi Haq Ta’la itu engkau, maka tiadalah Haq Ta’la itu Haq Ta’la tetapi engkau itu engkau jua. Maka nyata daripada kata ini sekali-kali wujud Haq Ta’la itu tiada jadi wujud makhluk dan wujud makhluk itu sekali-kali tiada jadi wujud wujüd (Hill al-Zill, see also Christomy 1986: 64).
If the Sufi compares Haq Ta’la with human beings, indeed there is no parallel between wujud Haq Ta’la and God. This is explained by the master of al-Insân al-Kâmil…If you have the quality of Haq Ta’la you will not exist as men, but you will become the Haq Ta’la. Haq Ta’la is Haq Ta’la but you are man (not Him). The meaning of this word is that wujud Haq Ta’la is never embodied in mankind and mankind is not the manifestation of wujud Haq Ta’la.
According to al-Raniri the ultimate reality, the wujud Haq Ta’la has never become manifest in mankind, nor has creation, or the wujud makhlûq, ever become manifest in the divine ultimate reality.
Bahwasanya Hakikat Allah itu sekali-kali tiada harus dikata akan dia berpindah kepada hakikat makhluk itu dan hakikat makhluk itu sekali-kali tiada harus dikata akan dia berpindah kepada hakikat Allah. (Hilll al-Zill)
Now of the Essence (Allah) it should not be said that it is embodied in creation and of creation it should never be said that it is embodied in the Essence (Allah).
These differences escalated into an open polemic and political friction among the patrons of the respective masters, dividing even the Acehnese sultans among themselves, with their respective supporters. This conflict between the followers of Nûr al-Dîn al-Raniri and Hamzah Fansuri is well known. Al-Raniri argued that Sultan Iskandar Muda (ruled 1607-1636) should make a decree, or fatwâ against Hamzah and Shams al-Dîn regarding the wahdat al-wujûd. It was forthcoming. Al-Raniri tried to modify Ibn al-‘Arabî’s teaching to a more orthodox accommodation. However, his position was perhaps more political than mystical. He was ready to support any palace policies which were in accord with orthodoxy. For instance, he advised that all old manuscripts which did not carry at their head the habitual formulaic opening of Islam: ‘In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful…’ should be burned. He also persuaded the Sultan to ban the teaching of the wahdat al-wujud. However, after his royal patron died, al-Raniri ran into political difficulties. The next Sultan, Iskandar al-Thani (ruled 1636-1641) held views different from those of al-Raniri and as a consequence al-Raniri’s position deteriorated. He fled back to Gujarat. The more moderate qâdî, ‘Abd al-Raûf al-Singkel was appointed in his place.
Those responsible for a domestication of Ibn ‘Arabî’s teaching in Indonesia were the Meccan masters al-Qushashi and al-Kurânî, and their pupil ‘Abd al-Raûf Singkel. Al-Qushashi was famous as a leader of Jawi students from the Indonesian archipelago in Mecca during the 17th century. He had links with a number of mystical orders but in Indonesia he was best known as a Shattariyyah master. He obtained his silsilah from Sibghat Allâh and was moreover a close friend of the writer of the above-mentioned Tuhfah, Muhammad Ibn Fadl Allâh al-Burhânpûrî. Both were students of the popular Indian master of the Shattariyyah, Wajîh al-Dîn of Gwalior. Al- Qushashi made a deliberate choice to teach Shattariyyah mysticism to his Jawi students. Through his discipline the metaphysical doctrines of the martabat tujuh were transmitted to Indonesia as part of heterodoxy, becoming the trademark of the Shattariyyah. In other words, the speculative view on the process of creation was adjusted to the legalistic view fo the fuqaha (Bruinessen 1994:1-23).
Among al-Qushâshî’s students was ‘Abd al-Raûf al-Singkel who in turn was the master of Shaykh Abdul Muhyi of Safarwadi. ‘Abd al-Raûf differed in several respects from his colleagues in Aceh. He did not condemn his predecessors as heretics, or kâfir billah, as al-Raniri had not hesitated to do. ‘Abd al-Raûf’s response to the quarrel between al-Raniri and Hamzah’s followers was moderate. He probably was not called upon to make a statement regarding Hamzah’s teaching for the royal court because, according to him, it is not encumbent upon any Muslim to name another Muslim as an unbeliever, or kâfir. ‘It is dangerous to accuse another of kufr, of unbelief. If you do so and it is true, why waste words on it, and if it is untrue, the accusation will turn back upon yourself” (Johns 1965: 60). It must be taken into account, however, that these tendencies occurred as part of a general shift in the archipelago in the 17th century for legalists and mystics to be reconciled.
In sum, 17th century Indonesia was characterised by various mystical contests as a result of international infusions of tarekat brought back from Mecca by returned pilgrims. The emergence and decline of a certain order was much influenced, for example, by the fluctuating tendency to combine Sufism with Islamic law, sharî’ah. Thus, the attempt was made for every pantheistic element in tarekat, including in Shattariyyah, to be reshaped in accordance with more orthodox features.