Examining the Authenticity of Tafsir al-Jailani as the Work of Abdul Qodir Jailani

This paper attempted to discover the authenticity of interpretation work ordinated to Abdul Qodir Jailani. This interpretation Sufism was published by two different publishers from two separate countries; Dar alKutub al-Ilmiyah located in Beirut, Lebanon and Markaz al-Jailani li al-Buhus al-Ilmiyah in Istanbul, Turkey. This research is conducted from incredulity of ordination validity towards that interpretation work (Tafsir). By reason that the script was similar to another spread-script whose title is Fawatih al-Ilahiyah authored by Baba Ni’matullah Najwani. By comparison to two versions of Tafsir al-Jailani and one version of al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah, this research comes to conclusion that this Tafsir (Tafsir al-Jailani) is inscription of Baba Ni’matullah Najwani, not Abdul Qodir al-Jailani. This conclusion goes against to three points; first, the name in book cover is not compatible with the name in introduction as the author had conveyed it in this Tafsir’s introduction; Second, the Author discussed many topics about Wahdat alWujud, a Sufism terminology acknowledged by Ibn Arabi who lived after Abdul Kodir al-Jailani. Third; many terms engaged in this Tafsir have not turned out into Tasawwuf Scholars discourse in Abdul Qodir Jailani’s period.


INTRODUCTION
In Islamic literature, the oversight of work ordinated to different author does occur frequently. Time by time, this culpability will be such a propriety to whom live in the next. This mistake point of view is led by three points. Firstly, the lack of inspector (Muhaqqiq) ability on inspected script and republished script. This case occurs frequently because the author in his previous time did not enclose his name to the work he wrote. Meanwhile, the inspector had not or hardly ever conducted some research legitimately as well as the inspector ordinated his inspected script to the other author adequately.
Secondly, it is still about the author in his previous time did not write and enclose his name in his work or document, then the inspector ordinated that author work to whom had the similar focus tendency. For instance, the inspector identified a script whose content excessively discussed Wahdat al-Wujud then he aligned that work to Ibn Arabi as just he was most-told figure about this theme.
Thirdly, ordination of some work by the inspector to the figure he cherished was to exploit that popular name so the book that was published would be boom-sell. The last of all might not be something academically. Even it could be closer to public deception. However this kind of phenomenon occurs infrequently.
It possibly needs to acknowledge the example of every chapter as it has been revealed above. The example of ordination mistake in which the factor was to exploit the popularity of some figure is in the book of Fazaaih al-Mulhidin written by Alauddin Buhari (841/1438). This book is such a criticism on Fusus al-Hikam written by Ibn Arabi (638/1240). However, in order to escalate the popularity of Fazaaih al-Mulhidin, this kind of work is ordinated to theology scholar Sa'dudin Taftazani (792/1394) (Ertugȓul, 2008: 117-118).
Meanwhile, there are some works ordinated to Ibn Arabi untitled Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim (Arabi, 1981), Tuhfatus Safar (Arabi, 2010), Sajarat al-Kaun (Arabi, 2010), and Risalah at-Tauhid (Arabi, 2011). This ordination is just built upon that works have the similar content with the discussions in Ibn Arabi's works. Other example of work ordination mistake to the figure who is not the true writer is the interpretation book (Tafsir) ordinated to Abdul Qodir al-Jailani. This Tafsir is published in two different cities, Beirut and Istanbul in the same period, 2009. Publication in Beirut was the output of inspection conducted by Ahmad Farid al-Mazidi and it was published by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah Publisher in Five Volumes. While other version put in Istanbul was published by Markaz al-Jailani li al-Buhus al-Ilmiyah within six volumes and Muhammad Fadil al-Jailani was its inspector. These two versions of work coincided to be named as Tafsir al-Jailani in the cover page. But remarkably, in those two versions a long with the chapter introduction which are the first pages, were mentioned that the name of those commentary work are al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah wa al-Mafatih al-Gaybiyah.
On which the matter is Tafsir named al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah wa al-Mafatih al-Gaybiyah is a Tafsir with the Sufism approach that got well-recognized as the work of Baba Ni'matullah Najwani (920/1514) (Najwani, 1907: 2), a Thareqoh Mursyid of Naqsabandiyah in Aksehir city, Konya, Turkey. This Paper will attempt to discover the ordination validity of this interpretation work. Is this Tafsir truly authored by Abdul Qadir Jailani or Baba Ni'matullah Najwani.

DISCUSSION An Appellation and Ordination of Tafsir al-Jailani
Inside the preface of Tafsir al-Jailani, it was obviously mentioned as "this Tafsirgalvanized by God-is named as al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah wa al-Mafatih al-Ghaybiyah al-Mudihah li al Kalam al-Quraniyah wa al-Hikam al-Furqoniyah" (Jailani, 2009: 52). This implies that the definite name of this Tafsir is al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah wa al-Mafatih al-Ghaybiyah. Whether the work was written authored by Abdul Qadir Aljailani or Baba Ni'matullah Najwani, appellation of this Tafsir as Tafsir al-Jailani was from inspector's initiative both in Dar al-Kutub Publisher and Markaz al-Jailani li al-Buhuts al-Ilmi.
Even if so, interestingly, both two inspectors, Ahmad Farid and Fadhil Jailani do equally name the Tafsir which they inspect as Tafsir al-Jailani in two distinctive-published versions in two separate publishers. In addition, the name of the author was similarly ordinated to Abdul Qadir Jailani. While all this time, since Abdul Qadir Jailani passed away till his work was published, it had never been there any interpretation work ordinated to Abdul Qadir Jailani amongst the pursuivants of Thareqah Qadiriyah or from the students of Abdul Qadir Jailani (Uludag, 1998: 54-62).
Within those two different-published versions, the reason was not revealed why those two inspector prefer to put the title of this interpretation work as Tafsir al-Jailani despite in its preface was apparently written as al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah wa al-Mafatih al-Ghaybiyah. In Istanbul publishing version, Fadhil Jailani as the inspector makes this interpretation work be translated into several languages (Jailani, 2009: 30). In Turkey, This translation project is conducted by Dilaver Gurer accompanied by academicians who incorporate with him, and it was published at 2012 in Istanbul. Corresponding to its Arabic version, Turkish version was also named as Geylani Tefsiri which consists six volumes and was published by Markaz al-Jailani li al-Buhus al-Ilmiyah.
Along before published with the title "Tafsir al-Jailani", script with the equal subject matter (bit distinctive diction) was recognized as al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah wa al-Mafatih al-Ghaybiyah. Tafsir

s-Sufi el-Kamil lil-Kur'ani'l-Kerim: al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah wa al-Mafatih al-Gaybiyah al-Mudihah li al-Kalam al-Qur'aniyah wa al-Hikam al-Furqoniyah which was published in Egypt on 1999 by Dar Rikabi
Publisher. Dar Rikabi publisher also put out Ni'matullah Najwani as its author (Musakhanov, 2011: 7). From a few data mentioned, either from source in biography shape or publication from that work in previous periods, shows us strongly that they reveal consistently that Fawatih al-Ilahiyah is the work of Ni'matullah Najwani. More essential than the argument above, in Topkapi Palace on Library side exactly also were there some archives untitled al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah. Inside those archives, it was precisely written in the last parts by original author hand-writing "Katabahu al-fakir al-haqir khadim al-fuqara wa turab al-akdamiyyin Ni'matullah ibn Mahmud an-Najwani….. fi sanah ihda wa tis 'u miah" (vr. 405).
The incredulity on the work ordination to Abdul Qadir al-Jailani could also be regarded in some version published by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah. Ahmad Farid Mazidi within his preface said "this work was also ordinated to the Tafsir expert directed to Hanafi school of thought, Mahmud an-Najwani who passed away on 920 H. out of here, this work could not be determined where the authentic was, Abdul Qadir al-Jailani or Najwani" (Jailani, 2009: 3-4). This statement appoints Ahmad Farid his self who hesitates to whom the original author of the work he inspected. But astonishingly, when he decided to ordinate this work to Abdul Qodir al-Jailani, he did not enclose his reason. Meanwhile Fadhil Jailani in his preface never noticed Baba Ni'matullah Najawani's name by no means. A postgraduate student in Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey, who is not detail enough in doing his research, also wrote a thesis untitled "Interpretation Method of Abdul Qadir Jailani".
This identical phenomenon also took a place in Indonesia. There a few students in Qana'ah: Analysis towards Tafsir al-Jailani", and there are other equal researches as yet. Indeed, if researches about this interpretation were well-conducted in detail, it would get tracked the fundamental differences between this interpretation work and other works of Abdul Qadir Jailani.

The Manuscript of Tafsir al-Jailani
In this part of research, the writer will distribute the statement of Muhammad Fadhil Jailani about the existence of Manuscript of Tafsir al-Jailani which is there in the first part of Tafsir al-Jailani.
1. According to Muhammad Fadhil Jailani, it was there a hand-writing manuscript from Abdul Qodir Jailani in Qadiriyah Library in Baghdad. But, that manuscript was sheer off in centuries before, than it was rediscovered in Syam. While it had been discovered, the manuscript they meant was not found again (Geylani, 2009: 26). And nowadays it remained undiscovered. 2. Fadhil Jailani stated that there was a manuscript from India, but it was minus one volume. Inside that manuscript was written issued at 622 H, 61 year after Abdul Qadir Jailani passed away (Geylani, 2009: 26). In addition, Fadhil amplified nothing about the manuscript except its name. As a result, the content of manuscript meant could not be identified.

Manuscript (A) is the manuscript which Fadhil Jailani tackled to have it be inspected.
Fadhil did not clarify where he got manuscript (A), whether it was from library or individual source, and in what date and year it was published. In the first part pages from volume 1, Fadhil added a few manuscripts that he meant as manuscript (A) and it was written by its previous writer "min tafsir sultan al-Arifin Sayid Abdul Qadir al -Jailani" (Geylani, 2009: 26). Meanwhile on which Muhammad Farid Mazidi conducted was a hand-writing manuscript from Dar al-Kutub al-Misri. If only relying on this sort of manuscript, it could considerably be detected heaps of hand-writing manuscript with the title al-Futuhat al-Ilahiyah as work result of Ni'matullah Najwani. As a matter of fact, there was a manuscript written by Ni'matullah Najwani himself lied on Topkapi Museum that could topple Muhammad Farid Mazidi's preference.

Content and Language Diction
Both Tafsir al-Jailani in Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah version or Markaz Jailani version, if it is enclosed with al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah, the work of Najwani, it was not there any significantly difference. There was not equal thing such as in the diction, the use of word and abbreviation used in Tafsir al-Jailani which did not reduce its content and showed that the two are different works. Over all was slightly no deference. This would be the first step that both two works are the one work. Therefore, if there was an original document which had been written by Abdul Qodir Jailani or his student and enclosed with its year of writing, as well as we compared with the genuine document written by Najwani (could be found in Topkapi Museum) at 901 H, we would be able to presume that interpretation work was most likely written by Abdul Qadir Jailani because he absolutely existed before Najwani. The matter was Najwani had the same document with its similar content which written by himself, perhaps he adopted from the Tafsir written by Abdul Qodir Jailani then he elaborated in some of its parts. Unfortunately, the document ordinated to Abdul Qadir Jailani was totally frail. Firstly, it had no accurate date. Secondly, the date was on 1275 H which was definitely out of the date compared with Najwani's document with year of writing at 901. As the result, perhaps the work written by Abdul Qadir Jailani has no strong basic argumentation.
In the other hand, there are lots of ambiguities in the content side if this interpretation (Tafsir) would be ordinated to Abdul Qadir Jailani. For instance, in that Tafsir, there are plentiful Sufism terminologies applied by Sufism scholars who lived after Ibnu Arabi. Meanwhile, in the other works of Abdul Qadir Jailani such as Fathu ar-Rabani and Ghunyah are not found similar language diction. Such a more interesting was inside that Tafsir stated that the writer quoted Ibnu Arabi's work untitled Fusus al-Hikam while Ibnu Arabi lived after Abdul Qodir Jailani. In which Abdul Qodir Jailani passed away at 561, in the same time, Ibnu Arabi was a one year baby. How could the author site the opinion of Ibnu Arabi in his work Fusus al-Hikam if his life was prior to the author of Fusus al-Hikam, it was certainly that the author must have been writer who existed after Ibnu Arabi. In this part of context, it should be more appropriate if the work was ordinated to Najwani who passed away at 901 H. To be more perceptible, here are a few excerpts from that Tafsir: One  (Geylani, 2009: 218) . Two text showed above were the excerpts from al-Futuhat al-Ilahiyah and Tafsir al-Jailani.
Both two text above are excessively equal, and there just two differences. First distinct was in the word ‫أيضا)‬ ‫(و‬ in the script of al-Futuhat al-Ilahiyah, while that word was not found within Tafsir al-Jailani. Second distinct inside the script of al-Futuhat al-Ilahiyah was stated ‫الحكم‬ ‫فصوص‬ ‫في‬ ‫قال‬ ‫(حيث‬ ) while in Tafsir al-Jailani was not enclosed. Unless mentioned above was same both in language diction and content. Indeed, the similar content also was adopted by Ni'matullah Najwani in his monograph untitled Hidayat al-Ikhwan (Nahcivani, 1907: 135 archive more aged from the archive of al-Fawatih al-Ilahiyah in the name of Ni'maullah Najwani. Secondly, from the side of content, the discussion within that interpretation work follows other discussions which are not discourse amongst scholar Sufism at the time of Abdul Qadir Jailani, such as the concept of Wahdat al-Wujud. Thirdly, there some terminologies used in that Tafsir are Sufism terminologies which existed after Ibnu Arabi's period.
From the argument presented above, it gets the conclusion that the big trouble will rise if this interpretation work remains ordinated to Abdul Qadir Jailani. That trouble lies on side of inconsistent appellation between its cover page and its preface, the content of Tafsir which relates on spirit of Wahdat al-Wujud, and used of terminologies in which never be adopted by Abdul Qadir Jaiani. On that account, it is presumably more precise if this Tafsir should have been ordinated to Baba Ni'matullah Najwani as stated in document he wrote by himself and still exists at current time. Furthermore, the content of this Tafsir is closer to the works of Baba Ni'matullah Najwani who was the pursuivant of concept of Ibnu Arabi.