[CIS 5.2 (2009) 339343] Comparative Islamic Studies (print) ISSN 1740-7125doi: 10.1558/cis.v5i2.339 Comparative Islamic Studies (online) ISSN 1743-1638

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2011, Unit S3, Kelham House, 3 Lancaster Street, Sheffield S3 8AF

The Sage Learning of Liu Zhi: Islamic Thought in Confucian Terms, by Sachiko Murata, William C. Chittick and Tu Weiming. Foreword by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series 65, Harvard Univer-sity Press, 2009. 678 pp., 140 line illustrations, hb. $49.95/36.95/45.00, ISBN-13: 9780674033252.

Richard Viladesau, Fordham University, viladesau@fordham.edu.

The earliest translators of the Buddhist scriptures into Chinese used the technique usually called matching concepts (g-y): the appropriation of terms from native Chinese philosophy, especially Daoism, to express Buddhist ideas. Later Buddhists found this method problematic: it dis-torted the Buddhist message and led to serious misunderstandings. In a later era, the Jesuit Matteo Ricci attempted to find ideas in the ancient Confucian tradition that would serve as a propaedeutic to Christianity, even though it was difficult to decide on an appropriate Chinese term for even so basic a Christian concept as God. Riccis efforts were un-dermined by Romes suspicion of dangers of compromising the faith. It is little known, even among Muslims, that shortly after Riccis time an effort was also made to express Islam in terms of Chinese philosophy. The Han Kitab (hn = Chinese; kitb [Chinese k-t-b] = Arabic for book, par eminence the Quran) is the name given to a group of Muslim Chinese literati who flourished in the 17th and early 18th centuries. Li Zh was one of the most original and profound thinkers in this movement. He was especially distinguished for his scholarship, which drew on Muslim texts in Arabic and Persian as well as the classics of Confucianism, Dao-ism, and Buddhism.

This volume presents Murata and Chitticks translation of one of Lius major texts, accompanied by an Arabic translation by Nr al-Haqq, a foreword by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a lengthy introduction by Murata, copious explanatory notes, and an epilogue by Tu Weiming, who also assisted with the translation.

The core of the book is the text of Tianfang xingli, first published in 1704. The Chinese title itself provides an idea of the complexities inher-ent in contextualizing and translating the work. Tin = Heaven; fng = region or means; tienfang = can mean Mecca, Arabia, or (as here) Islam or Muslim; xng = nature, in the sense of a guiding intelligence; l = prin-ciples, reasona major term in neo-Confucianism; xngl = can thus be translated as metaphysics or philosophy. But to differentiate Lius

340 Book Reviews

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2011

work from Greek-based Muslim falsafa, Murata opts for the more literal title Nature and Principle in Islam.

Lius book is divided into two major sections: the root classic (bn jng), including 10 diagrams, and five short volumes of explanations, consisting of 12 diagrams and accompanying text. This structure pro-vides a progressive unpacking of Lius thought. The first chapter of the root classic summarizes the whole; the four following chapters expand on its meaning; the further diagrams and text provide more comprehen-sive and detailed explanations.

This book is the first of a trilogy by Liu in which he attempts to present the essentials of Islam in terminology taken from neo-Confucianism. This volume is dedicated to the principles or foundational ideas of Islam (ul al-dn) the unity of God, prophecy, return to God. Liu states in his personal introduction that his project was inspired by the realization that the Islamic classics have by and large the same purport as Confu-cius and Mencius (94). His purpose is to bring Islamic learning out of its corner and make it public learning under heaven (93). (Matteo Ricci had taken a somewhat similar tack in introducing Christianity to the Chinese literati; but while Riccis ultimate purpose was proselytizing, Lius was scholarly dialogue; while Ricci disparaged neo-Confucianism, Liu wholeheartedly adopted it).

The form of Islam that Liu expounds is essentially a collection of ideas and translations from six major texts of the Sufi tradition, amalgamated with philosophical ideas from Persian and Arabic works. These sources are generally in the line of thought of Ibn al-Arab, and are sometimes directly inspired by him. Liu stresses the oneness not only of God, but of all things; God is the only truly Real being (the Necessary Being of Ibn Sna); all else is contingent and to that extent unreal or, put more positively, creation is the non-necessary manifestation of the One. Creation, revelation, and human seeking for God are seen in terms of descent and ascent, emanation from and return to God. Humanity is a microcosm of the universe, which in turn is the manifestation of God; hence knowledge of self is knowledge of God and of the cosmos.

If these themes are recognizably Sufi, Lius expression of them is thor-oughly neo-Confucian despite Lius declaration that the words and meanings of this book are totally rooted in the Islamic classics (97). Sufi metaphysics and anthropology are integrated into Chinese humanism and cosmology, in terms of such ideas as yn and yng, the mandate

Book Reviews 341

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2011

(mng) of Heaven (tin), and the function of sages (shng). Liu calls shara propriety (l)one of the five classical Confucian virtues; arqa (the spiritual path to God) is translated as the Way (do), using a word with wide connotations not only in Daoism, but in all Chinese thinking; and Haqqa, the Real, a title of Allah (al Haqq), is rendered by real or true (zhn) a primarily Daoist notion incorporated into later Confucianism. As Murata remarks in her introduction, Many contemporary Mus-lims, especially those under the influence of Islamist ideology, would be shocked by the notion that the Root Classic given its thoroughly Con-fucian color could represent Islamic thought (19).

For the Root Classic itself Murata and Chittick provide a tri-lingual text. On one side are Lius Chinese text and the editors English transla-tion; on facing pages is an Arabic translation-interpretation by Nr al-Haqq and an English translation of it. Nrs translation, from some 200 years after Liu, is recognizably Muslim albeit of a particular kind. It quotes from the Muslim sources Liu used, as well as from Ibn al-Arab. The diagrams that follow the classic are printed in Chinese, with fac-ing English versions and explanatory notes. Lius five volumes of ex-planation are given in English only.

In these multiple layers of meaning and words and interpretations lies the fascination and the richness of this book. Muratas introduction not only explains the structure of Lius work and the intricacies of the task of translating it, but also provides a very valuable introduction to the Han Kitab, to its Persian and Arabic sources, and to the blend of philoso-phy and Sufi spirituality that formed the background for Lius work.

But the editors interest, as Murata says in her Preface, is more in the intellectual content of Lius work than in its historical context. As noted above, Liu Zhi represents a cosmopolitan form of Islam that challenges the narrow conceptions sometimes found both in the West and among some Muslims. He sees Islam in light of the Quranic notion that God sent prophets to all peoples, and that everywhere the wisdom of the sag-es guides to the same ultimate goal (19). For Muslim thought he there-fore poses several critical questions: the relation between intellectual knowledge acquired by discovery (tahqq) and knowledge by imitation (taqld); in more general terms, the problem of reason and revelation; and the problem of universality vs. particularity in revelation. From the point of view of Chinese philosophy, Lius work shows the possibility of a theistic interpretation of the naturalism of neo-Confucianism.

342 Book Reviews

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2011

Beyond such issues, Lius book raises significant questions in the areas of metaphysics, cosmology, anthropology, epistemology, and hermeneutics. Perhaps most relevant today are the questions raised by his project itself. In his foreword to this volume, Seyyed Hossein Nasr states that the masters of the Han Kitab crossed religious and civili-zational frontiers and created harmony between two different intellec-tual worlds through an appeal to the underlying unity that constitutes the basis of the perennial philosophy (ix). But many today raise doubts about any such underlying unity. Nowadays, of course, historians and philosophers generally reject any possibility of universal, impersonal, ahistorical knowledge, Murata notes (24). Some go farther, drawing the implication that religions are incommensurable and ultimately untrans-latable cultural-linguistic systems tied to particular historical events, concepts, and attitudes.

Certainly this work testifies to the difficulties inherent in any transla-tion from one philosophical or religious language to another. Perhaps only one who reads Chinese can fully appreciate the adaptations that the Root Classic makes of its Arabic and Persian sources, and again its differences from Nrs Arabic translation. The Chinese text is composed of discrete lines, like verses of poetry, each consisting of only four char-acters. It is thus a masterpiece of concision. At the same time, the mul-tiplicity of meanings of Chinese characters introduces a vast ambiguity. This is compounded by the nature of the Chinese language itself. On the one hand, its lack of definite and indefinite articles and its frequent use of the same words as verbs and nouns leads to a certain vagueness and suggestiveness; on the other hand, the concreteness of its vocabulary makes it difficult to express abstractions (even though by Lius time philosophical thinking had developed a technical vocabulary). Both Nrs Arabic translation and the editors English translation necessarily expand on and interpret Lius aphorisms, removing some of the ambi-guities, and thus saying both more and less than what Liu literally says.

For a example of the complexities of translation we might take the very first line of the Root Classic. The Chinese reads: qng za bn rn literally, pure [exclamation!] root thus. The English translation has: How pure is the Root Suchness! The English-speaking reader might be tempted to assume that suchness is the Buddhist tathat; but in fact the Chinese characters used by Liu are completely different from those normally used for that term. Yet it would be hard to come up with a

Book Reviews 343

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2011

better translation. Nrs translation into Arabic is even more interpre-tive: Glory be to Him who was a Hidden Treasure! This sounds very far from Lius text. But the subsequent exposition and diagrams make it clear Lius root thus-ness or suchness refers to the undifferentiated Unity of (the) ultimate Being an idea which Sufis connected with the famous Hadith of the Hidden Treasure.

Liu Zhi perhaps exaggerated the commonalities of his Islamic clas-sics with the works of Confucius and Mencius. But he clearly shows that there are analogies between certain kinds of Muslim thinking and cer-tain aspects of neo-Confucianism, so that intellectual dialogue is genu-inely possible. More significantly, perhaps, his project seems to posit an important epistemological premise for dialogue between different cul-tures and systems. Liu declares that What is signified by words has a limit, but what is signified by meaning has no limit (97). That is, like the European Scholastics prior to the triumph of nominalism, Liu seems to hold that thinking or meaning has an intentionality (to use the Scho-lastic term) that points beyond linguistic content and anticipates what cannot be adequately grasped or contained in concepts or words. If this is so, then even verbal and conceptual differences between thought-systems, languages, and cultures, rather than presaging an inevitable clash of civilizations, may cover hidden commonalities of direction that give grounds for dialogue and mutual enrichment. And must this not be particularly the case with regard to the ultimately unfathomable mystery of God?

Does Lius project succeed, or is every attempt at finding matching concepts doomed to failure? Does it end in syncretism? If so, is that a bad thing? (It should be noted that neo-Confucianism itself was already a syncretism: it triumphed over its intellectual rivals Daoism and Bud-dhism by adopting and integrating important aspects of their thought, especially in metaphysics. That is perhaps part of the reason why Liu could find it open to Muslim mysticism.) Whatever conclusions readers may reach with regard to such questions, this translation and presenta-tion of Lius work is an important contribution to contemporary schol-arship on Islam and to the study of religions in general, and with reper-cussions for many other fields.