Обсуждение:Суфизм

Ссылки

СУФИЙСКАЯ ЭКЗЕГЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ТРАДИЦИЯ
Every religion is political: professor // tehrantimes.com

2020

Первыми суфиями считают аскетов, живших в Ираке и Сирии в конце VIII — начале IX веков. Они стремились постичь «тайный» смысл коранического откровения, строго следовали предписаниям Корана и сунны, соблюдали дополнительные молитвы и посты, принимали обеты, стремились вскрыть истинные мотивы человеческих поступков. Им было свойственно эсхатологическое отношение к жизни: отказ от социальной активности, культ бедности, стойкое перенесение страданий и лишений. Проповедовали бескорыстную любовь к Аллаху, страстное желание сблизиться с ним. Мистический опыт постепенно начинает получать теоретическое осмысление у аль-Х̣асана ал-Бас̣рӣ, З̱ӯ-н-Нӯна аль-Мис̣рӣ (8-9 в.), аль-Х̱арра̄за (ум. 899) и др.

В IX—X веках были выработаны основные положения суфизма, в частности учение о «стоянках» и «состояниях» пути к Богу. Позже сформировались собственно суфийская гносеология, опирающаяся на концепцию божественных откровений; суфийская онтология, построенная на теософских положениях; и суфийская этика (адаб).

В конце X — начале XI веков религиозные деятели зафиксировали и систематизировали важнейшие положения суфизма в сочинениях, позднее признанных «классическими». Большая заслуга в «легализации» морально-этического учения суфизма принадлежит аль-Газали и Абду-ль-Кадиру аль-Джилани (Гилани).

В XI—XII веках получил широкое распространение институт «учитель—ученик» (шейх, муршид — мюрид) с его системой религиозно-духовных упражнений и практики (уединение, радения, посты). Появление суфийских братств (тарикат) было вызвано повсеместным распространением суфизма и ростом числа его последователей. Суфийское учение требовало полного подчинения членов братств наставнику как в религиозных, так и в светских вопросах. С ростом авторитета суфийских наставников сформировался целый культ «святых» (авлия). К могилам «святых» стали организовывать паломничество верующих. Из 12 так называемых материнских братств, давших многочисленные ответвления, наиболее распространены кадирия и накшбандия.

Параллельно с практическим суфизмом в братствах, в кругах суфийской интеллектуальной элиты развивался философский суфизм, нашедший отражение в арабской, персидской и турецкой поэзии. Основные положения философского суфизма были сформулированы Ибн аль-‘Араби. Как философское течение суфизм представляет собой переосмысление основных подходов к решению центральных задач классической исламской философии, использующее опыт мистического откровения. Будучи изначально проповедью смирения, суфизм тем не менее сыграл и продолжает играть активную роль в политической жизни мусульманских стран. Суфийские мотивы нашли широкое отражение в произведениях таких поэтов, как — Джаляль-ад-дина Руми, Саади, Дехлеви, Хафиза, Джами, Ниязи и др.

Суфии признавали реальным лишь существование Бога, а окружающие вещи и явления — его эманацией. Они объявили высшей целью жизни мистическое соединение души человека с Богом, требуя отрешения от всего земного. «Соединение с божеством» происходит в экстазе, до которого должны доводить себя суфии.

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān

Ṣūfism и Qur'ān (13,570 слов)

Раннее отношение Суфизм к Корану
Рост и раннее развитие экзистенции Ṣūfī
Центральность Корана для благочестия Ṣūfī
Рост и зрелость эклектической традиции Фуфи (с пятого / одиннадцатого до седьмого / тринадцатого веков)
Расцвет экстатической / эзотерической экзегетики;
Ибн аль-Араби и традиция Кубрави

Taṣawwuf, исламский мистицизм, является аскетически-мистической тенденцией в исламе, характеризующейся отличным жизненным стилем, ценностями, ритуальными практиками, доктринами и институтами. Ṣūfism возник как отличная аскетическая и мистическая тенденция в исламском благочестии под ранними «Аббасидами» примерно в то же время, что и аналогичные движения в Сирии, Иране и Центральной Азии, которые, хотя и обозначены разными именами, разделяли тот же мир, эзотерическое отношение. К четвёртому / десятому столетию иракская тенденция в исламском аскете (см. Аскетизм) и мистическое благочестие (qv), известное как «Ṣūfism» (taṣawwuf), постепенно преобладала и объединяла убеждения и практики своих сестринских движений в других регионах халифата (см. халиф). К концу четвёртого-десятого века ведущие представители этой синкретической аскетической и мистической тенденции в исламе породили значительный объём учения, практики и нормативных устных и литературных знаний, которые стали источником вдохновения, жизненной ориентации, этики и идентичности для последующих последователей, число которых продолжало расти с каждым столетием. С появлением первых лосей Суфизм и, несколько позднее, «суфиев» (пятый / седьмой / одиннадцатый-тринадцатый век) или «орденов» (ṭuruq, sing. Ṭarīqa), луфизм стал неотъемлемой частью духовного, социального и политическая жизнь предсовременного ислама. С наступлением современности в тринадцатом-девятнадцатом веке фуфизм подвергся резкой критике со стороны мусульманских модернистов и реформаторов, а в ходе четырнадцатого-двадцатого столетия потерял почву для конкурирующих идеологий, как религиозных, так и светских (см. ). Тем не менее, ему удалось выжить как в критических замечаниях, так и в гонениях, и даже завоевал признание среди некоторых западных интеллектуалов ".

Раннее отношение Суфизм к Корану

С самого начала Коран был основным источником созерцания и вдохновения для каждого серьезного мусульманского аскета и мистика, будь то формально Ṣūfī или нет. Фактически, многие понятия и термины Ṣūfī имеют свое происхождение в столкновениях с текстом qur'ānic, даря Ṣūfism столь необходимую легитимность в глазах как Суфизм, так и мусульман, не связанных непосредственно с ним. Тем не менее, с самого начала толкование толкований Священного Писания (а также практики, ценностей и убеждений Ṣūfī) оспаривалось влиятельными представителями религиозных учреждений сунни и шии (см. Традиционные дисциплины изучения qur'ānic), изредка приводящие к преследованию отдельных мистиков, Ṣūfīs обвиняли в переигрывании аллегорических аспектов Корана, утверждая привилегированное, эзотерическое понимание его содержания и искажая его буквальный смысл (см. Полисемию, литературные структуры и qur'ān). Чтобы продемонстрировать свою верность духу и букве откровения (см. Откровение и вдохновение), сторонники Суфизма в значительной степени опирались на стихи qur'ānic (q.v.), которые, по их мнению, узаконили их марку исламского благочестия. Такие стихи обычно подчеркивают близость и близость между Богом и его человеческими слугами (например, q 2: 115, 186, 20: 7-8, 58: 7, см. Слугу, поклонение, бог и его атрибуты). Немедленное и имманентное присутствие Бога среди верующих насильно вернулось домой в п. 50:16, в котором он заявляет, что он ближе к человеку, чем «его яремная вена» (см. Артерию и вену). Отношения близости и близости иногда представлены в Коране с точки зрения взаимной любви (qv) между создателем и его созданиями (см. Создание, космология), как, например, в q 5:54 (см. Q 3:31, 76, 134, 146, 148, 159, 5:93, которые также описывают разные категории верующих, заслуживающих божественной привязанности). Признавая себя парагонами благочестия и преданности Богу и истинным «наследникам» своего Пророка (см. Пророки и пророчество, мухаммад), представители ранних [прото-ṢṢfī движений рассматривали такие стихи, которые ссылались прежде всего, если не исключительно, на них, С появлением мистической космологии и метафизики, которые послужили оправданием мистических переживаний Суфизм, они превратили Коран в новое, творческое применение. Таким образом, в знаменитом «Светом Стихе» (д. 24:35) личность Бога отлита в образе возвышенного, величественного и непостижимого света, что делает его в высшей степени способствующим гностическим разложениям на тему света (qv) и тьмы (qv) и вечная борьба между духом (qv) и материей. По словам ранних Суфийских экзегетов, Бог направляет тех, кого пожелает, своим светом (см. Ошибку, заблуждение, свободу и предопределение), но имеет склонность к особой категории благочестивых, богобоязненных людей (см. Страх), которые полностью посвящают себя поклонению ему. В свою очередь, Бог заверяет их в спасении (q.v.) в будущем (q 2:38, 262, 264, 3: 170 и т. Д., См. Эсхатологию). Что касается тех, "кто предпочитает нынешнюю жизнь над миром (q.v.), " ждет страшное наказание "(см. 14: 3, см. 2:86, см. Вознаграждение и наказание). С самого начала мусульманские аскеты и мистики идентифицировали себя с «протеже» Бога (awliyā'), упомянутым в q 10:62 (см. Q 8:34, 45:19, см. Клиентов и клиентов, друзей и дружбу). Со временем Ṣūfī exegetes пришли, чтобы изобразить их как избранных «друзей» Бога и доверенных лиц, которые могут ходатайствовать за обычных верующих и направлять их правильно (см. Ходатайство, святые). В «Суфизм» такие «друзья Бога» были идентифицированы с авторитетными мастерами Суфизм, как живыми, так и умершими. В q 7: 172, который занимает видное место в ранних дискурсах Суфизм, отношения между Богом и его созданиями помещены в космическую основу, как изначальный «завет» (q.v.; mīthāq) между ними. Во время этого важного события человеческая раса предстала перед Богом в форме бестелесных душ (q.v.), чтобы засвидетельствовать абсолютный суверенитет (q.v.) их лорда (q.v.) по его просьбе (см. Свидетельства и свидетельства). Когда-то во владении греховных и спокойных тел (см. Грех, майор и минор), однако, большинство людей забыли свое обещание верности и преданности Богу и поэтому должны постоянно напоминать об этом божественными посланниками (см. Посланник) и пророками. Цель истинного Суфизм — вернуться к состоянию первозданной преданности и верности дня завета, сведя к минимуму коррумпированные движения его тела и его низшей души — тот, кто «управляет злом» (аммара би-л-су, q 12:53, видеть добро и зло). В случае успеха мистик может превратить свое низшее, спокойное «я» в душу «в мир» (al-nafs al-muṭma’inna, q 89:27), которая неспособна не подчиняться своему господину (см. Непослушание). Это может быть достигнуто только посредством навязанных им стрессов аскетической жизни, благочестивой медитации и воспоминания (qv) Бога (dhikr), как явно указано в q 8:45, 18:24 и 33:41 (см. Также размышления и размышления). Наконец, на уровне личного опыта стихи, описывающие провидческий опыт пророка Мухаммада (а именно, 17: 1 и д. 53: 1-18, см. Видения), дали плодотворную почву для мистических разработок и попыток мистически настроенных мусульман к как бы «восхвалять восторг» основателя ислама, тем более, что Коран и сунна (qv) неоднократно призывают верующих подражать ему доблестно. Хотя все эти стихи хорошо отразились на устремлениях ранних мусульманских аскетиков и мистиков, были и те, которые этого не сделали, поскольку они предписывали умеренность в поклонении, наслаждение жизнью семьи (qv) и выполнение социальных обязанностей; (4: 3-4, 25-8, 127, 9:31, 57:27, см. христиане и христианство, монашество и монахи, воздержание). Тем не менее, эти отрывки, а также многочисленные предписания против отказа от этого мира, найденные в солнечной луне Пророка, могут быть либо проигнорированы, либо аллегоризованы, особенно потому, что некоторые из них были неубедительными или противоречивыми (например, q 5:82, что может интерпретироваться как хвалите христианских монахов за их образцовую праведность). В конце концов, однако, вес библейских доказательств и социального давления заставил большинство приверженцев Суфизма управлять средним курсом, что позволило им участвовать в общественной жизни и воспитывать семьи, не ставя под угрозу их аскетически-мистические призвания. По мере того, как тело Ṣūfī lore росло с течением времени, и Ṣūfism стал отличным стилем жизни и системой ритуалов (см. Ритуал и qur'ān), практикой и убеждениями, возникла специфическая толкование толкования, направленное на их оправдание (см. Также экзегеза qur'ān: классическая и средневековая).

Рост и раннее развитие экзистенции Ṣūfī

Самые ранние образцы экзегетических знаний Ṣūfī были собраны выдающимся мастером Ṣūfī в Нишапуре, Абу’Абд аль-Рашманом аль-Сулами (д. 412/1021) в его Ḥaqā'iq al-tafsīr. Эта работа, которая все ещё ожидает критическое издание (но, ср. Изложение Беверга из Суйама Зиядата, приложение к Шакаику), является практически нашим единственным источником начальных этапов мистической экзегезы в исламе. Его главные представители: аль-Хасан аль-Бари (д. 110/728), Джафар аль-Шадик (д. 148/765), Суфьян ал-Таври (d. 161/778) и "Абдалла б. al-Mubārak (d. 181/797) не были суфийскими строгими чувствами, поскольку багдадская школа Суфизма ещё не появилась. Скорее, эти благочестивые люди были присвоены более поздними адвокатами Фуфизма, которые представили их в качестве призраков благородства авангарда-ла-lettre. Хотя их озабоченность духовными и аллегорическими аспектами Писания невозможно отрицать, подлинность их экзегетической логики, которая была собрана и передана аль-Сулами и некоторыми из его ближайших предшественников более чем через столетие после их смерти, далека от определённый. Проблема особенно тяжелая (и интригующая) в случае шестого Шиимама (q.v.), Джафара аль-Шадика (см. Также шииз и куран). Его роль как дойена первозданной мистической экзегезы трудно доказать, тем более, что его экзегетическая логия, передаваемая аль-Сулами, лишена какой-либо из ожидаемых тем шиитов. Если его другой тафсир, переданный в кругах шиитов, не будет похож или идентичен тому, что собрал аль-Сулами, вопрос останется неопределенным (подробности см. В Nwyia, Exégèse и Böwering, Mystical vision). Нельзя исключать возможности того, что элементы шиитов были исключены из экзегетической логики Джафара сунни-Суфизм, которые передавали их по отдельным каналам (см. Богословие и qur'ān). В качестве альтернативы можно предположить, что Ṣūfī и shī'i esotericism возникли в одних и тех же благочестивых кругах (Джафар аль-Шадик часто цитируется в стандартном учебнике Ṣūfī в Abū l-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, d. 465/1072), после чего он принимал разные форм в интеллектуальных средах сунни и шиитов. Проблема авторства менее выражена в случае таких аскетически мыслящих людей, как аль-Хасан аль-Бари, аль-Тхаври и Ибн аль-Мубарак, которые были основными представителями суннита Ислама в их возрасте, хотя их роль в качестве добросовестного прародители традиции Ṣūfī являются проблематичными. Если они подлинны, логика Джафара, вероятно, является самым ранним из существующих методологических принципов мистического тафсира, которые были приняты и разработаны последующими поколениями комментаторов Ṣūfī. Согласно утверждению Джафара, процитированного аль-Сулами в начале его Шаджаика альфафсира, в Коране есть четыре аспекта: «бабара» (буквальная или очевидная артикуляция значения стиха); ишара (его аллегорическая аллюзия); laṭā'if (его тонкие и символические аспекты, см. символические образы) и ḥaqā'iq (его духовные реалии, ср. Боверинг, библейские «чувства»). Каждый из этих уровней значений имеет своих собственных адресатов, соответственно: обычных верующих (аль-авамм), духовную элиту (альхава), близких друзей Бога (аль-шилия) и пророков (аль-битбия). На практическом уровне Джафар и его коллеги из Суфизм обычно имели дело только с двумя уровнями значения: внешняя / экзотерическая (шахир) и скрытая / эзотерическая (банин), тем самым добавляя моральные / этические / юридические значения данного стиха (см. ) под «буквальным» и его аллегорический / мистический / аналогический подтекст под «скрытым». Как продемонстрировал П. Нвейя, экзегетические интересы Джафара были мирами, кроме миров его современного Мукатиля б. Сулайман (d. 150/767), который преследовал более традиционный (хотя и образный) исторический и филологический тафсир (см. ). Например, в отличие от Мукатиля, Джафар не проявляет интереса к историческим обстоятельствам, связанным с битвой при Бадре (q.v.), как представлено в Коране (см. Также случаи откровения). Когда Коран говорит, что «Бог поддержал его [Муψаммад] с легионами, которых вы [его последователи] не видели» (q 9:40), Джафар интерпретирует «легионы» не как «ангелы» (как утверждал Мукатиль и другие экзотерически а также как духовные добродетели, которые Мистик приобретает в ходе своего продвижения по пути к Богу (ṭarīq), а именно: «уверенность» (yaqīn), «доверие к Богу» (тика) и полное «доверие» к нему во всем, что предпринимает (таваккуль, видеть доверие и терпение, добродетель). Аналогичным образом, закон qur'ānic «очистить мой [Божий] дом (а именно Каабу [qv], см. Также дом, внутренний и божественный) для тех, кто обходит его» (п. 22:26) интерпретируется Джафаром как призыв на единственном верующем, чтобы «очистить душу от всякой связи с непослушными и ничего, кроме Бога» (см. ), в то время как фраза «те, кто остается перед ней [Кааба]», затушевываются как предписание для обычных верующих искать компанию «божественных гностиков» («арифун»), которые стоят на ковре интимности [с Богом] и служения ему «. Понятие богобоязненного» гнозиса "или мистического знание (ma’rifa), которое характеризует этих избранных слуг Бога, занимает видное место в логике Джафара (см., например, его комментарий к q 7: 143, 160, 8:24, 27:34). Это должно было стать центральной концепцией в позднейшей эпистемологии Ṣūfī, где она обычно сопоставляется как с полученной (традиционной) мудростью (naql), так и с познанием, полученным через рациональное созерцание («знание, знание и обучение, интеллект»). Коран был для комментаторов Джафара и Суфизм, источником и средством для истинного осознания (taḥqīq) Бога (см. Правду).

Следующий этап развития экзистенции Ṣūfī, или, как точно называет Nwyia, une lecture introspective du Coran, связан с довольно большой когортю людей, которые жили в третьем / девятом — начале четвёртого / десятого веков. Их реквизиты Ṣūfī, за несколькими исключениями (например, аль-Шаким аль-Тирмиди, т. Е. Третье / девятое столетие), не вызывают серьезных сомнений. По крайней мере один из них, Aḥmad b. «Aṭā» (д. 309/922) и, возможно, также Дху-нун аль-Мири (д. 246/861) участвовали в передаче экзегетической логики Джафара, которую они усилили с помощью собственных разработок. Другие — Сахль аль-Тустари (д. 283/896), Абу Саид аль-Харраз (д. 286/899), Абу-Ḥusayn al- Nūrī (д. 295/907), Abū l-Qāsim al -Junayd (д. 298/910), Абу Бакр аль-Васиси (д. 320/932) и Абу Бакр аль-Шибли (д. 334/946) — часто цитировались в литературе Суфи как авторитетные источники экзегетической логики и, в случае аль-Тустари, Ибн’Ай’а и аль-Васиси, также как авторы полных комментариев qur'ānic (Böerering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics, id., Mystical vision).

Центральность Корана для благочестия Ṣūfī

Методы интерпретации Корана, характерные для ранних мастеров луфи, были рассмотрены Нвайей (Джафар аль-Шадик, Шакик аль-Балхи, Ибн Ада и Аль-Нури) и Бевергом (аль-Тустари, аль-Сулами и аль-Дайлами). Их следует рассматривать на фоне практики, образа жизни, ценностей и убеждений, существующих среди членов раннего движения Ṣūfī. На практическом уровне чтение Корана (q.v.) было неотъемлемой частью жизни квитианской жизни. Таким образом, сказано, что Ибн Ада читал весь текст Корана ежедневно и три раза в день в течение месяца Рамазан (qv), который наряду с другими ритуалами и чрезмерными молитвами (см. Молитву) оставил ему всего два часа спать; Сахль аль-Тустари (д. 283/896) узнал весь Коран наизусть, когда ему было шесть или семь лет, и продолжал читать его всю оставшуюся жизнь; Малик б. Динар (д. 131/748) «зажег» его в течение первых двадцати лет [своей жизни] только ради удовольствия (тилава) в течение следующих двадцати лет "(Саррадж, Китаб аль-Лума, 43); Ибн Хафиф (д. 371/981) читал q 112: 1 десять тысяч раз за одну молитву и изредка читал весь текст Корана в ходе одной молитвы, в результате чего он провел целый день и большую часть ночи, и т. д.

В большинстве случаев эзотерические интерпретации Корана вышеупомянутыми Ṣūfīs были плодами многолетней непрерывной декламации в попытке схватить и «извлечь» свой скрытый смысл (istinbāṭ). Этот термин, полученный из q 4:83, стал отличительной чертой методов Суфизм в интерпретации Корана. Оказавшись в скрытом значении в данном стихе своей тонкой «аллюзией» (ишарой), Суфизм почувствовал себя обязанным «извлечь» его с помощью истинба. Этот процесс ограничивается теми людьми, которые полностью погрузились в «море» божественного откровения после того, как очистили свои души от любых мирских привязанностей. Комментируя q 4:83, аль-Ḥallāj (д. 309/922) заявил, что способность Суфи осуществлять упражнение istinbāṭ соответствует "мере его благочестия, внутренне и внешне и совершенствованию его гнозиса (ma’rifa), который самая славная станция веры "(qv; ajall maqāmāt al-īmān; Sulamī, Ḥaqā'iq, i, 157). Тесная связь между способностью практиковать istinbāṭ и строгое соблюдение заповедей божественного закона выносится Абу Нар аль-Сарраем (d. 378/988), известным коллекционером и распространителем ранних знаний о Суфизм. По его словам, «экстракции» (mustanbaṭāt) доступны только тем, кто «действует в соответствии с книгой (qv) Бога, внешне и внутренне, и следует за посланником Бога, внешним и внутренним». В свою очередь, Бог делает они "наследники знания тонкой аллюзии (" аль м-ишхара «) и» раскрывают сердцам своих избранных [слуг] тщательно охраняемые значения (ма’ани мадххура), духовные тонкости (лашайф) и ухоженные тайны "(ашр махзуна Саррай, Китаб аль-Лума, 105).

В случае раннего суфийского экзегета Сахла аль-Тустари мы находим глубоко личные и эмпирические отношения Суфизм к Корану, которое развивается в рамках устного чтения и получения божественного слова (см. Орал, слово бога). Слушая или повторяя стих, который резонирует с духовным состоянием мистика, он может иногда оказаться в сильном экстазе и даже потерять сознание. Согласно Бёвергу (Мистик, 136), комментарий Аль-Тустари можно рассматривать как продукт таких эмпирических встреч «между qur'ānic-ключами и мистической матрицей мира идей». Вдохновленный определённым стихом, аль- Тустари спонтанно старался донести до своих учеников свое глубокое личное и эмпирическое понимание этого, что часто имело очень мало общего с его буквальным значением. Подводить итоги,

Суфизм … читать Коран как слово Божие, и то, что они ищут, не есть слово как таковое (которое может даже стать завесой между ними и Богом), но Бог, который делает себя доступным [своим поклонникам] средствами этого слова (Nwyia, Trois oeuvres, 29).

Темы первых комментариев Ṣūfī на Коране разнообразны и довольно сложно обобщить. Они обычно имеют дело с мистической космологией, эсхатологией и проблемами, с которыми сталкивается человеческая душа на пути к Богу (см. Исследование). После исповедания своей верности своему божественному суверену в день изначального завета (q 7: 172) люди оказались погружены в мир ложных ценностей, соблазнов и иллюзий, предназначенных для проверки целостности их пакта с Богом. Бог создал добро и зло и произвольно наложил свое повеление (amr) на своих человеческих слуг, чтобы отличить благословенных от злодеев (см. Избранные, злые дела, благословение, благодать). В первой категории он назначил особый класс верующих, которого он наделил интуитивным, откровенным знанием о себе и своих созданиях (ma’rifa), оставив остальное человечество довольствоваться «внешними» религиозными убеждениями и практикой. Эти избранные «друзья Бога» (awliyā'Allāh) несут в своих сердцах божественный свет (см. Сердце) и, таким образом, могут рассматриваться как воплощения его имманентного и руководящего присутствия среди человечества. Подражая друзьям Бога (которые, в свою очередь, подражают божественным путям своего Пророка), обычные верующие могут надеяться избежать соблазнов и соблазнов мирского существования и добиться спасения в будущем. Однако достижение статуса друга и гностика Бога не является автоматическим и требует кропотливых усилий со стороны аспиранта (murīd), а также постоянной помощи Бога. Самая большая проблема искателя — это коррумпированное влияние его мерзкого тела и базовой души (нафсов), которая действует как постоянная соблазнительница и союзник Ибли (см. Дьявол). Его махинации можно преодолеть только постоянным воспоминанием о Боге (dhikr), в том числе о том, что он произносит слово Бога и вспоминает о его «самых красивых именах». Эта цель может быть достигнута только избранными немногими, которые пересекают всю длину пути до Бог, чтобы войти в Его присутствие (см. Путь или путь, лицо бога). В этом состоянии они совершенно не обращают внимания на коррумпированный мир вокруг них, беря Бога в качестве своего единственного внимания и смысла. По любому стандарту, так как его начальная толкование экзистенции была полностью элитарной и эзотерической. Его практикующие неявно и, порой, явно отвергали проблемы основных интерпретаторов Корана (правовых, исторических, филологических и богословских) как неадекватных и даже ошибочных, поскольку они сосредоточивались на «шелухе» Корана, игнорируя при этом его всеохватывающее духовное «ядро». Суфизм считали себя единственными хранителями этого ядра и стремились защитить его от посторонних, используя тонкие намеки и неповторимую терминологию.

Некоторые мусульманские ученые были в ярости от жалобы Суфизм на привилегированное знание Священного Писания и осудили экзистенцию Ṣūfī как причудливую, произвольную и не поддерживаемую авторитетом Пророка и его сподвижников (см. Спутников пророка, ḥadīth и qur'ān). Таким образом, известный комментатор Корана, "Али б. Мухаммад аль-Вахиди (д. 468/1076) не только отказался от экзегетического султа аль-Сулами, но даже провозгласил его выражением откровенного «неверия». Подобные негативные отзывы о такой работе были озвучены Ибн аль-Джави (д. 597/1201), Ибн Таймийя (д. 728/1328) и аль-Дахаби (д. 748/1348), которые заявили, что это собрание «Искажение и ересь» (qv; taḥrīf wa-qarmaṭa, см. ), напоминающая экзегетику Исмаили (ta’wīlāt al-bāṭiniyya). Тем не менее, несмотря на такую критику, объемная работа аль-Сулами, которая содержит более двенадцати тысяч глаголов на некоторых трех тысячах куранских пассажей, получила широкую популярность среди Суфизмй различных полос. Как и в случае с Джафаром, Ибн’Ай’а и аль-Тустари, аль-Сулами не включил в свой компендиум какой-либо условный экзегетический материал, будь то юридический, филологический или исторический (Böerering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics). Его позиция четко изложена во введении к его большому опусу:

Узнав об этом, среди практикующих экзотерических наук («аулум лавахир») [которые] собрали [многочисленные] произведения, относящиеся к [полезным] добродетелям (фаваид) Корана, например, методы его декламации (цира’ат, см. ), его [исторические] комментарии (tafsīr), его трудности (mushkilāt, см. трудные отрывки), его правовые решения (aḥkām), его вокализация (i’rāb), его лексикологические аспекты (lugha), его суммирование и подробное объяснение (mujmal wa- mufaṣṣal), его отменяющие и отмененные стихи (насих ва мансух) и т. д. — никто не заботился о том, чтобы собрать понимание своего дискурса (khiṭāb) в соответствии с языком людей истинной реальности (ahl аль-Шакика) … Я просил Божье благословение объединить некоторые из них.

Все сказанные, экзегетические методы и цели аль-Сулами похожи на те из примерно его властей, которые жили в третьем / девятом и четвёртом / десятом веках и чьи первые представители уже обсуждались. Чтобы процитировать главного западного эксперта по этой работе,

Шакаик-алтафсир является коронованным событием длительного творческого периода терминологии и идеологии Луфи, развивающегося в тесной связи с его Кораническим основанием и все же пробивающейся до непрерывного процесса вдохновенного откровения с помощью методологических средств аллюзии (Böerering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 265).

Рост и зрелость эклектической традиции Фуфи (с пятого / одиннадцатого по седьмой / тринадцатый века) Монументальная работа Аль-Сулами, игравшая ту же роль в Суфизм-тафсире, как аль-Шабари (д. 310/923) Джами аль-байан в традиционной экзегезе, заложила основы для последующей эволюции этого жанра литературы юфи. Со временем в теле экзистенциальной литературы Суфизм появилось несколько различных тенденций, которые отражали растущую внутреннюю сложность движения Суфизм в период, предшествующий падению халифата Багдада в 656/1258 гг. Одна из таких тенденций может быть описана как «умеренная» или «шариша-ориентированная». Она представлена такими светлыми светилами, как аль-Qushayrī (d. 465/1074), Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) и Abū Ḥafṣ'Umar al-Suhrawardī (д. 632/1234).

Abū l-Qāsim al-Qushayrī из Nīshāpūr известен прежде всего как автор популярного трактата аль-Рисала [аль-Qushayriyya] fī'ilm al-taṣawwuf, который объединяет элементы биографии Ṣūfī с биографией руководства Ṣūfī. Как и Рисала, комментарий qur'ānic аль-Qushayri Laṭā'if al-ishārāt преследует ясную апологетическую повестку дня: защита учения, ценностей и практики «умеренного», шумидского стиля Джунайда и демонстрация его полного соблюдения основных заповедей Ашхари-богословие. Написанная в 410/1019, эта экзегетическая работа последовательно проводит параллель между постепенным прогрессом от буквального до тончайших значений (laṭā'if) текста qur'ānic и этапами духовного и экспериментального путешествия Суфизм к Богу. Успех этого экзегетического прогресса, равно как и путешествия Суфизм, зависит от способности путника сочетать исполнение благочестивых произведений и подвигов духа со здравыми доктринальными предпосылками. Предоставление предпочтения одному над другим приведет к сбою. Даже когда этот хрупкий баланс успешно поражен, все ещё нуждается в божественной помощи в раскрытии тонкостей божественного откровения, что в равной степени относится и к стремлению искателя Ṣūfī к Богу. Отсюда понятие привилегированного, эзотерического знания как Бога, так и этого слова, которое Бог предоставляет только своим самым близким, избранным «друзьям», awliyā ". Эта идея четко изложена во введении к Laṭā'if al-ishārāt:

[Бог] почитал избранных (aṣfiyā') среди своих слуг посредством [предоставления им] понимания его тонких секретов (qv; laṭā'if asrārihi) и его огней, чтобы они могли видеть неуловимые аллюзии и скрытые знаки (qv), содержащиеся в нём [ в Коране]. Он показал своим сокровенным душам скрытые вещи, так что благодаря эманациям невидимых (см. Скрытые и скрытые), которые он передал исключительно им, они могут осознать то, что было скрыто от всех других. Затем они начали говорить в соответствии со степенями [достижений] и способностями, а Бог — хвалить его — вдохновлял на них то, что он почитал. Итак, теперь они говорят от его имени, сообщают о тонких истинах, которые он передал им, и указывают на него … (Laṭā'if, i, 53).

Прогресс экзегета по отношению к самому сокровенному смыслу Писания описывается аль-Qushayrī как движение от интеллекта (qv) до сердца, затем к духу (alrūḥ), затем к сокровенной тайне (al sirr) и, наконец, в тайну секретов (sirr al-sirr) Корана. Подход Аль-Кушайри к Корану отмечен его тщательным вниманием к каждой детали слова qur'ānic, от целого стиха до единственного найденного в нём письма (см. Арабский сценарий). Типичным в этом отношении является его интерпретация басмалы (q.v.), в которой каждая буква этой фразы наделена символическим значением: bā 'означает нежность Бога (birr) к его друзьям (awliyā'); синь за тайну, которую он разделяет со своими избранными (aṣfiyā'); и мим за свое милосердие (минна) на тех, кто достиг близости с ним (ахл вилатьятихи). В попытке добиться всесторонности маршалов аль-Кушайри несколько альтернативных интерпретаций басмалы, например. один, в котором bā' ссылается на свободу Бога (barā'a) от любой ошибки; синь к отсутствию в нём каких-либо недостатков (саламатуху мин’айб); и мим к величию его атрибутов (Laṭā'if, i, 56).

Хотя такие спекуляции не уникальны для аль-Qushayrī и могут быть найдены в экзегетических работах, современных для него, как Ṣūfī, так и не-Ṣūfī, есть одна особенность, которая отличает Laṭā'if al-ishārāt от них. Для аль-Кушайри басмала — это не просто повторение одного и того же набора значений, поскольку божественное слово не допускает повторения. Скорее, смысл басмалы может меняться в зависимости от основных тем, содержащихся в сурах (q.v.), которые он предшествует. Таким образом, обсуждая символизм букв басмалы, предшествующей q 7, аль-Qushayrī неявно связывает их с темами подчинения (islām), смирением и почтением к истинному верующему в противоположность мятежному поведению (см. Восстание) Ибли и его хозяина (например, q 7: 11-15, 31-3, 35-6, 39-40 и т. д.), утверждая, что письмо bā' имеет небольшую высоту в письменной форме, а точка [под ней], которая отличает её от других [букв], является одиночной и, к загрузке, малой до крайности. Более того, [точка] находится под буквой, [все из которых] ссылаются на скромность и смирение во всех отношениях (Laṭā'if, i, 211-12).

Точно так же присутствие сукуна (отсутствие гласного) над буквой, следуя «смиренному» и «покорному», подразумевает его молчаливое принятие божественного указ и полное удовлетворение им. Наконец, письмо mīm указывает на "его [Божье] отдачу благодати [на вас] (minnatuhu)), если он того пожелает, тогда вашему соглашению (muwāfaqatuka) с его указом и вашим удовлетворением, хотя он и не может отдавать ничего [на вас] (там же).

Интерпретация Аль-Кушайри басмалы q 15 (Sūrat al-Ḥijr) очень отличается. Отсутствие alif в basmala этого sūra без какой-либо разумно обоснованной причины, грамматически или морфологически, согласно al-Qushayrī, символизирует произвольное «поднятие» Адама (несмотря на его «базовую» природу, см. Адам и канун) и его последующее «унижение» ангелов (несмотря на их повышенный статус), как описано в основной части суры. Аналогичным образом, упущение басмалы в q 9 интерпретируется аль-Qushayrī следующим образом:

Бог — похвала ему — раздели (джарраду) эту суру из басмалы, чтобы было известно, что он может наделить (я-хху) кем и кем бы он ни хотел, что бы он ни хотел. [Точно так же] он может выделить кого угодно, чего хочет. Его творение не имеет причины, его действия не имеют ни цели, ни цели (Laṭā'if, iii, 5, см. Свободу и предопределение).

Это, конечно же, позиция Ашари, сформулированная в неявной оппозиции позиции Мутазили (см. Мутазилу), которая выступала за основополагающую рациональность и целеустремленность божественных действий. Таким образом, как уже упоминалось, в комментарии аль-Кушайри символизм Ṣūfī и догма Ash’arī идут рука об руку и развертываются для поддержки друг друга.

Интерес Аль-Кушари к символике букв выходит на первый план в его дискуссиях о «таинственных письмах» (q.v.), которые появляются в начале некоторых куранских глав. Типичным в этом отношении является его экзегеза комбинации alif lām mīm, которая предшествует q 2. Утверждая, что alif означает Аллаха, lām для laṭā'īf (тонкие реалии, которые также являются одним из эпитетов Бога, laṭīf) и mīm для мажи (славного) и малика (царя, см. царей и правителей), он продолжает утверждать, что

Alif выделяется из других букв тем фактом, что он не связан ни с одной буквой в письменной форме, но к нему подключены все, кроме нескольких букв. Пусть раб Божий, рассматривая эту черту, осознает необходимость всех существ для него [Бога], с ним, будучи самодостаточным и независимым от чего-либо (Laṭā'if, i, 41).

Кроме того, особенность алифа очевидна из того факта, что все другие буквы имеют конкретный сайт артикуляции в аппарате человеческой речи (q.v.), в то время как он не имеет. Точно так же Бог не может быть связан с (yuḍāf ilā) каким-либо конкретным местом или местом. Наконец, «верный» слуга Бога подобен алифу, поскольку он не связан ни с одной буквой, ни с её постоянной честностью, ни с её стоячей позой перед ним "(там же).

Как и следовало ожидать от мастера луфи, аль-Кушайри мало интересовался историческими и правовыми аспектами текста qur'ānic. Для него они служат окнами на духовные и мистические идеи и ценности, характерные для благочестия Суфизм. Таким образом, обсуждая трофеи войны (ghanīma), упомянутые в q 8:41 (см. Добычу), аль-Qushayrī утверждает:

Джихад (q.v.) может быть двух типов: внешнего [против] неверных и внутреннего [против] [души] и сатаны. Точно так же, как меньший джихад включает [захват] трофеев войны после победы, у большего джихада есть свои собственные трофеи, которые связаны с овладением его душой служанкой Бога после того, как она была проведена двумя врагами — [его] страстями и сатаной (Laṭā'if, ii, 321).

Аналогичная параллель проводится между обычным голоданием (qv), который включает в себя воздержание от еды, питья (см. ) и секса (см. ) и духовное воздержание Ṣūfī от очарования этого мира и от поиска одобрения его жителей. Подобным же образом аль-Кушайри сравнивает юридическое понятие об отмене (нашх) с первоначальным строгим соблюдением божественного закона новичком Ṣūfī, который вытесняется или «отменяется», когда он достигает стадии, на которой сам Бог становится хранитель его сердца. В комментарии аль-Кушайри все ритуальные обязанности, санкционированные Кораном, имеют более глубокое духовное значение: положение паломников на равнине Арафата (qv) сравнивается с «стоянием» человеческих сердец в присутствии божественных имен и атрибуты (см. ). Несмотря на общую «умеренную» природу, Laṭā'if al-ishārāt не лишен монистических и прозорливых элементов, которые характеризуют то, что обычно описывается как более «смелое» и «эзотерическое» направление в комментариях Ṣūfī qur'ānic. Этот аспект экзегетики аль-Кушари выходит на первый план в его интерпретации q 7:143, в которой Моисей (qv) приходит к Богу в назначенное время (li- mīqātinā) и просит, чтобы Бог явился ему, только чтобы быть униженным при виде горы, рушившейся в пыль, когда Бог проявляет себя к ней (см. теофанию). По словам аль-Кушайри,

Моисей пришел к Богу, поскольку [только] те страстно тоска и безумно влюбленные могли. Моисей пришел без Моисея. Пришел Моисей, но Моисею ничего не осталось от Моисея. Тысячи людей прошли большие расстояния, но никто их не помнит, а Моисей сделал несколько шагов, и [школьные] дети будут читать до дня суда (см. ): «Когда Моисей пришел …» (Laṭā'if, ii, 259).

Несмотря на такие «восторженные» отрывки, книгу Аль-Кушари можно по-прежнему считать типичным образцом «умеренной» толстой экзегетики из-за её главного стремления автора достичь тонкого баланса между мистическим воображением и уважением к букве откровения или, на языке Суфизм, между шари’а и ḥaqīqa. Следует отметить, что аль-Qushayrī также является автором обычного историко-филологического и юридического tafsīr под названием al-Taysīr fī l-tafsīr, который, как говорят, был написан до 410/1019. Это красноречивое свидетельство его двойных удостоверений как как Суфизм, так и обычного ученого («атлим»).

Другим примером «умеренного» Ṣūfī tafsīr является «Аль-Кашф ва-ля-баян» тафсир аль-Коран Абу Исхак Ашмад б. Мухаммад аль-Тхалаби (д. 427/1035). Тяжело опираясь на Шакаика альфафсира, аль-Та’лаби дополнял суфийскую экзегетическую логику, собранную аль-Сулами, с обычными экзегетическими материалами, полученными из Шадита, а также подробные обсуждения филологических аспектов и юридических последствий текста qur'ānic (Салех, Формирование). Работа Аль-Талаби легла в основу знаменитого комментария Маалим аль-таньзиль фитафир аль-Корана Абу Мухаммад аль-Шусайн аль-Багави (отсюда его более известное название — Тафсир аль-Багави). Он родился в 438/1046 году в деревне Баг или Багшур, расположенной между Гератом и Марлом аль-Рудом, и отличился в первую очередь как юрист и муддэдит Шафии, чей тематически организованный сборник пророческих отчетов под названием «Махаби аль-сунна» стал стандартной работой его жанр. Хотя аль-Багави не считался полноправным Суфизм, он вел аскетический и благочестивый образ жизни и избегал любых контактов с властями. Его тафсир отмечен его тщательной заботой о экзегетических материалах, возвращающихся к Пророку и его сподвижникам (альтафсир би-л-ма’тур) и его желанию разъяснить все возможные аспекты текста qur'ānic. Стремясь достичь полноты, он воспользовался разнообразными источниками: от ведущих арабских грамматистов до шиитских имамов и ученых-юристов. Его властями Суфизм являются Ибрахим б. Adham (d. 160/777), Fuḍayl b. «Иай» (д. 188/803), аль-Тустари и аль-Джунайд (д. 298/910), чьи идеи, вероятно, дошли до него через аль-Сулами Джакаик аль-Тафсир и аль-Кашф-ла-байан аль-Талаби, Использование Аль-Багави этого материала, вероятно, было продиктовано его стремлением выделить все возможные интерпретации священного текста, не прибегая ни к одному из них. Поскольку в его возрасте фуфизм зарекомендовал себя как законный и похвальный образ исламского благочестия, он чувствовал себя обязанным упомянуть о суфийских взглядах на откровение, избегая, однако, их более противоречивых аспектов. Таким образом, его включение экзистенции Суфизм не обязательно отражало его собственные духовные и интеллектуальные приоритеты — тенденцию, которую мы наблюдаем во многих поздних экзегетических работах.

Типичным представителем этой тенденции в более поздний период является Абу-Ḥasan’Alī b. Мухаммад аль-Шиши аль-Багдади, более известный как «аль-Хазин» (д. 741/1341), чей Любаб аль-тавил-фи-ма’ни-э-таньзиль является сокращенным исполнением Маалим аль-танзиля аль-Багави. Как и в случае с аль-Багави, экзистенция Суфизм является лишь одним из аспектов текста qur'ānic, который поглощает аль-Хазина, который прямо указывает на это во введении к его комментарию. Его другие проблемы включают в себя правила декламации, материалы, переданные Пророком и его сподвижниками (тафсир би-л-ма’тур), юридические последствия (al- aḥkām al-fiqhiyya), «случаи откровения», любопытные и необычные истории прошлого пророков и поколений (qv; al-qiṣaṣ al-gharība wa-akhbār al-māḍīn al-'ajība). Поэтому причина, по которой этот тафсир иногда классифицируется как Суфизм (например, Айази, Муфассирун, 598—602, тафсир аль-Багави, с другой стороны, не идентифицируется как таковой, там же, 644-9) остается неясным. В любом случае, это, безусловно, указывает на тенденцию к всесторонности, которая постепенно приводила к размыванию границы между экзистенцией «Ṣūfī» и «non-Ṣūfī» и включением экзистенции Ṣūfī в обычные комментарии, как сунни, так и шииты.

С другой стороны, мы наблюдаем противоположную тенденцию к приближению к Корану, когда знаменитые мастера Суфи создают совершенно обычные экзегетические произведения, практически лишенные каких-либо элементов Ṣūfī. Нугбат аль-байан фи тафсир аль-Коран, влиятельный ученый Ṣūfī и государственный деятель под халифом аль-Кадиром, Абу-Шафур 'Умар аль-Сухраварди (д. 632/1234), который иногда классифицируется под рубрикой «умеренная» толстовская экзегеза (например, Böwering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257). Эта работа, которая остается в рукописи (см. Düzenli, Şihabuddin), характеризуется западным ученым как «очень стандартный, немистический комментарий», который "прочно расположен в типе филологической и ситуационной экзегетики, представленной в стандартном сунните комментарии и экзегетические традиции, на которых рисовал аль-Сухраварди "(Охландер, Абу-Шаф). Действительно, даже беглый взгляд на первые десятки страниц его рукописи демонстрирует почти полное отсутствие каких-либо узнаваемых мотивов и методов Ṣūfī. Более того, автор явно заявляет во вступлении, что он решил «придерживаться основ» жанра тафсира и воздержаться от составления сложного и изощренного эзотерического комментария (ubriza min sawāniḥ al-ghuyūb mā yarwīaaash al-qulūb) из-за нехватки времени (п. 2).

Наш опрос «умеренной» экзистенции Ṣūfī был бы неполным без упоминания персидских тафсиров Абу-Файлем Рашидом аль-Дином Ашмадом аль-Майбуди (ум. 530/1135) и Абу Наром Ашмадом аль-Дарваджики (d. 549/1154). Первое из них основано на экзегетической работе знаменитого ханбалистского мистика «Абдаллах аль-Анджари-ла-Харави» (д. 481/1089), как автор прямо заявляет во введении. Неудивительно, что его иногда называют «Тафсир хаваджа» Абдалла аль-Анджари, но титул, данный ему автором, — Кашф аль-асрар ва-дуддат аль-афрар. Родившийся в семье, известной своей ученостью и благочестием в городе Майбуд (провинция Йезд в Иране), аль-Майбуди объединил традиционное образование юриста Шафии и мудхаддита с склонностью к мистицизму и аскетическому жизненному стилю. Как и другие «умеренные» комментарии Ṣūfī, обсуждавшиеся выше, Кашф аль-ашр аль-Майбуди сочетает в себе традиционную историческую, филологическую и юридическую экзегезу с Суфизм ишаратом и лахаифом. Первый обычно выражается в арабском и последнем на персидском языке, тем самым создавая прецедент, которому должны следовать многие авторы Persophone Ṣūfī в Иране и Индии. Обозреватель описывает свой метод как состоящий из трех «ступеней» (nawba). Первый включает перевод выбранных стихов с арабского на персидский (см. Персидскую литературу и qur'ān, литературу и qur'ān); второй — обычный исторический, филологический и правовой комментарий; а третий касается мистических аспектов откровения. Последнее в значительной степени опирается на мистический комментарий аль-Анджари, который, в свою очередь, основан на Джакаике альфафсире аль-Сулами и его суфийских властях, таких как Абу Йазид аль-Бисхами (д. 234/848 или 261/875), аль-Джунайду, аль-Тустари и аль-Шибли (д. 334/946) и т. д. Как и подобает «умеренному» комментатору, аль-Майбуди избегает толкований интерпретации, противоречащих буквальному значению текста qur'ānic. Его трактовка спорных вопросов о антропоморфных особенностях Бога, происхождении добра и зла и божественной предопределенности всех событий — это вопрос Ашхари-теолога (см. Свободу и предопределение).

Мало что известно о других персидских тафсирах того возраста аль-Дарваджики, прозвище «аскетический» (захид), за беглым упоминанием о его работе, который остается неопубликованным. Даже точное название его tafsīr остается спорным, хотя его часто называют Tafsīr al-zāhid. Собственник автора указывает на его склонность к аскетическому жизненному стилю; однако при отсутствии доступного текста этой работы его точный характер невозможно определить.

Совершенно иное видение откровения qur'ānic было представлено знаменитым суннистским богословом и юристом Абу Шамидом аль-Газали, чей знаменитый трактат Джавахир аль-Коран едва ли может быть определён как экзегетический в общепринятом смысле этого слова. Тем не менее, его акцент на многочисленных слоях смысла, встроенных в главы и стихи qur'ānic, и идея о том, что наиболее неуловимые и тонкие из них составляют исключительную область Ṣūfī gnostics, придают ему отличительный аромат Ṣūfī. В этой работе аль-Газали проводит классификацию нескольких типов куранских стихов в соответствии с их содержанием. При этом он устанавливает иерархию стихов, сравнивая их с различными типами драгоценных камней, жемчуга и редких веществ. Таким образом, знание (ma’rifa) Бога символизируется красной серой (драгоценное вещество, которое по средневековой алхимии может превращать базовые металлы в золото), тогда как знание сущности, атрибутов и произведений Бога сравнивается с тремя типами корунда. Ниже этого возвышенного знания лежит то, что аль-Газали описывает как «определение пути, продвигающегося к Богу», а именно стихи Корана, которые освещают основные этапы прогресса верующего перед Богом. Этот прогресс продиктован аль-Газали в типичной Суфизм-образности «полировки» зеркала сердца и души и актуализации божественной природы (lāhūt), присущей каждому человеку. Аль-Газали сравнивает эту категорию куранских стихов с «сияющими жемчужинами». Третья категория содержит стихи, касающиеся состояния человека во время его последней встречи с Богом, а именно воскрешения (qv), расплаты, награды и наказания, блаженное видение Бога в загробной жизни и т. д. Согласно аль-Газали, эта категория, которую он называет «зеленым изумрудом», включает «третью часть стихов и сур в Коране». Четвёртая группа включает в себя многочисленные стихи, описывающие " условия тех, кто пересек [путь к Богу] и тех, кто отрицал его и отклонился от его пути ", а именно различные пророческие и ангельские фигуры и другие мифологические индивиды, упомянутые в Qur'ān (см. ложь, благодарность и неблагодарность; мифические и легендарные рассказы в куране). По мнению аль-Газали, их цель состоит в том, чтобы вызвать страх и предупредить верующих (см. Warner) и заставить их тщательно рассмотреть свое собственное состояние по отношению к Богу. Он сравнивает эти стихи с серой амброй и свежим и цветущим алоэ. Пятая группа стихов посвящена «аргументам неверных против истины и ясному объяснению их унижения очевидными доказательствами». Согласно аль-Газали, эти стихи содержат наибольшее противоядие (аль-тиряк аль-акбар). В шестой категории стихов рассматриваются этапы человеческого пути к Богу и управление его «транспортным средством», человеческим телом, снабжая его законными средствами пропитания (q.v.) и продолжения рода (см. Законные и незаконные). Все это предполагает взаимодействие путника с другими людьми и их институтами, правила которых, согласно аль-Газали, предусмотрены в стихах, относящихся к шестой категории. Аль-Газали сравнивает его с «самым сильным мускусом».

Установив эту иерархию куранских стихов, аль-Газали продолжает классифицировать «внешние» и «внутренние» науки, связанные с Кораном. К первым относятся (а) наука о его декламации, которая представлена читателями и читателями Корана (см. Reciters of qur'ān); (б) знание его языка и грамматики, которыми занимаются филологи и грамматики (см. язык и стиль qur'ān); и (в) наука о «внешней экзегезе» (альтафсир аль-шахир), которую её практикующие, те ученые, чья направленность опирается на «внешнюю оболочку» Корана (аль-хадаф), ошибочно считают непревзойденное знание, доступное для людей, В то время как аль-Газали признает необходимость этих «внешних» наук и их практиков, он отклоняет их претензии, чтобы представить конечные знания о Коране. Он приписывает эту честь «наукам о ядрах Корана» («аулум аль-лубаб»), которые подразделяются на два уровня: низшие и высшие. Первый, в свою очередь, подразделяется на три группы: (а) знание историй о пророках qur’annic, которые сохраняются и передаются рассказчиками, проповедниками и переводчиками (см. Учение и проповедь qur'ān); (б) знание аргументов Бога против его отрицателей, что породило теологию (алькалам) и её практикующих (мутакаллимун); и (c) знание правовых предписаний Корана, которое представлено юристами (фукаха). Последнее, по словам аль-Газали, более важно, чем другие религиозные специалисты, потому что потребность в них «более универсальна». Высший уровень науки, отделившийся от Корана, включает в себя знание Бога и мира а затем знание «прямого пути и способа его прохождения».

Установив иерархию наук, которые выросли из Корана, аль-Газали излагает свой экзегетический метод, который зависит от понятия аллегорического и символического характера откровения:

Знайте, что все, что вы, вероятно, понимаете, представлено вам таким образом, что, если вы спали, вы изучали Защищенный планшет (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ, см. Сохранившийся планшет) с вашей душой, это было бы связано с вами через подходящий символ, который нуждается в интерпретации (Eng. trans. in Ghazālī, Jewels, 52).

Следовательно, «интерпретация Корана (тавиля)», по словам аль-Газали, «занимает место интерпретации сновидений» (ta’bīr, ibid.), А задача экзегета — «понять скрытую связь» между видимым мир и невидимый "(Ghazālī Jewels, 53) или невидимым так же, как интерпретатор сновидений стремится осмыслить чью-то мечту или видение (см. мечты и сон). Эта идея приведена в следующем программном заявлении:

Поймите, что пока вы находитесь в этой мирской жизни, вы спите, и ваше пробуждение произойдет только после смерти (см. Смерть и мертвые, сон), и в это время вы становитесь пригодными, чтобы видеть ясную правду лицом к лицу, До этого времени вам невозможно узнать реалии, кроме тех случаев, когда они формируются в форме образных символов (Ghazālī, Jewels, 54).

Единственный способ познать истинную реальность Бога и его творение — это, согласно аль-Газали, через отречение от этого мира и праведности. Те, кто ищет «суетности этого мира, едят то, что противозаконно и следуют [своим] плотским желаниям», лишены понимания сообщения qur'ānic. Их коррумпированная и греховная природа заставляет их ничего не видеть в Коране, но противоречие и несоответствие. Следовательно, восприятие куранских аллегорий и символов разными людьми соответствует их уровню духовной чистоты и интеллектуального достижения. Комментируя особую добродетель q 1 (Сурат аль-Фатиша, «Открытие», см. Fātiḥa), которую многие экзегеты считают ключом к раю (qv), аль-Газали утверждает, что мирский индивидуум воображает рай qur'ānic быть местом, где он удовлетворит свое желание пищи, питья и секса, в то время как совершенный Ṣūfī gnostic рассматривает это как место изысканных духовных удовольствий и «не обращает внимания на рай глупцов».

Помимо Фатины, аль-Газали выделяет следующие стихи для специального обсуждения: q 2: 255, «Тронный стих» (см. «Трон Божий»), q 112 (Сурат аль-Ихлай, «Чистота веры»), q 36 (Sūrat Yā Sīn), после чего он объявляет Фатиху «лучшим из всех сур» и «Тронным стихом» как «главой всех стихов». В последующем повествовании он перечисляет 763 «стихи стихов» и 741 «жемчужные стихи». Аль-Газали никогда не обращается напрямую к вопросу о том, как и почему некоторые божественные высказывания могут быть лучше других, хотя он обильно цитирует пророческие отчеты, которые утверждают особые достоинства определённых стихов и сур.

Как аль-Кушайри и более ранние экзегеты, аль-Газали убежден, что глубина понимания Корана напрямую связана с уровнем духовной чистоты, праведности и интеллектуального прогресса. Неудивительно, что в своем ранжировании экзегетов высший ранг однозначно предоставляется совершенному Ṣūfī gnostic ('ārif). Ему и только ему раскрывается величайшая тайна бытия. Об этом ясно говорится в «Мишкате аль-анваре» аль-Газали — эзотерическом размышлении о эпистемических и онтологических последствиях «Светлого Стиха» (см. 24:35):

Гностики поднимаются с предгорной метафоры (q.v, al-majāz) на путь истинной реальности (аль-ḥqqqq). Когда они завершают свое вознесение, они прямо видят, что нет ничего, кроме Бога самого высокого (Газали, Мишкат, 58).

Поэтому для гностиков фраза qur'ānic «Все гибнет, сохраняя его лицо» (q 28:88) является выражением экзистенциальной истины, согласно которой "все, кроме Бога, если рассматривать его с точки зрения его сущности, является лишь чистое небытие («мадам»), "Бог — единственная реальность всей вселенной (Мишкат, 58). Эта смелая идея предвосхищает монистические размышления Ибн аль-Араби и его последователей, которые также должны были широко использовать эзотерический экс-есис, чтобы продемонстрировать свое монистическое видение мира.

Расцвет экстатической / эзотерической экзегетики;

Произведения персидского Суфизмса Абу Табита Мухаммада аль-Дайлами (д. 593/1197) и Рузбихана Бакли (ум. 606/1209) представляют собой четкую тенденцию в экзидической литературе Луфи, которая характеризуется "сильными видениями и мощными экстазами, интерпретируемыми в терминах метафизика, основанная на qur'ānically "(Ernst, Rūzbihān, ix). Распространенность таких элементов в экзегетических работах этих двух писателей побудила Беверинга (Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257) описать их как более «эзотерические», чем их «умеренные» аналоги, рассмотренные выше. Аль-Дайлами, малоизвестный, если оригинальный и плодовитый автор, написал мистический комментарий под названием «Таддик аль-ма’ариф» (его иногда называют Футу-аль-рашманом иихаратом аль-Кораном). Он творчески сочетает в себе раннюю экзистенциальную диктовку Ṣūfī, заимствованную из аль-Сулами Ḥaqā'iq al-tafsīr — они составляют примерно половину работы аль-Дайлама — с собственными разработками автора. Удивительно, но аль-Дайлами никогда не упоминает «Laṭā'if al-ishārāt» аль-Кушари, который был составлен за сто лет до его собственного. Как уже упоминалось, собственные тексты аль-Дайлами отражают его подавляющую озабоченность «мистическим миром», который «считается абсолютно реальным и полностью идентичным с духовным миром невидимого мира» (там же, 270). В отсутствие отредактированного и опубликованного текста этого комментария, который, кажется, существует в уникальной рукописи, невозможно детально проанализировать его содержание. По словам Беверга, который открыл рукопись в турецком архиве, это «непрерывный, но эклектичный комментарий к избранным коранским стихам из всех сур, представленных в последовательности», который "состоит из двух параллельных уровней интерпретационных глаголов на коранских фразах, экземпляров Суфийских высказываний, и предметы собственного объяснения автора «. Его работа предвещала» идеи, которые возникли в школе Кобрави "[хуфизма] (Böwering, Deylamī), чье экзегетическое производство будет обсуждаться ниже.

Несколько лучше известен комментарий молодого современного аль-Дайлами Рузбихана [аль-] Бакли Али-Ширази (d. 606/1209), озаглавленного «Арьяс аль-байан фи-ладжаик аль-Коран». Этот массивный экзегетический опус отражает непреодолимую склонность Рузбихана к видениям, мечтам, сильным экстазам и экстатическим высказываниям, которые «заработали ему прозвище» Доктор Экстатик «(shaykh-i shaṭṭāḥ)» (Ernst, Rūzbihān). Подобно тому, как «Таидик аль-ма’ариф» аль-Дайлами, «Арай-эль-байан» был написан на арабском языке и состоит почти в равной степени из более раннего экзегетического материала, в основном заимствованного из аль-Сулами, и собственных глаголов автора. В отличие от аль-Дайлами, Рузбихан также воспользовался материалами, заимствованными из Лахаифа аль-Ишхарата аль-Кушари. Однако использование Рураном Корана как в его комментариях, так и в других произведениях гораздо более смелое, чем те, которые уже описаны. Он не только постоянно ссылается на священный текст, описывая свои духовные встречи и видения Бога, но также утверждает, что символически его съел (см. Популярное и талисманное использование qur'ān). Таким образом, в своем «Кашф аль-асрар», «Открытие секретов», он дает следующее описание своих дальновидных переживаний:

Когда я прошел через атмосферу вечности (q.v.), я остановился у двери власти (см. Силу и бессилие). Я видел всех присутствующих там пророков; Я видел Моисея с Торой в его руке, Иисус с Евангелием в его руке, Давид с Псалмами) и Мухаммад с Кораном в руке. Моисей дал мне Тору, чтобы поесть, Иисус дал мне Евангелие, чтобы поесть, Давид дал мне Псалмы, чтобы поесть, и Мухаммад дал мне Коран, чтобы поесть. Адам дал мне самые красивые имена [Бога] и Величайшее имя, чтобы пить. Я узнал, что я узнал о избранных божественных науках, для которых Бог выделяет своих пророков и святых (Ernst, Rūzbihān, 51).

Вряд ли может быть смелее. Согласно Эрнсту, этот сон считается символом «полной интернализации» Рузбихана вдохновения этих писаний. Коран и его образные фигуры видны в экстатических видениях Суфизм. Таким образом, он сравнивает свое состояние в присутствии Бога с Сулейкхой в присутствии Иосифа (q.v.; q 12: 22-32), как описано в следующем отрывке:

Он обманул меня вином (q.v.) близости и близости. Затем он ушел, и я увидел его зеркалом творения, где бы я ни столкнулся, и это было его высказывание: «Когда бы вы ни поворачивались, есть лицо Бога» (q 2: 109 [sic]). Затем он сказал мне, увеличив мою тоску по нему … и [я] сказал себе: «Я хочу видеть его красоту без перерыва». Он сказал: «Запомните состояние Зулайхи и Иосифа …» (Эрнст, Рузбихан, 42).

Рузбихан также проводит смелое сравнение между собой и Адамом, и Бог говорит следующее:

Я избрал своего слугу Рузбихана для вечного счастья, святости (вилаи) и щедрости …. Он мой наместник (халифа) в этом мире и во всех мирах; Я люблю всех, кто его любит, и ненавидит всех, кто его ненавидит, потому что я «тот, кто действует, когда хочет» (q 107: 11 [sic], Ernst, Rūzbihān, 48).

Это чувство взаимной любви, интимности и [com] страсти между Богом и его мистическим любовником является отличительной чертой всего мистического наследия Рузбихана. По словам Эрнста, само название комментария Рузбихана — «Арьяс аль-Баян», «Невесты объяснения» — «призывает к открытию невесты в любящей встрече как модели посвящения в эзотерическое знание Бога» (Эрнст, Рузбихан, 71). Можно утверждать, что прозорливый и экстатический опыт Рузбихана практически пронизан qur’annic языком и образами. Как и в ранних мастерах Суфизм, Коран служит Рузбихану как средство преобразования себя и, в конечном счете, достижения конечной близости и познания Бога.

Ибн аль-Араби и традиция Кубрави

Согласно классификации Беверинга (Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257), на последующем этапе развития экзистенции Суфизм доминировали два основных штамма: Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn al-'Arabī (d. 638/1240) и его последователи (в основном в Мусульманский восток) и Наджм ал-Дин Кубра (ум. 618/1221) и кубавинская школа Суфизма.

Можно сказать, что длительное влияние Ибн аль-Араби на последующую традицию Ṣūfī происходит от его роли интеллектуального моста между восточными и западными штаммами фуфизма. В то время как идеи Суфизм первоначально распространялись на запад — от Сахл-эль-Тустари и Багдадской школы до Ибн-Масарра-аль-Джабали (д. 319/931) и его преемников Андалуси и Магриби — к шестому / двенадцатому столетию западный куфизм приобрел отличительный характер и был представленный такими универсальными и оригинальными мыслителями, как Ибн Барраджан (д. 536/1141), Ибн аль-Ариф (д. 536/1141), Ибн Каси (546/1151), Абу Мадьян (д. 594/1197) и Ибн аль -Араби, чтобы назвать лишь несколько (Гриль, «Лекция лекций», 521-2). Из них Ибн Барраджан заслуживает особого внимания как автор хотя бы одного и, возможно, двух комментариев Ṣūfī, которые, похоже, оказали глубокое влияние на Ибн аль-Араби и его многочисленных последователей на мусульманском востоке.

Как и в случае с более ранними Ṣūfī exegetes, Ибн Барраджан предполагал осознание комического послания мистиком как его прогрессивное погружение в его тайны, что в конечном итоге приводит к тому, что андалузский мастер называл «первостепенным чтением» (al-tilāwa l -ulya) Коран. В этом процессе сама личность мистика трансформируется этой встречей с божественным словом, когда он переходит из своего буквального послания («ибратита») к его основополагающей, «переходящей к» истине (alma’būr ilayhi) и от физическое восприятие (baṣar) священного текста в интерьере, интуитивное понимание его внутренней реальности (Gril, «La lecture», 516). Другими словами, в процессе «запоминания» (dhikr) и размышления о Коране мистик развивает глубокое и подлинное понимание, которое позволяет ему осознать свое истинное значение и последствия. В результате он в конечном итоге превращается в «универсального слугу» (аль-аль-аль-кулли), чье чтение священного текста в два раза эффективнее декламации обычного верующего или «частичного слуги» (аль-'бд аль-juz'ī).

Экзегеза Ибн Барраджана показывает следующие характерные черты, которые отличает его от основной интерпретационной традиции (элементы которой должным образом представлены в его работе): (1) настойчивость в том, что дайкр должен служить средством достижения полной и неразделенной концентрации на священном текст; (2) постоянное осознание тонких соответствий между явлениями и сущностями Вселенной и «знаками», встроенными в Писание; (3) утверждение, что сердце «универсального слуги» способно охватить совокупность существования так же, как оно содержится в Консервированной Скрижали; и (4) представление о том, что божественное слово составляет высшую реальность человеческой природы, что позволяет стереть границу, отделяющую существо от её создателя и тем самым достичь когнитивного и эмпирического союза между ними (там же, 520- 1). Наконец, Ибн Барраджан ограничивает эту превосходную реализацию божественного слова небольшой группой богобоязненных людей, которых он идентифицирует как «верных» (ṣiddīqūnn). Его смелые идеи были разработаны и воплощены в наследии Ибн аль-Араби и его школы.

Ибн аль-Араби использует Коран богатых и пестрых. Он утверждает, что написал многотомный комментарий к Корану под названием «Аль-Джами-ва-л-тафсиль-фа-атр-ма’ани-л-танзиль», который, кажется, был потерян. С другой стороны, вся его работа, в том числе его главные шедевры — Фусуй аль-ḥikam и аль-Футутат аль-маккия, можно рассматривать как гигантский комментатор, посвященный основам текстов ислама, Корана и сунны Пророка. Его общий подход к Корану следует рассматривать в общем контексте его мысли, которая характеризуется убеждением, что истинные реальности Бога и Вселенной скрыты от обычных людей за искажающей завесой образов и явлений. Однако эти истинные реалии могут быть доступны избранным немногим через духовное пробуждение и особое интеллектуальное понимание или «раскрытие» (кашф), наделившее их Богом. Ибн аль-Араби называет обладателей этого прозрения «людьми истинной реальности» (ахль аль-шакика) или «божественными гностиками» («арифун»). Они и только они могут расшифровать истинный смысл символов, которые составляют как текст qur'ānic, так и сущности и явления эмпирической вселенной, которые Ибн аль-Араби сравнивают с гигантской книгой. Для него как Коран, так и вселенная — это всего лишь «книги» Бога — совокупности символов и образов, за которыми лежат конечные реалии существования, которые в конечном счете берут свое происхождение и как-то идентичны божественной реальности (аль-ḥqq). Расшифровка этих символов и изображений становится возможной благодаря Божьим откровениям (таджалли) избранным «друзьям» и через их способность воспринимать их скрытый смысл посредством их образных способностей.

Поскольку Ибн аль-Араби считал себя величайшим «парнем своего возраста» (и, возможно, всех времен) и духовным «полюсом» (al-bṭb) вселенной, он не видел причин узаконить свое понимание смысла Священное Писание или, как он выразился, его «духа» (rūḥ) — со ссылкой на любой предшествующий экзегетический авторитет или традицию. По его мнению, он освобожден от такого оправдания, потому что его «эпистемический источник» — это не что иное, как божественное вдохновение (Неттлер, Луфи метафизика, 29). Это отношение видно из его поэтических комментариев по избранным кураническим сурам, включенным в его поэтический сборник (Dīwān, 136-79). Здесь Ибн аль-Араби предлагает экзегезу, направленную на выявление «духовной квинтэссенции» (rūḥ) этих сур. При этом он сознательно отбрасывает свою роль в роль простого передатчика излияний божественных побуждений, которые продиктованы ему в «мистический момент» (wārid al-waqt), в котором он оказался. Он непреклонен в том, что он ничего не добавил к тому, что он получил от этого божественного источника вдохновения (Bachmann, Un commentaire, 503). Его использование поэзии — искусство, связанное с доисламским язычеством (см. Поэзию и поэты, пре-исламскую арабию и куран) — и его случайное подражание метру и ритму куранских глав (см. Неразумность, провокация), несомненно, вызвало много научные брови, как при его жизни, так и после его смерти. Так же его радикальный отход от конвенций традиционной экзегетики. Таким образом, в разъяснении «духа» Фатиха Ибн аль-Араби смело и некому-то, что нелепо относится к Богу как «свет, не похожий на какой-либо другой свет» — ясный намек на Светлый стих (айат аль-нур, д 24 : 35) — затем переходит к обсуждению его последствий, которые имеют мало общего с сурой, которую он якобы обсуждает (Bachmann, Un commentaire, 505).

Однако его утверждение быть простым рупором божественного вдохновителя освобождает его, однако, от необходимости оправдывать его экзегетический метод или следовать какой-либо обычной логике. Эта вдохновляющая экзегеза, по словам Ибн аль-Араби, обеспечивает абсолютную уверенность в толковании божественного слова и перекрывает все альтернативные её понимания. Ибн аль-Араби также пересматривает q 24:35 во многих отрывках своего великого опуса, аль-Футутат аль-маккия. Здесь его интерпретация этого стиха раскрывает три различных уровня понимания его значения: метафизический и космологический, аналогичный (построенный вокруг неявных соответствий между Вселенной и человеческой индивидуальностью) и экзистенциально-эмпирический, основанный на понятии — настолько дорогостоящем Ибн аль-Араби — о единстве (и единстве) Бога, человечества и вселенной (Gril, Le commentaire, 180). В Fuṣūṣ аль-хикам — противоречивый медитация Ибн аль-Араби на явлении пророческой и его основные представители — его использование коранического текста особенно смелые и сложные (то же самое относится и к его использованию сунны). Коран, радикально и радикально переосмысленный мастером Суфизм, служит демонстрацией его монистической метафизики (см. Также философию и qur'ān). Более того, для Ибн аль-Араби его монистическое видение Бога, человечества и вселенной составляет самую истину и конечный смысл откровения qur'ānic (Nettler, Ṣūfī metaphysics, 13-14). В Fuṣūṣ традиционные экзегетические знания, связанные с пророками и другими людьми, упомянутыми в тексте qur'ānic, inextri- легко переплетаются с «чрезвычайно заумной метафизикой ṢṢfī», которая, по-видимому, для Ибн аль-Араби отражает её внутреннюю, истина (там же, 14). Такая экзегеза настолько уникальна и уникальна, что её «можно считать самостоятельным исламским религиозным жанром», который можно назвать «метафизическим рассказом» Фуфи "(там же).

В качестве примера экзегетического метода Ибн аль-Араби можно привести его смелое исполнение истории Аарона (qv), Моисея и золотого тельца (q 7: 148-55 и q 20: 85-94, см. Теленок золота). Здесь — вопреки буквальному значению сюжета qur'ānic — Аарон и поклонники золотого тельца изображаются как мудрее Моисея, который ошибочно ругает их за то, что они впадают в идолопоклонство (см. Идолопоклонство и идолослужители). В отличие от магов, они понимают, что Богу можно поклоняться в каждом объекте, потому что каждый объект, включая золотого тельца, является «местом божественного самопроявления» (ба-аль-маджали л-илахия, Фузу, 192; Неттлер, Суфизм метафизика, 53). В этой интерпретации первоначальное кураническое осуждение идолопоклонства полностью перевернуто: идолослужители становятся «гностиками», которые

знайте полную истину о идолопоклонстве, но не обязаны раскрывать эту истину даже пророкам, апостолам и их наследникам, поскольку все они имеют свои богоугодные роли в пресечении идолопоклонства и поощрении поклонения Богу в свое время и их положение (Неттлер, Луфи метафизика, 67).

Однако конечная истина заключается в том, что Бог имманентен ко всему и может повсюду поклоняться. Здесь, и во всем Фулусе, единое, монистическое видение Ибн аль-Араби, монистическое видение Бога и мира представлено в рамках сюжета qur'ānic (q.v.), относящегося к перипетиям пророческих миссий прошлого (см. Рассказы о наказаниях). Однако для него это не его личное видение, а истинный и неподдельный смысл божественного слова (там же, 94).

Основные темы наследия Ибн аль-Араби были исследованы и разъяснены его главным учеником, ад-эль-дином аль-Кунави (d. 673/1274), автором многочисленных влиятельных работ по теоретическому фуфизму. Его главный экзегетический труд, Шаз аль-Батан фитавиль аль-Коран, является длительным девизом о метафизических, эпистемологических и психологических последствиях первой суры Корана, исходя из предположения, что это составляет суть сущности откровения. Задолженность автора Ибн аль-Араби очевидна с самого начала, когда он заявляет, что

Бог создал первобытный макрокосм (аль-альлам аль-кабир) — с точки зрения его [внешней] формы — книги с изображениями божественных имен … и он [Бог] создал идеального человека — который является всего лишь микрокосмом (аль-алам аль-шагир) — промежуточная книга с точки зрения её формы, которая объединяет в себе наличие названий и наличие названных [то есть Бог]. Он также показал великий Коран в качестве руководства для человека, который сформирован по его образу, чтобы объяснить скрытый аспект его пути, тайну его суры и его ранга (Qūnawī, al-Tafsir, 98),

Аль-Кунави идентифицирует пять уровней и сферы существования и их соответствие пяти слоям смысла божественного слова. Для экзегета эта задача идентификации гораздо важнее, чем мелочь обычного тафсира, с которым он утверждает, что намеренно отказался (там же, 103). Акцент Аль-Кунави на иерархии божественных имен и их онтологических коллег (сферы бытия), пожалуй, является наиболее отличительной чертой этого высокотехнологичного и прекрасного мистического комментария, который стал характеризовать интеллектуальное наследие школы Ибн аль-Араби мысли в целом.

В «Абд аль-Раззак Камал аль-Дин аль-Кашани» (д. 730/1329), уроженец иранской провинции Джибал, мы находим другого ученого, полностью приверженного духовному и интеллектуальному наследию Ибн аль-Араби, оставаясь при этом оригинальным мистическим мыслитель сам по себе. Аль-Кашани не только отличился как сторонник своего великого предшественника, но и как эффективный распространитель его мистического учения, которое к тому времени стало известно как «доктрина единства / единства бытия / существования» (waḥdat al-wujūd). Как пропагандист идей Ибн аль-Араби, его главным достижением является его способность избавить их от их первоначальной двусмысленности и открытости и представить их в ясной и доступной форме любому, кто хотел бы их изучить. Аль-Qāshānī преуспел в этой задаче настолько, что его популярный мистический комментарий, первоначально названный Ta’wīl al-Qur’ann, на протяжении нескольких веков считался многими, как работа самого Ибн аль-Араби. Фактически, его последнее издание, появившееся в Бейруте в 1968 году, получило название Тафсир аль-Коран аль-карим лил-шейх аль-акбар … Ибн Араби. Систематический и ясно мыслящий мыслитель аль-Qāshānī дает подробное самоотражающее изложение своего экзегетического метода во введении к его комментарию. Ссылаясь на знаменитого пророческого хадита, согласно которому каждый кураничный стих имеет два аспекта: «внешний» («хар») и «внутренний» (баун) аль-Кашани определяет понимание первого как тафсира, а последнего — та’виля (Кашани, Ta’wīl, i, 4). Его собственная интерпретация последовательно идентифицируется как ta’wīl на протяжении всей его работы. Это указывает на то, что к тому времени жесткая tafsīr / ta’wīl дихотомия, которая, судя по всему, не существовала в более ранние периоды, — как аль-Шабари, так и аль-Бэджави (d. Prob. 716/1316) не имели никаких компромиссов в применении слова ta’wīl к их обычным комментариям — стал широко распространенным, по крайней мере, в некоторых кругах (см., однако, Shahh Walī Allāh, который определил ta’wīl как обычный исторический и контекстный комментарий, Baljon, Religion and thought, 141). В раскрывающемся отрывке из введения к его «Тавиль аль-Кашани» описываются его личные отношения с откровением qur'ānic, которое в известном смысле олицетворяет положение Суфизм по отношению к божественному слову:

Долгое время я делал декламацию (тилава) Корана своей привычкой и обычаем и размышлял о её значении с помощью [полной] силы моей веры. Тем не менее, несмотря на мою усердие при чтении отрывков из неё (al-awrād), моя грудь была ограничена, моя душа беспокоилась, и мое сердце оставалось закрытым для неё. Однако мой лорд не отвлекал меня от этого декламации, пока я не привык и не привык к нему, и начал ощущать сладость его чашки и её напитка. Именно тогда я почувствовал себя бодрящим, моя грудь открылась, моя совесть расширилась, мое сердце успокоилось, и мое внутреннее я освободилось … этими откровениями. Затем из-за завесы явился смысл каждого стиха, так что мой язык был неспособен описать, не имел способности определять и считать, и никакая сила не могла противостоять раскрытию и раскрытию "(Ta’wīl, i, 4).

В отличие от авторов «умеренных» комментариев Суфизм, которые обсуждались выше, аль-Кашани сознательно игнорирует те отрывки Корана, которые, по его мнению, не восприимчивы к эзотерической интерпретации (kull mā lā yaqbalu al-ta’wīl’indī aw lā yaḥtāju ilayhi). После более чем пяти столетий экзистенции Суфизм после него аль-Кашани больше не чувствует себя обязанным отдать дань мелочам обычного тафсира и фокусируется только на тех аспектах «священного текста, который резонирует с его эзотерическим видением мира». Даже некоторые любимые стихи «Ṣūfī», такие как q 7: 172 и q 85:22, передаются молча, возможно, потому, что аль-Qāshānī чувствует, что их интерпретационный потенциал был исчерпан его предшественниками (Lory, Commentaires, 31). Обратившись к своим товарищам Суфизм, «людям сверхчувственного открытия» (ахль аль-кашф), экзегезы аль-Кашнани с классической терминологией и темой Суфизм, заимствованные из монистических идей и образов Ибн аль-Араби. Во многих случаях эта терминология не объясняется, предполагая её предварительное знание читателем (там же, 30). Аль-Qāshānī полностью дома, имея дело со всеми основными уровнями экзегетики, установленными его предшественниками: монистической метафизикой с её трехсторонним разделением на эмпирическое царство («алам аль-шахада»), промежуточным царством божественной силы (аль-джабарут) и чисто духовное царство божественного суверенитета (альмалакут); параллелизм и соответствие между Вселенной (макрокосмом) и её человеческим партнером (микрокосмом); основные этапы и духовные состояния прогресса мистика перед Богом; символизм букв арабского алфавита; нумерология (q.v.); и т. д. В качестве типичного примера его метода можно привести его глянцевые слова на стр. 17: 1:

«Слава Ему, кто нес его слугу», то есть [который] очистил его от материальных атрибутов и недостатков, связанных с его творением, посредством языка духовного состояния разъединения [из сотворенного мира] — таджарруд) и совершенство на станции [абсолютного] служения … — «ночью», то есть в темноте телесных покрытий и естественных привязанностей, ибо вознесение и подъём не могут произойти, кроме как с помощью тела — "из священная мечеть ", то есть от станции сердца, которая пролечена от обхода многобожия плотских приводов … (Ta’wīl, i, 705).

В этом отрывке и повсюду четко и твердо установлены соответствия между qur’annic изображениями и психологией, эпистемологией и онтологией Ṣūfī, оставляя мало места для двусмысленности ссылки и референта и общей непрозрачности смысла, которые характеризуют произведения Ибн аль-Араби. Таким образом, можно заключить, что в комментариях аль-Кашани эзотерическая экзегеза прошлых веков получает сжатую, систематическую, возможно, чрезмерно систематическую и ясную артикуляцию. Экзегетический метод, полученный от Ибн аль-Араби и его предшественников, стабилизировался. Его последующая повторная артикуляция такими поздними Ṣūfīs, как Бадр ал-Дин Симави (д. 820/1420), Исмаил Шакки (д. 1137/1725), Шах Вали Аллах (д. 1176/1762) и Ибн’Айба (ум. 1224/1809) — назвать лишь некоторые из них — свидетельствует о замечательной преемственности, которая может быть истолкована некоторыми как недостаток оригинальности. В случае двух последних авторов мистическая экзегеза предлагается наряду с другими типами комментариев, из которых, к примеру, Ибн Аджиба цитирует целых одиннадцать в своем аль-Баре аль-мадиде (i, 129-31). Его тафсир демонстрирует свое равное средство как с эзотерическим, так и с экзотерическим комментарием, без привилегии ни одного из них (Мишон, Ле Суфи, 88-9).

В то время как традиция интерпретации Корана связана с центрально-азиатским мастером Ṣūfīde Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618/1221) и его последователями Наджм-эль-Даном Дайа [al-] Rāzī (d. 654/1256) и "Ala' al-Dawla Simnānī (д. 736/1336) часто рассматривается как отдельная школа экзистенции Ṣūfī (например, Böwering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257), это восприятие имеет больше общего с двумя разными духовными и интеллектуальными линиями, чем с различиями в их подходах к Корану, В отличие от комментаторов Ṣūfī, о которых говорилось выше, мы имеем дело с тем, что составляет коллективную экзегетическую работу, начатую Кубра, продолжаемую Дайей [аль-] Рази и завершенная Симнани, хотя "возможно, что есть два различные продолжения к комментарию Кубра, один от Симнани, а другой Дайей "(Элиас, Престол-перевозчик, 205). «Также возможно, что Дайа пересмотрел комментарий Кубра» (там же). В любом случае этот комментарий остается неопубликованным, и наше знание его содержания проистекает из недавнего западного исследования творчества Симнани Джамала Элиаса (там же, 107-10).

Как и в случае с более ранними Ṣūfī exegetes, Симнани говорил о «четырех уровнях смысла [Корана], соответствующих четырём уровням существования» (там же, 108). Его экзотерический размер соответствует царству «человечества» (nāsūt); его эзотерическое измерение в царство божественного суверенитета (малакут); его предел (ḥadd) относится к сфере божественного всемогущества (jabarūt); и его точка восхождения или анагага (maṭla' / muṭṭala') соответствует царству божественности (lāhūt, ibid., 108). Эти сферы, в свою очередь, соответствуют четырём уровням человеческого понимания Корана — обычного верующего (мусульманина), который полагается на его способность слышать (см. Видение и слух, слух и глухоту); верного (мумин), который полагается на божественное вдохновение; праведника (мусина), который не должен раскрывать то, что он понимает, кроме как с божественным разрешением (idhn); и, наконец, [прямой] свидетель (шахид, видеть свидетеля веры), чье понимание настолько возвышенно, что он должен воздерживаться от его раскрытия кому-либо из страха замешательства и мятежа (там же). Цель Бога в отправке его откровения — очистить сердца и души людей от мирских отвлечений и тем самым привести их к спасению. Для этого он предоставил им специальные способности или «тонкие центры» (laṭā'if), которые ориентируют их на Бога и, в конце концов, приводят избранных немногих к «полному откровению истинной природы реальности» (там же., 85).

Наконец, следует упомянуть экзегезу, которая объединяет эзотерическую экзегезу и мистическую метафизику с теорией шиитов. Здесь в первую очередь рассматриваются экзегетические работы Ḥaydar-i Āmulī (д. После 787/1385 г.), которые последовательно стремились интегрировать идеи Ибн аль-Араби и экзегетические методы в шиитскую интеллектуальную вселенную — и Мулла Джадра (ум. 1050/1640)) и его школу, в том числе то, что представляется чрезвычайно редким, если не единственным, примером мистического комментария, написанного женщиной-ученым из Ирана по имени Нурат. Мухаммад Амин, более известный как Бану-ий Ифафани (д. 1403/1982, Айази, Муфассирун, 310-15, 629-33, Амули, Джами аль-Асрар, Мулла Джадра, Асрар аль-айат, Амин, Тафсир-и махзан).

В этом опросе не обсуждается развитие экзистенции Суфизм в наше время, которое в западной стипендии остается в значительной степени terra incognita (см. Пост-просветительское академическое исследование qur'ān). Для некоторых представительских работ этого жанра см. Ayāzī, Mufassirunn, 833. См. Также мудрость; науки и qur'ān; время.

Ṣūfism and the Qurʾān (13,570 words)

Early Ṣūfī attitudes to the Qurʾān
The rise and early development of Ṣūfī exegesis
The centrality of the Qurʾān to Ṣūfī piety
The growth and maturity of Ṣūfī exegetical tradition (from the fifth/eleventh to the seventh/thirteenth centuries)
The blossoming of ecstatic/esoteric exegesis
Ibn al-ʿArabī and the Kubrawī tradition

Taṣawwuf, Islamic mysticism, is an ascetic-mystical trend in Islam characterized by a distinct life-style, values, ritual practices, doctrines and institutions. Ṣūfism emerged as a distinct ascetic and mystical trend in Islamic piety under the early ʿAbbāsids at about the same time as similar movements in Syria, Iran and central Asia which, though designated by different names, shared the same world-renouncing, inward-looking and esoteric attitude. By the fourth/tenth century, the Iraq-based trend in Islamic ascetic (see asceticism) and mystical piety (q.v.) known as «Ṣūfism» (taṣawwuf) gradually prevailed over and integrated the beliefs and practices of its sister movements in the other regions of the caliphate (see caliph). By the end of the fourth/tenth century, leading representatives of this syncretic ascetic and mystical trend in Islam had generated a substantial body of teachings, practices and normative oral and literary lore that became the source of inspiration, life-orientation, ethos and identity for its subsequent followers, whose number continued to grow with every century. With the emergence first of Ṣūfī lodges, and, somewhat later, Ṣūfī «brotherhoods» (the fifth/seventh/eleventh-thirteenth centuries) or «orders» (ṭuruq, sing. ṭarīqa), Ṣūfism became part and parcel of the spiritual, social and political life of pre-modern Islamdom. With the advent of modernity in the thirteenth/nineteenth century Ṣūfism was subjected to strident criticism by Muslim modernists and reformers, and in the course of the fourteenth/twentieth century lost ground to competing ideologies, both religious and secular (see politics and the qurʾān). Nevertheless, it has managed to survive both criticisms and overt persecutions and even won converts among some Western intellectuals.

Early Ṣūfī attitudes to the Qurʾān

From the outset, the Qurʾān was the principal source of contemplation and inspiration for every serious Muslim ascetic and mystic, whether formally Ṣūfī or not. In fact, many Ṣūfī concepts and terms have their origin in encounters with the qurʾānic text, endowing Ṣūfism with much-needed legitimacy in the eyes of both Ṣūfīs and Muslims not directly affiliated with it. Yet, from the very beginning Ṣūfī interpretations of the scripture (as well as Ṣūfī practices, values and beliefs) were challenged by influential representatives of the Sunnī and Shīʿī religious establishments (see traditional disciplines of qurʾānic study), occasionally resulting in persecution of individual mystics. Ṣūfīs were accused of overplaying the allegorical aspects of the Qurʾān, claiming privileged, esoteric understanding of its contents and distorting its literal meaning (see polysemy; literary structures and the qurʾān). To demonstrate their faithfulness to the spirit and letter of the revelation (see revelation and inspiration) advocates of Ṣūfism drew heavily on the qurʾānic verses (q.v.) which, in their view, legitimized their brand of Islamic piety. Such verses usually emphasize the proximity and intimacy between God and his human servants (e.g. q 2:115, 186; 20:7-8; 58:7; see servant; worship; god and his attributes). God’s immediate and immanent presence among the faithful is forcefully brought home in q 50:16, in which he declares himself to be nearer to man than «his jugular vein» (see artery and vein). The relationship of closeness and intimacy is occasionally presented in the Qurʾān in terms of mutual love (q.v.) between the maker and his creatures (see creation; cosmology), as, for instance, in q 5:54 (cf. q 3:31, 76, 134, 146, 148, 159; 5:93, which also describe different categories of believers deserving of divine affection). Deeming themselves paragons of piety and devotion to God and true «heirs» of his Prophet (see prophets and prophethood; muḥammad), representatives of the early [proto-]Ṣūfī movements viewed such verses as referring primarily, if not exclusively, to them. With the emergence of mystical cosmology and metaphysics, which provided justification for the mystical experiences of the Ṣūfīs, they put the Qurʾān to new, creative uses. Thus, in the famous « Light Verse» (q 24:35) God’s persona is cast in the imagery of a sublime, majestic and unfathomable light, which renders it eminently conducive to gnostic elaborations on the theme of light (q.v.) and darkness (q.v.) and the eternal struggle between spirit (q.v.) and matter. According to early Ṣūfī exegetes, God guides whomsoever he wishes with his light (see error; astray; freedom and predestination) but has predilection for a special category of pious, god-fearing individuals (see fear) who devote themselves completely to worshipping him. In return, God assures them of salvation (q.v.) in the hereafter (q 2:38, 262, 264; 3:170; etc.; see eschatology). As to those "who prefer the present life over the world (q.v.) to come, " «a terrible chastisement» awaits them (q 14:3; cf. 2:86; see reward and punishment). From the beginning, Muslim ascetics and mystics identified themselves with God’s «protégés» (awliyāʾ) mentioned in q 10:62 (cf. q 8:34; 45:19; see clients and clientage; friends and friendship). With time Ṣūfī exegetes came to portray them as God’s elect «friends» and confidants who are able to intercede on behalf of the ordinary believers and guide them aright (see intercession; saints). In Ṣūfī lore such «friends of God» were identified with authoritative Ṣūfī masters, both living and deceased. In q 7:172, which figures prominently in early Ṣūfī discourses, the relations between God and his creatures are placed in a cosmic framework, as a primordial covenant (q.v.; mīthāq) between them. During this crucial event the human race presented itself before God in the form of disembodied souls (q.v.) to bear witness to the absolute sovereignty (q.v.) of their lord (q.v.) at his request (see witnessing and testifying). Once in possession of sinful and restive bodies (see sin, major and minor), however, most humans have forgotten their promise of faithfulness and devotion to God and therefore have to be constantly reminded of it by divine messengers (see messenger) and prophets. The goal of the true Ṣūfī is to return to the state of pristine devotion and faithfulness of the day of the covenant by minimizing the corruptive drives of his body and his lower soul — one that «commands evil» (ammāra bi-l-sūʾ, q 12:53; see good and evil). If successful, the mystic can transform his lower, restive self into a soul «at peace» (al- nafs al-muṭmaʾinna, q 89:27) that is incapable of disobeying its lord (see disobedience). This can only be achieved through the self-imposed strictures of ascetic life, pious meditation and the remembrance (q.v.) of God (dhikr) as explicitly enjoined in q 8:45, 18:24 and 33:41 (see also reflection and deliberation). Finally, on the level of personal experience, verses describing the visionary experiences of the prophet Muḥammad (namely, q 17:1 and q 53:1-18; see visions) provided a fruitful ground for mystical elaborations and attempts by mystically minded Muslims to, as it were, «recapture the rapture» of the founder of Islam, all the more so because the Qurʾān and the sunna (q.v.) repeatedly enjoin the believers to imitate him meticulously. While all of these verses resonated well with the aspirations of early Muslim ascetics and mystics, there were also those that did not, in that they prescribed moderation in worship, enjoyment of family (q.v.) life and fulfillment of social responsibilities, while at the same time discouraging the «excesses» of Christian-style monasticism (q 4:3-4, 25-8, 127; 9:31; 57:27; see christians and christianity; monasticism and monks; abstinence). Yet, these passages, as well as numerous injunctions against the renunciation of this world found in the Prophet’s sunna, could be either ignored or allegorized away, especially since some of them were inconclusive or self-contradictory (e.g. q 5:82, which may be interpreted as praising the Christian monks for their exemplary righteousness). Eventually, however, the weight of scriptural evidence and social pressures forced most adherents of Ṣūfism to steer a middle course, which allowed them to participate in social life and raise families while not compromising their ascetic-mystical vocations. As the body of Ṣūfī lore grew with the passage of time and Ṣūfism became a distinct life-style and a system of rituals (see ritual and the qurʾān), practices and beliefs, there emerged a specific Ṣūfī exegesis aimed at justifying them (see also exegesis of the qurʾān: classical and medieval).

The rise and early development of Ṣūfī exegesis

The earliest samples of the Ṣūfī exegetical lore were collected by an eminent Ṣūfī master of Nīshāpūr, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī (d. 412/1021) in his Ḥaqāʾiq al-tafsīr. This work, which still awaits a critical edition (but cf. Böwering’s ed. of Sulamī's Ziyādāt, an appendix to the Ḥaqāʾiq), is practically our only source for the initial stages of mystical exegesis in Islam. Its major representatives, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728), Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765), Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161/ 778) and ʿAbdallāh b. al-Mubārak (d. 181/797) were not Ṣūfīs stricto sensu, since the Baghdād school of Ṣūfism was yet to emerge. Rather, these pious individuals were appropriated by Ṣūfism’s later advocates, who presented them as paragons of Ṣūfī piety avant-la-lettre. While their preoccupation with the spiritual and allegorical aspects of the scripture is impossible to deny, the authenticity of their exegetical logia, which were collected and transmitted by al-Sulamī and some of his immediate predecessors more than a century after their death, is far from certain. The problem is particularly severe (and intriguing) in the case of the sixth Shīʿī imām (q.v.), Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (see also shīʿism and the qurʾān). His role as a doyen of primeval mystical exegesis is difficult to prove, especially since his exegetical logia transmitted by al-Sulamī are devoid of any of the expected Shīʿī themes. Unless his other tafsīr transmitted in Shīʿī circles proves similar or identical to the one assembled by al-Sulamī, the matter will remain uncertain (for details see Nwyia, Exégèse, and Böwering, Mystical vision). One should not rule out the possibility of Shīʿī elements having been expunged from Jaʿfar’s exegetical logia by Sunnī Ṣūfīs who transmitted them through separate channels (see theology and the qurʾān). Alternatively, one may suggest that Ṣūfī and Shīʿī esotericism originated in the same pious circles (Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq is frequently quoted in the standard Ṣūfī manual of Abū l-Qāsim al-Qushayrī; d. 465/1072), whereupon it took on different forms in the Sunnī and Shīʿī intellectual environments. The problem of authorship is less severe in the case of such ascetically minded individuals as al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, al-Thawrī, and Ibn al-Mubārak who were major exponents of Sunnī Islam in their age, although their role as the bona fide progenitors of the Ṣūfī tradition is problematic. If authentic, Jaʿfar’s logia are probably the earliest extant expression of the methodological principles of mystical tafsīr, which were adopted and elaborated by subsequent generations of Ṣūfī commentators. According to Jaʿfar’s statement cited by al-Sulamī at the beginning of his Ḥaqāʾiq al- tafsīr, the Qurʾān has four aspects: ʿibāra (a literal or obvious articulation of the meaning of a verse); ishāra (its allegorical allusion); laṭāʾif (its subtle and symbolic aspects; see symbolic imagery) and ḥaqāʾiq (its spiritual realities; cf. Böwering, Scriptural «senses»). Each of these levels of meanings has its own addressees, respectively: the ordinary believers (al- ʿawāmm), the spiritual elite (al- khawāṣṣ), God’s intimate friends (al- awliyāʾ) and the prophets (al- anbiyāʾ). On the practical level, Jaʿfar and his Ṣūfī counterparts usually dealt with just two levels of meaning: the outward/exoteric (ẓāhir) and the hidden/esoteric (bāṭin), thereby subsuming the moral/ethical/legal meanings of a given verse (see ethics and the qurʾān; law and the qurʾān) under «literal» and its allegorical/mystical/anagogical subtext under «hidden.» As demonstrated by P. Nwyia, Jaʿfar’s exegetical interests were worlds apart from those of his contemporary Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767) who pursued a more conventional (albeit imaginative) historical and philological tafsīr (see grammar and the qurʾān). For instance, unlike Muqātil, Jaʿfar shows no interest in the historical circumstances surrounding the battle of Badr (q.v.), as presented in the Qurʾān (see also occasions of revelation). When the Qurʾān says that «God supported him [Muḥammad] with the legions you [his followers] did not see» (q 9:40), Jaʿfar interprets the «legions» not as «angels» (as argued by Muqātil and other exoterically minded exegetes; see angel; ranks and orders; troops) but as spiritual virtues that the Mystic acquires in the course of his progress along the path to God (ṭarīq), namely, «certitude» (yaqīn), «trust in God» (thiqa) and a total «reliance» on him in everything one undertakes (tawakkul; see trust and patience ; virtue). Likewise, the qurʾānic injunction to «purify my [God’s] house (namely, the Kaʿba ; see also house, domestic and divine) for those who shall circumambulate it» (q 22:26) is interpreted by Jaʿfar as a call upon the individual believer to «purify [his] soul from any association with the disobedient ones and anything other than God» (see polytheism and atheism), while the phrase «those who stay in front of it [the Kaʿba]» is glossed as an injunction for the ordinary believers to seek the company of «the [divine] gnostics (ʿārifūn), who stand on the carpet of intimacy [with God] and service of him.» The notion of the divinely bestowed "gnosis, " or mystical knowledge (maʿrifa), which characterizes these elect servants of God figures prominently in Jaʿfar’s logia (see e.g. his commentary on q 7:143, 160; 8:24; 27:34). This was to become a central concept in later Ṣūfī epistemology, where it is usually juxtaposed with both received (traditional) wisdom(naql) and knowledge acquired through rational contemplation (ʿaql; see knowledge and learning; intellect). The Qurʾān was, for Jaʿfar and Ṣūfī commentators, a source of and a means towards the true realization (taḥqīq) of God (see truth).

The next stage of the development of Ṣūfī exegesis, or, as Nwyia aptly calls it, une lecture introspective du Coran, is associated with a fairly large cohort of individuals who lived in the third/ninth-early fourth/tenth centuries. Their Ṣūfī credentials, a few exceptions apart (e.g. al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, fl. third/ninth cent.), do not raise any serious doubts. At least one of them, Aḥmad b. ʿAṭāʾ (d. 309/922), and possibly also Dhū l-Nūn al-Miṣrī (d. 246/ 861) were involved in the transmission of Jaʿfar’s exegetical logia, which they amplified with their own elaborations. The others — namely Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), Abū Saʿīd al-Kharrāz (d. 286/899), Abū l-Ḥusayn al- Nūrī (d. 295/907), Abū l-Qāsim al-Junayd (d. 298/910), Abū Bakr al-Wāsiṭī (d. 320/932) and Abū Bakr al-Shiblī (d. 334/946) — were frequently cited in Ṣūfī literature as authoritative sources of exegetical logia and, in the case of al-Tustarī, Ibn ʿAṭāʾ and al-Wāsiṭī, also as authors of full-fledged qurʾānic commentaries (Böwering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics; id., Mystical vision).

The centrality of the Qurʾān to Ṣūfī piety

The methods of Qurʾān interpretation characteristic of early Ṣūfī masters were examined by Nwyia (Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, Shaqīq al-Balkhī, Ibn ʿAṭāʾ, and al-Nūrī) and Böwering (al-Tustarī, al-Sulamī, and al-Daylamī). They should be viewed against the background of the practices, life-style, values and beliefs current among the members of the early Ṣūfī movement. On the practical level, the recitation of the Qurʾān (q.v.) was an indispensable part of quotidian Ṣūfī life. Thus, Ibn ʿAṭāʾ is said to have recited the entire text of the Qurʾān on a daily basis and thrice a day during the month of Ramaḍān (q.v.), which along with other rituals and supererogatory prayers (see prayer) left him only two hours of sleep; Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896) learned the entire Qurʾān by heart when he was six or seven years old and kept reciting it throughout the rest of his life; Mālik b. Dīnār (d. 131/748) «was ‘chewing’ it for [the first] twenty years [of his life] only to take pleasure in its recitation (tilāwa) for the next twenty years» (Sarrāj, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, 43); Ibn Khafīf (d. 371/981) recited q 112:1 ten thousand times during just one prayer and occasionally recited the entire text of the Qurʾān in the course of one prayer, which took him an entire day and a good part of the night, etc.

In most cases, esoteric interpretations of the Qurʾān by the above-mentioned Ṣūfīs were the fruits of many years of incessant recitation in an attempt to grasp and «extract» its hidden meaning (istinbāṭ). This term, which is derived from q 4:83, became the hallmark of Ṣūfī methods of Qurʾān interpretation. Alerted to the presence of a hidden meaning in a given verse by its subtle «allusion» (ishāra), the Ṣūfī felt obligated to «extract» it by means of istinbāṭ. This process is limited to those individuals who have fully engrossed themselves in the «sea» of the divine revelation after having purified their souls of any worldly attachments. Commenting on q 4:83, al-Ḥallāj (d. 309/922) stated that a Ṣūfī's ability to exercise istinbāṭ corresponds to «the measure of his piety, inwardly and outwardly, and the perfection of his gnosis (maʿrifa), which is the most glorious station of faith» (q.v.; ajall maqāmāt al-īmān; Sulamī, Ḥaqāʾiq, i, 157). The close link between one’s ability to practice istinbāṭ and one’s strict compliance with the precepts of the divine law is brought forth by Abū Naṣr al-Sarrāj (d. 378/988), a renowned collector and disseminator of early Ṣūfī lore. In his words, «extractions» (mustanbaṭāt) are available only to those who «act in accord with the book (q.v.) of God, outwardly and inwardly, and follow the messenger of God, outwardly and inwardly.» In return, God makes them «heirs to the knowledge of subtle allusion (ʿilm al-ishāra)» and «unveils to the hearts of his elect [servants] carefully guarded meanings (maʿānī madhkhūra), spiritual subtleties (laṭāʾif) and well-kept secrets» (asrār makhzūna; Sarrāj, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, 105).

In the case of the early Ṣūfī exegete Sahl al-Tustarī, we find a deeply personal and experiential relationship of the Ṣūfī to the Qurʾān, which evolves within the framework of an oral recitation and reception of the divine word (see orality; word of god). On hearing or reciting a verse that resonates with the mystic’s spiritual state he may occasionally find himself gripped by an intense ecstasy and even lose consciousness. According to Böwering (Mystical, 136), al-Tustarī's commentary can be seen as a product of such experiential encounters «between the qurʾānic keynotes and the mystical matrix of [the mystic’s] world of ideas.» Inspired by a certain verse, al-Tustarī spontaneously endeavored to communicate to his disciples his deeply personal and experiential understanding of it, which often had very little to do with its literal meaning. To sum up,

The Ṣūfīs… read the Qurʾān as the word of God, and what they seek there is not the word as such (which may even become a veil between them and God), but a God who makes himself accessible [to his worshippers] by means of this word (Nwyia, Trois oeuvres, 29).

The themes of the first Ṣūfī commentaries on the Qurʾān are diverse and rather difficult to summarize. They usually deal with mystical cosmology, eschatology and the challenges faced by the human soul on its way to God (see trial). After professing their allegiance to their divine sovereign on the day of the primordial covenant (q 7:172) human beings have found themselves plunged into a world of false values, temptations and illusions designed to test the integrity of their pact with God. God created good and evil and arbitrarily imposed his command (amr) on his human servants in order to distinguish the blessed from the evildoers (see elect; evil deeds; blessing; grace). Within the former category he designated a special class of believers whom he endowed with an intuitive, revelatory knowledge of himself and his creatures (maʿrifa), leaving the rest of humankind to be content with the «externals» of religious faith and practice. These elect «friends of God» (awliyāʾ Allāh) carry divine light in their hearts (see heart) and thus can be seen as embodiments of his immanent and guiding presence amidst humankind. By imitating the friends of God (who, in turn, imitate the godly ways of his Prophet) ordinary believers can hope to escape the allure and temptations of mundane existence and to achieve salvation in the hereafter. Attaining the status of God’s friend and gnostic is not automatic, however, and requires painstaking efforts on the part of the aspirant (murīd) as well as God’s continual assistance. The seeker’s greatest challenge is the corruptive influences of his vile body and the base soul(nafs), which acts as a constant temptress and an ally of Iblīs (see devil). Its machinations can only be overcome by constant remembrance of God (dhikr), including the recitation of God’s word and remembrance of his «most beautiful names.» This goal can only be achieved by the elect few who traverse the entire length of the path to God in order to enter into his presence (see path or way; face of god). In this state they become completely oblivious of the corrupt world around them, taking God as their sole focus and raison d'être. By any standard, since its inception Ṣūfī exegesis was thoroughly elitist and esoteric. Its practitioners implicitly and, on occasion, explicitly dismissed the concerns of mainstream Qurʾān interpreters (legal, historical, philological and theological) as inadequate and even misguided inasmuch as they focused on the Qurʾān’s "husks, " while ignoring its all-important spiritual «kernel.» The Ṣūfīs regarded themselves as the sole custodians of that kernel and sought to protect it from outsiders by using subtle allusions and recondite terminology.

Some Muslim scholars were enraged by the Ṣūfī claim to a privileged knowledge of the scripture and denounced Ṣūfī exegesis as fanciful, arbitrary and not supported by the authority of the Prophet and his Companions (see companions of the prophet; ḥadīth and the qurʾān). Thus, a renowned Qurʾān commentator, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1076), not only refused to accord al-Sulamī's exegetical summa the status of tafsīr but even proclaimed it an expression of outright «unbelief» (see belief and unbelief). Similar negative opinions of that work were voiced by Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201), Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348), who declared it to be a collection of «distortion and heresy» (q.v.; taḥrīf wa-qarmaṭa; see also corruption; forgery) reminiscent of Ismāʿīlī exegesis (taʾwīlāt al-bāṭiniyya). Yet, despite such criticism al-Sulamī's voluminous work, which contains more than twelve thousand glosses on some three thousand qurʾānic passages, gained wide popularity among Ṣūfīs of various stripes. As was the case with Jaʿfar, Ibn ʿAṭāʾ and al-Tustarī, al-Sulamī did not include in his compendium any conventional exegetical material, be it legal, philological or historical (Böwering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics). His position is clearly stated in the introduction to his magnum opus:

Upon discovering that — among the practitioners of exoteric sciences (ʿulūm ẓawāhir) [who] have compiled [numerous] works pertaining to [beneficial] virtues (fawāʾid) of the Qurʾān, such as methods of its recitation (qirāʾāt; see readings of the qurʾān), its [historical] commentaries (tafsīr), its difficulties (mushkilāt; see difficult passages), its legal rulings (aḥkām), its vocalization (iʿrāb), its lexicological aspects (lugha), its summation and detailed explanation (mujmal wa-mufaṣṣal), its abrogating and abrogated verses (nāsikh wa- mansūkh; see abrogation), and so on — no one has cared to collect the understanding of its discourse (khiṭāb) in accordance with the language of the people of the true reality (ahl al-ḥaqīqa)… I have asked God’s blessing to bring together some of it.

All told, al-Sulamī's exegetical methods and goals are similar to those of about a hundred of his authorities, who lived in the third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries and whose foremost representatives have already been discussed. To quote the major Western expert on this work,

The Ḥaqāʾiq al- tafsīr is the crowning event of a long creative period of Ṣūfī terminology and ideology, developing in close relationship with its Koranic foundation and yet breaking through to a continuous process of inspired revelation by the methodological means of allusion (Böwering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 265).

The growth and maturity of Ṣūfī exegetical tradition (from the fifth/eleventh to the seventh/thirteenth centuries) Al-Sulamī's monumental work, which played the same role in Ṣūfī tafsīr as al-Ṭabarī's (d. 310/923) Jāmiʿ al-bayān in traditional exegesis, laid the foundations for the subsequent evolution of this genre of Ṣūfī literature. With time there emerged several distinct trends within the body of Ṣūfī exegetical literature, which reflected the growing internal complexity of the Ṣūfī movement in the period leading up to the fall of the Baghdād caliphate in 656/1258. One such trend can be described as «moderate» or « sharīʿa-oriented.» It is represented by such Ṣūfī luminaries as al-Qushayrī (d. 465/1074), Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) and Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī (d. 632/1234).

Abū l-Qāsim al-Qushayrī of Nīshāpūr is famous first and foremost as the author of the popular tract al-Risāla [al-Qushayriyya] fī ʿilm al-taṣawwuf which combines elements of Ṣūfī biography with those of a Ṣūfī manual. Like the Risāla, al-Qushayrī's qurʾānic commentary Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt pursues a clear apologetic agenda: the defense of the teachings, values and practices of "moderate, " Junayd-style Ṣūfism and the demonstration of its full compliance with the major precepts of Ashʿarī theology. Written in 410/1019, this exegetical work consistently draws a parallel between the gradual progress from the literal to the subtlest meanings (laṭāʾif) of the qurʾānic text and the stages of the Ṣūfī's spiritual and experiential journey to God. The success of this exegetical progress, as well as of the Ṣūfī journey, depends on the wayfarer’s ability to combine the performance of pious works and feats of spirit with sound doctrinal premises. Giving preference to one over the other will result in failure. Even when this delicate balance is successfully struck, one still needs divine assistance in unraveling the subtleties of the divine revelation, which is equally true of the Ṣūfī seeker’s striving toward God. Hence the notion of a privileged, esoteric knowledge of both God and this word that God grants only to his most intimate, elect "friends, " the awliyāʾ. This idea is stated clearly in the introduction to Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt:

[God] has honored the elect (aṣfiyāʾ) among his servants by [granting them] the understanding of his subtle secrets (q.v.; laṭāʾif asrārihi) and his lights so that they can see the elusive allusions and hidden signs (q.v.) contained therein [in the Qurʾān]. He has shown their innermost souls hidden things so that by the emanations of the unseen (see hidden and the hidden) which he has imparted solely to them they can become aware of that which has been concealed from all others. Then they have started to speak according to their degrees [of attainment] and capabilities, and God — praise be to him — inspired in them things by which he has honored them. So, they now speak on behalf of him, inform about the subtle truths that he has imparted to them, and point to him… (Laṭāʾif, i, 53).

The exegete’s progress toward the innermost meaning of the scripture is described by al-Qushayrī as a movement from the intellect (q.v.) to the heart, then to the spirit(al- rūḥ), then to the innermost secret (al- sirr) and, finally, to the secret of secrets (sirr al-sirr) of the Qurʾān. Al-Qushayrī's approach to the Qurʾān is marked by his meticulous attention to every detail of the qurʾānic word, from an entire verse to a single letter found in it (see arabic script). Typical in this regard is his interpretation of the basmala (q.v.), in which each letter of this phrase is endowed with a symbolic meaning: the bāʾ stands for God’s gentleness (birr) toward his friends (awliyāʾ); the sīn for the secret he shares with his elect (aṣfiyāʾ); and the mīm for his bestowal of grace (minna) upon those who have attained intimacy with him (ahl wilāyatihi). In an attempt to achieve comprehensiveness al-Qushayrī marshals several alternative interpretations of the basmala, e.g. one in which the bāʾ alludes to God’s freedom (barāʾa) from any fault; the sīn to the absence of any defect in him (salāmatuhu min ʿayb); and the mīm to the majesty of his attributes (Laṭāʾif, i, 56).

While such speculations are not unique to al-Qushayrī and can be found in exegetical works contemporary to his, both Ṣūfī and non-Ṣūfī alike, there is one feature that sets Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt apart from them. For al-Qushayrī, the basmala is not a simple repetition of the same set of meanings, for the divine word allows no repetition. Rather, the meaning of the basmala may change depending on the major themes contained in the sūras (q.v.) that it precedes. Thus, in discussing the symbolism of the letters of the basmala preceding q 7, al-Qushayrī implicitly links them to the themes of submission(islām), humility and reverence requisite of the true believer as opposed to the rebellious behavior (see rebellion) of Iblīs and his host (e.g. q 7:11-15, 31-3, 35-6, 39-40, etc.) by arguing that the letter bāʾ is of a small stature in writing and the dot [underneath it], which distinguishes it from other [letters] is single and, to boot, small to the extreme. Moreover, it [the dot] is positioned underneath the letter, [all of which] alludes to modesty and humility in all respects (Laṭāʾif, i, 211-12).

Likewise, the presence of the sukūn (absence of a vowel) over the letter sīn following the «humble» and «submissive» bāʾ alludes to its silent acceptance of the divine decree and complete contentment with it. Finally, the letter mīm points to "his [God’s] bestowal of grace [upon you] (minnatuhu), if he so pleases, then to your agreement (muwāfaqatuka) with his decree and your satisfaction with it, even though he may not bestow anything [upon you] (ibid.).

Al-Qushayrī's interpretation of the basmala of q 15 (Sūrat al-Ḥijr) is quiet different. The omission of the alif in the basmala of that sūra without any rationally justifiable reason, either grammatically or morphologically, according to al-Qushayrī, symbolizes God’s arbitrary «raising» of Adam (despite his «base» nature; see adam and eve) and his subsequent «humiliation» of the angels (despite their elevated status), as described in the main body of the sūra. In a similar vein, the omission of the basmala in q 9 is interpreted by al-Qushayrī in the following manner:

God — praise be to him — has stripped (jarrada) this sūra of the basmala, so that it be known that he can endow (ya khuṣṣ) whomever and whatever he wants with whatever he wants. [In the same way,] he can single out whomever he wants with whatever he wants. His creation has no cause, his actions have neither a purpose nor a goal (Laṭāʾif, iii, 5; see freedom and predestination).

This, of course, is an Ashʿarī stance formulated in implicit opposition to that of the Muʿtazilīs (see muʿtazila) who advocated the underlying rationality and purposefulness of divine actions. Thus, as mentioned, in al-Qushayrī's commentary, Ṣūfī symbolism and the Ashʿarī dogma go hand in hand and are deployed to support each other.

Al-Qushayrī's interest in the symbolism of letters comes to the fore in his discussions of the «mysterious letters» (q.v.) that appear at the beginning of some qurʾānic chapters. Typical in this respect is his exegesis of the combination alif lām mīm that precedes q 2. Upon stating that the alif stands for Allāh, the lām for laṭāʾīf (the subtle realities which is also one of the epithets of God, laṭīf) and the mīm for majīd (the glorious) and malik (the king; see kings and rulers), he proceeds to argue that

The alif is singled out from among the other letters by the fact that it is not connected to any letter in writing, while all but a few letters are connected to it. May the servant of God upon considering this feature become aware of the need of all creatures for him [God], with him being self-sufficient and independent of anything (Laṭāʾif, i, 41).

Furthermore, the alif’s singularity is evident from the fact that all other letters have a concrete site of articulation in the human speech (q.v.) apparatus, while it has none. In the same way, God cannot be associated with (yuḍāf ilā) any particular location or site. Finally, «The faithful servant of God is like the alif in its not being connected to any letter, in its constant uprightness and its standing posture before him» (ibid.).

As one may expect of a Ṣūfī master, al-Qushayrī showed little interest in the historical and legal aspects of the qurʾānic text. For him, they serve as windows onto the spiritual and mystical ideas and values characteristic of Ṣūfī piety. Thus, in discussing the spoils of war(ghanīma) mentioned in q 8:41 (see booty) al-Qushayrī argues:

Jihād (q.v.) can be of two types: the external one [waged] against the infidels and the internal one [waged] against [one’s] soul and Satan. In the same way as the lesser jihād involves [the seizure of] spoils of war after victory, the greater jihād too has the spoils of war of its own, which involves taking possession of his soul by the servant of God after it has been held by his two enemies — [his] passions and Satan (Laṭāʾif, ii, 321).

A similar parallel is drawn between ordinary fasting (q.v.) which involves abstention from food, drink (see food and drink) and sex (see sex and sexuality) and the spiritual abstention of the Ṣūfī from the allure of this world and from seeking the approval of its inhabitants. In a similar vein, al-Qushayrī likens the juridical notion of abrogation (naskh) to the initial strict observance of the divine law by the Ṣūfī novice, which is supplanted, or "abrogated, " when he reaches the stage at which God himself becomes the guardian of his heart. In al-Qushayrī's commentary all ritual duties sanctioned by the Qurʾān are endowed with a deeper spiritual significance: the standing of pilgrims on the plain of ʿArafāt (q.v.) is compared to the «standing» of human hearts in the presence of the divine names and attributes (see pilgrimage). Despite its overall «moderate» nature, the Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt is not devoid of the monistic and visionary elements that characterize what is usually described as the more «bold» and «esoteric» trend in Ṣūfī qurʾānic commentary. This aspect of al-Qushayrī's exegesis comes to the fore in his interpretation of q 7:143, in which Moses (q.v.) comes to God at an appointed time(li- mīqātinā) and requests that God appear to him, only to be humbled by the sight of a mountain crumbling to dust, when God shows himself to it (see theophany). According to al-Qushayrī,

Moses came to God as [only] those passionately longing and madly in love could. Moses came without Moses. Moses came, yet nothing of Moses was left to Moses. Thousands of men have traversed great distances, yet no one remembers them, while that Moses made [only] a few steps and [school] children will be reciting until the day of judgment (see last judgment): «When Moses came…» (Laṭāʾif, ii, 259).

Despite such «ecstatic» passages, al-Qushayrī's book can still be considered a typical sample of «moderate» Ṣūfī exegesis because of its author’s overriding desire to achieve a delicate balance between the mystical imagination and the respect for the letter of the revelation or, in Ṣūfī parlance, between the sharīʿa and the ḥaqīqa. One should point out that al-Qushayrī is also the author of a conventional historical-philological and legal tafsīr entitled al-Taysīr fī l-tafsīr, which is said to have been written before 410/1019. This is an eloquent testimony to his dual credentials as both a Ṣūfī and a conventional scholar (ʿālim).

Another example of «moderate» Ṣūfī tafsīr is al-Kashf wa-l-bayān ʿan tafsīr al-Qurʾān by Abū Isḥāq Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al- Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035). Drawing heavily on Ḥaqāʾiq al- tafsīr, al-Thaʿlabī augmented the Ṣūfī exegetical logia assembled by al-Sulamī with conventional exegetical materials derived from ḥadīth as well as detailed discussions of the philological aspects and legal implications of the qurʾānic text (Saleh, Formation). Al-Thaʿlabī's work formed the foundation of the famous commentary Maʿālim al-tanzīl fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān by Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn al-Baghawī (hence its better known title — Tafsīr al-Baghawī). He was born in 438/1046 in the village of Bagh or Baghshūr located between Herat and Marw al-Rūdh and distinguished himself primarily as a Shāfiʿī jurist and muḥaddith, whose thematically arranged collection of prophetic reports titled Maṣābīḥ al-sunna became a standard work of its genre. Although al-Baghawī was not considered a full-fledged Ṣūfī, he led an ascetic and pious way of life and avoided any contact with ruling authorities. His tafsīr is marked by his meticulous concern for the exegetical materials going back to the Prophet and his Companions (al- tafsīr bi-l-maʾthūr) and his desire to elucidate all possible aspects of the qurʾānic text. In seeking to achieve comprehensiveness he availed himself of diverse sources: from the leading Arab grammarians to the Shīʿī imāms and legal scholars. His Ṣūfī authorities include Ibrāhīm b. Adham (d. 160/777), Fuḍayl b. ʿIyāḍ (d. 188/ 803), al-Tustarī and al-Junayd (d. 298/ 910), whose ideas had probably reached him via al-Sulamī's Ḥaqāʾiq al-tafsīr and al-Thaʿlabī's al-Kashf wa-l-bayān. Al-Baghawī's use of this material was probably dictated by his drive to highlight all possible interpretations of the sacred text without privileging any one of them. Since by his age Ṣūfism had established itself as a legitimate and praiseworthy strain of Islamic piety he felt obligated to mention Ṣūfī views of the revelation, avoiding, however, their more controversial aspects. Thus, his inclusion of Ṣūfī exegesis did not necessarily reflect his own spiritual and intellectual priorities — a trend that we observe in many later exegetical works.

A typical representative of this trend in the later period is Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Shīḥī al-Baghdādī, better known as « al-Khāzin» (d. 741/1341), whose Lubāb al-taʾwīl fī maʿānī al-tanzīl is an abridged rendition of al-Baghawī's Maʿālim al-tanzīl. As with al-Baghawī, Ṣūfī exegesis is just one of the aspects of the qurʾānic text that preoccupy al-Khāzin who explicitly states this in the introduction to his commentary. His other concerns include the rules of recitation, material transmitted by the Prophet and his Companions (tafsīr bi-l-maʾthūr), legal implications (al- aḥkām al-fiqhiyya), the "occasions of revelation, " curious and unusual stories of past prophets and generations (q.v.; al- qiṣaṣ al-gharība wa-akhbār al-māḍīn al-ʿajība). Therefore, the reason why this tafsīr is sometimes classified as Ṣūfī (e.g. Ayāzī, Mufassirūn, 598—602; al-Baghawī's tafsīr, on the other hand, is not identified as such, ibid., 644-9) remains unclear. In any event, it is certainly indicative of the trend toward comprehensiveness that gradually led to the blurring of the borderline between «Ṣūfī» and «non-Ṣūfī» exegesis and the inclusion of Ṣūfī exegesis in conventional commentaries, both Sunnī and Shīʿī.

On the other hand, we observe the opposite tendency in approaching the Qurʾān, when renowned Ṣūfī masters produce quite conventional exegetical works that are practically devoid of any Ṣūfī elements. Nughbat al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān by the influential Ṣūfī scholar and statesman under the caliph al-Qādir, Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī (d. 632/1234), which is occasionally classified under the rubric of «moderate» Ṣūfī exegesis (e.g Böwering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257), is a case in point. This work, which remains in manuscript (see Düzenli, Şihabuddin), is characterized by a Western scholar as «a very standard, non-mystical commentary» that is «firmly situated in the type of philological and situational exegesis represented in the standard Sunni commentaries and exegetical tradition upon which al-Suhrawardī was drawing» (Ohlander, Abū Ḥafṣ). Indeed, even a cursory glance at the first dozen pages of its manuscript demonstrates an almost complete lack of any recognizable Ṣūfī motifs and methods. Moreover, the author explicitly states in the introduction that he has chosen to «stick to the basics» of the tafsīr genre and to abstain from composing a sophisticated and recondite esoteric commentary (an ubriza min sawāniḥ al-ghuyūb mā yarwī ʿaṭash al-qulūb) because of lack of time (fol. 2).

Our survey of «moderate» Ṣūfī exegesis would be incomplete without mentioning Persian tafsīrs by Abū l-Faḍl Rashīd al-Dīn Aḥmad al- Maybudī (d. 530/1135) and Abū Naṣr Aḥmad al-Darwājikī (d. 549/1154). The former is based on the exegetical work of the renowned Ḥanbalī mystic ʿAbdallāh al-Anṣārī l-Harawī (d. 481/1089), as the author explicitly states in the introduction. It is no wonder that it is sometimes referred to as Tafsīr khawāja ʿAbdallāh al-Anṣārī, but the title given to it by the author is Kashf al-asrār wa-ʿuddat al-abrār. Born of a family renowned for its learning and piety in a town of Maybud (the province of Yazd in Iran), al-Maybudī combined the traditional education of a Shāfiʿī jurist and muḥaddith with a propensity to mysticism and an ascetic life-style. Like the other «moderate» Ṣūfī commentaries discussed above, al-Maybudī's Kashf al-asrār combines conventional historical, philological and legal exegesis with Ṣūfī ishārāt and laṭāʾif. The former is usually expressed in Arabic and the latter in Persian, thereby setting a precedent to be followed by many Persophone Ṣūfī authors in Iran and India. The commentator describes his method as consisting of three «stages» (nawba). The first involves a translation of selected verses from Arabic into Persian (see persian literature and the qurʾān; literature and the qurʾān); the second provides a conventional historical, philological and legal commentary; while the third deals with the mystical aspects of the revelation. The latter relies heavily on al-Anṣārī's mystical commentary, which in turn is based on al-Sulamī's Ḥaqāʾiq al- tafsīr and its Ṣūfī authorities such as Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī (d. 234/848 or 261/875), al-Junayd, al-Tustarī, and al-Shiblī (d. 334/946), etc. As befits a «moderate» commentator, al-Maybudī avoids Ṣūfī interpretations that conflict with the literal meaning of the qurʾānic text. His treatment of the controversial issues of anthropomorphic features of God, the provenance of good and evil, and divine predetermination of all events is that of an Ashʿarī theologian (see freedom and predestination).

Little is known about the other Persian tafsīr of that age by al-Darwājikī, nick-named the «ascetic» (zāhid), beyond a cursory mention of his work, which remains unpublished. Even the exact title of his tafsīr remains debated, although it is often referred to as Tafsīr al-zāhid. The author’s sobriquet indicates his propensity for an ascetic life-style; however, in the absence of an available text of this work its exact character is impossible to determine.

A totally different vision of the qurʾānic revelation was presented by the celebrated Sunnī theologian and jurist Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, whose famous tract Jawāhir al-Qurʾān can hardly be defined as exegetical in the conventional sense of the word. Nevertheless, its emphasis on the numerous layers of meaning embedded in qurʾānic chapters and verses and the idea that the most elusive and subtle of them constitute the exclusive domain of Ṣūfī gnostics gives it a distinctive Ṣūfī flavor. In this work al-Ghazālī undertakes a classification of several types of qurʾānic verses according to their contents. In so doing he establishes a hierarchy of verses by likening them to various types of precious stones, pearls and rare substances. Thus, the knowledge (maʿrifa) of God is symbolized by red sulfur (the precious substance which according to medieval alchemy could transform base metals into gold), while the knowledge of God’s essence, attributes and works is likened to three types of corundum. Below this sublime knowledge lies what al-Ghazālī describes as "the definition of the path advancing to God, " namely the verses of the Qurʾān that elucidate the major stages of the believer’s progress to God. This progress is couched by al-Ghazālī in a typical Ṣūfī imagery of «polishing» the mirror of the heart and soul and actualizing the divine nature (lāhūt) inherent in every human being. Al-Ghazālī likens this category of qurʾānic verses to «shining pearls.» The third category contains verses dealing with man’s condition at the time of his final encounter with God, namely, resurrection (q.v.), reckoning, the reward and the punishment, the beatific vision of God in the afterlife, etc. According to al-Ghazālī, this category, which he dubs "green emerald, " comprises «a third part of the verses and sūras of the Qurʾān.» The fourth group includes numerous verses describing "the conditions of those who have traversed [the path to God] and those who have denied him and deviated from his path, " namely, various prophetic and angelic figures and other mythological individuals mentioned in the Qurʾān (see lie; gratitude and ingratitude; mythic and legendary narratives in the qurʾān). In al-Ghazālī's view, their goal is to arouse fear and give warning to the believers (see warner) and to make them consider carefully their own condition vis-à-vis God. He compares these verses to grey ambergris and fresh and blooming aloe-wood. The fifth group of verses deals with «the arguments of the infidels against the truth and clear explanation of their humiliation by obvious proofs.» According to al-Ghazālī these verses contain the greatest antidote (al-tiryāq al-akbar). The sixth category of verses deals with the stages of man’s journey to God and the management of its "vehicle, " the human body, by supplying it with lawful means of sustenance (q.v.) and procreation (see lawful and unlawful). All this presupposes the wayfarer’s interaction with other human beings and their institutions, the rules of which, according to al-Ghazālī, are stipulated in the verses belonging to the sixth category. Al-Ghazālī likens it to the «strongest musk.»

Upon establishing this hierarchy of qurʾānic verses, al-Ghazālī proceeds to classify the «outward» and «inward» sciences associated with the Qurʾān. To the former belong (a) the science of its recitation which is represented by Qurʾān readers and reciters (see reciters of the qurʾān); (b) the knowledge of its language and grammar which is handled by philologists and grammarians (see language and style of the qurʾān); and (c) the science of «outward exegesis» (al- tafsīr al-ẓāhir) which its practitioners, those scholars whose focus rests on the Qurʾān’s «external shell» (al- ṣadaf), mistakenly consider the consummate knowledge available to human beings. While al-Ghazālī recognizes the necessity of these «outward» sciences and their practitioners, he dismisses their claims to represent the ultimate knowledge about the Qurʾān. He attributes this honor to the «sciences of the kernels of the Qurʾān» (ʿulūm al-lubāb), which are subdivided into two levels: the lower and the higher. The former, in turn, is subdivided into three groups: (a) the knowledge of the stories of the qurʾānic prophets, which is preserved and transmitted by story-tellers, preachers and ḥadīth-transmitters (see teaching and preaching the qurʾān); (b) the knowledge of God’s arguments against his deniers, which gave rise to theology (al- kalām) and its practitioners (the mutakallimūn); and (c) the knowledge of the legal injunctions of the Qurʾān, which is represented by the jurists (fuqahāʾ). The latter, according to al-Ghazālī, are more important than the other religious specialists because the need for them is «more universal.» The upper level of the sciences that branched off of the Qurʾān includes the knowledge of God and of the world to come, followed by the knowledge of the «straight path and of the manner of traversing it.»

Having established the hierarchy of sciences that have grown out of the Qurʾān, al-Ghazālī lays out his exegetical method, which hinges on the notion of the allegorical and symbolic nature of the revelation:

Know that everything which you are likely to understand is presented to you in such a way that, if in sleep you were studying the Protected Tablet (al- lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ; see preserved tablet) with your soul, it would be related to you through a suitable symbol which needs interpretation (Eng. trans. in Ghazālī, Jewels, 52).

Hence, "The interpretation of the Qurʾān (taʾwīl), " according to al-Ghazālī, «occupies the place of the interpretation of dreams» (taʿbīr; ibid.) and the exegete’s task is to «comprehend the hidden connection between the visible world and the invisible» (Ghazālī Jewels, 53) or unseen in the same way as the interpreter of dreams strives to make sense out of somebody’s dream or vision (see dreams and sleep). This idea is brought home in the following programmatic statement:

Understand that so long as you are in this-worldly life you are asleep, and your waking-up will occur only after death (see death and the dead; sleep), at which time you become fit to see the clear truth face to face. Before that time it is impossible for you to know the realities except when they are molded in the form of imaginative symbols (Ghazālī, Jewels, 54).

The only way to gain the knowledge of the true reality of God and his creation is, according to al-Ghazālī, through the renunciation of this world and righteousness. Those who seek «the vanities of this world, eating what is unlawful and following [their] carnal desires» are barred from the understanding of the qurʾānic message. Their corrupt and sinful nature makes them see nothing in the Qurʾān but contradiction and incongruence. Hence, the perception of the qurʾānic allegories and symbols by different people correspond to their level of spiritual purity and intellectual attainment. In commenting on the special virtue of q 1 (Sūrat al-Fātiḥa, «The Opening»; see fātiḥa), which many exegetes consider to be the key to paradise (q.v.), al-Ghazālī argues that a worldly individual imagines the qurʾānic paradise to be a place where he will satisfy his desire for food, drink and sex, while the perfected Ṣūfī gnostic sees it as a site of refined spiritual pleasures and «pays no heed to the paradise of the fools».

Apart from the Fātiḥa, al-Ghazālī singles out the following verses for a special discussion: q 2:255, «The Throne Verse» (see throne of god), q 112 (Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ, «Purity of Faith»), q 36 (Sūrat Yā Sīn), whereupon he declares the Fātiḥa to be «the best of all sūras» and the « Throne Verse» to be «the chief of all verses.» In the subsequent narrative he enumerates 763 «jewel verses» and 741 «pearl verses.» Al-Ghazālī never directly addresses the issue of how and why some divine statements can be better than others, although he profusely quotes prophetic reports that assert the special virtues of certain verses and sūras.

Like al-Qushayrī and earlier exegetes, al-Ghazālī is convinced that the depth of one’s understanding of the Qurʾān is directly linked to one’s level of spiritual purity, righteousness and intellectual progress. It is no wonder that in his ranking of exegetes the highest rank is unequivocally accorded to the accomplished Ṣūfī gnostic (ʿārif). To him and only to him is disclosed the greatest secret of being. This is stated clearly in al-Ghazālī's Mishkāt al-anwār — an esoteric reflection on the epistemic and ontological implications of the « Light Verse» (q 24:35):

The gnostics ascend from the foothill of metaphor (q.v.; al- majāz) to the way-station of the true reality (al- ḥaqīqa). When they complete their ascension, they see directly that there is nothing in existence except God most high (Ghazālī, Mishkat, 58).

Therefore, for the gnostics, the qurʾānic phrase «Everything perishes save his face» (q 28:88) is an expression of the existential truth, according to which "everything except God, if considered from the viewpoint of its essence, is but a pure nonexistence (ʿadam maḥḍ), " God being the only reality of the entire universe (Mishkāt, 58). This bold idea prefigures the monistic speculations of Ibn al-ʿArabī and his followers, who also were to make extensive use of esoteric ex- egesis in order to showcase their monistic vision of the world.

The blossoming of ecstatic/esoteric exegesis

The works of Persian Ṣūfīs Abū Thābit Muḥammad al-Daylamī (d. 593/1197) and Rūzbihān Baqlī (d. 606/1209) constitute a distinct trend in Ṣūfī exegetical literature that is characterized by «intense visions and powerful ecstasies interpreted in terms of a qurʾānically based metaphysics» (Ernst, Rūzbihān, ix). The prevalence of such elements in the exegetical works of these two writers prompted Böwering (Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257) to describe them as being more «esoteric» than their «moderate» counterparts discussed above. Al-Daylamī, a little known, if original and prolific author, wrote a mystical commentary entitled Taṣdīq al-maʿārif (it is also occasionally referred to as Futūḥ al-raḥmān fī ishārāt al-Qurʾān). It creatively combines early Ṣūfī exegetical dicta borrowed from al-Sulamī's Ḥaqāʾiq al-tafsīr — they constitute about half of al-Daylamī's work — with the author’s own elaborations. Surprisingly, al-Daylamī never mentions al-Qushayrī's Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt, which was composed some one hundred years before his own. As already mentioned, al-Daylamī's own texts reflect his overwhelming preoccupation with "the visionary world of the mystic, " which «is seen as totally real and fully identical with the spiritual world of the invisible realm» (ibid., 270). In the absence of an edited and published text of this commentary — which seems to exist in a unique manuscript — one cannot provide a detailed analysis of its content. According to Böwering who discovered the manuscript in a Turkish archive, it is «a continuous yet eclectic commentary on selected koranic verses from all suras presented in sequence» which «consists of two parallel levels of interpretative glosses on koranic phrases, specimens of Ṣūfī sayings, and items of the author’s own explanation.» His work foreshadowed «ideas that emerged in the Kobrawi school» [of Ṣūfism] (Böwering, Deylamī), whose exegetical production will be discussed below.

Somewhat better known is the commentary of al-Daylamī's younger contemporary Rūzbihān [al-]Baqlī al-Shīrāzī (d. 606/1209) entitled ʿArāʾis al-bayān fī ḥaqāʾiq al-Qurʾān. This massive exegetical opus reflects Rūzbihān’s overriding propensity for visions, dreams, powerful ecstasies and ecstatic utterances that «earned him the sobriquet ‘Doctor Ecstaticus’ (shaykh-i shaṭṭāḥ)» (Ernst, Rūzbihān). Like al-Daylamī's Taṣdīq al-maʿārif, ʿArāʾis al-bayān was written in Arabic and consists almost equally of earlier exegetical material — mostly borrowed from al-Sulamī — and of the author’s own glosses. In contrast to al-Daylamī, Rūzbihān also availed himself of the materials borrowed from al-Qushayrī's Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt. Rūzbihān’s uses of the Qurʾān in both his commentary and other works, however, are much bolder than those of the Ṣūfī exegetes already described. Not only does he constantly invoke the sacred text in describing his spiritual encounters with and visions of God, but he also claims to have symbolically eaten it (see popular and talismanic uses of the qurʾān). Thus in his Kashf al-asrār, "Unveiling of secrets, " he provides the following description of his visionary experiences:

When I passed through the atmosphere of eternity (q.v.), I stopped at the door of power (see power and impotence). I saw all the prophets present there; I saw Moses with the Torah (q.v.) in his hand, Jesus (q.v.) with the Gospel (q.v.) in his hand, David (q.v.) with the Psalms (q.v.), and Muḥammad with the Qurʾān in his hand. Moses gave me the Torah to eat, Jesus gave me the Gospel to eat, David gave me the Psalms to eat and Muḥammad gave me the Qurʾān to eat. Adam gave me the most beautiful names [of God] and the Greatest Name to drink. I learned what I learned of the elect divine sciences for which God singles out his prophets and saints (Ernst, Rūzbihān, 51).

One can hardly be any bolder than this. According to Ernst, this dream is deemed to symbolize Rūzbihān’s «complete internalization» of the inspiration of these scriptures. The Qurʾān and its imagery figure prominently in the Ṣūfī's ecstatic visions. Thus he compares his condition in the presence of God with that of Zulaykha in the presence of Joseph (q.v.; q 12:22-32), as described in the following passage:

He wined me with the wine (q.v.) of intimacy and nearness. Then he left and I saw him as the mirror of creation wherever I faced, and that was his saying, «Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God» (q 2:109 [sic]). Then he spoke to me after increasing my longing for him… and [I] said to myself: «I want to see his beauty without interruption.» He said: «Remember the condition of Zulaykha and Joseph…» (Ernst, Rūzbihān, 42).

Rūzbihān also draws a bold comparison between himself and Adam and has God say the following:

I have chosen my servant Rūzbihān for eternal happiness, sainthood (wilāya), and bounty…. He is my vicegerent (khalīfa) in this world and all worlds; I love whosoever loves him and hate whosoever hates him…, for I am «one who acts when he wishes» (q 107:11 [sic]; Ernst, Rūzbihān, 48).

This feeling of mutual love, intimacy and [com]passion between God and his mystical lover is the hallmark of Rūzbihān’s entire mystical legacy. According to Ernst, the very title of Rūzbihān’s commentary — ʿArāʾis al-bayān, «The brides of explanation» — «invokes the unveiling of the bride in a loving encounter as the model of initiation into the esoteric knowledge of God» (Ernst, Rūzbihān, 71). One can argue that Rūzbihān’s visionary and ecstatic experiences are virtually permeated by qurʾānic language and imagery. As with early Ṣūfī masters, the Qurʾān serves Rūzbihān as a means of transforming himself and, eventually, achieving the ultimate intimacy with and knowledge of God.

Ibn al-ʿArabī and the Kubrawī tradition

According to Böwering’s classification (Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257), the subsequent stage in the development of Ṣūfī exegesis was dominated by its two major strains: Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240) and his followers (mostly in the Muslim east) and Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618/1221) and the Kubrawī school of Ṣūfism.

One can say that Ibn al-ʿArabī's long-lasting influence on the subsequent Ṣūfī tradition springs from his role as an intellectual bridge between eastern and western strains of Ṣūfism. While Ṣūfī ideas initially spread westwards — from Sahl al-Tustarī and the Baghdādī school to Ibn Masarra al-Jabalī (d. 319/ 931) and his Andalusī and Maghribī successors — by the sixth/twelfth century western Ṣūfism acquired a distinctive character and was represented by such versatile and original thinkers as Ibn Barrajān (d. 536/1141), Ibn al-ʿArīf (d. 536/1141), Ibn Qasī (546/1151), Abū Madyan (d. 594/ 1197) and Ibn al-ʿArabī, to name but a few (Gril, ‘La lecture’, 521-2). Of these Ibn Barrajān deserves special notice as the author of at least one, and possibly two, Ṣūfī commentaries that seem to have had a profound influence on Ibn al-ʿArabī and his numerous followers in the Muslim east.

As with earlier Ṣūfī exegetes, Ibn Barrajān envisioned the realization of the qurʾānic message by the mystic as his progressive immersion into its mysteries, which eventually results in what the Andalusī master called «the paramount reading» (al- tilāwa l-ʿulyā) of the Qurʾān. In the process, the very personality of the mystic is transformed by this encounter with the divine word as he passes from its literal message (ʿibra; iʿtibār) to its underlying, «crossed over to» truth(al- maʿbūr ilayhi) and from a physical perception (baṣar) of the sacred text to an interior, intuitive grasp of its inner reality (Gril, ‘La lecture’, 516). In other words, in the process of «remembering» (dhikr) and contemplating the Qurʾān the mystic develops a deep and genuine insight that allows him to realize its true meaning and implications. As a result, he is eventually transformed into the «universal servant» (al- ʿabd al-kullī), whose recitation of the sacred text is twice as effective as the recitation of the ordinary believer or the «partial servant» (al-ʿabd al-juzʾī).

Ibn Barrajān’s exegesis displays the following characteristic features that set it apart from the mainstream interpretative tradition (whose elements are duly represented in his work): (1) the insistence that dhikr should serve as the means of achieving a total and undivided concentration on the sacred text; (2) the continual awareness of the subtle correspondences between the phenomena and entities of the universe and the «signs» embedded in the scripture; (3) the affirmation that the heart of the «universal servant» is capable of encompassing the totality of existence in the same way as it is contained in the Preserved Tablet; and (4) the notion that the divine word constitutes the supreme reality of human nature, which makes it possible to erase the boundary that separates the creature from its creator and thereby achieve a cognitive and experiential union between them (ibid., 520-1). Finally, Ibn Barrajān restricts this superior realization of the divine word to a small group of divinely elected individuals, whom he identifies as «the veracious ones» (ṣiddīqūn). His bold ideas were elaborated upon and brought to fruition in the legacy of Ibn al-ʿArabī and his school.

Ibn al-ʿArabī's uses of the Qurʾān are rich and variegated. He claims to have composed a multi-volume commentary on the Qurʾān entitled al-Jāmiʿ wa-l-tafṣīl fī asrār maʿānī l-tanzīl, which seems to have been lost. On the other hand, his entire work, including his major masterpieces — Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam and al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya — may be seen as a giant running commentary on the foundational texts of Islam, the Qurʾān and the sunna of the Prophet. His overall approach to the Qurʾān must be considered in the general context of his thought which is characterized by the belief that the true realities of God and the universe are concealed from ordinary human beings behind a distorting veil of images and appearances. These true realities, however, can be rendered accessible to the elect few through a spiritual awakening and special intellectual insight or «unveiling» (kashf) bestowed upon them by God. Ibn al-ʿArabī calls the possessors of this insight «the people of the true reality» (ahl al-ḥaqīqa), or «divine gnostics» (ʿārifūn). They and only they can decipher the true meaning of the symbols that constitute both the qurʾānic text and the entities and phenomena of the empirical universe, which are likened by Ibn al-ʿArabī to a giant book. For him, both the Qurʾān and the universe are but «books» of God — assemblages of symbols and images behind which lie the ultimate realities of existence that, in the final account, take their origin in and are somehow identical to the divine reality (al- ḥaqq). The deciphering of these symbols and images becomes possible through God’s revelatory manifestations (tajallī) to his elect «friends» and through their ability to perceive their hidden meaning by means of their imaginative faculties.

Since Ibn al-ʿArabī considered himself to be the greatest ʿārif of his age (and possibly of all times) and the spiritual «pole» (al- quṭb) of the universe, he saw no reason to legitimize his understanding of the meaning of the scripture or — as he put it, of its «spirit» (rūḥ) — by reference to any prior exegetical authority or tradition. In his opinion, he is absolved of such a justification because his «epistemic source» is nothing other than divine inspiration (Nettler, Ṣūfī metaphysics, 29). This attitude is evident from his poetic commentaries on selected qurʾānic sūras included in his poetic collection (Dīwān, 136-79). Here Ibn al-ʿArabī offers an exegesis aimed at bringing out the «spiritual quintessence» (rūḥ) of these sūras. In so doing, he deliberately relegates his role to that of a simple transmitter of the outpourings of divinely induced insights that are dictated to him in the «mystical moment» (wārid al-waqt) in which he happens to find himself. He is adamant that he has added nothing to what he has received from this divine source of inspiration (Bachmann, Un commentaire, 503). His use of poetry — an art associated with pre-Islamic paganism (see poetry and poets; pre-islamic arabia and the qurʾān) — and his occasional imitation of the meter and rhythm of qurʾānic chapters (see inimitability; provocation) no doubt raised many scholarly eyebrows, both during his lifetime and after his death. So did his radical departure from the conventions of traditional exegesis. Thus in elucidating the «spirit» of the Fātiḥa Ibn al-ʿArabī boldly and some- what incongruously refers to God as «a light not like any other light» — a clear allusion to the Light Verse (āyat al-nūr, q 24:35) — then proceeds to discuss its implications, which have little to do with the sūra that he is supposedly discussing (Bachmann, Un commentaire, 505).

His claim to be a simple mouthpiece of the divine inspirer absolves him, however, of the necessity to justify his exegetical method or to follow any conventional logic. This inspirational exegesis, according to Ibn al-ʿArabī, assures absolute certainty in interpretation of the divine word and overrules all alternative understandings of it. Ibn al-ʿArabī also revisits q 24:35 in many passages of his magnum opus, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya. Here his interpretation of this verse reveals three distinct levels of understanding of its meaning: the metaphysical and cosmological, the analogical (built around the implicit correspondences between the universe and the human individual) and the existential-experiential based on the notion — so dear to Ibn al-ʿArabī — of the underlying unity (and union) of God, humankind and the universe (Gril, Le commentaire, 180). In Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam — Ibn al-ʿArabī's controversial meditation on the phenomenon of prophethood and its major representatives — his uses of the qurʾānic text are particularly bold and challenging (the same is true of his uses of the sunna). The Qurʾān radically and dramatically reinterpreted by the Ṣūfī master serves as a showcase for his monistic metaphysics (see also philosophy and the qurʾān). Moreover, for Ibn al-ʿArabī his monistic vision of God, humankind and the universe constitutes the very truth and ultimate meaning of the qurʾānic revelation (Nettler, Ṣūfī metaphysics, 13-14). In the Fuṣūṣ, the traditional exegetical lore associated with the prophets and other individuals mentioned in the qurʾānic text is inextri- cably intertwined with «an extremely abstruse ‘Ṣūfī metaphysics,’» which for Ibn al-ʿArabī presumably reflected its inner, essential, truth (ibid., 14). This kind of exegesis is so distinctive and unique that it «may be considered an Islamic religious genre in its own right» that can be dubbed «Ṣūfī metaphysical story-telling» (ibid.).

As an example of Ibn al-ʿArabī's exegetical method, one can cite his audacious rendition of the story of Aaron (q.v.), Moses and the golden calf (q 7:148-55 and q 20:85-94; see calf of gold). Here — contrary to the literal meaning of the qurʾānic narrative — Aaron and the worshippers of the golden calf are portrayed as being wiser than Moses, who misguidedly scolds them for lapsing into idolatry (see idolatry and idolaters). Unlike moses, they realize that God can be worshipped in every object, for every object, including the golden calf, is but «a site of divine self-manifestation» (baʿḍ al-majālī l-ilāhiyya; Fuṣūṣ, 192; Nettler, Ṣūfī metaphysics, 53). In this interpretation, the original qurʾānic condemnation of idolatry is completely inverted: the idolaters become "gnostics, « who

know the full truth concerning idolatry, but are honor-bound not to disclose this truth, even to the prophets, the apostles and their heirs, for these all have their divinely-appointed roles in curbing idolatry and promoting the worship of God in their time and their situation (Nettler, Ṣūfī metaphysics, 67).

The ultimate truth, however, is that God is immanent to all things and can be worshipped everywhere. Here, and throughout the Fuṣūṣ, Ibn al-ʿArabī's unitive, monistic vision of God and the world is presented within the framework of qurʾānic narratives (q.v.) pertaining to the vicissitudes of the prophetic missions of the past (see punishment stories). For him, however, this is not his personal vision but the true and unadulterated meaning of the divine word (ibid., 94).

The major themes of Ibn al-ʿArabī's legacy were explored and elucidated by his foremost disciple, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 673/1274), the author of numerous influential works on theoretical Ṣūfism. His major exegetical work, Īāz al-bayān fī taʾwīl al-Qurʾān, is a lengthy disquisition on the metaphysical, epistemological and psychological implications of the first sūra of the Qurʾān based on the assumption that it constitutes the very gist of the revelation. The author’s indebtedness to Ibn al-ʿArabī is obvious from the outset, when he states that

God made the primeval macrocosm (al- ʿālam al-kabīr) — from the viewpoint of its [outward] form — a book carrying the images of the divine names… and he [God] made the perfect man — who is but a microcosm (al-ʿālam al-ṣaghīr) — an intermediate book from the viewpoint of [its] form, which combines in itself the presence of the names and the presence of the named [i.e. God]. He also revealed the great Qurʾān as a guidance to the human being — who is fashioned in his image — in order to explain the hidden aspect of his way, the secret of his sūra and of his rank (Qūnawī, al-Tafsīr, 98).

Al-Qūnawī identifies five levels and realms of existence and their correspondence to the five layers of meaning of the divine word. For the exegete, this task of identification is much more important than the minutia of conventional tafsīr with which he claims to have deliberately dispensed (ibid., 103). Al-Qūnawī's emphasis on the hierarchies of the divine names and their ontological counterparts (realms of existence) constitutes probably the most distinguishing feature of this highly technical and recondite mystical commentary, which came to characterize the intellectual legacy of Ibn al-ʿArabī's school of thought as a whole.

In ʿAbd al-Razzāq Kamāl al-Dīn al-Qāshānī (d. 730/1329), a native of the Iranian province of Jibāl, we find another scholar fully committed to Ibn al-ʿArabī's spiritual and intellectual legacy, while remaining an original mystical thinker in his own right. Not only did al-Qāshānī distinguish himself as an advocate of his great predecessor but also as an effective disseminator of the latter’s mystical teaching which by that time had come to be known as „the doctrine of the unity/oneness of being/existence“ (waḥdat al-wujūd). As a promoter of Ibn al-ʿArabī's ideas, his main achievement lies in his ability to strip them of their original ambiguity, and open-endedness and to present them in a lucid and accessible form to anyone who cared to learn them. Al-Qāshānī excelled in this task to such an extent that his popular mystical commentary, originally titled Taʾwīl al-Qurʾān, was for several centuries considered by many to be a work of Ibn al-ʿArabī himself. In fact, its latest edition, which appeared in Beirut in 1968, was entitled Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-karīm lil-shaykh al-akbar… Ibn ʿArabī. A systematic and clear-headed thinker, al-Qāshānī provides a detailed self-reflective exposition of his exegetical method in the introduction to his commentary. Citing a famous prophetic ḥadīth according to which each qurʾānic verse has two aspects — the „outward“ (ẓahr) and the „inward“ (baṭn) — al-Qāshānī identifies the understanding of the former as tafsīr and of the latter as taʾwīl (Qāshānī, Taʾwīl, i, 4). His own interpretation is consistently identified as taʾwīl throughout the rest of his work. This indicates that by his time the rigid tafsīr/taʾwīl dichotomy, which does not seem to have existed in the earlier periods — both al-Ṭabarī and al-Bayḍāwī (d. prob. 716/1316) had no compunctions about applying the word taʾwīl to their conventional commentaries — had become widespread, at least in some Ṣūfī circles (cf. however, Shāh Walī Allāh, who defined taʾwīl as a regular historical and contextual commentary; Baljon, Religion and thought, 141). In a revealing passage from the introduction to his Taʾwīl al-Qāshānī describes his personal relationship with the qurʾānic revelation which, in a sense, epitomizes the Ṣūfī stance vis-à-vis the divine word:

For a long time I made the recitation (tilāwa) of the Qurʾān my habit and custom and meditated on its meaning with the [full] strength of my faith. Yet, despite my assiduousness at reciting passages from it (al- awrād), my chest was constrained, my soul troubled and my heart remained closed to it. However, my lord did not divert me from this recitation until I had grown accustomed and habituated to it and begun to taste the sweetness of its cup and its drink. It was then that I felt invigorated, my breast opened up, my conscience expanded, my heart was at ease, and my innermost self liberated… by these revelations. Then there appeared to me from behind the veil the meanings of every verse such that my tongue was incapable of describing, no capacity able to determine and count, and no power could resist unveiling and disclosure» (Taʾwīl, i, 4).

Unlike the authors of «moderate» Ṣūfī commentaries discussed above, al-Qāshānī consciously ignores those passages of the Qurʾān that, in his view, are not susceptible to esoteric interpretation (kull mā lā yaqbalu al-taʾwīl ʿindī aw lā yaḥtāju ilayhi). With more than five centuries of Ṣūfī exegesis behind him, al-Qāshānī no longer feels obligated to pay tribute to the trivia of conventional tafsīr and focuses only on those aspects of the sacred text that resonate with his esoteric vision of the world. Even some favorite «Ṣūfī» verses such as q 7:172 and q 85:22 are passed over in silence, perhaps because al-Qāshānī feels that their interpretative potential has been exhausted by his predecessors (Lory, Commentaires, 31). Addressed to his fellow Ṣūfīs, «the people of [supersensory] unveiling» (ahl al-kashf), al-Qāshānī's exegesis brims with classical Ṣūfī terminology and themes borrowed from Ibn al-ʿArabī's monistic ideas and imagery. In many cases, this terminology is not explained, presupposing its prior knowledge by the reader (ibid., 30). Al-Qāshānī is completely at home in dealing with all major levels of exegesis established by his predecessors: the monistic metaphysics with its tripartite division of being into the empirical realm (ʿālam al-shahāda), the intermediate realm of divine power (al- jabarūt) and the purely spiritual realm of divine sovereignty(al- malakūt); the parallelism and correspondence between the universe (the macrocosm) and its human counterpart (the microcosm); the major stages and spiritual states of the mystic’s progress to God; the symbolism of the letters of the Arabic alphabet; numerology (q.v.); etc. As a typical example of his method one may his cite his glosses on q 17:1:

"Glory be to him, who carried his servant, " that is — [who] purified him from material attributes and deficiencies associated with [his] creation by means of the tongue of the spiritual state of disengagement [from the created world] (al- tajarrud) and perfection at the station of [absolute] servanthood… — «by night» — that is, in the darkness of bodily coverings and natural attachments, for the ascension and rise cannot occur except by means of a body — «from the holy mosque» — that is, from the station of the heart that is pro- tected from the circumambulation of the polytheism of carnal drives… (Taʾwīl, i, 705).

In this passage and throughout, the correspondences between qurʾānic images and Ṣūfī psychology, epistemology and ontology are clearly and firmly established, leaving little room for the ambiguity of reference and referent and a general opacity of meaning that characterize the works of Ibn al-ʿArabī. One can thus conclude that in al-Qāshānī's commentary the esoteric exegesis of the previous centuries receives a succinct, systematic — perhaps overly-systematic — and lucid articulation. The exegetical method derived from Ibn al-ʿArabī and his predecessors has become stabilized. Its subsequent re-articulation by such later Ṣūfīs as Badr al-Dīn Simawī (d. 820/1420), Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī (d. 1137/ 1725), Shāh Walī Allāh (d. 1176/1762), and Ibn ʿAjība (d. 1224/1809) — to name but a few — evinces a remarkable continuity that may be construed by some as a lack of originality. In the case of the last two authors, mystical exegesis is offered alongside other types of commentary, of which Ibn ʿAjība, for example, cites as many as eleven in his al-Baḥr al-madīd (i, 129-31). His tafsīr demonstrates his equal facility with both esoteric and exoteric commentary, without privileging either one of them (Michon, Le soufi, 88-9).

While the tradition of Qurʾān interpretation associated with the central Asian Ṣūfī master Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618/1221) and his followers Najm al-Dīn Dāya [al-] Rāzī (d. 654/1256) and ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Simnānī (d. 736/1336) is often treated as a separate school of Ṣūfī exegesis (e.g. Böwering, Ṣūfī hermeneutics, 257), this perception has more to do with two different spiritual and intellectual lineages than with differences in their approaches to the Qurʾān. Unlike the Ṣūfī commentar- ies discussed above, we are dealing here with what amounts to a collective exegetical work that was started by Kubrā, continued by Dāya [al-]Rāzī and completed by Simnānī, although «it is possible that there are two different continuations to Kubrā's commentary, one by Simnānī and the other by Dāya» (Elias, Throne carrier, 205). «It is also conceivable that Dāya revised Kubrā's commentary» (ibid.). In any event, this commentary remains unpublished and our knowledge of its contents is derived from a recent Western study of Simnānī's oeuvre by Jamal Elias (ibid., 107-10).

As with earlier Ṣūfī exegetes, Simnānī spoke of «four levels of meaning [of the Qurʾān] corresponding to four levels of existence» (ibid., 108). Its exoteric dimension corresponds to the realm of «humanity» (nāsūt); its esoteric dimension to the realm of divine sovereignty(malakūt); its limit (ḥadd) relates to the realm of divine omnipotence (jabarūt); and its point of ascent, or anagoge (maṭlaʿ/ muṭṭalaʿ) corresponds to the realm of divinity (lāhūt, ibid., 108). These realms, in turn, correspond to four levels of the human understanding of the Qurʾān — that of the ordinary believer (muslim), who relies upon his faculty of hearing (see seeing and hearing; hearing and deafness); that of the faithful one (muʾmin), who relies on divine inspiration; that of the righteous one (muḥsin), who should not disclose what he understands except with divine permission (idhn); and, finally, the [direct] witness (shāhid; see witness to faith) whose understanding is so sublime that he should refrain from disclosing it to anyone for fear of confusion and sedition (ibid.). God’s purpose in sending his revelation is to cleanse the hearts and souls of human beings from mundane distractions and thereby lead them to salvation. To this end, he has supplied them with special faculties or «subtle centers» (laṭāʾif) that orient them toward God and, eventually, lead the elect few of them to «a complete revelation of the true nature of reality» (ibid., 85).

Finally, mention should be made of the exegesis that combines esoteric exegesis and mystical metaphysics with Shīʿī theology. Here one thinks primarily of the exegetical works by Ḥaydar-i Āmulī (d. after 787/1385) — who consistently sought to integrate Ibn al-ʿArabī's ideas and exegetical methods into the Shīʿī intellectual universe — and Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1050/ 1640) and his school, including what appears to be an extremely rare, if not unique, example of a mystical commentary written by a female scholar from Iran named Nuṣrat bt. Muḥammad Amīn, better known as Bānū-yi Iṣfahānī (d. 1403/1982; Ayāzī, Mufassirūn, 310-15, 629-33; Āmulī, Jāmiʿ al-asrār; Mullā Ṣadrā, Asrār al-āyāt; Amīn, Tafsīr-i makhzan).

This survey does not discuss the development of Ṣūfī exegesis in modern times, which in Western scholarship remains largely a terra incognita (see post-enlightenment academic study of the qurʾān). For some representative works of this genre see Ayāzī, Mufassirūn, 833. See also wisdom; science and the qurʾān; time.

Primary

N. Amīn (Bānū-y Iṣfahānī), Tafsīr-i makhzan al-ʿirfān, 10 vols., Tehran 1982
H. Āmulī, Jāmiʿ al-asrār, ed. O. Yahya and H. Corbin, Tehran/Paris 1969
Baghawī, Maʿālim
al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, Jawāhir al-Qurʾān, ed. M. al-Qabbānī, Beirut 1985, trans. M.A. Quasem, The jewels of the Qurʾān, London 1983
id., Mishkāt al-anwār, ed. S. Dughaym, Beirut 1994
Ibn ʿAjība, Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Tafsīr al-Fātiḥa al-kabīr al-musammā bi-l-Baḥr al-madīd, ed. B.M. Bārūd, 2 vols., Abu Dhabi 1999
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh, Dīwān, Beirut n.d.
id., Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. A.ʿA. ʿAfīfī, Beirut 1980
id., al-Futūḥāt al-makkiya, 4 vols., Beirut 1968
Khāzin, Lubāb
al-Maybudī, Abū l-Faḍl Rashīd al-Dīn Aḥmad, Kashf al-asrār wa-ʿuddat al-abrār, ed. ʿA.A. Ḥikmat, 10 vols., Tehran [1952-61]
Mullā Ṣadrā (Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī), Asrār al-āyāt, ed. M. Khvājavī, Beirut 1993
al-Qāshānī, Taʾwīl
al-Qūnawī, Ṣadr al-Dīn, al-Tafsīr al-ṣūfī lil-Qurʾān. Ījāz al-bayān fī taʾwīl al-Qurʾān, ed. A.Q.A. ʿAṭā, Cairo 1969
Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif
al-Sarrāj, Abū Naṣr ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAlī, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ fī l-taṣawwuf, ed. R.A. Nicholson, Leiden/London 1914
Sulamī, Ḥaqāʾiq al-tafsīr, ed. S. Imrān, 2 vols., Beirut 2001
id., Ziyādāt

Secondary

S.M. Ayāzī, al-Mufassirūn. Ḥayātuhum wa-manhajuhum, Tehran 1414/1993

P. Bachmann, Un commentaire mystique du Coran, in Arabica 47 (2000), 503-9
J.M.S. Baljon, Religion and thought of Shāh Walī Allāh Dihlawī, 1703—1762, Leiden 1986
G. Böwering, Deylamī, Šams al-Dīn Abū Tābet Moḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Malek Ṭūsī, in Encyclopedia Iranica, vii, 341-2
id., Mystical
id. The scriptural «senses» in medieval Ṣūfī Qurʾān exegesis, in J.D. McAuliffe, B.D. Walfish and J.W. Goering (eds.), With reverence for the word. Medieval scriptural exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York 2003, 346-65
id., Ṣūfī hermeneutics in medieval Islam, in rei 55-7 (1987-9), 255-70
Y. Düzenli, Şihabuddin Sühreverdi ve Nuǧbetü l-beyan, PhD thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul 1994
J. Elias, The throne carrier of God, Albany, NY 1995
C. Ernst, Rūzbihān [al-Baḳlī], in ei2, viii, 651-2
id., Rūzbihān Baqlī, Richmond, Surrey 1996
D. Gril, ‘La lecture supérieure’ du Coran selon Ibn Barrajan, in Arabica 47 (2000), 510-22
id., Le commentaire du verset de la lumière d’après Ibn ʿArabī, in Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 90 (1990), 179-87
A. Keeler, Ṣūfī hermeneutics. Maybudī's Persian commentary on the Qurʾān, the Kashf al-asrār, Oxford (forthcoming)
J.-L. Michon, Le soufi marocain Aḥmad Ibn ʿAjība (1746—1809), Paris 1973
R. Nettler, Ṣūfī metaphysics and qurʾānic prophets, Cambridge 2003
Nwyia, Exégèse
id., Trois oeuvres inédites de mystiques musulmans, Beirut 1972
E. Ohlander, Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī and the institutionalization of Ṣūfism, PhD diss., U. Michigan 2004
W. Saleh, The formation of the classical tafsīr tradition, Leiden 2004
K.Z. Sands, Ṣūfī commentaries on the Qurʾān in classical Islam, London 2005

Knysh, Alexander D., «Ṣūfism and the Qurʾān», in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Consulted online on 07 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00196>

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / Taṣawwuf

(a.), the phenomenon of mysticism within Islam. It is the maṣdar of Form V of the radical ṣ-w-f indicating in the first place one who wears woollen clothes (ṣūf), the rough garb of ascetics and mystics. Other etymological derivations which have been put forward in Western and, especially, Islamic sources, are untenable. Hence a mystic is called ṣūfī or mutaṣawwif, colls, ṣūfiyya or mutaṣawwifa.

1. Early development in the Arabic and Persian lands.

Already among the Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad there were persons who wanted more than just to strive after the outward observance of the religious law and of the usages founded by the Prophet. At the same time, while fulfilling their religious duties, they paid attention to what was happening to their souls, and tried to harmonise these internal experiences with the external observances by means of renunciation of the world and asceticism. Here, they knew that many characteristics of the Prophet’s message favoured this, whilst the 1st-2nd/7th-8th centuries brought about a certain secularisation of life and luxury, contrary to the ideals of the original Islamic community, and from which the truly Godfearing person could save himself only by withdrawing from the world.

The representatives of the ascetic movement, which strove after giving depth to life and renouncing the world, were often called nāsik, pl. nussāk, corresponding to the Latin viri religiosi. As an outward sign, they wore rough woollen cloth in order to react against the people wearing more luxurious dress, and possibly also in imitation of the dress of Christian monks and ascetics.

A fringe group of the movement was called Ṣūfiyya in the 2nd/8th century. As opposed to the religiosi, antinomian, antisocial and anti-governmental tendencies became noticeable among them. This is in any case reported by sources which were ill-disposed towards the Ṣūfiyya and therefore cannot lay claim to unconditional trust. The Ṣūfiyya tried to achieve a sensitive relation with God. They developed views about the love of God, and for this they could quote Ḳurʾān V, 54: “He loves them, and they love Him”. They also had a means to intensify this relation and to give it an artistic expression by playing music and wordly poetry, in particular love poetry, and by listening to this (samāʿ ). For the Ṣūfiyya, the beloved who was celebrated in these poems was God, and the love relation described in them was their relation to God. The “hearing” often put them in a state of ecstasy (wad̲j̲d) brought about in particular by the dance which was connected with the hearing. Another exercise was the d̲h̲ikr Allāh, on which see below. Notwithstanding the fact that the religiosi in general rejected these practices, the word Ṣūfī, which in the 2nd/8th century still had been an expression for a somewhat disreputable fringe group, had been adopted for the entire mystical movement in the course of the 3rd/9th century for reasons which are not clear. On the whole, however, the name never succeeded in imposing itself universally. In the East, in K̲h̲urāsān and in Transoxania, mystics were for a long time called ḥakīm, pl. ḥukamāʾ, and besides this the term, “knower of God” (ʿārif, pl. ʿārifūn) was often used.

The Ṣūfī was poor (A. faḳīr, P. darwīs̲h̲). He had renounced the world as a zāhid (pl. zuhhād) and devoted himself to the ardent service of God. However, he was not only contending with the world and its seductions, but also with himself, his own base self (nafs), experienced as the seat of all evil lusts, which impeded real renunciation of the world and exclusive surrender to God. It was therefore his task to look into himself and exercise self-training, with the aim of doing away with the self and all the impulses of the will emanating from it. For as long as the self was enduring, true Islam, true surrender to God’s will was not possible. The final obliteration of personal activity was experienced as an absorption, a cessation of being, in God (fanāʾ ). A road (ṭarīḳ or ṭarīḳa , pl. ṭuruḳ, the later word for “dervish order”), along which the mystic travelled (sulūk), led to this. In the internal experience it led across a number of way stations (manāzil), locations (maḳām, pl. maḳāmāt) and situations (ḥāl, pl. aḥwāl), for which in later times classification systems were established in the handbooks (see below). Already in early times, many interpreted this road as a journey towards God through the macrocosmos.

The Ṣūfis strove to procure a coherent foundation of their theory and practice. Their guiding principles were the Ḳurʾān and Sunna, the “orthodox” custom of the Islamic world which consolidated itself in the 3rd/9th century. The science thus formed was called ʿilm al-bāṭin, knowledge of the inner self or internal knowledge. They opposed it to the traditional sciences, namely, tradition (ḥadīt̲h̲) and jurisprudence (fiḳh), which they designated as knowledge of the perceptible or the perceptible knowledge (ʿilm al-ẓāhir). The Ṣūfīs considered the status of their knowledge of the inner self as being superior to the perceptible sciences, yet they thought the latter to be indispensable for leading a God-fearing life. Rendering mysticism “orthodox” and coherent entailed the elimination of many of the attitudes of earlier times, especially those of the circles of the Ṣūfiyya. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the designations Ṣūfī, Ṣūfiyya, became socially acceptable in the 3rd/9th century.

The endeavour to get at a mental elucidation, at an intellectualisation, at a “rendering orthodox”, is also found in Ṣūfī literature which originated in the 3rd/9th century. At the outset, there are collections of sayings by local leaders, which were then moulded into thematically-arranged collections. To these rather unassuming writings were added, in this same century, treatises by the great mystical scholars of that time, who pushed forward the development of the ʿilm al-bāṭin. Unfortunately, many of these writings have been lost. As authors one might mention al-Ḥārit̲h̲ b. Asad al-Muḥāsibr (d. 243/857 ), who worked in Baṣra and in Bag̲h̲dād. His name al-Muḥāsibī, i.e. he who takes himself to task, who settles accounts with himself, alludes to the contents of his writings. In the latter, a science of scrupulous introspection of great subtlety is being developed, one which was unequalled by all who came later.

At this same time, a centre of intellectual mysticism developed in the capital Bag̲h̲dād after the leadership of the movement had first been at Baṣra, in the circle and among the pupils of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. The leader of the school of Bag̲h̲dād was al-D̲j̲unayd b. Muḥammad (d. 298/910 ), to whose authority al-most all later Ṣūfism refers. Other authors and scholars of the ʿIrāḳ and Bag̲h̲dād schools were Abū Saʿīd al-K̲h̲arrāz (d. 279/892 or 286/899 ), Abu ’l-Ḥusayn al-Nūrī (d. 295/907) and Aḥmad b. ʿAṭāʾ (d. 310/ 922). To Baṣra belongs Sahl b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Tustan (d. 283/896 ) From al-D̲j̲unayd’s circle also came Abū Bakr al-Wāsiṭī (d. 320/932), but he was mainly active in the east, in K̲h̲urasan. A solitary and a special case was the famous al-Ḥusayn b. Manṣūr al-Ḥallād̲j̲ who by his exaggerated and challenging sayings provoked the state authorities and was finally executed in Bag̲h̲dād in 310/922.

In the East, Naysābūr [see nīs̲h̲āpūr ] and the region around Balk̲h̲ and Tirmid̲h̲, on the upper Oxus, were centres of Ṣūfism. As the main author one should mentioned al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmid̲h̲ī (d. ca. 300/910), whose work is the most comprehensive of what has survived of classical Ṣūfism (“classical” here indicates the period between the 3rd/9th and the 4th-5th/10th-11th centuries). The famous Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī (d. probably in 261/874-5 ) was also active in the East.

The 4th-5th/10th-11th centuries were a period of consolidation, in which there appeared the great collections and text-books which gave Ṣūfism its final orthodox tone. One may mention Abū Naṣr al-Sarrād̲j̲ (d. 378/988 ) and his Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī (d. 386/996 ) and his Ḳūt al-ḳulūb al-Kalābād̲h̲ī (d. 380/990 ) and his al-Taʿarruf li-mad̲h̲hab ahl al-taṣawwuf Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī (d. 412/1022 ), who in numerous comprehensive writings collected information about Ṣūfism and Ṣūfīs; al-Ḳus̲h̲ayrī (d. 465/1074), the author of the wellknown Risāla ; and the anonymous author of the textbook Adab al-mulūk, probably composed towards the end of the 4th/10th century.

Classical Ṣūfism found a certain culmination in the activities of Muḥammad al-G̲h̲azālī (d. 555/1111 ). Originally a theologian, he was converted to mysticism after a crisis in his life. In his main work, the Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, he accomplished a synthesis of theological science and mystical ʿilm al-bāṭin, and continued the endeavours of his Ṣūfī predecessors of the 4th/10th century. In lengthy passages, the Iḥyāʾ is simply a revision of the Ḳūt al-ḳulūb of Abū Ṭālib al-Mākkī, and, to a lesser extent also, of the Risāla of al-Ḳus̲h̲ayrī.

Increasingly, the Persian language was also used in Ṣūfī literature, which until far into the 4th/10th century was only written in Arabic. Ansārī of Herat (d. 481/1089) wrote mainly in Persian. With his Kas̲h̲f al-maḥd̲j̲ūb, ʿAlī b. ʿUt̲h̲mān al-D̲j̲ullābī al-Hud̲j̲wīrī (d. towards 1080 ) composed the first Ṣūfī handbook in Persian. Ṣūfism was to be of particular importance for Persian poetry, in connection with which one should mention the poets ʿAṭṭār (d. ca. 615/1220), D̲j̲alāl al-Dīn Rūmī (d. 672/1273) and D̲j̲āmī (d. 898/ 1492) [q.vv.], and later, the other languages of the Islamic world, Turkish, Urdu etc., were to follow.

If on the one hand Ṣūfism was confined in the straightjacket of Islamic theology, it experienced on the other hand enrichment and enlargement by admitting non-Islamic ways of thinking and worldviews, above all those of Classical Antiquity, mainly Neoplatonism, mixed with Aristotelian elements, which had become known to the Islamic world through translations since the beginning of the 3rd/9th century. There are also influences from Iranian religions and ways of thinking. Vague influences from non-Islamic doctrines can already be detected in the writings of the scholars of the 3rd/9th century. Above all, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmid̲h̲ī should be mentioned, since he developed an early theosophical system. However, it was only very much later that a broad influence set in, the main exponents of this tendency being Yaḥyā b. Ḥabas̲h̲ al-Suhrawardī (d. 587/1191 ) from Persia and Ibn al-ʿArabī from Spain, who spent the second half of his life in Syria and Asia Minor, and died in Damascus in 638/1240 . Al-Suhrawardī joined mystical experiences with older Iranian traditions. Ibn al-ʿArabī drew up a Neoplatonic-Gnostic system, which is dominated by the idea of the unity of all beings (waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd [see waḥdat al-s̲h̲uhūd and waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd ]). Early classical Ṣūfism had directed its attention to the fact that God operates everything, that God is the only real agent, to whose will and action man should submit with no will or self of his own. Post-classical Ṣūfism, whose beginning is to be dated in the 5th-6th/11th-12th centuries, made God not only into the only agent but even into the One who exists all alone. Later, there arose, in the person of Ibn Taymiyya (d. in Damascus 728/1328 ) and others, opposition against aspects of Ṣūfism which Ibn Taymiyya considered as abuses. Among other things, his criticism was aimed at the monism of being of Ibn al-ʿArabī

In addition to non-Islamic ways of thinking, later Ṣūfism had also to integrate further elements. Through exercises and practices—above all through d̲h̲ikr — the mystic could place himself in situations in which he had visionary experiences (mukās̲h̲afāt “unveilings”) which he interpreted as information coming from higher worlds, even from God Himself. A system of classification and interpretation of the visions was developed. Here mention should be made of Nad̲j̲m al-Dīn al-Kubrā from K̲h̲īwa in K̲h̲wārazm (d. 620/ 1220 ), in whose school attention was given in particular to the visionary element. Already in the 5th/11th century, al-Ḳus̲h̲ayrī began to incorporate this element into the doctrinal system of Ṣūfism, and it is found in its entirety in the last classical handbook of Ṣūfism, the ʿAwārif al-maʿārif of Abū Ḥafs ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī (d. 635/ 1234 in Bag̲h̲dād). It went through a Persian translation and adaptation in the 8th/14th century, and has remained a standard work of Persian mystics until the present day.

Mystic life was increasingly cultivated in the orders (ṭuruḳ), and these have been its characteristic home until the present day. If nowadays Islamic mysticism is mentioned, in general, gatherings like those of the orders are meant. These last originated in the 6th-7th/12th-13th centuries, during which Ṣūfī groups were formed with fixed rules and hierarchically-arranged leadership, but gatherings must have existed already earlier. Al-Hud̲j̲wīrī enumerates ten traditions of schools. But it is not yet a question of orders proper, if indeed one understands by order a Ṣūfī gathering, with a hierarchical organisation, fixed rules and rituals.

In the early days, well into the 4th/10th century, the pupil-teacher relation was a very loose one. The pupil (murīd) often visited several teachers (s̲h̲ayk̲h̲, pl. s̲h̲uyūk̲h̲) in order to seek instruction about the path. Later, the typical teacher giving instruction was called s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-taʿlīm. From the end of the 3rd/9th century onwards, in fact, at first in eastern Persia, a change became visible in this relationship. Next to mere instruction came personal education by the teacher, who took the pupil much more under his wing so that the relationship became closer. The customs which developed from these teacher-pupil relations were the foundation of the later rules of orders. After the instruction of the novice was finished, he obtained from his teacher an authorisation (id̲j̲āza ) and, as an external sign, a rough cloak (k̲h̲irḳa). To his outfit also often belonged a prayer rug (sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda), a rosary (misbaḥa) and a beggar’s bowl (kas̲h̲kūl).

The most important orders are the Ḳādiriyya, the Kubrawiyya, the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya, the K̲h̲alwatiyya and the S̲h̲ād̲h̲iliyya [q.vv.]. As a rule, the orders have fixed, written rules, which usually deal with the following points:

1. They give the order’s affiliation (silsila), which is traced back from the present leader to the Prophet Muḥammad. It may comprise 30-40 degrees. These affiliations are frequently not very historical; in the various orders, they often coincide from the Prophet onwards till the foundation of the specific order in the 7th-9th/13th-15th centuries, but after that date, differentiation appears.

2. The conditions and rituals for admission into the order. Some orders take men and women, some only men. The novice owes the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ unconditional obedience (perinde ac cadaver), one which refers also to the affairs of everyday life.

3. Instructions about the use of the formulas for the d̲h̲ikr. They deal with the regulation of breathing, with rhythms in which these formulas must be recited, and with the different speed in which this has to be performed.

4. Instructions regarding seclusion (k̲h̲alwa). The Ṣūfī often withdraws for a length of time, which may span weeks, in special, screened-off small rooms, in order to devote himself to d̲h̲ikr exercises. As a rule, very precise instructions are given for these; they deal with the site and the arrangement of space, the length of the seclusion, the sequence of the formulae and litanies, the prescriptions for posture, and practical points like maintenance and questions of cleanliness.

5. Often advice is also given concerning the relation of the members of the order among themselves.

The most important practice of the Ṣūfīs and of the Ṣūfī communities is the remembrance of God (d̲h̲ikr), and with some orders also listening to music and dance. These were rejected by the theologians, as well as by Ibn Taymiyya and his school; others, like al-G̲h̲azālī, accepted just samāʿ. In early times, even during the Prophet’s lifetime, d̲h̲ikr could consist of the picturing of God in the mind and of thinking of Him, to which aim meetings were held. The early Ṣūfiyya recited certain formulas in common. Later, and up to the present time, it means to have God’s name (Allāh) always present and to pronounce it while paying attention to certain breathing techniques. This recital of God’s name could lead to ecstatic situations, which were accompanied by visions. At times, the schools or orders developed specific methods for remembering God. At the admission into the order these methods were “implanted” into the novice by the teacher (talḳīn al-d̲h̲ikr).

Many prominent teachers and personalities of Ṣūfism attained an odour of sanctity soon after their death, some even during their lifetime. Supernatural knowledge and the power to work wonders were ascribed to them, and their tomb often became a place of pilgrimage (ziyāra ). Soon a garland of stories and legends around their person and their doings came into being, thus forming the basis of hagiographies. The first were written in Arabic, but unfortunately these have survived only in Persian translations.

The example of wonder-working saints was the Prophet Muḥammad himself, to whom supernatural features were ascribed by the Ṣūfīs. Already for the oldest Ṣūfīs, the Prophet’s life (sīra) and sayings and doings (sunna) were the example. The Ṣūfī should not only follow him with body and soul (the imitatio Muhammadi) but also exert himself to keep Muḥammad himself always present in thoughts and feelings. This representation could be intensified to such an extent that Ṣūfīs thought they had Muḥammad in person before their eyes, who communicated with them by words and advice, for they were and are convinced that Muḥammad after his death lives on in a transformed existence. In later times the term “Muḥammad’s path” (ṭarīḳa muḥammadiyya) was used in this context.

The mystical path is in principle open to every Muslim. According to the Ṣūfīs, therefore, anybody can arrive at higher forms of religious knowledge, even if this must be achieved under the guidance of a s̲h̲ayk̲h̲. These achievements are promised to the novice as fruits of the path. The S̲h̲īʿa, on the other hand, for which religious authority and knowledge must always be connected with blood percentage with the Prophet Muḥammad through the Imams, were and are still hostile to this “democratic” idea of knowledge upheld by the Ṣūfīs.

Bibliography

1. General. L. Massignon, Recueil de textes inédits concernant l’histoire de la mystique en pays d’Islam, Paris 1929

idem, Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane. 2Paris 1955 (in many respects out of date, yet a basic work for early Ṣūfism), continued by P. Nwyia, Exégèse coranique et langage mystique, Beirut 1970

Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical dimensions of Islam, Chapel Hill, N.C. 1975, German version, Cologne 1985 (a rather popular presentation of all the aspects of Ṣūfism; not always reliable in the details)

F. Meier, The mystic path. The Ṣūfī tradition, in B. Lewis (ed.), The world of Islam, London-New York 1976, 117-28, Ger. tr. Brunswick 1976 (the best short presentation of Ṣūfism)

idem, Abū Saʿīd-i Abū l-Ḫayr. Wirklichkeit und Legende, Tehran-Liège-Leiden 1976 (deals also with social aspects)

idem, Bausteine. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Islamwissenschaft, Istanbul-Stuttgart 1992 (important studies on specific subjects)

H. Ritter, Das Meer der Seek, Leiden 1955

R. Gramlich, Die schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens, 3 vols. Wiesbaden 1965-81 (vol. ii contains an historical survey of Ṣūfī doctrines and is indispensable as a handbook)

idem, Die Wunder der Freunde Gottes, Wiesbaden 1987 (fundamental for the cult of saints)

J. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra. Eine Geschichte des religiösen Denkens im frühen Islam. Berlin-New York, 1991 ff. (also fundamental for early Ṣūfism; replaces Massignon’s Essai in many aspects)

J. Baldick, Mystical Islam, New York 1989 (useful as a survey, but loses itself in untenable hypotheses)

B. Reinert, Die Lehre vom tawakkul in der klassischen Sufik, Berlin 1968 (fundamental for early piety)

J. Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi orders in Islam, London 1971 (fundamental for the orders, but not always reliable in details).

2. Biographical lexica and lives of saints. F. Meier, Die Vita des Scheich Abū Isḥāq al-Kāzarūnī, Leipzig 1948

Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Sulamī, Ṭabaḳāt al-ṣūfiyya, ed. J. Pedersen, Leiden 1960, ed. Nūr al-Dīn S̲h̲arībā, Cairo 1372/1953, Persian adaptation by ʿAbd Allāh Anṣārī, ed. Muḥammad Sarwar Mawlāʾī, Tehran 1362/1983

Muhammad b. al-Munawwar, Asrār al-tawḥīd fī maḳāmāt al-S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Abī Saʿīd, ed. V.A. Z̲h̲ukovski, St. Petersburg 1899, ed. Muḥammad S̲h̲afīʿī Kadkanī, Tehran 1366-7/ 1987-8, Fr. tr. Mohammad Achena, Les étapes mystiques du s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Abu Saʾid, Paris 1974, Eng. tr. J. O’Kane, The secrets of God’s mystical oneness, New York 1992

Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣbahānī, Ḥilyat al-awliyāʾ, 10 vols. Cairo 1351-7/1932-8

Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār, Tad̲h̲kirat al-awliyāʾ, ed. R.A. Nicholson, Leiden-London 1905-7, ed. M. Istiʿlāmī, Tehran 1372/1994

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān D̲j̲āmī, Nafaḥāt al-uns, ed. Maḥmūd ʿĀbidī, Tehran 1370/1991

Abu ’l-Ḥasan al-Daylamī, Sīrat Ibn K̲h̲afīf, ed. A. Schimmel, Ankara 1955.

3. Textbooks of classical Ṣūfism. Abū Naṣr al-Sarrād̲j̲, K. al-Lumaʿ, ed. Nicholson, London-Leiden 1914, Ger. tr. R. Gramlich, Schlaglichter über das Sufitum, Stuttgart 1990

Abū Bakr Muḥammad al-Kalābād̲h̲ī, K. al-Taʿarruf, ed. A.J. Arberry, Cairo 1934, tr. idem, The doctrine of the Sufis, Cambridge 1935

Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, Ḳūt al-ḳulūb, Cairo 1932, Ger. tr. Gramlich, Die Nahrung der Herzen, Wiesbaden 1992-5

Abu ’l-Ḳāsim al-Ḳus̲h̲ayrī, Risāla, many prints, Ger. tr. Gramlich, Das Sendschreiben al-Qušayrīs, Wiesbaden 1989

Hud̲j̲wīrī, Kas̲h̲f al-maḥd̲j̲ūb, ed. Z̲h̲ukovski. Leningrad 1926, Eng. tr. Nicholson, The Kashf al-mahjúb. The oldest Persian treatise on Ṣúfíism, Leiden-London 1911

G̲h̲azālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, many prints, Ger. tr. of books 31-6 by Gramlich, Muhammad al-Ghazzālīs Lehre von den Stufen der Gottesliebe, Wiesbaden 1984

Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī, ʿAwārif al-maʿārif many prints, Ger. tr. Gramlich, Die Gaben der Erkentnisse des ʿUmar as-Suhrawardī, Wiesbaden 1978

anon., Adab al-mulūk. Ein Handbuch zur islamischen Mystik aus dem 4./10. Jahrhundert, ed., B. Radtke, Beirut 1991, Ger. tr. Gramlich, Die Lebensweise der Könige, Stuttgart 1993. Sulamī’s Ḥaḳā’iḳ al-tafsīr, a fundamental commentary on the Ḳurʾān with reference to early Ṣūfism, has not yet been published

cf. G. Böwering, The Minor Qurʾān Commentary of Abū ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān... as-Sulamī (d. 412/1021), Beirut 1995

other works by this author collected together by N. Pūrd̲j̲awādī, Mad̲j̲mūʿa-yi āt̲h̲ār-i Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān-i Sulamī, 2 vols. Tehran 1369-72/1990-4.

4. Editions and monographs on individual persons. Basic for the older, classical Ṣūfism is Gramlich’s Alte Vorbilder des Sufitums, Wiesbaden 1995-6, vol. i. on 13 s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s of the West, vol. ii on 10 s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s of the East. On al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and his circle, see van Ess, Theologie, ii, 41-121. See further idem, Die Gedankenwelt des Ḥārit̲ al-Muḥāsibī, Bonn 1959

Gramlich, Abū Sulaymān ad-Dārānī, in Oriens, xxxiii (1992), 22-85

van Ess, Der Kreis des Ḏū n-Nūn, in WO, xii (1981), 99-105

Böwering, The mystical vision of existence in classical Islam. The Qurʾanic hermeneutks of the Sufi Sahl at-Tustarī (d. 283/ 986), Berlin 1980

Massignon, La passion de Ḥusayn ibn Manṣûr Hallâj, new ed. Paris 1975

idem, Akhbâr al-Ḥallâj, 3Paris 1957

idem, Le dîwân d’al-Ḥallâj, new ed. Paris 1955

Ali Hassan Abdel-Kader, The life, personality and writings of al-Junayd, London 1976 (almost useless)

H. Ritter, Die Aussprüche des Bāyezīd Bisṭāmī, in F. Meier (ed.), Westöstliche Abhandlungen (Festschrift R. Tschudi), Wiesbaden 1954, 231-43

Meier, Die Fawāʾiḥ al-ǧamāl wa-fawātiḥ al-ǧalāl des Naǧm ad-dīn al-Kubrā, Wiesbaden 1957

B. Radtke, Al-Ḥakīm at-Tirmid̲ī, Ein islamischer Theosoph des 3./9. Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1980

idem, Drei Schriften des Theosophen von Timid̲, i, Die arabischen Texte, ii, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Beirut-Stuttgart 1992-6

Gramlich, Abu ’l-ʿAbbās b. ʿAṭāʾ Sufi und Koranausleger, Stuttgart 1995.

(L. Massington- [B. Radtke])

2. Ibn al-ʿArabī and after in the Arabic and Persian lands and beyond.

i. The present state of research. Judgements here have to be made with caution, since this period is far less known and far less studied than the first one. There is little doubt, however, about its importance, and Marshall Hodgson was probably right when he wrote “Once the Ṣûfīs came to espouse a distinctive metaphysic, that metaphysic became the most influential form of speculation among Muslims generally... Ṣûfism, especially the new intellectualizing expressions of it, served more than any other movement to draw together all strands of intellectual life” (The venture of Islam, Chicago 1974, ii, 230). The teachings of Ibn al-ʿArabi (560-638/1165-1240 ) were without doubt pervasively influential, but the exact nature of this needs exploration, as do the works of his followers and commentators; also, several of his contemporaries were authors of major importance who established lines of teaching and influence that extended for centuries to come.

There is the further problem of defining Ṣūfism/ taṣawwuf ’in this period. Authors known as Ṣūfīs may or may not have applied the term to themselves. All through the period one finds a broad spectrum of attitudes, beliefs and practices that have been labelled as Ṣūfism by both Muslims and outside observers. One is also overwhelmed by the sheer mass and diversity of material, in various forms of art, a vast range of devotional material, popular stories, hagiographies, handbooks on adab, collections of sayings or malfūẓāṭ [q.v. in Suppl.], etc. The Ṣūfī orders [see ṭarīḳa ] display its social and political aspect, but Ṣūfism continued to be transmitted by other channels also; Ṣūfī texts became part of the curriculum for any well-educated scholar.

ii. The Ṣūfism of Ibn al-ʿArabī. If Ibn al-ʿArabī came to be known as al-s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-akbar, “the Greatest Master”, this is because he offered enormously erudite and challenging explanations of all the basic issues of Islamic theory and practice. However, given the complexity, profundity, prolixity, and diversity of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s writings, it is difficult if not impossible to make categorical statements about his views on any important theoretical issue. Certainly the attempts that have often made to categorise his thinking—such as calling it “static” as opposed to “dynamic” (Massignon and Gardet)—have litde basis in his writings. Although we are told everywhere in the later literature, both Islamic and Western, that Ibn al-ʿArabī established the perspective of waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd, he never employs this expression, which has a complex history among both his followers and his critics, meaning different things to different authors (see Chittick, Rūmī and waḥdat al-wujūd, in Poetry and mysticism in Islam, Cambridge 1994, 70-111). It is misleading to say without qualification that Ibn al-ʿArabī believes in any specific doctrine. On any given issue, his position depends on the standpoint he chooses to adopt in the context, and he acknowledges the conditional validity of every standpoint. This relativity of standpoints does not negate the fact that some standpoints are more true than others, or that immediate happiness after death can only be achieved by following the prophets, which, in Islamic terms, means observing the s̲h̲arīʿa.

Once we treat generalisations with caution, we can say that certain notions play central roles in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s thinking, such as wud̲j̲ud (existence, being, finding), the divine names, God’s self-disclosure (tad̲j̲allī ), and imagination (k̲h̲ayāl). Probably the most basic of these notions, however, is the perfect human being (al-insān al-kāmil), who is looked upon as integrating of all reality, since he is the origin and goal of the universe, the model and criterion for human development, and the guide on the path to God. Several of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s works, such as his famous Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, his monumental al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya, and his short al-ʿAbādila, are structured in terms of various modalities of human perfection. These modalities in turn are viewed as manifestations of the multiform reality of the Ḳurʾān (see Chodkiewicz, Ocean, ch. 2), and every standpoint of his starts from the Ḳurʾān and the basic hermeneutical principle that God intends every sense that can be understood from his Word without distorting the plausible meanings of the Arabic language.

Instead of attempting to summarise Ibn al-ʿArabī’s worldview, it may be useful to suggest how his perspective might help us understand the place of Ṣūfism in Islamic history. It is well to keep in mind, however, that Ibn al-ʿArabī would probably not call himself a “Ṣūfī” in any limiting sense, since he rarely employs the term, and, in a tripartite division of the Men of God (rid̲j̲āl Allāh), he places the Ṣūfīs in an intermediate category, above the ascetics (zuhhād) to be sure, but below the Blameworthy (malāmiyya), who are also called the Realisers (muḥaḳḳiḳūn). In this highest category, he numbers the Prophet and the greatest friends of God (awliyāʾ), including himself. Their basic activity is taḥḳīḳ, which Ibn al-ʿArabī understands in terms of the Prophet’s command, “Give everything that has a ḥaḳḳ its ḥaḳḳ”. Everything in existence has a ḥaḳḳ—a truth, a reality, a right, an appropriate claim—or else God would not have created it. The function of the Realiser is to discern a thing’s ḥaḳḳ and act accordingly, and Ibn al-ʿArabi sets out principles in terms of which every ḥaḳḳ can be discerned and acted upon.

Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings are intimately tied to the Ḳurʾān in diverse ways, both obvious and hidden. His writings attempt to show how the Ḳurʾān manifests the reality of God in its every chapter, verse, word and letter. On a doctrinal level, his governing idea is tawḥīd or the assertion of God’s unity, to be understood from two basic points of view, which can be labelled by the two primary names of the Holy Book— ḳurʾān and furḳān. According to one traditional understanding, ḳurʾān means “bringing together” (d̲j̲amʿ); hence it represents a perspective that is complementary to furḳān, which means “separation” and “differentiation”. The Ḳurʾān differentiates all the phenomena of the universe in keeping with God’s knowledge and wisdom, but it also brings all things together under the umbrella of God’s unitary creativity. Reality’s differentiation is prefigured in God’s external knowledge of creation, and its unity derives from the divine oneness. God is one through his Essence (d̲h̲āt) and “many” through his differentiated knowledge. His oneness pertains to wud̲j̲ūd, and his manyness to the things, which, qua things, have no wud̲j̲ūd. The unifying principles of the many things are known as the “divine names”. This is what Ibn al-’Arabī means when he says, as he often does, that God is the One/the Many (al-wāḥid al-kat̲h̲īr)—He is one through His Essence and many through His names. For its part, the Holy Book, as God’s eternal speech, designates both the oneness and the manyness of reality. Its two names, ḳurʾān and furḳān, signify the two basic principles in terms of which God creates the universe and reveals himself in the “signs” (āyāt) that are found in the three fundamental domains of manifestation: the universe, the soul, and the Book.

Saʿīd al-Dīn Farg̲h̲ānī (d. ca. 695/1296 ), who is probably the first follower of Ibn al-ʿArabī to use the term waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd in a technical sense, employs it to designate the side of ḳurʾān, and he contrasts it with kat̲h̲rat al-ʿilm, “the manyness of [God’s] knowledge”, which designates the side of furḳān, For him as for many other members of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s school, the goal of knowledge and practice is to establish a happy balance between furḳān and ḳurʾān, both in the soul and in human interactions. In later Islamic history, especially in the debates over Ibn al-ʿArabī that raged in the Indian subcontinent, the perspective of waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd was said to assert that “All is He” (hama ūst), whereas the opposing view, labelled wahdat al-s̲h̲uhūd by S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Aḥmad Sirhindī (d. 1034/1604 ), was said to maintain that “All is from Him” (hama az ūst) or “All is through Him” (hama bidūst).

If we examine the Futūḥāt al-makkiyya, we see that Ibn al-ʿArabī’s basic approach is to deal with any Ḳurʾānic verse, ḥadīt̲h̲, or intellectual issue in terms of these two perspectives. He often refers to the two as tanzīh and tas̲h̲bīh, the assertion of God’s incomparability and the declaration of His similarity, or, loosely, transcendence and immanence. He sees the first standpoint expressed plainly in the divine names of majesty (d̲j̲alāl) and wrath (g̲h̲aḍab), while the second appears more clearly in the names of beauty (d̲j̲amāl) and mercy (raḥmd). He associates the first with the rational faculty and its activities (ʿaḳl, naẓar, fikr), and the second with imagination (k̲h̲ayāl) and direct vision (kas̲h̲f, s̲h̲uhūd, d̲h̲awḳ, futūḥ —unveiling, witnessing, tasting, opening). In his view, these are the two basic standpoints of Islamic thought, represented roughly by the philosophers, theologians, and jurists on the one hand and the Ṣūfīs on the other. In contrast, the standpoint of taḥḳīḳ acknowledges the limited truth and rightfulness of every standpoint. Ibn al-ʿArabī affirms the necessity of both modes of knowing and criticises any attempts to limit knowledge to one mode or the other. Hence he asserts both the oneness of God’s wud̲j̲ūd and the manyness of His knowledge, the unity of His Essence and the multiplicity of His names, ḳurʾān and furḳān, tas̲h̲bīh and tanzīh, k̲h̲ayāl and ʿaḳl, “He” and “not He”. On the human side, these two perspectives are the “two eyes” (ʿaynān) with which people see their way to God. Ignoring the vision of either eye yields a distorted view of things, valid within its own limits, but inadequate as a guide to God and as a judge of other viewpoints.

What then is the role of the s̲h̲afīʿa ? Ibn al-ʿArabī employs the term s̲h̲arīʿa (and s̲h̲arʿ) generally to signify the whole range of teachings that have come through the prophets, more specifically to designate the teachings that have come in the Ḳurʾān and the Sunna, and most specifically to mean the aḥkām or revealed legal rulings as contrasted with the ak̲h̲bār or revealed reports. The function of the s̲h̲arīʿa in all these meanings is to bring about the return to God in a mode that guarantees felicity (saʿāda), that is, salvation. Hence, the s̲h̲arīʿa, including all the specific aḥkām, is the indispensable guide.

Ibn al-ʿArabī drew from all the Islamic sciences in his works, especially tafsīr, ḥadīt̲h̲,, grammar, fiḳh, and kalām. Methodologically, what differentiates him from masters of all these sciences is his reliance on kas̲h̲f and k̲h̲ayāl as the corrective to ʿaḳl. Kas̲h̲f or unveiling is a type of vision that sees the presence of al-wud̲j̲ūd al-ḥaḳḳ, the Real Being, manifest in God’s signs. The importance of unveiling, which discerns invisible realities in their images, comes out clearly in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s theory of imagination, and no discussion of his teachings can afford to ignore the centrality of this term to his vocabulary. K̲h̲ayāl, he tells us, is the centrepiece of the necklace of knowledge, the integrating factor. It is the human cognitive faculty that sees connections and sameness, and as such it is contrasted with ʿaḳl, which sees difference and otherness. By nature k̲h̲ayāl inclines toward tas̲h̲bīh, and by nature ʿaḳl tends toward tanzīh. If knowledge is left in the hands of ʿaḳl, there can be no understanding of God’s presence in the world, and if it is left in the hands of k̲h̲ayāl, there can be no understanding of God’s distance, transcendence, and unity. ʿAḳl easily grasps God’s inaccessibility and majesty, but it cannot understand, save theoretically, His nearness and beauty, and the direct perception of God’s presence can only be achieved through imagination.

K̲h̲ayāl, then, is the human cognitive faculty that perceives the object in its mirror image, or the signified in its signifier. More broadly, the term designates the notion of an “image”, which is neither the thing that it images nor completely different from it, and in this sense it may be treated as a synonym for barzak̲h̲ or “isthmus”, which refers to any intermediate reality. Thus the term k̲h̲ayāl can designate the universe itself (al-ʿālam), which is an intermediary between God and absolute nothingness (al-ʿadam al-muṭlaḳ), since it is neither the one nor the other, though it is the image of both. On a lower level, k̲h̲ayāl refers to the world of imagination or mundus imaginalis, which is the intermediary between the angelic world of pure spirits and the sensory world of pure bodies, hence the locus of visionary events and the resurrection. Microcosmically, k̲h̲ayāl can designate the human self or soul (nafs), which bridges spirit and body, light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance, awareness and unconsciousness. Because the soul is imaginai, it is never purely spiritual or purely bodily, so it can never be pure light or pure darkness. Like the universe itself, it undergoes constant development, change, and transmutation through the new creation (al-k̲h̲alḳ al-d̲j̲adīd), the never-ending process whereby the universe emerges from the infinite light of God and returns to it. Since nothing has true and permanent wud̲j̲ūd but God, and since God’s mercy prevails over His wrath, felicity will ultimately reach all the people of the Fire. The principle of the predominance of mercy over wrath, asserted explicitly in the ḥadīt̲h̲ literature and implicitly in the Ḳurʾān, determines the final end of everything. Ḳurʾān will eventually triumph over furḳān, since light is more real than darkness, and the oneness of al-wud̲j̲ūd al-ḥaḳḳ is more basic to reality than the manyness of the things, though the traces of manyness will never disappear on any level. From the standpoint of human welfare and ultimate felicity, furḳān, tanzīh, and ʿaḳl remain vital and inescapable.

With this extremely brief overview of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s overall perspective, we can suggest that, if he is accepted as the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-akbar of the “Ṣūfīs”, then “Ṣūfism” involves seeing with both eyes, discerning the ḥaḳḳ of each thing on the basis of the Ḳurʾān and the ḥadīt̲h̲, and giving each thing its ḥaḳḳ through practice according to the s̲h̲arīʿa, the Sunna, and the example of the People of God (ahl Allāh). The importance of the s̲h̲arīʿa in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s own writings cannot be overstated. The idea that Ibn al-ʿArabī’s waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd devalues or overthrows the s̲h̲arīʿa, though popular among his critics (and some fans), is untenable; as he often insists, the s̲h̲arīʿa is inseparable from the ḥaḳīḳa.

Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Ṣūfism clearly remains inaccessible to almost everyone, a point that he acknowledges when he calls himself the “seal of the Muḥammadan friends of God”, but it remains the ideal against which numerous Ṣūfī teachers have judged themselves and others. For him and them, Ṣūfism in its highest sense is taḥḳīḳ in both theory and practice. On the level of theory, both ḳurʾān and furḳān must be given their proper due. Theory relates primarily to the ak̲h̲bār, the reports from the prophets, not to the aḥkām, the prophetic rulings.

Since the discussion of the aḥkām pertains to the second half of the s̲h̲ahāda, it is weighted in favour of furḳān, not ḳurʾān. The specific standpoint of the legal rulings is the Muḥammadan perfection, which is asserted in relation to human salvation and damnation, and here Ibn al-ʿArabī leaves less room for manoeuvre. He asserts ḳurʾān only by acknowledging the correctness of every mad̲h̲hab and every mud̲j̲tahid, but this does not allow for a diminution of the s̲h̲arīʿd’s authority.

The s̲h̲arīʿa was established by God with certain specific aims, and these cannot be achieved unless it is observed. The fact that God has established other s̲h̲arīʿas for other segments of humanity pertains to the domain of ak̲h̲bār, not aḥkām, so it has no relevance to the specific acts that Muslims are required to perform as followers of Muḥammad.

This then may suggest something of what “Ṣūfism” involves for Ibn al-ʿArabī. In a more limited understanding of the word taṣawwuf —and it is this understanding that corresponds more closely to the views of sympathetic outside observers—it denotes a type of Islamic religiosity that usually stresses the first term in the following complementary pairs: ḳurʾān and furḳān, tas̲h̲bīh and tanzīh, kas̲h̲j and ʿaḳl, mercy and wrath, ḥaḳīḳa and s̲h̲arīʿa, intoxication (sukr) and sobriety (sahw), intimacy (uns) and awe (hayba), meaning (maʿnā) and form (ṣūra), spirit and letter. In contrast, s̲h̲arīʿ -minded Islam stresses the second term in all these pairs. In the lived reality of Islam over history, these pairs can be taken as designating the extreme limits of various spectra according to which Muslims understand their religion and put it into practice. As for groups such as bī-s̲h̲arʿ Ṣūfīs or the Ḥurūfiyya , one needs to keep in mind that the accounts often derive from critics and that modern scholars (and, for very different reasons, politicised Muslims of all sorts) are constitutionally predisposed to propagate negative reports. If it is found that the reports are indeed correct, then such groups would represent a total rupture of the balance between furḳān and ḳurʾān, if not an outright rejection of the normative Islam that is established in the Ḳurʾān and the Sunna. In the same way, modern “fundamentalism” can be seen as a rupture of balance in the direction of furḳān (cf. M. Woodward, Islam in Java : normative piety and mysticism in the Sultanate of Yogyakarta, Tucson 1989).

iii. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s contemporaries. Ibn al-ʿArabī appears as a watershed in the history of Ṣūfism partly because he solidifies a certain shift in focus that had gradually been occurring in Ṣūfī writings. Before his time, most authors of theoretical works had devoted their efforts to issues of practice, morality, ethics, and “spiritual psychology” (the stations and states— maḳāmāt and aḥwāl), but from his time onward, Ṣūfī works commonly deal with topics that had been discussed in detail only in kalām and falsafa, such as tawḥīd, nubuwwa, and maʿād, even though writing on the earlier topics continues unabated. The Ṣūfī works differ from those of other disciplines by their stress on ḳurʿān over furḳān, which means, among other things, that kas̲h̲j predominates over ʿaḳl as a means to understand the Ḳurʾān and the Sunna.

Within the writings of authors known as Ṣūfīs, this same spectrum of thought and practice can be discerned, and the 7th/13th century is a highpoint of Islamic history in terms of the diversity and richness of the Ṣūfī spectrum. Compared to most other Ṣūfī authors, Ibn al-ʿArabī appears as the most prolific and profound of the masters of furḳān, which helps explain why Western scholars have often spoken of his “systematisation” of Ṣūfism. In a certain sense, his writings are systematic, especially when contrasted with masters of the other extreme, such as Ḥāfiẓ or Yūnus Emre, but not when compared to the works of theologians, philosophers, and jurists.

Authors who stand on the furḳānī side of the Ṣūfī spectrum write relatively systematic works in which they differentiate and discern on the basis of a sober evaluation of all things’ distance from God, but those who stress the ḳurʾānī side are drawn toward benevolent inattention to distinctions and an intoxicated celebration of the oneness of all being. Furḳān is the domain of knowledge and intelligence, ḳurʾān the realm of love and union. The knowers strive to achieve the differentiated vision of each thing in the context of the divine reality, but lovers try to overcome all difference so that nothing remains except the eternal Beloved.

If the natural vehicle of furḳānī discourse is technical prose, the most effective vehicle for ḳurʾānī language is poetry and its performance. Poetry is able to bring God’s presence into the direct awareness of the listener without the intermediary of rational analysis, which by nature removes God from the stage. The two greatest masters of explicitly Ṣūfī poetry are contemporaries of Ibn al-ʿArabī—Ibn al-Fāriḍ (d. 632/ 1235 ) in Arabic and Ḏj̲alāl al-Dīn Rūmī (d. 672/ 1273 ) in Persian, as is another great Ṣūfī poet of Persian, Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār (d. 618/1221 ). Poetry’s function is made most explicit in Rūmī’s works. “God is beautiful”, as the Prophet said, “and He loves beauty”, so everything beautiful is lovable and, in the last analysis, all beautiful things take their beauty from God. Why, Rūmī asks, do you take water from the drainpipe? You should recognise that all beauty is God’s beauty, all love is love for God, and every intermediary disintegrates and disappears. Poetry’s evocation of beauty is evocation of God. Reminding people of beauty stirs up love in their hearts, and all love redounds on God. Nonetheless, furḳān cannot be abandoned, for without it, love will remain forever misguided.

Although Rūmī stands on the side of ḳurʾān when contrasted with Ibn al-ʿArabī, his dialectic of love presents us with the same complementarity between ḳurʿān and furḳān. Ibn al-ʿArabī differentiates in the technical language of the ʿulamāʾ between the eye that perceives tanzīh and the eye that sees tas̲h̲bīh, but Rūmī describes in the language of the common people the experience of separation (firāḳ) and union (wiṣāl). Union is to live in God’s presence, beauty and gentleness (lutf), and separation is to suffer His absence, majesty and severity (ḳahr). But mercy prevails over wrath, so every cruelty (d̲j̲afāʾ) of the Beloved is in fact an act of faithfulness (wafaʾ). In showing their sincerity, God’s lovers welcome the pain (dard) of the dregs (durd) along with the joy of the wine. In this poetic discourse, rooted in images, symbols, and signs of the transcendent, bold expressions of paradox— “All is He!,” “I am the Beloved!”—are standard fare.

No one doubts that Ibn al-Fāriḍ and Rūmī were great Ṣūfī poets, but questions have been raised concerning the Ṣūfī content of the works of many important poets during this whole period. For some observers, Ḥāfiẓ (d. ca. 792/1390 ) appears as the greatest of all Persian Ṣūfī poets, but for others he is simply a genius who employed the available imagery. Amīr K̲h̲usraw (d. 725/1325 ) was the foremost Indo-Persian poet and a disciple of the great Ṣūfī master Niẓām al-Dīn Awliyāʾ (d. 725/1325 ), yet, we are told, there is little trace of Ṣūfism in his poetry. The poems of Ibn al-ʿAfīf al-Tilimsānī (d. 688/1289 ), it is said, should probably not be given a Ṣūfī interpretation, even though his father was a famous disciple of Ibn al-ʿArabī and was violently attacked by Ibn Taymiyya. The Awadhī poetry of Malik Muḥammad D̲j̲āyasī (d. ca. 949/1542 ) deals almost exclusively with “secular” topics, yet he is recognised as a great Čis̲h̲tī saint. Discussions of this sort miss an important point: What conveys the basic message of ḳurʿān is not so much the explicit content as the psychological impact on the listener. The single most important feature of Ṣūfī poetry is its beauty, a beauty that entrances and intoxicates. In Ṣūfī theoretical works, authors write about intoxication, but readers stay sober. Ṣūfī poetry (and, in fact, any good poetry well sung) conveys intoxication, as most who have attended sessions of the musical recitation of poetry known as ḳawwālī in the subcontinent will attest. As for someone like Ḥāfiẓ, he is a Ṣūfī poet not only because of his repeated references to Ṣūfī teachings but also because, within the tradition, it is inconceivable that any but a great friend of God could transmute language with such alchemy. For the modern scholar, whose radical furḳān leaves no room for “mysticism”, Ḥāfiẓ’s title lisān al-g̲h̲ayb (“the tongue of the unseen”) is simply a poetical way of saying that he was remarkable; for the Ṣūfī tradition, it means that the invisible, divine master of the universe used Ḥāfiẓ as His tongue, just as He used Rūmī as his reed. The metaphor is the reality.

Although, in the domain of furḳānī Ṣūfism, Ibn al-ʿArabī may indeed deserve the appellation al-s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-akbar that his followers gave to him, there are many other important figures whose lifetimes overlapped with his and who deserve much more attention than modern scholarship has given to them. In Ibn al-ʿArabī’s own view, the greatest of his contemporaries was S̲h̲uʿayb Abū Madyan (d. 594/1197 ), who left behind disciples like Ibn Mas̲h̲īs̲h̲ (d. 625/1228 ), the master of Abu ’l-Ḥasan al-S̲h̲ād̲h̲ilī (d. 656/1258), the eponym of the S̲h̲ād̲h̲iliyya (see V. Cornell, The way of Abū Madyan. Doctrinal and poetical works of Abū Madyan Shuʿayb ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Anṣārī, Cambridge 1996). Among other important contemporaries in the furḳānī domain were the philosophers Suhrawardī al-Maḳtūl (d. 587/1191 ) and Afḍal al-Din Kās̲h̲ānī (7th/13th century), both of whom have a Ṣūfī orientation in some of their writings. Ibn Sabʿīn (d. 669/1270 ), born like Ibn al-ʿArabī in Murcia, displays a highly sophisticated and articulate philosophical mind, so much so that some scholars have considered him a Peripatetic, but the practical implications and Ṣūfī orientation of his teachings becomes obvious in his rasāʾil and his Budd al-ʿārif. He seems to be the first author to have used the term waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd in anything like a technical sense, and his understanding of this expression (along with the polemical attack on it by Ibn Taymiyya) probably resulted in the idea that waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd is equivalent to the Persian expression hama ūst. Also of interest are Ibn Sabʿīn’s students and fellow-Andalusians, Badr al-Dīn al-Ḥasan b. Hūd (d. 699/1300) and the poet Abu ’l-Ḥasan al-S̲h̲us̲h̲tarī (d. 668/1269). Awḥad al-Dīn Balyānī (d. 686/1288) of S̲h̲irāz seems to be following in Ibn Sabʿīn’s footsteps in his famous Risālat al-aḥadiyya, which was long attributed wrongly in Western sources to Ibn al-ʿArabī (see M. Chodkiewicz, Awḥad al-Dīn Balyānī. Epître sur l’unicité absolue, Paris 1982).

Ibn al-ʿArabi himself had several disciples who wrote significant works and exercised a determining influence in the way the tradition was to interpret him; these include al-Badr al-Ḥabas̲h̲ī (d. ca. 618/1221), Ibn Sawdakīn (d. 646/1248), ʿAfīf al-Dīn al-Tilimsānī (d. 690/1291), and especially Ṣadr al-Dīn Ḳūnawī (d. 673/1274 ). Both al-Tilimsānī and Ḳūnawī were independently minded in their readings of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s works. The former sometimes employs his commentary on the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam to criticise his master’s positions, and both were far more inclined toward falsafa than Ibn al-ʿArabī. Ḳūnawī’s direct students included three major transmitters of his teachings— the Persian poet Fak̲h̲r al-Dīh ʿIrāḳī (688/1289 ), author of the short prose classic Lamaʿāt Saʿīd al-Dīn Farg̲h̲ānī, author of the first commentary on Ibn al-Fāriḍ’s Tāʾiyya and Muʾayyid al-Dīn al-D̲j̲andī (d. ca. 700/1300), author of the most influential of the more than one hundred commentaries on the Fuṣūṣ. Perhaps pertaining also to Ḳūnawī’s circle is one Naṣīr or Nāṣir al-Dīn K̲h̲ūʾī, who is probably the author of a widely-read Persian work that helped popularise some of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, Tabṣirat al-mubtadī (see Chittick, Faith and practice of Islam. Three thirteenth century Sufi texts, Albany 1992). Also connected with Ibn al-ʿArabī’s circle was Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī (d. 635/1238 ), a well-known author of Persian quatrains. Ibn al-ʿArabī entrusted Ḳūnawī’s training to him for a period of time, but there is no apparent trace of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings in his poetry. The idea that Rūmī was a student of or influenced by Ibn al-ʿArabī, propounded by Nicholson and others, has no textual basis. Other authors of great importance in this period include Rūzbihān Baḳlī (d. 606/1209) and Rūmī’s father Bahāʾ Walad (d.’ 628/ 1231), both of whom exposed the reality of love in extraordinarily beautiful Persian prose. Nad̲j̲m al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618/1221 ), the eponym of the Kubrawiyya, has been noted for his psychology of colours. His theoretical and practical interests were developed in various directions by his disciples. Thus Saʿd al-Dīn Ḥammūʾī (d. 649/1252 ) writing in both Arabic and Persian, and the latter’s disciple ʿAzīz al-Dīn Nasafī (d. before 700/1300) writing in Persian, manifest the general tendency of the period to deal much more explicitly with metaphysical and philosophical issues, though Ḥammūʾīs works are obscure, and he delights in expounding the symbolism of letters and numbers, while Nasafī wrote relatively popular expositions of the different metaphysical and cosmological teachings of various schools of Ṣūfism and philosophy (though it is usually difficult to determine which historical figures he has in mind; see H. Landolt, La paradoxe de la “face de dieu”. ʿAzīz-e Nasafī (VII e /XIII e siècle) et le “monisme ésotérique” de l’Islam, in SI, xxv [1996], 163-92). Kubrā’s disciple Nad̲j̲m al-Dīn Dāya Rāzī (d. 654/1256 ) wrote the Persian classic Mirṣād al-ʿibād, which has been a mainstay of the teaching of both theory and practice in the Persianspeaking orders. Another important author of the period, S̲h̲ihāb al-Dīn ʿUmar Suhrawardī (d. 632/1234 ), nephew of the eponym of the Suhrawardiyya , wrote the Arabic classic ʿAwārif al-maʿārif, a work that has been widely influential in the organisation and practical teachings of the orders.

iv. From the late 7th/13th to the 12th/18th century. This period of four centuries is marked by an enormous proliferation of works on Ṣūfism, but the problem of surveying these works is made doubtly difficult by the increasing geographical spread of Islam and the use of local languages. The best regional survey of Ṣūfism is provided by Rizvi’s two-volume History of Sufism in India (Delhi 1978-83), but a short tour through Indian manuscript libraries was able to turn up several important authors of Ṣūfī theoretical works whom Rizvi does not mention, such as the inventive author of Persian treatises on Ibn al-ʿArabī’s perspective K̲h̲ūb Muḥammad Čis̲h̲tī (late 10th/16th century), the prolific Ḳādirī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Ḥaḳḳ Muḥammad Mak̲h̲dūm Bīd̲j̲āpūrī Ṣāwī (fl. 1108-23/1696-1711), the sophisticated Ḳādirī metaphysician Sayyid ʿAbd al-Ḳādir Fak̲h̲rī Naḳawī (late 12th/18th century), the essayist Irādat K̲h̲ān Wāḍiḥ (12th/18th century), and the stylist Muḥtaram Allāh (12th/18th century) (see Chittick, Notes on Ibn al-ʿArabī’s influence in India, in MW, lxxxii [1992], 218-41). In the small number of cases in which Ṣūfī authors of this period have been studied, they have often been chosen for reasons that can best be called political or ideological. One example is S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Aḥmad Sirhindī , who has been the object of several monographs, even though it is easy to argue that his works—in contrast to his claims—hardly stand out among those of his contemporaries. The reason for his fame seems to be that among Muslims of the subcontinent, he has taken on mythic proportions as the precursor of a certain type of modern political consciousness, since he defended an Islamic particularism that overcame the heritage of Akbar and led politically to the triumph of Awrangzīb over Dārā S̲h̲ukūh [see hind v.(b)] (for general remarks on the distortions introduced by ideology in the Indian context, see C. Ernst, Eternal garden. Mysticism, history, and politics at a South Asian Sufi center, Albany 1992).

Scholars have frequently observed that Ṣūfism was instrumental in the spread of Islam in diverse cultural contexts. On a doctrinal level, one of the primary reasons for its spread is the flexibility that is provided by the perspective of ḳurʾān. Once it is recognised that “All is He”, alien beliefs and practices can easily be read as expressions of Islamic truths. The intellectual figures in India who actively studied the theory and practice of Hinduism had Ṣūfī predilections. Dārā S̲h̲ukūh , with works such as Mad̲j̲maʿ al-baḥrayn and his translation of the Upanishads, is a prime example. Another is the S̲h̲aṭṭārī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Muḥammad G̲h̲awt̲h̲ of Gwalior (d. 970/1563 ), who was an important supporter of Bābur and wrote several works that show both originality and mastery of the perspective of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s school; one of these, the Persian Ḏj̲awāhir-i k̲h̲amsa, was widely read not only in the original but also in an Arabic translation. He also translated into Persian, with many modifications and additions, an earlier Arabic translation of the Yogic text Amritkund (see Ernst, Sufism and yoga according to Muhammad Ghawth, in Sufi, xxix [1996], 9-13; according to an oral report from Bruce Lawrence, the Arabic is still read today in a Ṣūfī order in Syria). The two most important Muslim authors writing in Chinese, Wang Daiyu (d. 1657 or 1658) and Liu Chih (d. ca. 1736 ), adopt a ḳurʾānī perspective in theoretical issues. Wang makes little reference to Arabic or Persian terminology, but skilfully explains Islamic metaphysical, cosmological and psychological doctrines with the help of terminology drawn from Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. He is sympathetic toward the Chinese traditions, especially Confucianism, but furḳān occasionally comes to the fore, and then he offers judicious criticisms to illustrate Islam’s superiority, and he consistently describes the details of right activity in terms of the s̲h̲arīʿa.

In order to provide some idea of the vast range of material waiting to be studied, one may cite the names of a few representative authors, divided into three main categories (ignoring, despite their social and historical importance, many major Ṣūfī masters not known primarily as authors): (a) poets; (b) authors rooted in the metaphysical perspectives established by Ibn al-ʿArabī and others; and (c) authors primarily concerned with spiritual, psychological, ethical and practical teachings.

(a) Throughout this period, poetry is the most important literary vehicle for the wide dissemination of Ṣūfī teachings, especially the ḳurʿānī view of things. Poetry incites love and, in the mat̲h̲nawī form, excels at story-telling. Persian Ṣūfī poets of the first rank include Saʿdī (d. 691/1292 ), whose love poetry is preferred by some even to Ḥāfiẓ and whose prose classic Gulistān reflects a Ṣūfī concern for practical morality. Bīdil (d. 1133/1721 ) is considered by many Persian speakers (at least among the Afg̲h̲āns) to be the greatest of all poets. In his case, there can be no doubt as to his Ṣūfī perspective, since he was a master of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s school of thought, as comes out clearly, for example, in his mat̲h̲nawī called ʿIrfān. Among the many other Persian Ṣūfī poets who deserve special mention are Maḥmūd S̲h̲abistarī (d. 718-20/ ), Awḥadī Marāg̲h̲aʾī (d. 738/1338), and Kamāl K̲h̲ud̲j̲andī (d. 803/1400-1 ). In Turkish; besides Yūnus Emre one can mention Mīr ʿAlī S̲h̲īr Nawāʾī (d. 906/1501 ), writing in Čag̲h̲atay Turkish, and Nesīmī (d. 820/1417-18 ), Lāmiʿī (d. 938/1531-1 ), and Nāẓim (d. 1139/1726 ) writing in Ottoman. Also deserving mention is Ḳāḍī Burhān al-Dīn , sultan of Sivas for eighteen years until his death in 800/1398. Although he has been called a poet of “profane love”, this judgment should be tempered by the fact that he was a master of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s school, as proven by his highly original Iksīr al-saʿādāt fī asrār al-ʿibādāt (see Chittick, Sultan Burhān al-Dīn’s Sufi correspondence, in WZKM, lxxiii [1981], 33-45). Outstanding poets of other languages who deserve special mention include Maẓhar (d. 1195/1781 ), Dard (d. 1199/1785 ), and Mīr Muḥammad Taḳī (d. 1223/1810 ) in Urdu; S̲h̲āh ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (d. 1165/1752) in Sindhi, Bāyazīd Anṣārī (d. 980/ 1572-3 ) in Pas̲h̲to, Bullhe S̲h̲āh (d. after 1181/ 1767-8) in Panjabi; and Ḥamza Fanṣūrī (d. ca. 1008/ 1600) in Malay.

(b) Authors with a metaphysical orientation. The importance of a continuing tradition of debate over the exact significance of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings becomes obvious in the large number of commentaries on the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. Several of these were written by prolific authors whose works are begging for serious study. These include ʿAbd al-Razzāḳ Kās̲h̲ānī (d. 730/1330 ), Dāwūd al-Ḳayṣarī (d. 751/1350), Sayyid ʿAlī Ḥamadānī (whose commentary is in Persian; d. 786/1385 ), the S̲h̲īʿī thinker Sayyid Ḥaydar Āmulī (d. 787/1385), ʿAbd al-Karīm D̲j̲īlī (d. 832/1428 ), ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Mahāʾimī (d. 835/1432), Ṣāʾin al-Dīn ʿAlī Turka Iṣfahānī (d. 835/1432), Ḳuṭb al-Dīn al-Iznīḳī (d. 885/1480), ʿAbd al-Raḥmān D̲j̲āmī (d. 898/1492 ), Bālī K̲h̲alīfa (d. 960/1553), Ismāʿrl Anḳarawī (whose commentary is in Turkish, d. 1041/1631-2 ), ʿAbd Allāh Busnawī (two commentaries, one in Arabic and one in Turkish, d. 1054/1644), Muḥibb Allāh Ilāhābādī (two commentaries, one in Arabic and one in Persian, d. 1058/1648), and ʿAbd al-G̲h̲anī al-Nābulusī (d. 1143/ 1730 ; for a list of Fuṣūṣ commentaries, see O. Yahia’s Arabic introduction to Sayyed Haydar Amoli Le texte des textes, Tehran and Paris 1975). Of all these, Kās̲h̲ānī has been the most studied, but far from thoroughly (notable is T. Izutsu’s partial analysis of his Fuṣūṣ commentary in Sufism and Taoism, Berkeley 1984, and P. Lory’s Les commentaries ésotériques du Coran d’après ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī, Paris 1981). D̲j̲īlī. who has often been singled out as Ibn al-ʿArabī’s chief follower—perhaps because his al-Insān al-kāmil has remained popular among Arab Ṣūfīs until recent times—is a good example of an original thinker who appears superficially to be a mainstream member of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s school. Sophisticated support for Ibn al-ʿArabī’s positions is found in the numerous works of Ṣafī al-Dīn Ḳus̲h̲as̲h̲ī (d. 1071/1660-1 ) and his disciple Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1101/1690 ). The Algerian s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Aḥmad b. Ad̲j̲ība (d. 1224/1809 ) demonstrates that theorising in the line of Ibn al-ʿArabī continued in the Arabic-speaking countries into the 19th century.

The Persian treatises, numbering over 100, of the poet S̲h̲āh Niʿmat Allāh Walī (d. 834/1430-1), eponym of the Niʿmat-Allāhiyya , are firmly grounded in the writings of Ibn al-ʿArabī and his commentators, especially Kās̲h̲ānī and Ḳayṣarī. More widely influential among Persian readers, however, has been S̲h̲arḥ-i guls̲h̲an-i rāz by Muḥammad Lāhīd̲j̲ī (d. 912/1506 ), which is a far more fluent and readable interpretation of the same sources. The Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya are sometimes said to have been hostile to Ibn al-ʿArabī, perhaps because pf Sirhindī’s critique of waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd, but in fact many Naḳs̲h̲bandīs, early and late, supported his teachings, such as K̲h̲wād̲j̲a Muḥammad Pārsā (d. 842/1419), K̲h̲w ād̲j̲a ʿUbayd Allāh Aḥrār (d. 896/1490), and D̲j̲āmī, who was not only a learned commentator on Ibn al-ʿArabī, but also an extremely influential populariser of his teachings through his seven mat̲h̲nawīs (known as Haft awrang), his dīwān, and his short Persian treatises such as Lawāʾiḥ. Mullā ʿAbd Allāh Ilāhī (d. 896/1491), a disciple of Aḥrār, was the first major propagator of the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya in Turkey and popularised Ibn al-ʿArabī’s ideas with works in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish; he is sometimes confused with another disciple of Aḥrār, Mullā Aḥmad Ilāhī of Buk̲h̲ara, who settled in Bursa and translated Ṣadr al-Dīn Ḳūnawī’s Mifiāḥ al-g̲h̲ayb into Persian at the command of Meḥemmed II Fātiḥ in the year 880/1475-6 (M. Kara, Molla Ilāhī : un précurseur de la Nakşibendiye in Anatolie, in Naqshbandis, 316-18 [see also ṣadr al-dīn ḳūnawī ]). K̲h̲wād̲j̲a Kalān and K̲h̲wād̲j̲a K̲h̲urd, the two sons of Bāḳī Billāh (d. 1012/1603 ), who introduced the Naḳs̲h̲bandī ṭarīḳa into India, both wrote works supporting waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd and criticising, if indirectly, the position of their father’s disciple Sirhindī. The poet Mīr Dard, who founded a branch of the Naḳs̲h̲bandīs, appears as a follower of Ibn al-ʿArabī in many metaphysical issues in his long Persian work, ʿIlm al-kitāb. S̲h̲āh Walī Allāh (d. 1176/1762 [see dihlawī ]) was also not opposed to Ibn al-ʿArabī. Like Sirhindī, he has taken on mythic proportions among modernday Indian Muslims, who respect him not only for his scholarship but also his political ideas. His sophisticated handling of metaphysical, theological, and psychological issues is demonstrated in several works, especially his Arabic Ḥud̲j̲d̲j̲at Allāh al-bālig̲h̲a ; in one well-known treatise he attempts to demonstrate that there is no fundamental contradiction between the views of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Sirhindī. The great Egyptian s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-S̲h̲aʿrānī (d. 973/1565 ) was a famous and prolific defender of Ibn al-ʿArabī.

Many members of the Čis̲h̲tiyya were known for their support of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, including ʿAbd al-Ḳuddūs Gangohī (d. 944/1537) and Kalīm Allāh D̲j̲ahānābādī Čis̲h̲tī (d. 1142/1729 ), though Masʿūd Bakk (d. ca. 789/1387) should not be considered Ibn al-ʿArabī’s follower, since his writings demonstrate little awareness of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s school and instead are reminiscent of the perspective of ʿAyn al-Ḳuḍāt Hamadānī (d. 525/1131). The works of the latter, who offered a sophisticated theological standpoint as well as a subtle theory of love, were widely read in this period. Numerous other Ṣūfis in India devoted themselves to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, foremost among them the above-mentioned Muḥibb Allāh Ilāhābādī, who was probably the best-informed of all the Indian authors concerning the contents of the Futūḥāt. Maḥmūd K̲h̲wus̲h̲-dahān Čis̲h̲tī (d. 1026/1617), author of Maʿrifat al-sulūk, employs the terminology of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s school in an original revisioning of relationships that seems to represent the teachings of his master S̲h̲āh Burhān al-Dīn b. Mīrānd̲j̲ī S̲h̲ams al-ʿUs̲h̲s̲h̲āḳ (d. 1005/1597) of Bid̲j̲apur. An interesting if unknown author is Ḳamar al-Dīn b. Munīb Allāh b. ʿInāyat Allāh al-Ḥusaynī al-Awrangābādī, who apparently flourished in the 12th/18th century, His Arabic Maẓhar al-nūr, on which his son Nūr al-Hudā wrote a long commentary, is a history of Islamic ideas on light, classifying major schools of thought in terms of their understanding of light and concluding with support for waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd as the best of these perspectives. A significant line of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s intellectual influence extends through figures who are not known as Ṣūfīs, such as D̲j̲alāl al-Dīn Dawānī (908/1502-3 ; see, for example, his unpublished S̲h̲arḥ-i rubāʿiyyāt), the philosopher Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1050/1640 ), and the broad-ranging S̲h̲īʿī scholar Muhsin Fayḍ Kās̲h̲ānī (d. 1090/1679 ). Other lines of theoretical writing are clearly present during this period, though once again, it is difficult to disentangle them from Ibn al-ʿArabī’s ideas. Kubrawī authors such as ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Simnānī (d. 736/1337 ) showed hostility to certain of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, and he, along with the important and prolific Čis̲h̲tī master Gīsū Darāz (d. 825/1422 ), are often claimed as precursors of Sirhindī. Theoretical writers of special importance in Indonesia include Ḥamza Fanṣūrī, Nūr al-Dīn Rānīrī (d. 1068/1658), and ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Singkilī (d. after 1104/1693) [see indonesia, vi].

(c) Despite the numerous authors who wrote books concerned specifically with the fine points of metaphysics, theology, cosmology, and psychology, by far the most common genre of Ṣūfī writing during this period is category (c), especially when we remember that most if not all the authors of works in category (b) also wrote books pertaining to it. Among authors of special importance here one can mention Ibn ʿAṭāʾ Allāh al-Iskandarī (d. 709/1309 ), a major theorist of the S̲h̲ād̲h̲iliyya who wrote the famous collection of aphorisms known as al-Ḥikam ; ʿIzz al-Dīn Kās̲h̲ānī (d. 735/1334-35), who composed among other works the Persian Miṣbāḥ al-hidāya (which is not, contrary to some reports, a translation of Suhrawardī’s ʿAwārjf al-maʿārif though it was certainly inspired by it); Ibn Ḳayyim al-D̲j̲awziyya (d. 751/1350 ), the most important student of Ibn Taymiyya; and the Firdawsī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Mak̲h̲dūm al-Mulk Manīrī (d. 782/ 1381 ) and the S̲h̲ād̲h̲ilī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ibn ʿAbbād al-Rundī (d. 792/1390 , both of whom are famous for their letters to disciples.

Bibliography

Only a small proportion of the primary works have been published, but the printed primary and secondary literature in Islamic languages is enormous. In order to keep the bibliography within bounds, after the general works, only a few recent Western-language studies that have not been cited in the relevant EI 2 entries are mentioned.

1. General. J.T.P. de Bruijn, Persian Sufi poetry, Richmond 1997

H. Corbin, En Islam iranien, iii, Paris 1973

idem, The man of light in Iranian Sufism, Boulder 1978

idem, Spiritual body and celestial earth, Princeton 1977 [Corps spirituel et terre céleste, Paris, 1979]

R. Gramlich, Die schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens. Zweiter Teil. Glaube und Lehre, Wiesbaden 1976

T. Izutsu, Creation and the timeless order of things, Ashland 1994

L. Lewisohn (ed.), The legacy of medieval Persian Sufism, London 1992

idem, Classical Persian Sufism: from its origins to Rumi, London 1993

S. Murata, The Tao of Islam. A sourcebook on gender relationships in Islamic thought, Albany 1992

Schimmel, As through a veil Mystical poetry in Islam, New York 1982

eadem, Mystical dimensions of Islam, Chapel Hill 1975

eadem, A two-colored brocade. The imagery of Persian poetry, Chapel Hill 1992

J.S. Trimingham, The Sufi orders in Islam, Oxford 1971.

2. Ibn al-ʿArabī. CI. Addas, Quest for the red sulphur. The life of Ibn ʿArabī, Cambridge 1993 [Ibn ʿArabī ou la quête du Soufre Rouge, Paris 1989]

R.W.J. Austin, Sufis of Andalusia, London 1971

W.C. Chittick, art. Ebn al-ʿArabī, in EIr, vii, 664-70

idem, Imaginal worlds. Ibn al-ʿArabī and the problem of religious diversity, Albany 1994

idem, The Sufi path of knowledge. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s metaphysics of imagination, Albany 1989

idem, The self-disclosure of God. Principles of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s cosmology, Albany 1997

M. Chodkiewicz, The seal of the saints. Prophethood and sainthood in the doctrine of Ibn ʿArabī, Cambridge 1993 [Le sceau des saints: prophétie et sainteté dans la doctrine d’Ibn ʿArabī, Paris 1986]

idem et alii, Les illuminations de La Mecque/The Meccan illuminations, Paris 1988

H. Corbin, Creative imagination in the Ṣūfism of Ibn ʿArabī, Princeton 1969

D. Gril, Ibn ʿArabi. Le dévoilement des effets du voyage, Paris 1994

S. Hakim and P. Beneito, Ibn al-ʿArabi. Las contemplaciones de los misterios, Murcia 1994

S. Hirtenstein and M. Tiernan, Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabī. A commemorative volume, Shaftesbury 1993

J. Morris, Ibn ʿArabī and his interpreters, in JAOS, cvi (1986), 539-51, 733-56, cvii (1987), 101-19

F. Rosenthal, Ibn ʿArabī between “philosophy” and “mysticism”, in Oriens, xxxi (1988), 1-35

M. Takeshita, Ibn ʿArabī’s theory of the Pefect Man and its place in the history of Islamic thought, Tokyo 1987.

3. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s contemporaries. H. Algar, Najm al-Dīn Rāzī. The path of God’s bondsmen, New York 1982

G. Böwering, art. Deylamī, Šams al-Dīn, in EIr, vii, 341-2

W. Chittick, art. Bābā Afẓal, in ibid., iii, 285-91

idem, The Sufi path of love. The spiritual teachings of Rumi, Albany 1983

idem, The school of Ibn ʿArabī, in History of Islamic philosophy, London 1996, 497-509

idem and P.L. Wilson, Fakhruddin ʿIraqi. Divine Flashes, New York 1982

F. Corriente, Poesia estrofica atribuida al mistico granadino aš-Šuštarî, Madrid 1988

C. Ernst, Rūzbihān Baqlī. Mysticism and the rhetoric of sainthood in Persian Sufism, Richmond, Surrey 1996

R. Gramlich, Die Gaben der Erkenntnisse des ʿUmar as-Suhrawardī (ʿAwārif al-maʿārif), Wiesbaden 1978

D. Gril, Badr al-Ḥabashī. Kitāb al-inbāh ʿalā ṭarīq Allāh, in AI, xv (1979)

Th.E. Homerin, From Arab poet to Muslim saint. Ibn al-Farid, his verse, and his shrine, New York 1994

C. Mayeur-Jaouen, Al-Sayyid al-Badawī. Un grand saint de l’Islam égyptian, Cairo 1994

F. Meier, Bahā-i Walad. Grundzüge seines Lebens und seiner Mystik, Leiden 1989

L. Ridgeon, ʿAziz-al-Nasafī. The Perfect Man, Japan 1992

G. Scattolin, Al-Farghānī’s commentary on Ibn al-Fāriḍ’s mystical poem al-Tāʾiyyat al-kubrā, in MIDEO, xxi (1993), 331-83

A. Schimmel, The triumphal sun. A study of the works of Jalāloddīn Rūmī, London 1978

G. Schubert, Annäherung. Der mystisch-philosophische Briefwechsel zwischen Ṣadr ud-Dīn-i Qōnawī und Naṣīr ud-Dīn-i Ṭūsī, Beirut 1995.

4. From the 7th/13th to the 12th/18th century. M. Aïssa, al-Yaqouta. Poeme mystique de Sidi Cheikh (1533-1616), Algier 1986

H. Algar, Reflections of Ibn ʿArabi in early Naqshbandi tradition, in Jnal. Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, x (1991), 45-66

S.M.N. al-Attas, A commentary on the Ḥujjat al-Ṣiddīq of Nūr al-Dīn Rānīrī, Kuala Lumpur 1986

idem, The mysticism of Ḥamzah Fanṣūrī, Kuala Lumpur 1970

J. Baldick, Imaginary Muslims. The Uwaysi Sufis of Central Asia, New York 1993

J.M.S. Baljon, Religion and thought of Shāh Walī Allāh Dihlawī, Leiden 1986

M. Bayrakdar, La philosophie mystique chez Dawud de Kayseri, Ankara 1990

G. Böwering, art. ʿAlī Hamadanī, in EIr, i, 774-7

idem, art. Čestiyya, in EIr, v, 333-9

W.C. Chittick, The five divine presences. From al-Qūnawī to al-Qayṣarī, in MW, lxxii (1982), 107-28

idem, Khwāja Khurd’s “Light of oneness”, in God is beautiful and He loves beauty, New York 1994, 131-51

M.A.K. Danner, Ibn ʿAṭāʾ Allāh al-Iskandarī. The key to salvation, Cambridge, 1996

G.W.J. Drewes, Directions for travellers on the mystic path. Zakariyyāʾ al-Anṣārī’s Kitāb Fatḥ al-Raḥmān and its Indonesian adaptations, The Hague 1977

idem and L.F. Brakel, The poems of Hamzah Fansuri, Dordrecht 1986

J. Elias, The throne carrier of God. The life and thought of ʿAlāʾ ad-Dawla as-Simnānī, Albany 1995

M. Gaborieau et alii, Naqshbandis. Cheminements et situation actuelle d’un ordre mystique musulmane, Istanbul 1990

J.G.J. ter Haar, Follower and heir of the Prophet. Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī (1564-1624) as mystic, Leiden 1992

N. Heer, The precious pearl. al-Jami’s al-Durrat al-Fakhirah, Albany 1979

M. Hermansen, art. Dehlavī, Shah Walī-Allāh, in EIr, vi, 220-1

S.S.K. Hussaini, Sayyid Muhammad al-Ḥusaynī-i Gīsūdirāz (721/1321-825/1422). On Sufism, Delhi 1983

P. Jackson, The way of a Sufi. Sharafuddin Maneri, Delhi 1987

A.F. Khushaim, Zarrūq the Ṣūfī, Tripoli 1976

A. Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Yemen. His admirers and detractors, in Jnal. Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society xi (1992) 38-63

idem, Ibrahim al-Kurani. An apologist for waḥdat al-wujūd, in JRAS, Ser. 3, vol. v (1995) 39-47

E. Kohlberg, art. Āmolī, Sayyid Ḥaydar, in EIr, i, 983-85

H. Landolt, Nūruddīn ʿAbdurraḥmān-i Isfarāyinī. Le révélateur des mystères, Lagrasse 1986

B. Lawrence, Nizam ad-Din Awliya. Morals for the heart, New York 1992

L. Lewisohn, Beyond faith and infidelity. The Sufi poetry and teachings of Maḥmūd Shabistarī, Surrey 1995

F. Meier, Zwei Abhandlungen über die Naqšbandiyya, Istanbul 1994

J.-L. Michon, L’autobiographie (Fahrasa) du soufi morocain Ahmed Ibn ʿAjiba, Milan 1982

H.T. Norris, Ṣūfī mystics of the Niger Desert. Sîdî Maḥmûd and the hermits of Aïr, Oxford 1990

P. Nwyia, Ibn ʿAṭāʾ Allâh et la naissance de la confrérie šādilite, Beirut 1972

R.S. O’Fahey, Enigmatic saint. Ahmad ibn Idris and the Idrisi tradition, Evanston 1990

J. Renard, Ibn ʿAbbād of Ronda. Letters on the Sufi path, New York 1986

Y. Richard, Jāmī. Les jaillissements de Lumière, Paris 1982

Schimmel, Pain and grace. A study of two mystical writers of eighteenth century Muslim India, Leiden 1976

M. Siddiqi, art. Bīdel, in EIr, iv, 244-6.

(W.C. Chittick)

3. In North Africa. See ṭarīḳa. II. 2.

4. In 19th and 20th-century Egypt.

In Egypt, the 19th century witnessed the emergence and institutionalisation of central authority over the Ṣūfī orders and the institutions linked with the orders: zawāyā [see zāwiya ], takāyā [see takiya ], and the shrines of saints. This position of central authority was granted to the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda al-bakriyya [see bakriyya ] in a. firmān proclaimed by Muḥammad ʿAlī , the then Ottoman governor of Egypt, in 1812. State agencies became active in support of al-Bakrī’s administration of the Ṣūfī orders from the 1840s, and the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Azhar was excluded from interference in the affairs of the orders in 1847. These developments allowed for a more specific actualisation of the somewhat diffuse authority granted in the firmān, and contributed to an increased administrative importance of the office of s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda al-bakriyya. In the second half of the 19th century, the principle of right of ḳadam (i.e. priority) became central to the administration of the Ṣūfī orders. This principle implied the exclusive right of a Ṣūfī order to proselytise and to appear in public in an area, if it could be proved that it had been the first to do so, i.e. that it had ḳidam (seniority). The rise of the principle of right of ḳadam was a development in conjunction with the abolition of the iltizām system, and possibly the result of this abolition, by Muḥammad ʿAlī between 1812 and 1815. Since the administration of the Ṣūfī orders under the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda al-Bakriyya was instrumental in consolidating the positions of the majority of the heads of the orders and safeguarded their established interests, its legitimacy went largely unchallenged. It functioned effectively until early 1881, when the then s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda al-Bakriyya was pressured by the Khedive Tawfīḳ to initiate reforms pertaining to ritual practice, and to encroach upon the internal autonomy of the heads of the orders. Moreover, in consequence of the increased efficiency of the state’s administration, following its reorganisation in the wake of the British occupation in 1882, the administration of the Ṣūfī orders lost much of its significance for the state and its agencies. These ceased to act fully in support of the orders, even when adequate maintenance of rights of ḳadam was at stake. Inadequate maintenance of these rights allowed for the rise and spread of a number of new Ṣūfī orders and for the secession of others, some of which obtained official status as independent Ṣūfī orders in their own right. In consequence, most of the heads of the established Ṣūfī orders and many of the heads of the takāyā tended towards self-containment and distanced themselves as much as possible from the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda al-bakriyya. The decline of the authority of this official was reversed with the promulgation of the Regulations for the Ṣūfī Orders (Lāʾiḥat al-ṭuruḳ al-ṣūfiyya) by khedivial decree in 1895. These Regulations, which were revised in 1903, provided a new legal base for the office of supreme head of the Ṣūfī orders, i.e. for the office of s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲ al-ṭuruḳ al-ṣūfiyya (this term seems to become current only after 1880, and is not used in official communications and documents until 1892), whereas the members of a council, known as al-mad̲j̲lis al-ṣūfī, and chaired by the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲, represented the heads of the orders in the central decision-making process. The regulations strengthened the position of the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda al-bakriyya in his capacity of supreme head of the orders (the heads of the takāyā and the zawāyā were placed under the authority of the Dīwān al-Awḳāf). In conjunction with the Internal Regulations for the Ṣūfī Orders (al-Lāʾiḥa al-dāk̲h̲iliyya li’l-ṭuruḳ al-ṣūfiyya) which came into force in 1905, it provided the office of s̲h̲ayk̲h̲, mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲ al-ṭuruḳ al-ṣūfiyya with an unprecedented high degree of specificity and autonomy of the authority allotted to it, while it gave a self-sufficiency and distinctiveness to the administration of the Ṣūfī orders in its totality, unmatched at any previous stage. The two sets of regulations, of 1903 and 1905, were the constitution for the Ṣūfī orders until 1976.

A number of paragraphs in the regulations prohibited and regulated certain aspects of ritual and belief. These, however, were not enforced and were probably included in response to the principal challenge the Ṣūfī orders were facing at the time: the increasing call for iṣlāḥ of the reformists and the current rumours casting doubt on the righteousness of belief of some heads of the orders. Reformist criticism of taṣawwuf became more intense and frequent in the first half of the 20th century, and notably from the 1920s onwards, when three organisations, al-D̲j̲amʿiyya al-S̲h̲arʿiyya (headed by Maḥmūd K̲h̲aṭṭāb al-Subkī), the D̲j̲amāʿat Anṣār al-Sunna al-Muḥammadiyya (headed by Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiḳī), and the Ik̲h̲wān al-Muslimūn ; (headed by Ḥasan al-Bannā), turned against the orders. In the 1930s, the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Azhar, Muḥammad Muṣṭafā al-Marāg̲h̲ī, in line with his notions of iṣlāḥ, consistently worked for a re-organisation of Islamic institutions in Egypt and their incorporation into one single organisational structure supervised by al-Azhar. This structure was to include the Ṣūfī orders, which were to be supervised by the hayʾat kibār al-ʿulamāʾ, while the heads of the orders would have to be Azhar-trained scholars. These plans met with much opposition and never materialised.

Reform-minded Azhar circles triumphed in 1947, when King Fārūḳ deposed the then s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲ al-ṭuruḳ al-ṣūfiyya, Aḥmad Murād al-Bakrī. He was to be the last s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda al-bakriyya to hold the office of supreme authority over the Ṣūfī orders in Egypt. Aḥmad al-Ṣāwī, an Azharī scholar without Ṣūfī background, was appointed in his stead. He took a variety of failed initiatives aiming at reform of the Ṣūfī orders. Yet, these initiatives eventually resulted in an iṣlāḥ movement among the heads of the orders under his authority. The reforms they advocated pertained mainly to ritual practice, and implied strict prohibitions of certain forms of self-mortification, public displays of mystical ecstasy, and the trading of id̲j̲āzas [see k̲h̲alīfa ]. This movement continued to have an impact after al-Ṣāwī’s abdication in 1957, and eventually left its traces in the Law on the Ṣūfī Orders of 1976, and the Regulations of 1978 (see below).

Involvement of Ṣūfī orders in Egyptian party politics was limited throughout the first half of the 20th century. Available data point toward an increasing politicisation of the realm of the Ṣūfī orders in the years immediately preceding the revolution of 1952. This limited involvement in politics would seem to reflect the decline of the Ṣūfī orders in the first half of the 20th century in conjunction with the emergence of secularising trends, as well as with the rise of voluntary associations of a different nature operating out of a non-mystical or anti-mystical conception of Islam. After 1952, considerations of domestic and foreign policy seem to have induced the new régime to take an interest in the Ṣūfī orders and to stimulate their revival. Mystical Islam and the administrative organisation of the Ṣūfī orders could be used by the régime to combat opposition inspired by the Ik̲h̲wān al-Muslimūn, as well as to strengthen and widen its own base of support by stimulating and favouring the adherents of conceptions of Islam that were rooted in and partly identical with some of the central conceptions in popular Islam. In conjunction with objectives in the realm of foreign policy, and notably the consolidation of ties with Syria, the Sudan, and Morocco, a number of Ṣūfī orders were coached, supported and stimulated. In addition, s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s of Ṣūfī orders from Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Ghana, together with a number of heads of Ṣūfī orders in Egypt, were involved in the preparations for a World Ṣūfī Conference to be convened in Cairo. The plan, which was launched in 1961 on the occasion of the visit of the Senegalese Tid̲j̲ānī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ibrahima Niass to Cairo, never came to fruition. The official visit of this s̲h̲ayk̲h̲, who was received by Egypt’s president D̲j̲amāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir, reflects the importance attached by the régime to the Ṣūfī orders and their leaders in the realm of foreign policy.

Apart from the increased visibility of Egyptian Ṣūfī orders abroad, the revival of the orders in Nāṣir’s Egypt manifested itself in several ways: their number increased, as did their membership; they were given a prominent role at official religious celebrations; and more mawālid [see mawlid ] were celebrated and on a larger scale then had been the case in the decade before 1952. As a rule, the Arab Socialist Union, from its creation in 1962 onwards, was involved in the organisation of these celebrations, which were used for making propaganda for the régime in a variety of ways. This increased involvement of the A.S.U. with the Ṣūfī orders, brought about an increase in the number of orders who distanced themselves from the Ṣūfī Council and refused to recognise its authority. Thus in the early 1970s, Ṣūfī orders which functioned outside the formal administrative framework of the Ṣūfī Council, and who were known as ṭuruḳ ḥurra (free Ṣūfī orders), were more numerous than those who de facto recognised its jurisdiction, and who were known as ṭuruḳ rasmiyya (official Ṣūfī orders).

The revival of taṣawwuf in Nāṣir’s Egypt from the end of the 1950s continued and broadened in the Egypt of Anwar al-Sādāt, where the régime seemed to arm itself against the anti-mystical religiously-inspired opposition by means of further cultivating the Ṣūfī orders. The Law on the Ṣūfī Orders (Ḳānūn al-Ṭuruḳ al-Ṣūfiyya) adopted by the Egyptian Parliament in 1976, and the supplementary set of regulations known as al-lāʾiḥa al-tanfīd̲h̲iyya, issued by Presidential decree in 1978, and which replaced the regulations of 1903 and 1905, were to better serve this purpose. The detailed and precise formulations in the Law and the Regulations constituted a new legal framework for taṣawwuf in Egypt. They aimed at bringing all the Ṣūfī orders in Egypt under the control of the state, and provided institutional prerequisites allowing for an effective exercise of authority. In conjunction, policies of cultivating and favouring the orders were conducted in a quest for optimal legitimacy, and with the obvious aim to make them instrumental to strengthening the position of the régime in its struggle against the religiously inspired opposition. These policies were essentially continued after the murder of Anwar al-Sādāt in 1981, and account for the pre-eminent position of the approximately seventy Ṣūfī orders which were recognised by the state in Egypt in 1997.

Bibliography

For historical studies of the Ṣūfī orders in Egypt from a comprehensive perspective, see F. de Jong, Ṭuruq and ṭuruq-opposition in 20th-century Egypt, in F. Rundgren (ed.), Proceedings of the VIth Congress of Arabic and Islamic Studies (= Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens Handlingar. Filobgisk-filosofiska serien 15), Stockholm-Leiden 1975, 84-96

idem, Ṭuruq and Ṭuruq-linked institutions in nineteenth century Egypt. A historical study in organizational dimensions of Islamic mysticism, Leiden 1978

idem, Aspects of the political involvement of Ṣufi orders in 20th-century Egypt (1907-1970). An exploratory stocktaking, in G.R. Warburg and U.M. Kupferschmidt (eds.), Islam, nationalism and radicalism in Egypt and Sudan, New York 1983, 183-212

idem, The Ṣūfī orders in Egypt during the ʿUrābī insurrection and the British occupation (1882-1914): some societal factors generating aloofness, support, and opposition, in Jnal. of the American Research Center in Egypt, xxi (1984), 131-9

idem, Les confréries mystiques musulmanes du Machreq arabe: centres de gravité, signes de déclin et de renaissance, in A. Popovic and G. Veinstein (eds.), Les ordres mystiques dans l’Islam. Cheminements et situation actuelle, Paris 1986, 205-43

and P.-J. Luizard, Le rôle des confréries soufies dans le système politique égyptien, in Monde arabe: Maghreb Machrek, cxxxi (1991), 26-53.

For studies of individual orders, see E. Bannerth, Über den Stifter und Sonderbrauch der Demirdāšiyya-Sufis in Cairo, in WZKM, lxii (1969), 116-33

idem, La Rifāʿiyya en Egypte, in MIDEO, x (1971), 1-35

idem, Aspects humains de la Shadhiliyya, in MIDEO, xi (1972), 237-52

idem, La Khalwatiyya en Egypte. Quelques aspects de la vie d’une confrérie, in MIDEO, viii (1964-66), 1-75

M. Gilsenan, Saint and Sufi in modern Egypt. An essay in the sociology of religion, Oxford 1973 (mainly on the Ḥāmidiyya S̲h̲ād̲h̲iliyya: see also the review in JSS, xix/2 [1994] 322-8)

F. de Jong, The Naqshbandiyya in Egypt and Syria. Aspects of its history, and observations concerning its presentday condition, in M. Gaborieau, A. Popovic and T. Zarcone, Naqshbandis, L’Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul (= Varia Turcica, XVIII), Istanbul-Paris 1990, 589-601

and J. Johansen, Sufism and Islamic reform in Egypt. The battle for Islamic tradition, Oxford 1996 (on the Muḥammadiyya S̲h̲ād̲h̲iliyya). For a study of living Ṣūfism in Egypt in the 1980s based on fieldwork, see VJ. Hoffman, Sufism, mystics, and saints in modern Egypt, Columbia, S.C. 1995. To the Arabic studies referred to in these publications, the following should be added: ʿĀmir al-Nad̲j̲d̲j̲ār, al-Ṭuruḳ al-ṣūfiyya fī Miṣr, Cairo 1990

and Yūsuf Muḥammad Ṭāhā Zaydān, al-Ṭarīḳ al-ṣūft wa-furūʿ al-Ḳādiriyya bi-Miṣr, Beirut 1991. See also abu ’l-ʿazāʾim, al-ʿafīfī, al-asmar, al-bakrī, demirdā-s̲h̲iyya, k̲h̲alwatiyya, al-ḥiṣāfī, and marwāniyya.

(F. de. Jong)

5. In Persia from 1800 onwards.

The history of Ṣūfism (taṣawwuf) in Persia in the 19th and 20th centuries has mainly been dominated by two Ṣūfī ṭarīḳas, the Niʿmatullāhiyya and the D̲h̲ahabiyya. In contrast to other orders in Persia, whose impact has been more on popular than on “high” culture, these two orders have made the most important contributions to the mystical intellectual tradition in Persia in respect to ḥikmat, ʿirfān and taṣawwuf.

i. Other Persian Ṣūfī sects and orders: Ḳādiriyya, Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya and Ahl-i Ḥaḳḳ.

Aside from these two orders, few other ṭarīḳas have featured in the religious topography of Persian Islam with any permanence or prominence during this period. Although the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya “arose among Persian-speakers and virtually all its classical texts are in the Persian language”, its impact on Persian culture “has been relatively slight” [see naḳs̲h̲bandiyya, 1. In Persia]. Naḳs̲h̲bandīs in Iran today are mainly confined to the region of Kurdistān where their members are overwhelmingly drawn from rural folk society. Similarly, the followers of the Persian-based Ahl-i Ḥaḳḳ or ʿAlī-Ilahī quasi-Ṣūfī sect were, up until the 1950s when they started to acquire urban-based followers, “largely tribespeople and peasants, or poor urban migrants, with no link to centres of power” (Ziba Mir-Hosseini, Redefining the truth: Ahl-i Ḥaqq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, in BRISMES Bulletin, xxi/2 [1994], 213). The fact that adepts of this sect “neither observe Muslim rites, such as daily prayers and fasting during the month of Ramaḍān, nor share its sacred space, such as sanctity of the mosque and pilgrimage to Mecca” (ibid., 213), and that their theology combines S̲h̲īʿī extremism (g̲h̲ulāt) with a belief in metempsychosis also puts them beyond the pale of orthodox Islamic Ṣūfism. There have been recent efforts to reorient Ahl-i Ḥaḳḳ theology in accordance with S̲h̲īʿī orthodoxy, but such modernist and universalistic interpretations are rejected by the majority of the old-school Ahl-i Ḥaḳḳ members within Persia. Besides formidable theological differences, the Ahl-i Ḥaḳḳ’s alienation from the mainstream of modern Persian spirituality is literary and linguistic as well; until recently their sacred language was Gūrānī rather than Persian or Arabic, in which tongues the intellectual life of Persian Ṣūfism in this period found their predominant expression. Likewise, while the founder of the Ḳādiriyya , ʿAbd al-Ḳādir D̲j̲īlānī (d. 528/ 1134) hailed from the province of Gīlān, the impact of his order on Persian taṣawwuf in the 19th and 20th centuries has been rather insignificant.

ii. The Niʿmatullāhī revival: Maʿṣūm ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, to Ṣofī ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (1770-1898).

The period from approximately 1750-1980 in the history of Persian Ṣūfism represents an attempt to recreate, albeit in newfangled S̲h̲īʿī garb, the political and cultural glory which Ṣūfism enjoyed in pre-Ṣafawid times. External movements in Persian political history and incidents in the intellectual universe of the Niʿmatullāhiyya provide three distinct periods into which the historical development of Ṣūfism in Persia may be roughly divided during the 19th-20th centuries: (1) 1770 to 1898, (2) 1898 to 1978, and (3) 1978 to the present day.

It was with the death of the 34th Niʿmatullāhī Ḳuṭb, Riḍā ʿAlī S̲h̲āh Dakkanī, ca. 1800, and with the advent to Persia of Sayyid Maʿṣūm ʿAlī S̲h̲āh in 1184/1770—which generated what has been dubbed “the Niʿmatullāhī renaissance” (N. Pourjavady and P.L. Wilson, Kings of love: the history and poetry of the Niʿmatullāhī Sufi Order of Iran, Tehran 1978, 93)—that the real history of Ṣūfism in modern Iran begins. By the middle of the 19th century, the fame and fortunes of Ṣūfism had declined to their lowest ebb in the entire history of post-Islamic Persia. Writing in the early 1840s, Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn S̲h̲īrwānī reported that “in the whole land of Iran there is neither abode nor site where a dervish can lay his head.... In the rest of the inhabited quarter of the world among all its different races and peoples, hospitals for the sick and k̲h̲ānaḳāhs for the dervishes are built—except in Iran, where there is neither k̲h̲ānaḳāh nor hospital” (Ḥadāʾiḳ al-siyāḥa, Tehran 1348/1929, 258).

The S̲h̲īʿī clerical establishment felt threatened by the enthusiasm with which the Niʿmatullāhī revival in Persia was received. Writing in the early 1800s, Sir John Malcolm reported that “the progress of Soofeeism has of late been very rapid in Persia”, with adherents of Sayyid Maʿṣūm ʿAlī S̲h̲āh and Nūr ʿAlī S̲h̲āh numbered in tens of thousands, though he admitted that such calculations were only guesswork (Hist. of Persia, London 1829, ii, 292 ff.). The former was assassinated in 1211/1795 by the fanatical S̲h̲īʿī cleric Āḳā Muḥammad Bihbahānī, who thus acquired his notorious sobriquet of Ṣūfī-kus̲h̲ “Ṣūfī killer”; but this killing and those of other Niʿmatullāhīs only served to fan the flames of Ṣūfī revival in Persia.

In the late 18th century, Sayyid Maʿṣūm and Nūr ʿAlī S̲h̲āh had travelled extensively through Persia, setting up k̲h̲ānaḳāhs in various towns and reviving an interest in Ṣūfism, which had been ruthlessly suppressed in the late Ṣafawid period. Amongst his disciples was Mus̲h̲tāḳ ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, an illiterate mad̲j̲d̲h̲ūb who nevertheless became a legend in the annals of Persian Ṣūfism and whose charisma has been compared to that of S̲h̲ams-i Tabrīzī or Ḳāsim-i Anwār, inspiring several literary works. Muẓaffar ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (see below) adopted “Mus̲h̲tāḳī” as his pen-name and composed a dīwān in his honour, the Dīwān-i Mus̲h̲tāḳiyya after Mus̲h̲tāḳī’s martyrdom at the hands of fanatical mullahs in Kirmān in 1206/1792 (see W.R. Royce, Mīr Maʿṣūm ʿAlī S̲h̲āh and the Nīʿmat Allāhī revival 1776-7 to 1796-7. A study of Sufism and its opponents in late eighteenth century Iran, Ph.D. diss., Princeton Univ. 1979, unpubl.). The Niʿmatullāhīs had benefited in the 1770s from the liberal intellectual and stimulating atmosphere during Karīm K̲h̲ān Zand’s reign, but after the latter’s death in 1779, they were exposed to the taunts and assaults of the exoteric ʿulamāʾ, their leaders fleeing from Iṣfahān and in the end finding refuge in Ottoman ʿIrāḳ, where Nūr ʿAlī S̲h̲āh was well received by the governor Aḥmed Pas̲h̲a and was able to write in Bag̲h̲dād the first two chapters of his immense Ṣūfī epic poem D̲j̲annat al-wiṣāl (ed. D̲j̲. Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲, Tehran 1348 s̲h̲./1969).

In Kirmān, near to which S̲h̲āh Niʿmatullāh’s tomb lay, the revival scored its greatest successes amongst the local ruling élite, including the adherence of the physician and ʿālim Mīrzā Muḥammad Taḳī, better known by his Ṣūfī sobriquet of Muẓaffar ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (later, in 1800, poisoned at Bihbahānī’s prompting). It also attracted the sympathy of the governor for the Zands, Abu ’l-Ḥasan Bīglarbaygī, the 42nd Imām of the Nizārī Ismāʿīlīs, the two groups having sympathetic relations (see H. Algar, The revolt of Āgā K̲h̲ān Mahallatī and the transference of the Ismāʿīlī Imamate to India, in SI, xxi [1969], 55-81; N. Pourjavady and P.L. Wilson, Ismāʿīlīs and Niʿmatullāhīs, in SI, xli [1975], 113-35). Bihbahānī’s anti-Ṣūfī measures led to further deaths authorised by the Ḳād̲j̲ār régime and to an anti-Ṣūfī polemic literature, with treatises such as Bihbahānī’s Risāla-yi K̲h̲ayratiyya and Muḥammad Rafīʿ Tabrīzī’s Ḳaṭʿ al-maḳāl fī radd ahl al-ḍalāl. Niʿmatullāhī devotees were, for their part, active in composition, and Muẓaffar ʿAlī S̲h̲āh attempted in his prose works to integrate Peripatetic, Illuminationist and Akbarian (Ibn al-ʿArabī’s) philosophical doctrines into a complicated theomonism expressed in S̲h̲īʿī theosophical terms but interiorised along traditional Ṣūfī lines. Although the literary and poetic works of the Niʿmatullāhī Ṣūfīs at this time rarely come up to the achievements of the great classical Persian poets (cf. Browne, LHP, iv, 220-1), these were part of the great intellectual and physical efforts, achieved not without bloodshed, to renew the covenant with the classical Ṣūfī past.

In the early 19th century, Ḥusayn ʿAlī S̲h̲āh became head of the order in both Persia and India, and then in 1817 Mad̲j̲d̲h̲ūb ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, but after his death in 1823, the order split into three branches, the main branch under the dominant figure of the Niʿmatullāhiyya in the 19th century, Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn S̲h̲īrwānī. called “Mast ʿAlī S̲h̲āh”, while two derivative branches, Kawt̲h̲ariyya and S̲h̲amsiyya have not attracted much notice aside from S̲h̲ams al-ʿurafāʾ (d. 1935; on which see M. Humāyūnī, Tārīk̲h̲-i silsilahā-yi ṭarīḳa-yi Niʿmatullāhī dar Īrān, London 1992, 105-58; 159-67; R. Gramlich, Die Schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens. Erster Teil. Die Affiliationen, Wiesbaden, 1965, 43-50). He had a prodigious literary output, comprising three large travel accounts of his travels and adventures throughout the Islamic world, from North Africa to Bengal, which show us a warm personality with universal concerns and a fascination with religious diversity, and a broadminded, cosmopolitan humour. Most of his life was spent in forced exile, wandering under threat of execution and in the shade of fatwās demanding his death. But with the accession of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh Ḳād̲j̲ār in 1834, the circumstances of the Ṣūfīs improved greatly under the influence of the Grand Vizier Mīrzā Āḳāsī, a Niʿmatullāhī leader and associate of Mast ʿAlī, so that many Niʿmatullāhī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s now secured royal stipends, although he and Mast ʿAlī subsequently became rivals for the leadership of the order. But there was no striking shift of influence at this time from the ʿulamāʾ to the Ṣūfīs (Abbas Amanat, Resurrection and renewal. The making of the Babi movement in Qajar Iran, Ithaca and London 1989, 79). After Mast ʿAlī’s death in 1837, he was succeeded by Raḥmat ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, who now became royal deputy-governor of Fārs, so that the same S̲h̲īʿī mullahs of Fārs, wrote Raḥmat’s son later, “who had previously insisted that Raḥmat’s hookah first be washed and purified before others smoke it, now vied with each other for the blessing of drinking the dregs of his tea cup” (Maʿṣūm ʿAlī S̲h̲āh S̲h̲īrāzī, Ṭarāʾiḳ al-ḥaḳāʾiḳ, ed. M.D̲j̲. Maḥd̲j̲ūb, Tehran 1345 s̲h̲./1966, iii, 392). Raḥmat’s achievements included the diffusion of the order by sending representatives as far as India and Turkey, and the composition of the first volume of the Ṭarāʾiḳ al-ḥaḳāʾiḳ, completed after his death by his son Maʿṣūm ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (Humāyūnī, Tārīk̲h̲, 191), the most important and impartial history of Ṣūfism ever written in Persian in modern times. A year before his death in 1861, Raḥmat left the affairs of the order to his uncle Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī Āḳā Muḥammad, called Munawwar ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, but soon afterwards, two other branches split off, the Gunābādīs and the Ṣāfī ʿAlī S̲h̲āhīs.

(a) The Gunābādīs. The schism here arose from the refusal of the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ appointed by Raḥmat to Iṣfahān, Saʿādat ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, to follow Munawwar, to the point of founding his own order. Very soon, the headship of this sub-order became exclusively hereditary and confined to the family of Sulṭān ʿAlī S̲h̲āh Gunābādī (d. 1909). W.M. Miller, during his sojourn amongst this sub-order in the 1930s, reported that they had some 10,000 adherents throughout Iran, including several members of the Mad̲j̲lis and the prime minister Ḳawām al-Sulṭana (Shiʿah mysticism, the Sufis of Gunābād, in MW, xiii, 346-7). The Gunābādiyya continue today under the leadership of followers of the recently-deceased ḳuṭb Riḍā ʿAlī S̲h̲āh Tābanda. In the 1980s, Tābanda warmly endorsed the Islamic Republic’s war with ʿĪrāḳ, declaring the Gunabādīs’s willingness to become martyrs. In 1997 a near relative, Dr. Nūr ʿAlī Tābanda, became head, after his predecessor had, according to a leading Iranian newspaper in London, suffered harassment from the Islamic Republic police on the grounds that, inter alia, the dervishes were engaging in “immoral activities” (lahw wa lahb). But notwithstanding Dr. Tābanda’s previous participation in Mihdī Bāzargān’s Freedom Movement and his present quietist rhetoric, the Gunābādī Ṣūfīs remain active supporters of the fundamentalist ideology of the Islamic Republic.

(b) The Ṣāfī ʿAlī S̲h̲āhīs. Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī Mīrzā Ḥasan Iṣfahānī, called Ṣāfī ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (d. 1898) was undoubtedly the foremost Niʿmatullāhī poet—and perhaps the foremost Persian Ṣūfī poet—of the 19th century. His ample Dīwān has been frequently reprinted, and he wrote several prose works and a two-volume versified Ḳurʾānic tafsīr in the same metre as that of Rūmī’s Mat̲h̲nawī. He broke his allegiance to Munawwar in 1877, and after his death his disciple, the Ḳād̲j̲ār prince ʿAlī Ẓahīr al-Dawla, brother-in-law of Muẓaffar S̲h̲āh Ḳād̲j̲ār , turned the sub-order into an And̲j̲uman-i uk̲h̲uwwat “Fraternal Society” with the aim of combining Ṣūfism and politics, in the atmosphere of the time of numerous secret societies and lodges founded on Masonic principles (see A.K.S. Lambton, Secret societies and the Persian revolution of 1905-6, in her Qajar Persia. Eleven studies, London 1987, 300-19; H. Algar, An introduction to the history of freemasonry in Iran, in MES, vi [1970], 291; and farāmūs̲h̲-k̲h̲āna, in Suppl.). The And̲j̲uman also reflected its founder’s support for the constitutional movement, and many of the members of this quasi- ṭarīḳa were, like himself, high-ranking statesmen. It also had many social and charitable activities, and by 1964, some 34,000 members had been admitted to the society. But with the triumph of the fundamentalist Islamic Revolution in 1979, the And̲j̲uman was forcibly renamed, its building became used primarily as a mosque and the remaining members of the sub-order seem to have caved in to government pressure to participate in formalities unrelated to Ṣūfism.

iii. The main branch of the Niʿmatullāhī order from 1861 to the present day.

As noted above, Munawwar succeeded Raḥmat in 1860, and his quarter-century’s headship of the order was marked by the Gunābādī and Ṣāfī ʿAlī S̲h̲āhī schisms (see above, ii. a, b). Although the D̲h̲ahabiyya masters had made hereditary succession an essential feature of their administration of their order during the early 19th century, signs of such spiritual patrimonialism did not appear amongst the Niʿmatullāhīs till the end of that century. Munawwar’s son ʿAlī Āḳā D̲h̲u ’l-Riyāsatayn, called Wafā ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, succeeded him, effectively meaning that, for four generations— from Raḥmat ʿAlī S̲h̲āh to Muʾnis ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, excluding Ṣādiḳ ʿAlī S̲h̲āh’s four-year tenure 1918-22—filial affiliation and consanguinity determined spiritual sovereignty, so that the main branch was transformed into what Pourjavady and Wilson have called a virtual “Family of Poles” centred on S̲h̲īrāz. Finally, in the 1910s, the Gunābādī sub-order transformed hereditary succession into what is probably today the only unwritten socio-political dogma of modern Persian Ṣūfism (this principle being in contrast to the position in Egypt, where inheritance of such leadership positions was often implicit, rather than prescriptive as in Persia).

Muʾnis ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (d. 1953) was called D̲h̲u ’l-Riyāsatayn from his mastery of the exoteric sciences of Islam as well as the esoteric ones. In 1936 he moved from S̲h̲īrāz to Tehran and established there his Čahār Sūḳ k̲h̲ānakāh, which became one of the most important Ṣūfī centres in Tehran of its time. After his death, the control and the office of ḳuṭb exercised by one family for almost a century came to an end with the coming of a talented and educated medical student, D̲j̲awād Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲, who had already attained the rank of S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-s̲h̲uyūk̲h̲ “Supreme S̲h̲ayk̲h̲” in Muʾnis’s last years and had been designated by the latter his “sole spiritual son” (farzand-i rūḥānī yigāna), indicating his appointment as future ḳuṭb and head of the order. During the 1950s, Dr. Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲ (he had graduated M.D. at Tehran University in 1952) managed to secure the allegiance of most of the order’s s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s (Pākalʿaʾī of Isfahān was an exception). As well as being active writing in his professional field of psychiatry, Dr. Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲ has been active in publishing Ṣūfī works from his “K̲h̲ānakāh Niʿmatullāhī Publications” and writing his own works on Ṣūfism. By 1978, he had founded 60 k̲h̲ānaḳāhs in Iran, and in the 1970s, responding to the wishes of American disciples, several Niʿmatullāhī centres were founded in North America. In 1983 he moved to Britain, where he now resides, and now (1997) there are 21 k̲h̲ānaḳāh in extra-Islamic lands, ranging from the U.S.A. and Canada to West Africa and Australia, each with anything from 25 to 75 full-time members. Within Iran of the Islamic Republic, the order has maintained itself and its 60 k̲h̲ānanḳāh s with considerable difficulty. Since 1995, the acceptance of new initiates has been forbidden to local directors on pain of imprisonment or worse. In 1994 the Ministry of Islamic Guidance banned, without explanation, all new publications and the reprinting of old Niʿmatullāhī works. Thus although the order has apparently successfully established itself in the West, in the face of a concerted campaign of interference and intimidation in Iran, the survival of this major Ṣūfī order into the 21st century there seems uncertain.

iv. The D̲h̲ahabiyya.

The revival of this order in more recent times within Persia began earlier than with the Niʿmatullāhīs in the person of Ḳuṭb al-Dīn Nayrīzī (d. 1173/1759), the 32nd master of the order (on the origins of the order, see D. DeWeese, The eclipse of the Kubraviyah in Central Asia, in Iranian Studies, xxi/1-2 [1988], 62-9). Nayrīzī was a fine scholar in the traditional sciences, an admirer of Ibn al-ʿArabī, author of numerous Arabic and Persian rasāʾil, and at the end of his life, we are told, when resident in Nad̲j̲af he gave lectures to all members of the main four Sunnī mad̲h̲habs as well as the D̲j̲aʿfarī S̲h̲īʿa (Iḥsān Allāh ʿAlī Iṣṭak̲h̲rī, Uṣūl-i taṣawwuf, Tehran 1338/1959, 443); and his travels throughout Persia and ʿIrāḳ were ultimately to lead to a revival of the D̲h̲ahabī ṭarīḳa. From Nayrīzī’s time onwards, familial relationship was linked to spiritual headship, with new masters having married daughters of their predecessor, so that the order became a family dynasty based on patrilineal succession. The D̲h̲ahabī ḳuṭbs enjoyed the support of the Zands in S̲h̲īrāz but were also quick to give support to Āg̲h̲ā Muḥammad Ḳād̲j̲ār at Tehran in the early 1780s. However, they suffered, like other Ṣūfīs, under Bihbahānī’s persecutions and the dominance of the ʿulamāʾ during Fatḥ ʿAlī S̲h̲āh’s reign (1797-1815).

From 1815 to 1869 the master of the order was Abu ’l-Ḳāsim S̲h̲īrāzī, who had the pen-name of Rāz for his poetry, the 35th D̲h̲ahabī ḳuṭb, “most prolific of all D̲h̲ahabī masters” (Asad Allāh K̲h̲āwarī, D̲h̲ahabiyya. Taṣawwuf-i ʿilmī, āt̲h̲ar-i adabī, Tehran 1362/1983, 380, 575-680), the first master since pre-Ṣafawid times to build a formal k̲h̲ānaḳāh for D̲h̲ahabī fuḳarāʾ, who had formerly gathered in private houses in S̲h̲īrāz. As a poet, Rāz attained considerable renown, composing some “half a million couplets, thirty thousand of which belonged to his state of d̲j̲ad̲h̲a and the rest written from the quietude of spiritual attainment” (K̲h̲āwarī. D̲h̲ahabiyya, 380; also see 575-680 for a lengthy discussion of his literary works and theologicopoetic contribution to Persian Ṣūfism). He was also known for his tutelage of famous s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s, among whom may be mentioned the mud̲j̲tahid Mīrzā ʿAbd al-Karīm Rāyiḍ al-Dīn Zing̲h̲ānī (known as ʿUd̲j̲ūba and ʿĀrif ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, d. 1882). He also assumed custodianship in 1851 of the S̲h̲āh Čirāg̲h̲ complex, the third most important shrine and pilgrimage centre in Persia, thus increasing his personal prestige. He lauded his son D̲j̲alāl al-Dīn, who subsequently became the 36th ḳuṭb, as a saint and immaculate from the womb. By such speculations, Rāz reinforced the nepotism now firmly enshrined in this silsila, ensuring that the pattern of paternal inheritance went unquestioned and that all property (especially the wealthy S̲h̲āh Čirāg̲h̲ complex) and power over disciples would remain the birthright of his descendants; indeed, such favouritism was diametrically opposed to earlier D̲h̲ahabī masters’ views on spiritual succession. Rāz’s fourth son Mad̲j̲d al-As̲h̲rāf was master of the order 1869-1913. Under his leadership, D̲h̲ahabī teachings spread throughout K̲h̲urāsān. Iṣfahān and Fārs (Iṣṭak̲h̲rī, Uṣūl, 528, and he was the first D̲h̲ahabī to realise the value of the new Western techniques of printing, so that by his death at the age of 85, he had published over 40 of the works of the classical Ṣūfīs. During the upheavals of the Constitutional Revolution, he adopted a conservative and quietist stance, unlike his fellow S̲h̲īrāzī townsmen the Niʿmatullāhī ḳuṭbs Wafā ʿAlī and Muʾnis ʿAlī S̲h̲āh; his earlier writings had indicated his strongly pro-Ḳād̲j̲ār royalist stance, successfully achieving Muẓaffar al-Dīn S̲h̲āh’s support for his continuing custodianship of the S̲h̲āh Čirāg̲h̲.

On his death in 1913, the order was thrown into confusion, with many members uncertain about the succession, causing the first major schism within the D̲h̲ahabiyya, with a serious and effective challenge to the patrilineal right of inheritance for the ḳuṭbiyyat, the office of ḳuṭb; in the end, the majority of the D̲h̲ahabiyya abandoned the family line of Mad̲j̲d al-As̲h̲rāf and followed Waḥīd al-Awliyāʾ and, later, his successor Ḥubb-i Ḥaydar. A considerable polemical literature grew up amongst the D̲h̲ahabīs over this question, almost all of it biassed in some direction or other, but it is clear that a spiritual office had become entangled with the temporal concerns of a self-perpetuating family loyalty, and this last could not long survive in the revolutionary, anti-monarchical climate of early 20th-century Iran. Nevertheless, the S̲h̲arīfī family kept their position as custodians of the S̲h̲āh Čirāg̲h̲ until 1978, when they fled the country and the mausoleum was seized by the Islamic revolutionaries.

Despite the fact that the S̲h̲arīfī family considered Waḥīd al-Awliyāʾ as a usurper and mere pretender to the ḳuṭbiyyat, the majority of D̲h̲ahabīs today consider him to have been the 37th Master and rightful spiritual successor of Mad̲j̲d al-As̲h̲rāf. Waḥīd al-Awliyāʾ was a Tabrīzī by birth, famed for his expertise in ʿirfān and a prolific author, who also revived and reprinted a good number of Ṣūfī classics. In addition to his vigorous publishing activities, his learned s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s such as Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī Mīrzā Muḥsin (alias ‘“Imād al-Fuḳarāʾ Ardabīlī”) and Dr. Iḥsān Allāh ʿAlī Iṣṭak̲h̲rī made considerable literary contributions to D̲h̲ahabī spirituality, the former composing some 18 books, including Persian translations of Arabic Ṣūfī works, while the latter’s attractive, if hagiographical, exposition of the “principles of Ṣūfism” from a D̲h̲ahabī perspective, called Uṣūl-i taṣawwuf (Tehran 1379 A.H./1959) represents (together with K̲h̲āwarī’s work D̲h̲ahabiyya) the best general account of this order from its earliest days to the early 1960s. On his death in 1955, he was succeeded by one of his elect disciples, Ḥubb-i Ḥaydar, unconnected with his family in any way, but responsible for constructing his master’s large mausoleum in S̲h̲īrāz. There have been many active scholars and publishers of D̲h̲ahabī and other classics among Ḥubb-i Ḥaydar’s followers, and it is clear that the order, like the Niʿmatullāhiyya, is quite intellectually active. Hence Hamid Algar’s assertion that “most contemporary adherents of the Ḏahabīya appear to be merchants and civil servants with little knowledge of the theoretical bases of Sufism” is inaccurate. Nor is there any indication today that the order is but “a degenerate parody of the Sufi tradition, rather than an actual continuation of it” (EIr, art. Ḏahabīya, at vol. vi, 580).

When Ḥubb-i Ḥaydar died in 1962, he was succeeded by Dr. Abu ’l-Ḥamīd Gand̲j̲awiyān, a professor of dermatology at Tabrīz University as the 39th ḳuṭb. With an extensive Western educational background and a formidable specialist output, he currently resides in Southampton, England, as a British subject. This background and experience, and the presence of numerous disciples in North America and England, will probably ensure that, like the Niʿmatullāhīs, the future spiritual tradition of the D̲h̲ahabīs will be as much the product of the secular university as of the religious madrasa.

v. D̲h̲ahabī-Nīʿmatullāhī relations.

Although the D̲h̲ahabīs have always been less widespread than the Niʿmatullāhīs, being mainly confined to Fārs, their contribution to the development of 19th and 20th-century Persian spirituality has been no less significant. The fact that Niʿmatullāhī sources (e.g. S̲h̲irwānī, Ḥadāʾiḳ al-siyāḥa, 251) deride the D̲h̲ahabiyya only reflects the narrow-minded, sectarian, intra -ṭarīḳa rivalry still permeating relations between the two groups. Yet philosophically speaking, their approach to theosophical questions was much the same, centred on the S̲h̲īʿa in their mystical theology and with a common intellectual universe still largely defined by the waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd doctrines of Ibn al-ʿArabī as interpreted by his Persian followers like Ṣadr al-Dīn Ḳūnawī.

vi. Numbers and geographical distribution of Persian Ṣūfīs in the 19th-20th centuries.

Like Malcolm in the early 19th century, Richard Gramlich in the later 20th century has acknowledged the impossibility of any accurate calculation here. Perhaps because of the more informal nature of Persian Ṣūfism—with many persons affiliated to several orders at once, whilst others may be affiliated to one order but rarely visit its k̲h̲ānaḳāh —there are no precise figures for those in k̲h̲ānaḳāhs in pre-1979 Persia, unlike in Ottoman Turkey, where precise figures were recorded in government records (see S. Anderson, Dervish orders of Constantinople, in MW, xii [1922], 53-61). Gramlich’s review of the three main orders—K̲h̲āksar, D̲h̲ahabiyya and Niʿmatullāhiyya—led him to conclude that the latter was, by the 1960s, by far the largest Persian Ṣūfī order, anything from 20 to 100 times larger than the other two put together (Die schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens. I. Die Affiliationen, Wiesbaden 1965, 89-90). The Gunābādī branch of the latter order is now considered to be the larger branch in Iran. For statistics of the present distribution of the Niʿmatullāhiyya and their centres, see above, section iii, at the end. Up to the 20th century, the D̲h̲ahabiyya were concentrated on S̲h̲īrāz, with small branches in other Persian cities under s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s of the ḳuṭb. In the early 1950s, the Tehran k̲h̲ānaḳāh was endowed as a religious charity, and after Waḥīd al-Awliyāʾ’s death, his house and mausoleum in S̲h̲īrāz were converted into a k̲h̲ānaḳāh, subsequently expanded into a large complex. There are at present (1997) seven official D̲h̲ahabī k̲h̲ānaḳāhs in Iran, with gatherings of members in private houses in other towns. None of the k̲h̲ānāḳāh s has so far been confiscated by the Islamic Republic régime, nor has there been any persecution of members, and the publication of Ṣūfī works by the order has proceeded unimpeded. Outside Iran, the only official k̲h̲ānaḳāh is in Southampton, England, where the order’s head resides, although there are gatherings in private houses in three cities of the USA.

vii. Key features of Persian Ṣūfism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

From the above survey, it is evident that in its social transformations and adaptation to the exigencies of modern religious and political changes during the 19th-20th centuries, Ṣūfism has developed certain features which render it substantially different from the mystical Islam of the high classical period in Sald̲j̲ūḳ, Mongol or Tīmūrid Persia. Since the metaphysical and spiritual reality (ḥaḳīḳat) of Ṣūfism does not permit quantitative analysis on the basis of social, historical or political transformations, whether or not these features embody a “decline” is not in question. However, in the light of these—basically six—features outlined below, it is evident that modern Persian Ṣūfism has failed to maintain, indeed, in many senses, has fallen far away from, the high ethical standards previously attained during the renaissance of Ṣūfism in the 12-13th centuries (on which see L. Lewisohn (ed.), The legacy of mediœval Persian Sufism, London 1993).

(a) Institutionalisation. During the 19th-20th centuries, each initiatic chain of succession (silsila) and “Path” (ṭarīḳa) tended vigorously to maintain its own separateness and difference, distinguishing—often to the point of sectarian discrimination—its teachings from others. As in classical Islam, the k̲h̲ānaḳāh institution with its various duties—ranging from services (k̲h̲idmat) to musical liturgy (samāʿ)—became once again the central social focus of the various orders. Ṣūfī k̲h̲ānaḳāhs, up to recently, could be found in every major city and town in Iran. In the beginning of the 20th century, just when the signs of modernisation were becoming visible everywhere in Tehran, “one could find k̲h̲ānaḳāh s outside all ten gateways leading into Tehran, within each of which dwelled a pīr serving as a spiritual guide, sought after by numerous pilgrims whether in pursuit of the soft drink of divine Unity or the wine of spiritual guidance” (D̲j̲aʿfar S̲h̲ahrī, Tārīk̲h̲-i id̲j̲timāʿī-yi Tihrān dar ḳarn-i sīzdahum, Tehran 1369 s̲h̲./1990, vi, 419). In post-1978 Tehran, institutional Ṣūfism is still flourishing despite—if not because of— the pressures upon and persecution of its leaders by the Islamic régime.

(b) Intra- ṭarīḳa, rivalry. Just as the orders are now firmly distinguished from each other in separate institutional forms, the differences between, rather than unity among, the contemporary Persian silsilas are emphasised in the literature. Consequently, the chaste attitude of universal charitable tolerance (ṣafaʾ) maintained by the classical Persian mystics was, in this period, replaced by rivalry for positions of leadership and power over disciples, bitter jealousy between, and irreconcilable schisms among the leaders of the modern Persian ṭarīḳas (e.g. the rancour roused in Niʿmatullāhī ranks by the Ṣāfī ʿAlī S̲h̲āh schism, and the vitriolic polemics written by D̲h̲ahabī Ṣūfīs opposed to Waḥid al-Awliyāʾ).

(c) Ṣūfī religious exclusivism. Gramlich’s observation (Die Schiitischen Derwischorden, ii, 146) that the Persian S̲h̲īʿī Ṣūfī orders generally tend to identify the ḳuṭb as belonging exclusively to their particular ṭarīḳa conveys a fundamental tendency of contemporary Persian Ṣūfism rarely found elsewhere in the Islamic world. Whereas, according to most contemporary Sunnī Ṣūfism, the spirit of the ḳuṭb can only be seen at Mecca, at the Kaʿba, which is his maḳām [see ḳuṭb ], in orders such as the Niʿmatullāhiyya and D̲h̲ahabiyya, the head of the ṭarīḳa is considered the supreme ḳuṭb, the sole and unique Pole of the Muslim saintly hierarchy, so that his cosmological role is physically and politically temporalised. One socio-political consequence of this doctrine has been that every Persian murs̲h̲id is considered not only an absolute monarch over his disciples—quite in accordance with ordinary pīr-murīdī tenets and teachings found in other areas of the Islamic Ṣūfī world—but also the only genuine ruler in the invisible and visible worlds of being. W.M. Miller’s observation (art. cit., 344) that the ḳuṭb is the “central doctrine” of the Gūnābādī Ṣūfīs may generally be said to apply to ḳuṭb doctrines rife in the D̲h̲ahabiyya as well as the various branches of the Niʿmatullāhiyya.

Probably influenced by the Ismāʿīlī doctrine of the infallibility of their Imām, Niʿmatullāhī Ṣūfīs of the early Ḳād̲j̲ār period such as Nūr ʿAlī S̲h̲āh and Muẓaffar ʿAlī S̲h̲āh reoriented the S̲h̲īʿī wilāya doctrine to imply that they were in direct communication with the hidden Imām (Amanat, Resurrection, 73-5), while among the D̲h̲ahabiyya an identical doctrine appeared as well (e.g. the D̲h̲ahabī ḳuṭb Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn-i S̲h̲arīfī is explicitly called in one source “the special representative of the Imām of the Age”, Nāyib-i k̲h̲āṣṣ-i imām-i ʿaṣr). Such esoteric speculations gradually effected the “peculiar” assimilation “of the Quṭbī and Imāmī conceptions” in S̲h̲īʿī Ṣūfī orders, as Trimingham has termed it: “With Twelver Ṣūfīs, the Quṭb is the representative of the Imām on earth; hence the hatred of the mujtahids for the Ṣūfīs. The first principle of the Gūnābādī branch of the Niʿmatullāhiyya is walāya or ‘allegiance’ to the Quṭb, who is the actual present head of the order, even though through him all things subsist” (The Sufi orders in Islam, Oxford 1973, 164).

Though speculations on the doctrine of the ḳuṭb and the Imām, there has been gradual vulgarisation in the classical doctrine of ḳuṭbiyya, causing not only the cosmological but the political “polarisation” of taṣawwuf. Hence maʿrifa is understood to be the exclusive intellectual property of a particular Ṣūfī order, implicitly excluding all other spiritual orders, masters, religions, and mystical paths from the divine plan of salvation and self-realisation (for further discussion of the S̲h̲īʿī Ṣūfī ḳuṭb doctrine, see al-S̲h̲aybī. al-Ṣila bayn al-taṣawwuf wa ’l-tas̲h̲ayyuʿ, Cairo 1969, 463; idem, Sufism and Shiʿism, London 1991, 75 ff.; Matti Moosa, Extremist Shiʿites. The Ghulat sects, Syracuse 1988, 111; D.M. Donaldson, The Shiʿite religion, London 1933, 14; on Niʿmatullāhī attempts to resolve the exclusivism occasionally caused by this doctrine, see Gramlich, Die Schiitischen Derwischorden, i, 49). Whether such a polarised (a literally ḳuṭb- centric) approach to mysticism has been ultimately conducive to Ṣūfism’s final goal of theocentric consciousness is questionable. What is prima facie evident, however, is that the exclusivism of the Persian S̲h̲īʿī Ṣūfī ḳuṭb doctrine provides little constructive groundwork for ecumenism, creative religious pluralism or inter-faith dialogue—in a modern world where religious diversity is an inescapable fact of life.

(d) Ṣūfī patrimonialism or dervichisme. Jean Aubin coined the term dervichisme to describe an essential component of a type of hereditary Ṣūfism passed down by lineages of “sacred families” during the Mongol period, so that “spiritual authority and material management was transmited, hand to hand, hereditarily, with their morally privileged status and their ancestry assuring the social position of the inheritors” (La propriété foncière en Azerbayd̲j̲an sous les Mongols, in Le Monde iranien et l’Islam, iv [1976-77], 128). During the Mongol period, hereditary succession in both civic and religious matters was the norm in Persian society, as Marshall Hodgson has observed: “Even the head of a Ṣūfī order, who designated his successor from among his disciples, was encouraged to designate a son if one had become a disciple. But such family loyalty was pragmatic rather than prescriptive” (The venture of Islam, Chicago 1977, ii, 112). Eventually, however, as a consequence of such Ṣūfī dynasticism, what was from the start “an originally charismatic leadership was institutionalized” (ibid., ii, 217).

By the early Ṣafawid period, the hereditary principle in Ṣūfī orders such as the Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲iyya and Niʿmatullāhiyya in Persia had become virtually prescriptive. The Niʿmatullāhiyya, for instance, originally began as a ṭarīḳa designed to offer spiritual guidance, but by waging war against the Ottomans, currying patronage and forging links of marriage with the ruling Ṣafawid family, this silsila became a dūdmān (family dynasty) dedicated to the acquisition of royal power, and based exclusively on hereditary succession (ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Zarrīnkūb, Dunbāla-yi d̲j̲ustud̲j̲ū dar taṣawwuf-i Īrān, Tehran 1362 s̲h̲./1983, 232-6). Indeed, such dervichisme became enshrined in most Persian ṭarīḳa doctrine, for all the Ṣūfī orders which wished to survive or succeed in Ṣafawid Persia were forced to make the position of s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ hereditary, if only in emulation of “the Safavids themselves who had insisted that pidarfarzandī, that is, the dynastic principle, was the sole criterion to be used to determine the succession, and not naṣṣ ” (R.M. Savory, Iran under the Safavids, Cambridge 1980, 25).

Following the Niʿmatullāhī revival in the Ḳād̲j̲ār period, similar dynastic pretensions reappeared among leaders of certain branches of the Niʿmatullāhiyya in the middle, and the D̲h̲ahabiyya at the end, of the 19th century. As worldly dynastic interests took precedence over otherworldly spiritual attainment, all quest for genuine and individually realised spirituality was set aside, as most of the Ṣūfī orders, seeming to lose sight of the basic spiritual principles of their practice, treated the position of ḳuṭb as hereditary—the Gunābādī branch of the Niʿmatullāhīs, the D̲h̲ahabiyya in the 19th century, and the Ahl-i Ḥaḳḳ, in particular, have generally made hereditary succession and dervichisme their fundamental social pillar.

(e) Ṣūfism and Persian poetry. Sir John Malcolm’s observation that “the very essence of Soofeism is poetry” (History, ii, 279) highlights an enduring characteristic of taṣawwuf in Persia: that spiritual guidance and mystical understanding remain linked to lyrical expression and poetic inspiration. However, by the 19th century, the Persian poetico-mystical tradition had considerably declined due to various factors. A sort of separation between literature and taṣawwuf occurred in Persia in the late Ṣafawid period, both of which, anyway, were experiencing a waning (on the literary slump, see Bahār, Sabk-s̲h̲ināsī, iii, 311-18). By the Zand and Ḳād̲j̲ār periods, one finds that most of the g̲h̲azals and mat̲h̲nawīs composed by the Persian ṭarīḳat s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s were to a large extent a means by which those who possessed some literary talent could confirm their spiritual authority by creating poetic utterances capable of integration into their followers’ samāʿ liturgy. The central political motif in most Ṣūfī poetry produced during this period is what DeWeese has termed “ ṭarīqa -solidarity”—in the present Persian context constituting a sense of the distinctness of the Niʿmatullāhī (or D̲h̲ahabī) silsilas as constituting a bona-fide, self conscious Ṣūfī order amongst other Islamic brotherhoods. Walter Feldman’s remark that 18th-century Turkish Ṣūfī poets tended to speak of themselves “primarily as enlightened mürşids” in contrast to the earlier classical Turkish Ṣūfī poets such as Yūnus Emre who had usually humbly “cast themselves as seekers on the Path” (Mysticism, didacticism and authority in the liturgical poetry of the Haketî Dervishes of Istanbul, in Edebiyât, NS iv/2 [1993], 263), and Asad Allāh K̲h̲awārī’s observation that the composition of poetry by D̲h̲ahabī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s had less an aesthetic than a utilitarian function, being “considered as one of the necessary conditions of ḳuṭbiyyat” (D̲h̲ahabiyya, 685), also applies to the 19th-century Persian Ṣūfī poets. In their verse one finds less and less the wine of “ecstasy divine”: a scent of rosewater perhaps, but the fragrance of the rose has fled.

To the present day, Persian Ṣūfīs still continue to compose and publish mat̲h̲nawīs and g̲h̲azals filled with all the ancient and timeless symbolism and imagery of rose and nightingale, beloved and lover, prince and pauper. However, even if contemporary Iran is the inheritor of the world’s most venerable tradition of mystical poetry, there has been no Ṣūfī bard during the entire modern period, with the notable exceptions of Nūr ʿAlī S̲h̲āh in the early 19th century, Furūg̲h̲ī Basṭāmī (d. 1274/1857; a follower of the Čis̲h̲tiyya silsila) at the end of the 19th, and Ṣafī ʿAlī S̲h̲āh in the early 20th century, whom any contemporary Iranian literary historian has acknowledged to have combined spiritual gifts and poetico-literary genius with any of the same competence or literary success shown by his mediaeval forebears. Hence literary historians usually regard the Ṣūfī contribution to modern Persian literature as largely insignificant (see M.T. Bahār, Sabks̲h̲ināsī, iii; Browne, LHP, iv; and Y. Aryanpūr, Az Ṣabā tā Nīmā. Tārīk̲h̲-i 150 sāl adab-i fārsī, Tehran 1357/1978).

(f) Loss of self-confidence caused by the marginalisation of mysticism in the intellectual milieu. In the mid-19th century, the anxiety of the Persian Ṣūfīs in face of encroaching Europeanisation is reflected in the nostalgic comment of the Niʿmatullāhī leader Mast ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (penned in the early 1830s): “In truth, these Europeans (ḳawm-i frang) in affairs of government, politics and cultivation of their lands are extremely skillful and do not neglect even the least minutia in the art of war, nor of the means of overcoming enemies and cultivating friends” (Ḥadāʾiḳ al-siyāḥa, 348-9; also cf. similar comments by S̲h̲īrāzī, Ṭarāʿiḳ al-ḥaḳāʾiḳ, iii, 521-2; J.I. Cole, Invisible occidentalism. Eighteenth-century Indo-Persian constructions of the West, in Iranian Studies, xxv/3-4 [1992], 3-16. For a discussion of similar circumstances in Turkey, see Nuray Mert, Children of a “defeated civilization”. The sad face of Westernization in Turkey, in Turkey: the pendulum swings back, London: Islamic World Report, i/3 [1996], 69-70).

During the 20th century, with S̲h̲īʿism in the madrasas, and secular rationalism the idol of the intellectual élite in the universities, Ṣūfism was denigrated by both groups and in this process fell by the wayside, ceasing to be part of the mainstream of Persian religious and intellectual life. The main Persian 19th century political reformers, such as D̲j̲amāl al-Dīn al-Afg̲h̲ānī (1839-97), Āk̲h̲undzāda (1812-78), Mīrzā Malkum K̲h̲ān (1833-1908) and Mīrzā Āḳā K̲h̲ān Kirmānī (1854-96; who had rebelled against his Ṣūfī origins—his father being affiliated with the Ahl-i Ḥaḳḳ), castigated Ṣūfī mysticism for its alleged passivity and advocacy of taḳlīd. Their attack was continued by the radical Iranian secular intellectuals of the early 20th century such as Aḥmad Kasrawī (1891-1946 ), who condemned Ṣūfism “as one of the deep-rooted and greatly misguided beliefs to have appeared in Islam” (see his On Islam and Shiʿism, tr. M.R. G̲h̲anoonparvar, Costa Mesa, Calif. 1990, 79).

Kasrawī’s opinions of Ṣūfism were later repeated by Iranian secular intellectuals in the 1960s-1970s, most of whom toed the Marxist Tūdih party’s atheist-materialist line on the social irrelevance of religion. As a consequence, the more moderate voices of both European Persianists who considered Persian Ṣūfism to be a chief cause of cultural advancement in Islam such as R.A. Nicholson and F. Meier (Soufisme et déclin culturel, in R. Brunschvig and G.E. von Grunebaum, Classicisme et déclin culturel dans l’histoire de l’Islam, Paris 1957, 217-41), as well as Iranian savants such as Mud̲j̲tabā Mīnuwī, who considered the Ṣūfī movement to be the apex of human ethical thinking and the sole champion of religious tolerance in Islam (see his Āzādagī wa tasāmuḥ, in Iranshenasi, vi/1 [1992], 174-85) have been all but drowned out by the louder cries of the secular and religious fundamentalists.

Refutations of Ṣūfism based on its perceived incongruence with S̲h̲īʿī doctrines continued as in Zand and Ḳād̲j̲ār times to be written during the 20th century by extremist Iranian clerics (such as Sayyid Abu ’l-Faẓl b. al-Riḍā, known as ʿAllāma Burḳaʿī) (cf. his Ḥaḳīḳat-i ʿirfān, 2Tehran n.d., which reproduces texts, 161-2, of four fatwās in condemnation of early 19th-century Niʿmatullāhī masters purportedly issued by 19th-century clerics—Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, ʿAlī Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Muḥammad Mahdī S̲h̲ahristānī and Abu ’l-Ḳāsim Ḳumī). At present, most of the Iranian S̲h̲īʿī clergy “regard it [Ṣūfism] as nothing more than an illegitimate competitor in the marketplace of religious values” (Y. Richard, Shiʾite Islam, tr. A. Nevill, London 1995, 54).

To the present day, although the dervish ideal (darwīs̲h̲ī) remains, on the one hand, an indelible trait of Iranian national character (see M.C. Bateson et alii, Ṣafā-yi bāṭin. A study of a set of Iranian ideal character types, in Brown and Itzkowitz (eds.), Psychological dimensions of Near Eastern studies, Princeton 1977, 257-73), on the other hand, institutional or k̲h̲ānaḳāh-based Ṣūfism continues to be frequently attacked by both Iranian intellectuals in exile and modernist and traditional religious thinkers within Iran proper. In Iranian newspapers published in the West, the cultural and political significance of Ṣūfism remains a hotly-debated topic whose relevance to modern philosophies of life is frequently contested or vindicated (see e.g. Dāryūs̲h̲ Humāyūnī, Imrūz zamān az madrasa bih k̲h̲ānaḳāh raftan nīst, in Nīmrūz, year 8, no. 390, D̲j̲umʿa 11, Ābān 1375 s̲h̲., 15e, and Riḍā Ḥaḳḳd̲j̲ū’s pro-Ṣūfī riposte to Humāyūnī, Ham madrasa wa ham k̲h̲ānaḳāh, in Nīmrūz, year 8, no. 393, D̲j̲umʿa 2 Ād̲h̲ar, 1375 s̲h̲., 33) by supporters for and against. Though beleaguered at the time of writing by the atmosphere of the religious intolerance prevailing in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in the West, where traditional taṣawwuf is challenged by the anti-mystical “secular fundamentalism”, Persian Ṣūfism will doubtless survive this crisis.

Bibliography

(apart from the references already cited): 1. Primary sources: M.-Ḥ. Ruknzāda Ādamiyyat, Fars wa d̲j̲ang-i bayn al-milāl, Tehran n.d.

S̲h̲ams al-Dīn Parwīzī, Tad̲h̲kira al-awliyāʾ-i D̲h̲ahabiyya, Tabriz 1373/1953

Ḥusām al-Dīn K̲h̲usraw Parwīz, Risāla-yi tanbīhiyya, Tabrīz 1334 s̲h̲./1955, printed with the S̲h̲arḥ-i Guls̲h̲an-i rāz of Uʿd̲j̲ūba

Muḥammad Raḥīm Nuṣrat al-Mulk Mākūʾī, Maḳālāt-i Ḥaḍrat-i Parwīzī, Tabrīz 1338 s̲h̲./1959

Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn S̲h̲īrwānī, Riyāḍ al-siyāḥat, ed. Aṣg̲h̲ar Ḥāmid, Tehran 1339 s̲h̲./1960

H. Saʿādat Nūrī, Zindigī-yi Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ Mīrzā Āḳāsī, Tehran 1355 s̲h̲./1976

Nūr ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, Mad̲j̲mūʿa-yi az āt̲h̲ār-i Nūr ʿAlī S̲h̲āh Iṣfahānī, ed. D̲j̲. Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲, Tehran 1350 s̲h̲./1971

Īrad̲j̲ Afs̲h̲ār (ed.), K̲h̲ātirāt wa asnād-i Ẓahīr al-Dawla, Tehran 1351 s̲h̲./1972

ʿAbd al-Ḥud̲j̲d̲j̲a Balāg̲h̲ī, Maḳālāt al-ḥunafāʾ fī maḳāmāt s̲h̲ams al-ʿurafāʾ, 2 vols. Tehran 1369-71 A.H.

ʿAṭā Karīm Barḳ, Ḏj̲ustud̲j̲ū dar aḥwāl u āt̲h̲ār-i Ṣafī ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, Tehran 1352 s̲h̲./1973

ʿAlī Dawānī, Āḳā Muḥammad Bāḳir Muḥammad Akmal Isfahānī, maʿrūf bi Waḥīd Bihbahānī, Tehran 1362 s̲h̲./1983

ʿAlī Aṣg̲h̲ar Maẓharī, Silsilayi Niʿmatullāhī wa barādarān-i Gunābādī, in Ṣūfī. Faṣlnāma-yi K̲h̲ānaḳāh-i Niʿmatullāhī, no. 5 (1368 s̲h̲./1989), 17-23

idem, Mād̲j̲arā-yi Mus̲h̲tāḳ ʿAlī S̲h̲āh, in ibid., no. 31, (1375 s̲h̲./1996), 26-35

Saʿīd Nafīsī, Yādī az D̲h̲u ’l-Riyāsatayn, in ibid., no. 11 (1370 s̲h̲./1991), 22 ff.

M. Humāyūnī, Tārīk̲h̲-i silsilahā-yi ṭarīḳa-yi Niʿmatullāhī dar Īrān, London 1992

D̲j̲. Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲, Gulistān-i d̲j̲awīd, Tehran 1373 s̲h̲./1994

idem, Gulzār-i Mūnis, 2nd ed. Tehran 1373 s̲h̲./1994.

2. Studies: Henry Martyn, A memoir of the Rev. Henry Martyn, B.D., ed. J. Sarjent, 4th ed. London 1820

J. Rypka, Dans l’intimité d’un mystique iranien, in L’âme de l’Iran, by multiple contributors, Paris 1951, 93-111

H. Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique, Paris 1964

M. de Miras, Le méthode spirituelle d’un maître du Soufisme iranien: Nur Ali-Shah, Paris 1974

H. Mirjafari, tr. J. Perry, The Ḥaydarī-Niʿmatī conflicts in Iran, in Iranian Studies, xii/3-4 (1979), 135-62

Perry, Karim Khan Zand. A history of Iran, 1747-1779, Chicago 1979

Vahid Rafati, The development of Shaykhi thought in Shiʿi Islam, Ph.D. diss., UCLA 1979, unpubl.

Mangol Bayat, Mysticism and dissent. Socioreligious thought in Qajar Iran, Syracuse 1982

ʿA. Anwār, art. Anjomān-e Ok̲owwat, in EIr, ii, 88-9.

Personal communications from high-ranking Niʿmatullāhī authorities outside Iran, including Dr. D̲j̲awād Nūrbak̲h̲s̲h̲, Master of the Munawwar ʿAlī S̲h̲āhī branch of the Niʿmatullāhiyya

Prof. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Gad̲j̲awiyān, Master of the D̲h̲ahabiyya

Dr. Muhammad Isa Waley, Dr. S̲h̲ahrām Pāzawkī, Muḥammad Riḍā D̲j̲ūzī, Mihdī Tafris̲h̲ī and Muṣṭafā S̲h̲afāfī are gratefully acknowledged.

(L. Lewisohn, shortened by the Editors)

6. Amongst the Turks.

The Turkish lands from Anatolia to Eastern Turkistān in the pre-modern period. See ṭarīḳa. ii. 5.

The Balkans. See ṭarīḳa. ii. 6.

(c) The Ottoman Turkish lands and Republican Turkey in the 19th and 20th centuries.

i. The Ottoman period.

The history of Ṣūfism in the Ottoman empire of the 19th and early 20th centuries reflects, in the first place, the consequences of the liberal reforms of the Tanẓīmāt and the discovery of European philosophical thought. Also, up to 1925, and even under the Republic, although in a different way, Ṣūfism remained closely linked with the Ṣūfī brotherhoods (ṭuruḳ), except for a few exceptions, themselves not without interest.

Two Ṣūfī orders imposed their mark, the Bektās̲h̲iyya and the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya [q.vv.]. The Bektās̲h̲iyya were forbidden in 1825 together with the Janissaries but reconstituted themselves some years later, becoming a mystical and philosophical current, notably in the great cities of the empire (Istanbul, Izmir and Salonica). The Bektās̲h̲īs of the countryside, less and less accepted by their co-religionists of the towns, who were offended by their ignorance, were progressively absorbed by the ʿAlewīs. As a general rule, the Bektās̲h̲iyya espoused the movement for liberal reform, against Sultan ʿAbd ül-Ḥamīd (1876-1909) and in favour of restoration of the constitution abolished in 1878. This is explicable by, amongst other things, their suppleness in religious matters, even their lack of respect for the S̲h̲arīʿa, which they placed after the ṭarīḳa (the brotherhood and its exoteric rules), the ḥaḳīḳa (truth) and maʿrifa (gnosis), in accordance with their doctrine of the so-called “four doors” (dört ḳapi̊); this was regarded as a sign of the supremacy of the bāṭin (hidden doctrine, Ṣūfism) over the ẓāhir (the exoteric sciences, those of the medreses). Bektās̲h̲ī Ṣūfism was nevertheless very poor on the level of the mystical techniques of contemplation.

The Bektās̲h̲iyya were strongly attacked by the Sunnī ʿulamāʾ for what these last considered their heretical beliefs. In particular, in 1874 the ʿālim Isḥāḳ Efendi attacked their closeness to the Ḥurūfiyya in his Kās̲h̲if ül-esrār wa-dāfiʿ ül-es̲h̲rār (German tr. G. Jacob, Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Derwisch-Ordens des Bektaschis, Berlin 1908). The response to this took the form of an apologia for the Bektās̲h̲iyya which is one of the best expositions of Bektās̲h̲ī doctrine, of a quality rarely seen previously (Aḥmed Rifʿat, Mirʾāt ül-maḳāṣid fī dāfiʿ ül-mefāsid, Istanbul 1876). The doctrine was then subsequently fixed through several other works, in particular, by Aḥmed Ri̊fḳi̊ (in his Bektās̲h̲ī si̊rri̊, Istanbul 1910), who accentuated the order’s heterodox and political dimension and brought its doctrine into the heretical Balkans current of the Ḥamzawīs (see below) and the liberal movements opposed to ʿAbd ül-Ḥamīd II. Bektās̲h̲ī thought was further set forth in several poetic collections signed by its most brilliant representatives of the 19th and 20th centuries: Turābī (d. 1868), Meḥmed Ḥilmī Dede (1842-1907), Edīb K̲h̲arābī (1852-1915) and Riḍa Tewfīḳ (1868-1949 [see bölükbas̲h̲i̊, riḍā tewfīḳ, in Suppl.]).

In opposition to this form of Ṣūfism, there was that of the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya, an order which enjoyed a profound renewal at the beginning of the 19th century amongst the Kurds of the empire’s eastern provinces. This renewal of the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya, called K̲h̲ālidiyya from the name of Mawlānā K̲h̲ālid Bag̲h̲dādī (1776-1827), who had studied with the Naḳs̲h̲bandīs of India at Dihlī, strongly echoed the teachings of the Indian Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya Mud̲j̲addidiyya but made certain innovations. The K̲h̲ālidiyya made compulsory retreat (k̲h̲alwa erbaʿīniyya) for new initiates and made the doctrine of the rābiṭa (the spiritual link of the s̲h̲eyk̲h̲ with his disciple) the order’s great rule (B. Abu-Manneh, Khalwa and Rābiṭa in the Khālidī suborder, in M. Gaborieau et alii (eds.), Naqshbandîs. Cheminement et situation actuelle d’un ordre mystique musulmane, Istanbul 1991). It invariably opposed the use of music and dancing. Very soon, with some exceptions, the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya of the whole Ottoman Empire adopted the K̲h̲ālidiyya form. Believing that the mystical way was primarily to be achieved through a profound knowledge of the Ḳurʾān and Sunna, and by scrupulous respect for the prescriptions of the S̲h̲arīʿa, the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya set themselves firmly against the liberal-type reforms of the Tanẓīmāt era, reforms which inter alia gave rights similar to those of the Muslims to the infidels of the Empire. Their form of Ṣūfism, with its ensemble of very potent contemplative techniques, was practised stricdy within the framework of the S̲h̲arīʿa (Th. Zarcone, Expérience de la mort et préparation à la mort dans l’Islam mystique. Le cas des nakşibendî de Turquie, in G. Veinstein (ed.), Les Ottomans et la mort. Permanences et mutations, Leiden 1996). Unlike the Bektās̲h̲iyya, the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya supported the Ḥamīdian régime; Gümüs̲h̲k̲h̲ānawī Aḥmed Ḍiyā (1813-93), the order’s main s̲h̲eyk̲h̲, had numerous disciples amongst the Palace staff. He linked the study of ḥadīt̲h̲ with his mystical teaching, a tradition which has maintained itself amongst his disciples to the present day. After the constitutional revolution of 1908-9, the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya were to be generally found on the conservative wing of the Young Turk movement. Being both a Young Turk and a Naḳs̲h̲bandī, the S̲h̲eyk̲h̲ ül-Islām Mūsā Kāẓim (1850-1920) attacked heterodox Ṣūfism (i.e. the Bektās̲h̲iyya) and went so far as to preach the absorption of the tekke by the medrese, convinced that Ṣūfism had to be taught with the other Islamic sciences and not elsewhere.

In the 19th century, other Ṣūfīs, linked with mystical currents originating in the Arab world, like the S̲h̲ād̲h̲ilī Muḥammad Ẓāfir al-Madanī (1829-1903) or the Rifāʿī one Abu ’l-Hudā al-Ṣayyādī (1850-1909 [q.v. in Suppl.]), held, like the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya, that Ṣūfism should range itself alongside Islamic orthodoxy. In other respects, the 19th and 20th centuries were notable for another interpretation of Ṣūfism which adopted a philosophical dimension close to Arabic Neoplatonism according to the commentary of several controversial mystics, such as Ibn al-ʿArabī, and even of those who had been condemned to death, such as Badr al-Dīn b. Ḳāḍī Samāwnā (1358-9 to 1416 ), with a complete lack of interest in the structure of the ṭarīḳa ; one could cite the Malāmī movement of Muḥammad Nūr al-ʿArabī (d. 1888) which rose out of the Ḥamzawī milieux of the Balkans and was very quickly introduced into Istanbul. The devotees of other orders were also marked by this rejection of the external aspects of Ṣūfism (the tekke, ceremonies, special garments, headgear, etc.) in the name of a return to a purified mysticism, but also under the influence of ideas of progress. One might mention here the name of Ḳus̲h̲adali̊ Ibrāhīm K̲h̲alwatī (1774-1845) who rejected the tekke and proclaimed himself against celibacy and renouncement of the world (terk-i dünya), two aspects of the mystical life which have often divided Ṣūfīs (Zarcone, Pour ou contre le monde. Une approche des sociabilités mystiques musulmanes dans l’Empire ottoman, in F. Georgeon and P. Dumont (eds.), Vivre dans l’Empire ottoman. Sociabilités et relations intercommunautaires (XVIII e -XX e siècle), Paris 1997). At the end of the 19th century there arose from Naḳs̲h̲bandī circles Bedīʿ ül-Zamān Saʿīd Nūrsī (1876-1960 ), founder of the Nurcu movement [see nurculuk ], and he likewise opposed the system of ṭuruḳ in the name of a return to the faith and to pure Ṣūfism.

The tradition of commentaries on the writings of Ibn al-ʿArabī and the Mat̲h̲nawī of D̲j̲alāl al-Dīn Rūmī continued, with innovations appropriate to the age. Modernist Ṣūfīs and Ottoman intellectuals like Meḥmed ʿAlī ʿAynī, Riḍā Tewfīḳ, Ismāʿīl Fennī, Ferīd Ḳam and Aḥmed Ḥilmī S̲h̲ehbenderzāde, showed a great interest in these two thinkers whose doctrines favoured a rapprochment of Islam with the ideas of the Age of the Enlightenment and even with such European philosophers then in vogue as Herbert Spencer in Britain and Henri Bergson in France. The old dispute over the orthodoxy or not of Ibn al-ʿArabī, specifically on the doctrine of the unity of existence attributed to him, waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd [see waḥdat al-s̲h̲uhūd ], continued and gave rise to lively debates between the Ṣūfīs and the ʿulamāʾ, going beyond the strict framework of religion and involving the Turkish philosophers affected by the Western schools of thought. The main commentator at this time on Ibn al-ʿArabī was Aḥmed ʿAwnī Ḳonuḳ (1868-1938) (his commentary on the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. M. Tahrali and S. Eraydin, 3 vols. Istanbul 1987). Regarding the Mat̲h̲nawī, it continued to be studied within the framework of the special institutions for this (dār ül-met̲h̲newī) or by members of the Mawlawiyya; the most famous dār ül-met̲h̲newī was that founded at Istanbul by the s̲h̲eyk̲h̲ Murād al-Buk̲h̲ārī (d. 1848). It is characteristic of certain commentaries written on the Mat̲h̲nawī in the 19th and early 20th centuries that they consider Rūmī’s Ṣūfism in relationship to modern thought and Western science; such authors were ʿĀbidīn Pas̲h̲a (d. 1907) (his commentary in 6 vols. Istanbul 1887-8), Ṭāhir ül-Mewlewī (1877-1928) (Met̲h̲newī, 14 vols. Istanbul 1963) and Kenʿān Rifāʿī (S̲h̲erḥli Met̲h̲newī-yi s̲h̲erīf, Istanbul 1973). Furthermore, the interest in the press in general drove Ṣūfīs of all tendencies to found journals and to set forth their thoughts in a new literary manner (the journals Muḥibbān, Ḥikmet, Ḏj̲erīdeyi Ṣūfī, Taṣawwuf, Maḥfil, etc.); in these can be found commentaries on the Mat̲h̲nawī, biographies, historical texts, philosophical essays, mystical commentaries on the Ḳurʾān, etc.

One of the main conflicts between Ṣūfism and Islamic theology at the opening of the 20th century set the s̲h̲eyk̲h̲ Ṣafwet (Taṣawwufun ẓaferleri, Istanbul 1924) against the theologian Izmirli Ismāʿīl Ḥaḳḳī (1868-1946) (Ḥaḳḳi̊n ẓaferleri, Istanbul 1922) concerning the question of ḥadīt̲h̲, the crux being whether the ḥadīt̲h̲s cited by the Ṣūfis to justify their doctrines were reliable. Ismāʿīl Ḥaḳḳī, himself a member of the S̲h̲ād̲h̲iliyya and under al-G̲h̲azālī’s influence, some time later distinguished, in a new elaboration of Islamic theology (Yeñi ʿilm-i kelām, Istanbul 1923-4, 151-2), between two forms of Ṣūfism, one linked with the Ḳurʾānic tradition and the other departing from it.

ii. The Republican period.

The creation of the Republic (1923) and the abolition in 1925 of the orders, involving the closing of the tekkes, led Ṣūfism, if it was to survive, into either bypassing the structures of the ṭuruḳ or going underground, a situation which, in both cases, had consequences for the development of the practice of mystical doctrines. It was only in the 1950s, with a relaxation of state anti-religious measures, that some Ṣūfis were able to publish their writings. In general, Naḳs̲h̲bandīs remained faithful to their orthodox line. This was set forth by Mehmed Zâhid Kotku (1897-1980) and his son-in-law Mehmed Esat Coşan, who today directs the “Iskenderpaşa community” in Istanbul (it inherits the tekke of Gümüs̲h̲k̲h̲ānawī Aḥmed Ḍiyā); by Abdülhekim Hüseynî (1902-72) and his son Mehmed Reşid Erol (1929-96), founder of the “community of Menzil Köyu” at Adiyaman in Anatolia; and by several other s̲h̲eyk̲h̲ s stemming from the eastern parts of Anatolia (H. Algar, The Naqshbandi order in Republican Turkey, in The pendulum swings back, London 1996). It is important to note that many of these maintained unofficial medreses in which Ṣūfism had a major part. ʿAbd ül-Ḥakīm Arwāsī/Abdülhakim Arvasi (1864-1943), another Naḳs̲h̲bandī, vigorously brought into prominence the teachings of Aḥmad Sirhindī , the founder in India of the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya Mud̲j̲addidiyya, and proponent of al-G̲h̲azālī and his Ṣūfism, at the same time combatting the S̲h̲īʿa and the radical Wahhābiyya . His pupils and successors, the main ones being the writer Necip Fazil Kisakürek (1905-83), with his O ve ben, 6th ed. Istanbul 1990, and Hüseyn Hilmi Işik (b. 1911), founder of the Işikci movement, remained faithful to his thought but broke with several minor Naḳs̲h̲bandī practices and the system of tekkes.

Already in existence at the end of the Ottoman period, the Nūrd̲j̲u movement of Saʿīd Nūrsī, a former Naḳs̲h̲bandī, can be classed as a crypto-Ṣūfī movement, despite its rejection of the ṭarīḳa and the s̲h̲eyk̲h̲’s authority, since it continues to venerate and to follow the teachings of such grand masters of Ṣūfism as ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-D̲j̲īlānī and Aḥmad Sirhindī and since it describes itself as a return to pure Ṣūfism. This aspect had been reinforced by the Nurcu Fethullah Gülen, who fiercely defends a revolutionary view of instruction, proposing a harmonisation of the old medrese system with that of the secular schools (Lâtif Erdoğan, Fethullah Gülen Hocaefendi “Kücük dünyam”, Istanbul 1995; Eyüp Can, Ufuk tur, Fethullah Gülen Hocaefendi ile, Istanbul 1996 or 1997). On the other hand, in the last decade, certain Nurcus, called Aczmendî, have considered that it is time to re-establish the tekke system (Risale-i Nur’da usûl ve program. Aczmendlik, Istanbul n.d. [1996 or 1997]).

Ṣūfis linked with other currents have contributed to the development of an Islamic mysticism during the time of the Republic, like the K̲h̲alwatī Muzaffer Ozak (1916-85), who attached central importance to music and dance movements. Like the Ḳādiriyya and Rifāʿiyya, he kept up the link between mystical doctrine and dancing, a link which became lost amongst the Mawlawiyya. Other Ṣūfīs, already only very loosely attached to the ṭarīḳa system, adapted immediately to the situation under the Republic, such as the Melāmīs, who kept up, at Istanbul, the tradition of Muḥammad Nūr al-ʿArabī: Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī Maḳṣūd K̲h̲ulūṣī (d. 1929), Hasan Lutfī Susut and Mahmud Sadettin Bilginer (1909-83), K̲h̲ulūṣī’s son. Alevî doctrines were favoured by the Kemalist régime, and the Alevîs took over Bektās̲h̲ī tekkes and for many years caused a grave confusion by identifying the Ṣūfī doctrine and practices of the Bektās̲h̲iyya with their own system, this despite the protests of a small group of Bektās̲h̲īs led by Bedri Noyan (1912-97), one of whose chief members was Turgut Koca (1921-97), who incarnated this tradition. Amongst the Alevîs, Bektās̲h̲ī doctrine enjoyed a popularisation and acquired a folkloric nature which has profoundly deprived it of its real nature. Having almost totally disappeared within Turkey itself, the tradition of commentaries on the Mat̲h̲nawī and on Ibn al-ʿArabī had a brilliant representative in Sarajevo in the person of Fayḍ Allāh/ Fejzulah Hadžibajrić (d. 1990), who gave life to the last dār ül-met̲h̲newī of the Ottoman world.

Bibliography

(in addition to references in the article): Abdülbaki Gölpinarli, Melâmîlik ve melâmîler, Istanbul 1931

J.K. Birge, The Bektashi order of dervishes, London 1937

Mustafa Kara, Din, hayat sanat açisinda, tekkeler ve zaviyeler, Istanbul 1980

Yaşar Nuri Öztürk, Kuşadali İbrâhim Halvetî, Istanbul 1982

İrfan Gündüz, Gümüşhânevî Ahmed Ziyaüddîn. Hayati, eserleri, tarikat anlayişi ve Hâlidiyye tarikati, Istanbul 1984

B. Abu-Manneh, The Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ottoman lands in the early 19th century, in WI, xxii (1984)

İsmail Kara, Türkiye’de islamcilik düsünçesi, 3 vols. Istanbul 1986-94

Şerif Mardin, Religion and social change in modern Turkey. The case of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, Albany 1989

Abu-Manneh, Shaykh Ahmed Ziyâ’üddin el-Gümüşhanevî and the Ziyâ-i Khâlidî suborder, in F. de Jong (ed.), Shi’a Islam, sects and Sufism, Utrecht 1992

Süleyman Hayri Bolay, Türkjye’de ruhcu ve maddeci görüşün mücadelesi, Ankara n.d.

H. Algar, Devotional practices of the Khalidi Nakşibendi of Ottoman Turkey, in R. Lifchez (ed.), The Dervish Lodge. Architecture, art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey, Berkeley etc. 1992

Samiha Ayverdi et alii, Kenan Rifâi ve yirminci asri Işiğinda müslümanlik, 2nd ed. Ankara 1993

Th. Zarcone, Les Nakşibendi et la République turque: de la persécution au repositionnement théologique, politique et social (1925-1991), in Turcica, xxiv (1992)

idem, Mystiques, philosophes et franc-maçons en Islam, Rizâ Tevfik, penseur ottoman (1868-1949), du soufisme à la confrérie, Paris 1993

Hilmi Ziya Ülken, Türkiye’de çağdas düşünce tarihi, 4th ed. Istanbul 1994

A. Popovic and G. Veinstein (eds.), Etudes sur l’ordre mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach, Istanbul 1995

Ferit Aydin, Tarikat’ta râbita ve nakşibendilik, Istanbul 1996

Zarcone, Mehmet Alî Aynî et les cercles melâmî d’Istanbul au début du XX e siècle, in N. Clayer et alii, Melamî et Bayramî, Istanbul 1998

idem, The transformation of the Sufi orders in the Turkish Republic and the question of crypto-Sufism, in P. Chelkowski and J.L. Warner (eds.), Talat Halman Festschrift, forthcoming New York.

(Th. Zarcone)

7. In Muslim India.

(a)The pre-1800 period. See ṭarīḳa. ii 7.

(b)In the 19th and 20th centuries.

i. The study of Ṣūfism in colonial and post-colonial South Asia.

The term and category “Ṣūfism” was first coined for European languages by British Orientalists based in India, particularly Sir William Jones (The sixth discourse, on the Persians, and On the mystical poetry of the Persians and Hindus, in Works, London 1807). While European travellers had previously remarked upon “dervishes” and “fakirs” only as exotic curiosities, Orientalists applied the term “Ṣūfī” largely to the literary phase of Ṣūfism, particularly as expressed in Persian poetry. These European scholars were persuaded that the elegant poems of Ḥāfiẓ and D̲j̲alāl al-Dīn Rūmī [q.vv.] could. have nothing to do with the Islamic (“Mahometan”) religion, and therefore they unanimously believed it to be derived from Indian sources; this position was reinforced by the anti-Ṣūfī attitudes of S̲h̲īʿī mud̲j̲tahids in Persia (Sir J. Malcolm, History of Persia, London 1815, ii, 382-3; Lt. J.W. Graham, A treatise on Sufiism, or Mahomedan mysticism, in Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay, i [1819], 89-119). British colonial officials, who were the main source of European studies of Ṣūfism in the 19th century, thus maintained a double attitude toward Ṣūfism: its literary classics (part of the Persian curriculum required by the British East India Company until the 1830s) were admired, but its contemporary social manifestations were considered corrupt and degenerate in relation to what was perceived as orthodox Islam (R.F. Burton, Sindh, London 1851, 198-231). This “golden age” ambivalence toward Ṣūfism was soon mirrored by the attitudes of Muslim reformists and fundamentalists (see below), creating a situation in which Ṣūfism quickly became a contested term, the meaning of which remains hotly disputed today. In Urdu, taṣawwuf still generally means a prescriptive ethical and spiritual ideal as it did in early Islamic texts, though sometimes it functions as a generic equivalent of mysticism. The English word “Ṣūfism” describes a variety of practices and doctrines with a debatable relationship to Islam (C. Ernst, The Shambhala guide to Sufism, Boston 1997).

Colonial officials encountered contemporary Ṣūfism primarily in the context of government regulation of the many shrines and saints’ tombs found in India; under their administration, active Ṣūfī circles were no longer attached to major shrines, though k̲h̲ānḳāhs continued to function, particularly in the Pand̲j̲āb and Sind. British officials settled disputes over the administration of shrines as waḳf properties under Anglo-Mohammedan law (cf. G. Kozlowski, Muslim endowments and society in British India, Cambridge 1985). This was an issue particularly for large shrines, such as the tomb of K̲h̲wād̲j̲a Muʿīh al-Dīh Čis̲h̲tī at Ad̲j̲mēr, or that of Bābā Farīd al-Dīn Gand̲j̲-i S̲h̲akkar at Pākpat́t́an [q.vv.] (D. Gilmartin, Shrines, succession and sources of moral authority in the Punjab, in Pakistan. The social sciences’ perspective, ed. A.S. Ahmed, Karachi 1990, 146-64). Some Ṣūfīs, e.g. the čis̲h̲tī leader Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī Imdād Allāh (d. 1899), fought against the British during the 1857-8 uprising, and groups such as the Ḥurr (followers of the Pīr Pagārō in Sind) continued resistance up to 1947 (H.T. Lambrick, The terrorist, London 1970). But colonial policy reinforced the position of many hereditary sad̲j̲d̲j̲āda-nis̲h̲īn s as rural landlords and notables, particularly in the Pand̲j̲āb. The process of legal regulation and dispute resolution of Ṣūfī shrines has continued in post-colonial India and Pakistan (S.K. Rashid, Wakf administration in India, New Delhi 1978).

There is considerable proto-anthropological material on Ṣūfī saints and shrines compiled by colonial officials in the Indian district gazetteers and surveys of the “castes and tribes” variety, often drawn from local oral tradition; most of these accounts regard Indian Ṣūfī practice as a Hinduised deviation from a supposedly pristine Islam (T.W. Arnold, art. Saints and martyrs, Muhammadan, in India, in ERE, xi, 68-73). Some Hindu scholars went so far as to interpret Ṣūfism in terms of Vedanta (L. Ramakrishna, Panjabi Sufi poets, London 1938). Politically-oriented studies of Ṣūfī saints and orders have focussed upon their relationship with the colonial government (Sarah Ansari, Sufi saints and state power. The Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947, Cambridge 1992) and the Pakistan movement (D. Gilmartin, Empire and Islam. Punjab and the making of Pakistan, Berkeley 1988). There is an increasing body of anthropological literature on Ṣūfī practice in Pakistan and India, both on the part of government officials (Census of India, Beliefs and practices associated with Muslim pirs in two cities of India [ Delhi and Lucknow ], New Delhi 1966) and Euro-American researchers (K.P. Ewing, Sufism and desire in Pakistan, Durham 1997).

Post-colonial governments in Pakistan, under the impulse of modern nationalism, have promoted publications that focus on Ṣūfī literature (especially poetry in local languages) as the manifestation of national identity. The Folk Heritage Institute in Islamabad (Lōk Wirt̲h̲a) publishes a “Sufi Poets Series” consisting of editions and Urdu translations of prominent Ṣūfīs who wrote poetry in the regional languages of Pakistan (Pas̲h̲tō, Pand̲j̲ābī, Balōčī, Brāhuī, Hindkō, Sindhī). The Department of Charitable Trusts (Maḥkama-i Awḳāf), which controls the revenue of major shrines, publishes officially sanctioned biographies of Ṣūfī saints in Urdu that accord with the Islamic “Pakistan ideology,” and high-ranking provincial and national officials regularly preside at the ʿurs anniversaries of Ṣūfī saints (Ewing, The politics of Sufism: redefining the saints of Pakistan, in Journal of Asian Studies, lii [1983], 251-68). Hagiographies organised along provincial or all-Pakistan lines also receive official sponsorship. The Government of India, in contrast, sponsors literature and films that identify Ṣūfīs as “secular nationalists” having more in common with Hindu bhaktī than with Islam (M. Jotwani, Sufis of Sindh, New Delhi 1986).

Although British historians largely ignored Ṣūfī writings, the post-colonial era has seen the growth of new scholarship in South Asia, initially at Aligarh Muslim University, focused on the history and literature of Ṣūfism of the “medieval” period. The studies of the Čis̲h̲tī order by K.A. Nizami have demonstrated how it is possible to follow the continuities in a silsila through the oral discourses (malfūẓāt) and letters (maktūbāt) that continued to be written in Persian up to the 20th century (Nizami, Tārīk̲h̲-i mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲-i Čis̲h̲t, Delhi 1953; see also C. Ernst and B. Lawrence, Burnt hearts. The Chishti Sufi order, London 1998). Biographical and historical studies of particular Ṣūfī saints and orders have been written in the history departments of South Asian universities, while Persian and occasionally Arabic text editions of Ṣūfī writings have been produced in language and literature departments. Particularly prized Persian writings by famous s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s of the Čis̲h̲tī and Naḳs̲h̲bandī orders have been printed for devotional use in Pakistan as recently as the 1960s. “Classical” Ṣūfī works in Arabic and Persian, from the 13th up to the 19th centuries, are widely available for popular use through modern Urdu translations in India and Pakistan, and occasionally in other languages as well. The vast majority of South Asian Ṣūfī texts in Persian still remains in manuscript, however (for a comprehensive list, see Aḥmad Munzawī, Fihrist-i mus̲h̲tarak-i nusk̲h̲ahā-yi k̲h̲aṭṭī-yi Fārsī-i Pākistān, Islamabad 1984-, esp. vols, iii [ ʿIrfān ] and xi [ Zindagīnāma-yi pīrān ]). Only rarely have contemporary Ṣūfī writings in Indian languages been translated (C. Shackle (tr.), The teachings of Khwaja Farid, Multan 1978; idem (tr.), Fifty poems of Khwaja Farid, Multan 1983).

ii. Ṣūfism and modern ideologies.

Ṣūfī pīrs of the 20th century, despite their entrenched positions as landholders in the colonial system, were crucial to the support of the Pakistan nationalist movement because of their large followings, and Ṣūfī leaders have generally found nationalism to be a congenial doctrine. But the ideological proponents of modernism and Islamic fundamentalism have both seen Ṣūfism as a major opponent. Modernists like Iḳbāl , in a critique similar to that of Orientalists, denounced institutional Ṣūfism for fatalism, passivity, and a false notion of the absorption of humanity in unity with God. Although Iḳbāl’s writings invoke Ṣūfī figures such as Ḥallād̲j̲ and Rūmī [q.vv.], his concepts of terms such as k̲h̲udī and ʿis̲h̲ḳ owe as much to Bergson and Nietzsche. Secularised intellectuals and Muslim modernists alike saw Ṣūfī practice as mediaeval superstition and as a drug that stupefies the masses. Ṣūfī apologists have responded to this criticism by appropriating the rhetoric of science and announcing that Ṣūfism attains the goal of truth that science can only dream of (Wāḥid Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ Siyāl, Mus̲h̲āhada-i ḥaḳḳ : islāmī rūḥānī sāʾins [ science ], Karachi 1974).

Fundamentalists (echoing Orientalists and colonial officials) criticised Ṣūfism as Hindu-influenced idolatry of human beings, amounting to abandonment of “pure” Islam. Reformers like Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī S̲h̲arīʿat Allāh (d. 1840), founder of the Farāʾiḍī movement in Bengal, and Sayyid Aḥmad Brēlwī (d. 1831 ) in the Pand̲j̲āb, were militantly opposed to certain forms of Ṣūfism, S̲h̲īʿism. and local adaptations of Islam; for this reason, the British regarded them as “Wahhābīs,” although some reformers were trained in Ṣūfī orders. Abu ’l-ʿAlāʾ Mawdūdī (d. 1979), founder of the fundamentalist D̲j̲amāʿat-i Islāmī, rejected Ṣūfī practice despite his upbringing in a Čis̲h̲tī family, though his authoritarian leadership style has been interpreted as an extension of the master-disciple relationship (S.V. Nasr, Mawdudi and the making of Islamic revivalism, Oxford 1996). Defenders of Ṣūfism argue that Ṣūfism is the spiritual essence of Islam, and at the same time they refute earlier Orientalist theories of the non-Islamic origins of Ṣūfism (W.B. Sial Rabbani, Islamic Sufism. The science of flight in God, with God, by God, and union and communion with God, also showing the tremendous Sufi influence on Christian and Hindu mystics and mysticism, Lahore 1984). Naḳs̲h̲bandī groups concerned about Islamisation have apparently de-emphasised meditation practices (the laṭāʾif) but have redefined discipleship as a basic Islamic religious duty (A. Buehler, Masters of the heart. Naqshbandi Sufism in colonial India, Columbia, S.C. 1997).

The debate over Ṣūfī doctrine and practice in South Asia has crystallised around two North Indian madrasas founded in the colonial period, the ḥadīt̲h̲-oriented Deoband school and the devotional Barēlwī school. Although the founders of Deoband were largely drawn from the Ṣābirī branch of the Čis̲h̲tiyya, they rejected practices such as samāʿ , and ziyārat as well as excessive veneration of the Prophet or Ṣūfī masters (Barbara Metcalf, Islamic revival in British India. Deoband, 1860-1900, Princeton 1982). The Barēlwīs, followers of Sayyid Aḥmad Riḍā K̲h̲ān (d. 1921) of Ray Bareilly, emphasise the necessity of intercession by the Prophet and, secondarily, the Ṣūfī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ; as in other Muslim regions, the issue of saintly mediation has thus become highly controversial (U. Sanyal, Devotional Islam and politics in British India. Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and his movement, 1870-1920, Oxford 1996). Pietistic missionary groups such as the Tablīg̲h̲ī D̲j̲amāʿat founded by Muḥammad Ilyās (d. 1944) have appropriated the ethical emphasis of Ṣūfism while rejecting ritual, metaphysics, and sainthood (M.A. Haq, The faith movement of Mawlana Muhammad Ilyas, London 1972). Polemics and apologetics from these different perspectives dominate modern discussions of Ṣūfism in Urdu and in English.

iii. Ṣūfism in print.

Probably the greatest social transformation in modern Ṣūfism derives from the introduction of print to South Asia early in the 19th century, principally in the form of calligraphed lithography (movable Arabic type was preferred by the British). As in other regions, Ṣūfī orders were among the first to make use of the new technology to distribute teachings of contemporary teachers and to preserve the classical texts of the past. The revolution entailed by printing Ṣūfī texts lay in the possibility of mass distribution of inexpensive books to the middle-class public, in place of the restricted access to manuscripts and oral teachings among a privileged few. Printing of Ṣūfī texts in India was carried out principally in the northern cities of Dihlī, Kānpūr, and Lak’hnaw, often at presses (such as Nawāl Kis̲h̲ōr in Lak’hnaw) run by Hindu muns̲h̲ī s. The number of Persian texts printed in India in the 19th century was considerably higher than the total printed in Persia or Central Asia. Leaders of Ṣūfī orders such as the Čis̲h̲tiyya, Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya, Ḳādiriyya and Suhrawardiyya orders [q.vv.] commissioned publication of both early and contemporary Ṣūfī texts, initially in Persian but increasingly in Urdu translation (C. Ernst, The study of Sufism in Pakistan, unpubl. paper for American Institute for Pakistan Studies Workshop, 1996). Their publications included periodicals, and s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s like the Naḳs̲h̲bandī leader D̲j̲amāʿat ʿAlī S̲h̲āh (d. 1951) sometimes required their disciples to subscribe (Buehler). Some Ṣūfīs (the Čis̲h̲tī leaders D̲h̲awḳī S̲h̲āh, d. 1951, and Ḥasan Niẓāmī, d. 1955) were trained in modern universities and made use of the press and European literary genres such as the novel to communicate their insights in Urdu and English to wider audiences.

Beyond the Gangetic basin, the Pand̲j̲āb, and the Urdu-speaking centres of the Deccan (U. K̲h̲ālidī and M. ʿAḳīl, Dakan kā ʿahd-i islāmī, 1300 tā 1950, ēk bunyādī kitābiyyāt, Watertown, Mass. 1993, 58-65), very little scholarly work has been done on Ṣūfī activities in the modern period, such as the transmission of Ṣūfī orders from Kerala [see mappila ] to Ceylon in the 19th century. While Urdu has been an important medium for disseminating the full range of Ṣūfī literature, Indian languages that employ non-Arabic scripts (Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam) have also been used for Ṣūfī publications. In the Tamil country, tombs like that of S̲h̲āh al-Ḥamīd (d. 1558) at Nagore are still centres of pilgrimage for Muslims, Hindus, and Christians, and hagiographies in Tamil remain popular (V. Narayanan, The Zamzam in Nagore: worshipping Shahul Hamid in a Tamil landscape, unpubl. paper). The Māʾid̲j̲bhandārī Ṣūfī order, founded in Chittagong by Sayyid Aḥmad Allāh (1826-1906) with links to the Ḳādiriyya, has engaged in extensive proselytisation and publication of biographies and songs in Bengali, with support from the ruling circles of contemporary Bangladesh (M.A. Latif, letter of 1992). The tantric bards known as the Bāuls gained cultural respectability after the 1920s when Rabindranath Tagore popularised the Bengali songs of Lālan Fakir (d. 1890); despite their religious ambiguity, the presence of Ṣūfī symbolism in their writings is unmistakeable (C. Solomon, Bāul songs, in D. Lopez, (ed.), The religions of India in practice, Princeton 1996, 187-208).

iv. The internationalisation of South Asian Ṣūfism.

Devotion to Indian Ṣūfī saints spread to the Malay peninsula, South Africa and the Caribbean in the 19th century as the British exported indentured laborers to those regions from India. In the 20th century, Europeans were exposed to visiting Indian Ṣūfī teachers such as ʿInāyat K̲h̲ān (d. 1927), who was trained as a Čis̲h̲tī but presented Ṣūfism as a universal religion detached from normative Islam. His teachings have been perpetuated by Americans (Rabiʿa Martin, Samuel Lewis) as well as family members (Pir Vilayat Khan) in Europe and America. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (d. 1986), a Tamil Ṣūfī from Sri Lanka, acquired a significant following (both Muslim and non-Muslim) after moving to the U.S.A. in 1971, and his tomb outside Philadelphia has now become a place of pilgrimage. South Asian Muslim immigrants and students in England, Canada, and the U.S.A. have established branches of the Čis̲h̲tiyya and the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya in their new homes along traditional lines. European and American converts to Islam have also joined South Asian Ṣūfī orders; the principal k̲h̲alīfa of D̲h̲awḳī S̲h̲āh in Pakistan was S̲h̲ahīd Allāh Farīdī (d. 1978), an Englishman formerly named Lennard, whose Urdu writings have been published in Karachi. The principal ideological change for Ṣūfism in the modern period is the option of Ṣūfism without Islam, something barely conceivable before the 20th century. This new possibility is partly the result of the efforts of Western scholars and fundamentalists, both of whom regard Ṣūfism as separate from “pure” Islam, but it is partly the natural effect of ecumenism and the modern search for spirituality. Ṣūfī groups in Europe and America also give a much more prominent and public role to women than was previously customary in South Asia. Cultural products of Ṣūfism have attained great popularity in the West, from not only the Middle East (the Whirling Dervishes and Rūmī’s poetry) but also South Asia (ḳawwālī music by the Sabri Brothers and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan). At the end of the 20th century, South Asian Ṣūfism has found large new audiences through electronic communications on an international scale.

Bibliography

Given in the article.

(C. Ernst)

8. In Chinese Islam.

It is likely that the Muslims from the Middle East or Central Asia, drawn to China in the 13th-14th centuries by the Mongol emperors of the Yuan dynasty, brought with them Ṣūfī practices. But this is only a supposition since, in our present state of knowledge, we know nothing about the religious life of the Muslims of China before their complete sinicisation. We have to wait till the middle of the 17th century and the upheavals which mark the end of the native Ming dynasty and its replacement by the Manchu dynasty of the Chʾing (or Qing) in order to find a specifically Islamic Chinese literature, which from then onwards is rich, mature and self-assured.

i. Literary Ṣūfism.

As a general rule, the great Muslim thinkers of the 17th-19th centuries adopted a uniform approach. They give an exposition for their coreligionists and compatriots, in Chinese, of the complete foundations of the faith, beginning with a sacred history which places the mystical and ancient past of China within the continuity of the enfolding of Biblical history. They continue with a dogmatic system of morality set out in Confucian terms and with the believer’s obligations set forth in a clear language which is quasi-vernacular. Finally, they set forth a mysticism which is undeniably Ṣūfī.

If speculative theology shows itself as being consistent from the time of the first works composed, sc. the time of those of Wang Tai-yü (Wang Daiyu, ca. 1580-1658?), published between 1642 and 1657, this theology nevertheless evolves from one author to another over the course of the two succeeding centuries whilst remaining, so far as it seems, not rooted in any particular time and with no sectarian links. In order to acquire prestige, this theology often claims to stem from the translation of some Arabic or Persian work. Sometimes such originals are imaginary; but even when these actually exist and are as famed as the Mirṣād al-ʿibād of Nad̲j̲m al-Dīn Rāzī Dāya or the Lawāʾiḥ of D̲j̲āmī , works which were highly valued in Chinese Islam, the alleged translation implies a total re-writing and remodelling in order to translate the philosophical notions and concepts of Ṣūfism into an acceptable Chinese mode of thought. From this, an original literature has resulted, one unknown to Islamic specialists for want of being studied by Sinologists.

The great Chinese ʿulamāʾ were actually forced to use as best they could the lexicographic and conceptual material at their disposal—Neo-Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist. The believer’s journey towards “absorption” with the divine (ho-hui, ho-chʾi), which is a “return to origins” (kuei-pen, fan-pen, hai-yüan) is made, they explain, by “transformation” (hun-hua) through attaining the “Perfect Way” (chih-tao) or “Vehicle of the Truth” (chen-chʾeng, i.e. ḥaḳīḳa)— tao being the basic concept of Taoism and chʾeng that of Buddhism. The postulant seeking illumination has first of all followed, at a lower level, the “Usual Way” (chʾang-tao) or the “Vehicle of the Rites” (li-chʾeng) or “Vehicle for Religion” (chiao-chʾeng, i.e. the S̲h̲arīʿa) in order to understand the letter of the “Five meritorious acts” (wu-kung, i.e. al-arkān al-k̲h̲amsa); then he follows the “Middle way” (chung-tao) or “Vehicle of the Way” (tao-chʾeng or ṭarīḳa) which allows him to discover the spirit of the five meritorious acts, all this under the direction of a “Head of the Way” (tao-chang or s̲h̲ayk̲h̲), a “Ship of compassion on the sea of illusions”, according to the Buddhist formula normally applied to Kuan-yin, the Chinese avatar of Avalokiteçvara. The journey of the believer is comparable to the search for “personal perfection” (hsiu-shen) recommended by Confucius and Mencius and set in the centre of the Neo-Confucian ethics of the 16th-17th centuries. For “he who knows himself knows his God” (jen-chi jen-chu). As a 19th-century author, Ma Kʾai-kʾo (Ma Kaike), from Yunnan, sets forth, by following the way of gradual attainment of perfection, the believer “acts as in Confucianism, but progresses to a supplementary degree” (Ta-hua tsungkuei “The general return [to God] of the great transformations”, 1865, ed. Peking 1922-3, ii, 46). This supplementary degree is attained thanks to the ascetic practice of the thirty “levels” (pʾin, the “stations”, maḳāmāt), described in detail by the Chen-kung fa-wei “The secret unveiled of truly meritorious acts” (whose author and date are problematical: the end of the 17th or the end of the 18th century ?).

In the thread of written discourse, the Arabic terms—or more exactly, Arabo-Persian ones, since the influence of the great religious centres of Central Asia was strongly felt in Chinese Islam—are not only translated but also transliterated phonetically, so far as the Chinese characters allow. Thus d̲h̲ikr is written phonetically as chʾi-kʾe-erh, and the s̲h̲ahāda is written and recited as lio-i-lio-he-ying-lan (= lā [ ilāh ] illā ’llāh) and, at the end of the formula, Mu-han-me-te-laliu-lun (= Muḥammad rasūl [ Allāh ]). Since Chinese Muslims pronounce Arabic in a manner much deformed by Chinese phonetics, it is not surprising that, as pilgrims to Mecca, they have been looked down upon by Arabic-speakers and have had the reputation of following a bastardised form of religion. However, their literature proves that this is not the case: the use of a terminology and a juggling with images borrowed from Chinese culture has not resulted in a degenerate syncretism. The message, the Ṣūfī one in particular, has remained distinctively Muslim. According to a Chinese historian of world religions (Li Xinhua, 1983, 76), Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya adherents are said to be recognisable by their preference for Neo-Confucian thought, whilst the partisans of the Ḳādiriyya are said to incline towards a choice of Taoist and Buddhist terms; but this is, for the moment, merely a working hypothesis.

The fate of the works of literary Islam, so strongly marked by Ṣūfism, is curious. Those which emanate from the most prestigious thinkers—foremost amongst which is the Nanking scholar Liu Chih (Liu Zhi, ca. 1662-70 to ca. 1730-6), whom one of his 19th-century admirers, Ma Lien-yüan, considered as the Chinese Ibn al-ʿArabī—have been constantly republished up to the present time, and in the most varied circumstances: in the midst of civil war in the 19th century, on the occasion of the modernist movement of the 1920s and in the period of relaxation and re-Islamisation of the post-Maoist years, and in Taiwan. They symbolise a feeling of identification amongst the community, even—and above all—for adherents of the Ik̲h̲wān movement, close to the government in the Republican period as also in the Communist period. In former times published by the mosques and spread by them alone (at the present time, in continental China, in rivalry with the institutes of Islamic studies), they were accessible to all the faithful of the mosque who were sufficiently literate. Also, the fact that in 1993 the most typical work and the one most appreciated by believers, “The Arabian philosophy”, Tʾien-fang hsing-li of Liu Chih (ca. 1704), has been “translated” into the spoken language, shows a continuance of interest in speculative Islamic literature.

ii. The Ṣūfism of the brotherhoods.

In China, the popular Ṣūfism of the brotherhoods has its historical bases in the northwestern part of the country, where the intercontinental trade route which we call the “Silk Road” comes out. The late Joseph Fletcher (1934-84) showed in a magisterial way how this Ṣūfism was connected with the movements of worldwide Ṣūfism and attached itself to various silsilas of the Middle East and Central Asia. From the 15th century onwards, Naḳs̲h̲bandī activists from the Alti̊s̲h̲ahr or “Six cities” of the Tarim basin (in the southern part of modern Sinkiang), themselves shaped by the Naḳs̲h̲bandīs of Transoxania, came to preach in the western part of China; and, in the same way, in the second half of the 17th century, the grandson of Mak̲h̲dūm-i Aʿẓam (the ancestor of the K̲h̲od̲j̲as of the Alti̊s̲h̲ahr [see k̲h̲od̲j̲as in Suppl.]), Muḥammad Yūsuf, and also, above all, the latter’s son, Hidāyat Allāh, called K̲h̲ōd̲j̲a Āfāḳ (d. 1694), the founder of the Āfāḳiyya spiritual lineage. At the end of the 17th century, three Chinese spiritual lineages, the best known of which was to become that of Ma Lai-chʾih (1673-1753) at the head of the “Flowery Mosque”, Hua-ssu, claimed descent from K̲h̲od̲j̲a Āfāḳ and, through him, from the Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya. The founder of the oldest known Chinese ṭarīḳa, a Ḳādirī one, Chʾi Ching-i (1656-1719), was equally influenced by him.

In the second half of the 18th century, the propagator of the Naḳs̲h̲bandī revival, who had been trained in Yemen and advocated a strict enforcement of the S̲h̲arīʿa and the abandonment of the cult of sacred tombs, Ma Ming-hsin (1719-81 ), founded an indigenous ṭarīḳa called the D̲j̲ahriyya (Che-he-linyeh) with d̲h̲ikr uttered out loud. This was called by outside observers the “New Religion”, Hsin-chiao, in contrast to the earlier movements derived from the Āfāḳiyya, called K̲h̲ufiyya (Hu-fei-yeh) with d̲h̲ikr formed within the mind only, or, seen from the outside, the “Old Religion” (Lao-chiao). (It should be noted that, in the 19th-20th centuries, the New/Old Religion dichotomy embraced a set of realities which varied according to circumstances.) It was from the rivalry between these two Naḳs̲h̲bandī trends of thought that there resulted, on several occasions, the bloody troubles which culminated in the putting to death of Ma Ming-hsin in 1781 and the execution in 1871 of his fifth successor, Ma Hua-lung (1810-71 ), together with the depopulation of whole Muslim regions of Shensi, Ningsia and Yunnan [q.vv.] by the Chinese imperial armies which exterminated or deported masses of population. From the last quarter of the 19th century onwards, the centres of authority of the Ṣūfī brotherhoods were brought together within a restricted area, in comparison with the immense size of China, one not more than 350 km/220 miles from north to south between the 35th and 38th parallels and 500 km/310 miles from east to west between Kansu, Ningsia and west of the Chʾinghai. Nevertheless, from this time onwards, they swarmed forth across the whole of China, in the wake of commercial enterprises which were linked with missionary work.

The ṭuruḳ introduced into China—the Ḳādiriyya, Naḳs̲h̲bandiyya in their various forms, and Kubrawiyya—after the second or third generation of spiritual masters, split into small groups called men-huan: a men-huan is at one and the same time the hereditary line of a s̲h̲ayk̲h̲, the group of faithful under the domination and authority of that line, the considerable ensemble of goods and lands owned by it, worked and protected for it by the faithful, and finally, the holy places which bear its charisma. The men-huan re-appeared after the Cultural Revolution. A D̲j̲ahrī master of the eighth generation, Ma Tʾeng-ai, was from 1980 till his death in 1991 the deputy-governor of Ningsia and manager of a commercial house trading with the Near East. But in the 1990s, the survival of the men-huan is threatened as much by the fundamentalism of the Ik̲h̲wān. which is becoming more and more powerful, as by the course of rivalries within the men-huan themselves.

Bibliography

(to be completed by the bibls. in Fletcher 1986, Aubin 1990 and Gladney 1991 and 1996): Ono Shinobu, Chûgoku ni okeru Kaikyô kyôdan, in Tôâ ronsô, vi (1948), 78-89

Saguchi Tôru, Chûgoku Isuramu no shinpishugi,, in Tôhôgaku, ix (1954), 75-94

Tazaka Kôdô, Chûgoku ni okeru Kaikyô no denrai to sono gutsû, 2 vols., Tokyo 1964

Mian Wei-lin (Mien Wei-lin), Ning-hsia I-ssu-lan chiao-pʾ ai kai-yao, Yinchʾuan 1981

D.D. Leslie, Islamic literature in Chinese. Late Ming and early Chʾing, Canberra 1981

idem and M. Wassel, Arabic and Persian sources used by Liu Chih, in CAJ, xxvi (1982), 78-104

Li Xinhua (Li Hsinhua), Ming-Chʾing-chih-chi wo-kuo Hui-tsu teng tsu I-ssu-lan-chiao hsin-tʾe-tien to hsin-chʾeng, in Shih-chiai tsung-chiao yen-chiu, 1983 no. 1, 66-77

Ma Tong (Ma Tʾung), Chung-kuo I-ssu-lan chiao-pʾai yü men-huan chihtu shih-lüeh, Yin-chʾuan 1983

Jin Yijiu (Chin I-chiu), Su-fei-pʾai yü han-wen I-ssu-lan-chiao chu-shu, in Shihchiai tsung-chiao yen-chiu, 1983 no. 2, 100-9

idem, The system of men-huan in China. An influence of Sufism on Chinese Muslims, in Ming Studies, xix (1984), 34-45

Ma Tong, Chung-kuo I-ssu-lan chiao-pʾai men-huan su-yüan, Yin-chʾuan 1986

J.F. Fletcher, Les “Voies” (ṭuruq) soufies en Chine, in A. Popovic et alii (eds.), Les ordres mystiques dans l’Islam. Cheminements et situation actuelle, Paris 1986, 13-26

Françoise Aubin, En Islam chinois: quels Naqshbandis?, in M. Gaborieau et alii (eds.), Naqshbandis. Cheminements et situation actuelle d’un ordre mystique musulman, Istanbul 1990, 491-572

D.C. Gladney, Muslim Chinese. Ethnie nationalism in the People’s Republic, Cambridge, Mass. 1991, repr. 1996

Suʿād al-Waḥīdī (Sou’ad Wheidi), al-Falsafa al-islāmiyya fi ’l-Ṣīn. Waḥdat al-wud̲j̲ūd wa-naẓariyyat al-insān al-kāmil ʿind Līw Ts̲h̲ī [Liu Chih], in Etudes orientales, nos. 13-14 (1994), 72-111 of the Arabic section

Fletcher, The Sufi “Paths” (ṭuruq) in China, in ibid., 55-69

idem, Studies on Chinese and Islamic Inner Asia, Variorum, Aldershot 1995

Aubin, Les ordres mystiques dans la Chine, in A. Popovic et alii (eds.), Les Voies d’Allāh. Les ordres mystiques dans le monde musulman des origines à aujourd’hui, Paris 1996, 262-7. See also kansu

ma hua-lung

ma ming-hsin

panthay

al-ṣīn.

(Françoise Aubin)

9. In Africa south of the Mag̲h̲rib during the 19th and 20th centuries.

For the sake of convenience, Ṣūfism will be examined here under the following headings: (i) doctrinal developments, (ii) missionary Ṣūfism, (iii) Ṣūfī involvement in the political sphere, and (iv) opposition to Ṣūfism.

i. Doctrinal developments.

Two major trends are discernible, not mutually exclusive. Chodkiewicz has pointed out the pervasive influence of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings in the 19th century, amounting to an “Akbarian” revival, and this is as true in Africa as elsewhere. Whether by direct reading of al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya or filtered through secondary sources of Akbarian ideas, such as the writings of ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-S̲h̲aʿrānī (d. 963/1565) and ʿAbd al-G̲h̲anī al-Nābulusī (d. 1143/1731) [q.vv.], the ideas of Ibn al-ʿArabī have been diffused in many parts of Africa. This influence is particularly evident in the teachings of Aḥmad al-Tid̲j̲ānī and his major West African disciple al-Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲. ʿUmar b. Saʿīd (d. 1864). But it is also evident in the writings of such diverse figures as ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-D̲j̲azāʾirī, Māʾ al-ʿAynayn al-Ḳalḳarmī, Muḥammad Aḥmad the Mahdī of the Sudan, Aḥmad al-ʿAlawī al-Darḳāwī, and ʿAbd al-Salām al-Fītūrī, founder of the Libyan ʿArūsiyya.

Familiarity with Ibn al-ʿArabī’s thought is also to be found in Aḥmad b. Idrīs, though he is more typically representative of the second trend, that is, the ṭarīḳa Muḥammadiyya, which stresses imitation of the Prophet in word and deed and seeing him in a waking state. His anti-mad̲h̲habist teachings, which advocate individual resort to Ḳurʾān and Sunna in matters of personal conduct, are reflected in the writings of one of the most important 19th-century Ṣūfī personalities in Africa, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Sanūsī . Al-Sanūsī quotes the definition of the ṭarīḳa Muḥammadiyya of Abu ’l-Baḳāʾ Ḥasan al-ʿUd̲j̲aymī (d. 1113/1702): “This Way is the inward immersion of the adept in the contemplation of Muḥammad’s person, whereby he imitates the Prophet in word and deed, occupies his tongue with pronouncing blessings upon him at all times, whether in retirement or when appearing in public, so that honouring the Prophet dominates his heart to such an extent and penetrates his interior so deeply that when he merely hears the Prophet’s name, he begins to shake, his heart is overwhelmed beholding him, and the physical appearance of the Prophet manifests itself before the eye of his inner vision” (al-Manhal al-rawī, in al-Mad̲j̲mūʿa al-muk̲h̲tāra, Beirut 1968, 49-50, tr. B. Radtke in his Ijtihād and Neo-Sufism, 915). An important influence on Aḥmad b. Idrīs and his school was the teaching of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Dabbāg̲h̲ (said to be inspired directly by al-K̲h̲aḍir) as reported in the K. al-Ibrīz of Aḥmad b. al-Mubārak al-Lamaṭī; it was also extensively quoted in the Tid̲j̲ānī manual Rimāḥ ḥizb al-raḥīm of al-Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲. ʿUmar.

A third trend, quite unrelated to the two previous ones, may also be noted: that is, the increased incorporation into certain “popular” Ṣūfī orders, such as the ʿĪsāwiyya and Ḥamāds̲h̲a of Morocco, of rituals of blood sacrifice, spirit exorcism and trance, at least partly under the influence of freed slaves of West African origin. Another manifestation of the amalgamation of Ṣūfism and African spirit cults is to be observed in phenomena such as the “dīwāns of Sīdī Bilāl” of Algeria, the rituals of the Gnāwa of Morocco, the Stambali of Tunisia and the Ṭumbura of the Sudan (also found among African slaves in Mecca, according to C. Snouck Hurgronje, Mecca in the latter part of the 19th century, Leiden 1931, 11-12).

ii. Missionary Ṣūfism.

In the course of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, Ṣūfī teachings were disseminated over wide areas of the continent through the activities of certain brotherhoods, and in many cases they were’ the conduit for conversion to Islam. The Tid̲j̲āniyya gained a considerable number of adherents in Morocco and Algeria, and zāwiyas were established in Egypt and the Sudan. But it is in Mauritania and West Africa that its spread has been most noteworthy. In southern Mauritania it was taken up by the Idaw ʿAlī under the influence of Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ (d. 1247/ 1830), and from there it spread into Senegal and Guinea. Al-Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ ʿUmar b. Saʿīd (d. 1865 ), was made a k̲h̲alīfa of the order by Muḥammad al-G̲h̲ālī and subsequently initiated a d̲j̲ihād in Guinea and Mali which led to conversion to Islam and a short-lived Tid̲j̲ānī “empire”. His nephew, Muḥammad al-Hās̲h̲imī b. Aḥmad b. Saʿīd, known as Alfa Hās̲h̲im (d. 1349/ 1931), fled French colonialism and established a base in the Ḥid̲j̲āz, which catered to African Tid̲j̲ānīs, but also, because of its location in the lands of pilgrimage, led to the propagation of the Tid̲j̲āniyya among Muslims from other areas of the world (e.g. Indonesia, ʿIrāḳ and the Balkans). In the 20th century, the chief African propagandist for the order has been the Senegalese s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ibrāhīm Niasse (d. 1975), who has made the Tid̲j̲āniyya an order of mass participation, not only in Senegal but also in northern Nigeria and Ghana. His teachings, which emphasise spiritual tutelage (tarbiya), have also found favour in Mauritania, Chad and the western Sudan.

Brotherhoods based on the teachings of Aḥmad b. Idrīs have also spread far and wide. The Sanūsiyya established a network of zāwiyas in eastern Libya and throughout Chad to as far as Kano in northern Nigeria. The K̲h̲atmiyya, founded by Muḥammad ʿUt̲h̲mān al-Mīrg̲h̲anī (d. 1268/1852), a Meccan who went to the Sudan to propagate the teachings of Aḥmad b. Idrīs, gained many adherents in the Sudan and Eritrea [see mīrg̲h̲aniyya ]. Another Idrīsian brotherhood, the Ras̲h̲īdiyya-Ṣāliḥiyya, was also successful in the Sudan, and in Somalia, where it was propagated by the anti-colonial leader Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh Ḥassān .

Older brotherhoods also enjoyed increased influence in the 19th century and were agents for conversion to Islam. The Ḳādiriyya enjoyed considerable success in West Africa through its Muk̲h̲tāriyya branch deriving from the Kunta scholars [see kunta ] of the late 18th and 19th centuries. Disciples of the Kunta s̲h̲ayk̲h̲s carried their teachings to the savannah and forests, and were proselytisers for the faith. S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿUt̲h̲mān b. Muḥammad Fodiye , the Fulani mud̲j̲āhid (d. 1232/1817), traces one of his ṭarīḳa lines through the Kunta silsila. Through S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿUt̲h̲mān, the Ḳādiriyya became the quasi-official ṭarīḳa of the state he founded in northern Nigeria, and through his d̲j̲ihād many were converted to Islam. Aḥmad Lobbo (also known as Seku Aḥmadu, d. 1260/1844), the Fulani mud̲j̲āhid of Masina (Mali), also had a Ṣūfī affiliation to the Ḳādiriyya-Muk̲h̲tāriyya. In Senegal, Aḥmad Bamba (d. 1927) founded an entirely new order derived from the Ḳādiriyya, the Murīdiyya , which, by preaching a doctrine of laborare est orare, has played an important role in developing agriculture, and with its economic success has come powerful national political influence. There has also been a Ḳādiriyya revival in Nigeria in recent years led by Muḥammad al-Nāṣir b. Muḥammad al-Muk̲h̲tār al-Kabarī of Kano (locally known as Nasiru Kabara, d. 1996). Sometimes Ṣūfī brotherhoods have been agents of “reconversion”—the diffusion among rural or nomadic Muslims of normative urban Islam; such was the case with the Ḳādiriyya-ʿUt̲h̲māniyya in Nigeria, the Sanūsiyya in Libya and Chad, and the Mad̲j̲d̲h̲ūbiyya-S̲h̲ād̲h̲iliyya in the eastern Sudan. Many Ṣūfīs of sub-Saharan Africa were also scholars of fiḳh, notably the Kano Tid̲j̲ānīs of the Ṣalg̲h̲a tradition.

iii. Ṣūfī involvement in the political sphere.

In addition to what has been noted above, Ṣūfī movements worked, on the one hand, to resist colonial penetration, and on the other, at least in some cases, to establish a working relationship with colonial régimes. Some of the more striking examples of Ṣūfī involvement in armed struggle in opposition to colonialism are as follows: resistance to French penetration of Algeria led by the Ḳādirī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-D̲j̲azāʾirī; resistance to Italian penetration of Chad by the French and later Libya by the Italians, spearheaded by the Sanūsiyya brotherhood; resistance to French penetration of Mauritania led by the Ḳādirī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Māʾ al-ʿAynayn (who founded a new branch the ʿAyniyya); and resistance to British colonialism in Somalia from 1900 to 1920 led by Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh Ḥassan. During the colonial period, relationships between brotherhoods and colonial régimes were in some cases good, even close, while in others they were cold or downright hostile. In North Africa, the Tid̲j̲ānī leaders were on amicable terms with the French, as was in Senegal Seydou Nourou Tall, who became a virtual mouthpiece of the French colonial order in West Africa. On the other hand, the Ḥamālliyya Tid̲j̲ānīs were fiercely opposed to the French, while the Tid̲j̲āniyya leadership of Kano was under constant British surveillance. The French exiled both Ḥamallāh and the Murīdiyya leader Aḥmad Bamba. In the Sudan, the K̲h̲atmiyya under Sayyid ʿAlī al-Mīrg̲h̲anī developed its own political party, the National Unionist Party (ḥizb al-ittiḥād al-waṭanī) in opposition to the Umma Party of Sayyid ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Mahdī, who organised his Anṣār along ṭarīḳa lines. In Tanzania, the Ḳādiriyya brotherhood has played a significant role in national politics since independence.

iv. Opposition to Ṣūfism.

The most vigorous opposition to Ṣūfism in Africa has been that directed against the Tid̲j̲āniyya brotherhood. Attacks were directed against Aḥmad al-Tid̲j̲ānī’s claims that he had received direct authorisation for his teachings from the Prophet Muḥammad, that he was the ḳuṭb al-aḳṭāb, that reciting certain Tid̲j̲ānī litanies (notably the ṣalāt al-fātiḥ) brought more merit than reciting the Ḳurʾān, and that those who see him or serve him would enter paradise without judgment. There has been a virtually constant stream of polemic in Mauritania since soon after the brotherhood reached there. An attack by the poet Idyayd̲j̲ al-Kumlaylī (d. 1854) was responded to by Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Ṣag̲h̲īr b. Nʾbūd̲j̲a in his al-Ḏj̲ays̲h̲ al-kafīl bi-ak̲h̲d̲h̲ al-t̲h̲aʾr mimman salla ʿalā ’l-s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Tid̲j̲ānī sayf al-inkār. This was then attacked by Muḥammad al-K̲h̲aḍir b. Māyābā (d. 1925), a Ḳādirī adept, in his Mus̲h̲tahā ’l-k̲h̲ārif al-d̲j̲ānī fī zalaḳāt al-Tid̲j̲ānī al-d̲j̲ānī, which was attacked by several scholars, most importantly by Muḥammad Niasse (d. 1959) in his al-D̲j̲uyūs̲h̲ al-ṭullaʿ bi ’l-murhafāt al-kuṭṭaʿ ilā Ibn Māyābā ak̲h̲ī ’l-tanaṭṭuʿ. In Nigeria in the 1970s and 1980s, both Tid̲j̲ānīs and Ḳādirīs came under attack in sweeping denunciations of Ṣūfism led by a neo-Wahhābī scholar Abū Bakr Gummi (d. 1994), whose al-ʿAḳīda al-ṣaḥīḥa bi-muwāfaḳat al-s̲h̲arīʿa (publ. Beirut 1392/1972) drew numerous responses. More specifically directed against the Tid̲j̲āniyya were the writings of an ex-Tid̲j̲ānī adept, Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir Mai Gari, whose attacks elicited rebuttals from two Mauritanian scholars as well as from Nigerian Tid̲j̲ānīs (see Arabic literature of Africa (ALA), ii, ch. 13, for an account of the Nigerian polemical literature).

(J.O. Hunwick)

Bibliography

ALA, i (for the Sudan down to 1900), ii (for Nigeria and Chad), within each of which volumes there is an abundant bibliography of both primary and secondary sources for the regions concerned)

E. Dermenghem, Le culte des saints dans l’Islam maghrébin, Paris 1954

Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, The Tijaniyya: a Sufi order in the modern world, Oxford 1965

J.S. Trimingham, The Sufi orders in Islam, Oxford 1971

A.H. Nimtz Jr., Islam and politics in East Africa: the Sufi order in Tanzania, Minneapolis ca. 1980

R.S. O’Fahey, Enigmatic saint: Aḥmad ibn Idris and the Idrisi tradition, London 1990

I.M. Lewis, Ahmad al-Safi and Sayyid Hurreiz (eds.), Women’s medicine: the zar-bori cult in Africa and beyond, London 1992 (see contributions of G.P. Makris and Ahmed al-Safi on Ṭumbura, and Sophie Ferchiou on Stambali)

Ali Salih Karrar, The Sufi brotherhoods in the Sudan, London 1992

O’Fahey and B. Radtke, Neo-Sufism reconsidered, in Isl, lxx (1993), 52-87

M. Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without shore: Ibn Arabi, the book and the law, Albany 1993

Radtke, Studies on the sources of the Kitāb Rimāḥ Ḥizb al-raḥīm of al-Ḥājj ʿUmar, in Sudanic Africa, vi (1995), 73-114

idem, Ijtihād and Neo-Sufism, in Asiatische Studien, xlviii/3 (1994), 910-21

K.S. Vikør, Sufi and scholar of the desert edge: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Sanūsī and his brotherhood, London 1995

A. Hofheinz, Internalising Islam. Shaykh Muḥammad Majdhūb, scriptural Islam and local context in the early nineteenth-century Sudan, Ph.D. diss., 2 vols. Univ. of Bergen 1996, unpubl. Further bibliography can be found in the article ṭarīḳa and articles cross-referenced above.

Cite this page

Massington, L., Radtke, B., Chittick, W.C., Jong, F. de., Lewisohn, L., Zarcone, Th., Ernst, C, Aubin, Françoise and J.O. Hunwick, “Taṣawwuf”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 10 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_1188>

Обсуждение:Суфизм

Содержание

Ссылки

2020

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / Taṣawwuf

Навигация

Обсуждение:Суфизм

Ссылки

2020

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / Taṣawwuf

Навигация

Поиск