Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, editor
Sanctity and Mysticism in
Medieval Egypt
The Wafå< Sufi Order and
The Legacy
of Ibn >Arab•
Richard J. A. McGregor
State University
of New York Press
Published by
State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2004 State University of New York All rights reserved
Printed in the United States
of America
No part of this book may be used or
reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other- wise without the prior permission
in writing of the publisher.
For information, address
State University of New York Press,
90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany,
NY 12207
Production by Marilyn P. Semerad Marketing by Jennifer
Giovani
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
McGregor, Richard J. A.
Sanctity and mysticism in medieval Egypt : the Wafāc Sufi order and the legacy of Ibn CArabī / Richard J.
A. McGregor.
p. cm.
Includes
bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7914-6011-8 (alk. paper)
1. Sufism—Egypt—History. 2. Wafā, Muḳammad, 1302 or 3-1363. 3. Ibn al-CArabī, 1165–1240. 4. Muslim
saints—Egypt—History. I. Title.
To Antoinette, Ginny, Liz, and baby Liz
Contents
List of Illustrations ix
Acknowledgments xi
Note on Transliteration xiii
Introduction 1
1.
Tirmidh•, Ibn >Arab•, and Others
on Sanctity 9
Tirmidh• on Walåya
Sahl
Tustar• on Walåya Lesser Treatments of Walåya Walåya and Sh•>ism
Ibn >Arab• and Walåya
2.
The Early
Shådhiliyya and Sanctity 27
Literature and History
of the Shådhiliyya Al-Shådhil•, Tirmidh•, and Ibn >Arab• The Early Figures of the Order
The Writings of Ibn Båkhilå Proximity
to the Divine The Levels of Walåya Sanctity and Prophecy
3.
The Wafå’iyya in Time
and Space 49
Arriving from the Maghreb Among the Elite of Cairo
4.
The Writings
of the Wafå’s 71
Poetry Supplications (du>å)
viii Contents
Jurisprudence (fiqh) and Exegesis (tafs•r)
Mystical Treatises (Muḳammad Wafā’) Mystical Treatises (CAlī Wafā’)
5.
Sanctity and Muḳammad Wafā’ 89
Absolute Being and Its Self-disclosure
The Preexistential and the Everlasting Spiritual Anthropology
Cosmology
The Teaching Shaykh
and Beyond
The Muḳammadan Reality and the Pole Sanctity, the Renewer, and the Seal
6.
Sanctity according to CAlī Wafā’ 119
Divine
Oneness, Self-disclosure, and Creation
The Teacher and Oneness
On Walåya and Nubuwwa
The Seal of Sainthood
The Seal and the Renewer of Religion
Conclusion 157
Notes 163
Bibliography 219
Indexes 239
Illustrations
Figure 1. Cairo cemetery (City of the
Dead) 63
Figure 2. Entrance to
Wafå’ Mosque 64
Figure 3. Tombs in Wafå’ Mosque 65
Figure 4. Grave marker, >Al• Wafå’ 66
Figure 5. The Wafå’ house 67
Figure 6. Remains of fountain in
Wafå’ house 68
Map The Wafå’s in Cairo (del. N. Lacoste) 69
Table 1.0 The Early Wafå’ iyya 70
Acknowledgments
The research
for this book has received financial support from the following institutions: the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research
Council of Canada; the J. W. McConnell Foundation
(Canada); and the Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de la recherche et de la
technologie (France).
My thanks are extended to the various institutions that made their manuscript archives available to
me. They are the following: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo); Dår al-Kutub al-Mißriyya (Cairo); Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preus- sischer
Kulturbesitz (Germany); Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek (Sweden); Bibliothèque Nationale (France); Library of the India Office (England); Leiden University (the Netherlands). In Canada my research has benfitted from numer- ous services
provided by the Islamic Studies
Library at McGill University. The Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale (Cairo) has supported my work in a number of ways over the last few years in the true spirit of academic
enterprise. I would also like to acknowledge my debt to Dr. Hermann
Landolt. I hope I have inherited something from the intellectual tradition he
represents.
Earlier
sections of this research have appeared as “Being and Knowing According
to a 14th century Cairene Mystic” Annales Islamologiques 32 (2002);
“New Sources for the Study of Sufism in Mamluk Egypt” Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 65,2 (2002); and “The Concept of Sainthood
According to Ibn Båkhila; a Shådhil• Shaykh of
the 8th/14th century” in Le saint et son milieu
ou comment lire les sources
hagiographiques? R. Chih and
D. Gril eds. (Cairo: I.F.A.O., 2000).
Note on Transliteration
I have not italicized or transliterated Arabic
words found in the Oxford English Dictionary. Arabic words considered technical terms,
and perhaps familiar to the non-Arabic reader, have been transliterated rather
than written in Arabic script. The Arabic
passages I have given in the notes
reflect the script
simplifi- cations present in the manuscript sources. Because I have tried to avoid editing
this material, many hamazāt and dots over a tā’ marbūịa, for example, have not
been provided. The transliteration system adopted is that used by the Inter- national Journal of Middle East Studies. Dates are given first according
to the Muslim lunar calendar,
followed by their Common Era equivalent.
Introduction
Today, any
visitor to Cairo will certainly notice the huge mosque of Muḳam- mad CAlī, perched above
the ramparts of the Citadel
on the eastern edge of the
city. Not of great historical interest, the visitor might not spend much time
at this nineteenth-century mosque
before moving farther
into the Citadel
complex to take in the monuments there—massive defensive walls, towers, mosques, and a palace.
Fortifications were started
here under ?alāḳ al-Dīn in the sixth/twelfth
century, with various rulers and dynasties adding
to the complex over the next
seven hundred years. Running behind the Citadel
are the steep Muqaṭṭam hills, which mark the eastern
limit of premodern
Cairo. To the north and the south of
the
Citadel, along the base of the Muqaṭṭam range are the vast cemeteries known
as “al-Qarāfa.” A modern
walking guide describes these parts of the city:
Each cemetery
is a true necropolis, a city of the dead, once organically joined but today severed
by the modern highway of Salah Salim; but they are also areas
of very lively
expressions of life.
Surrounding the tombs of sultans
and amirs are thousands of family burial plots. Mostly
these are courtyards, open and closed, containing cenotaphs and burial rooms.
On Thursday evenings and Fridays, and on major feast days, members of the
family, particularly women, come to the cemeteries to visit the dead. This has
always been considered a pleasurable excursion. Today one can still see peasant carts
rumbling through the town, loaded with women in black milayas, with blankets, cooking utensils and comestibles, headed for the cemetery. Others will aready be there, seated in groups,
picnicking among the grave markers.1
Deep into the Southern
Cemetery, east of the mausoleum of Imām ShāfiCī (d.
205/820), with a bit of searching, one finds the shrine-mosque of the Wafā’ family. As
Cairene monuments go, it is not a remarkable complex. A humble minaret stands on the west side of the entrance to the mosque.
Yet upon enter- ing, one is struck by the fact that it contains
a good number of graves.
It is clear that this eighteenth-century mosque has been built over
what was originally a family burial plot. In the center are the graves of Muḳammad Wafā’ (d.
765/1363) and his son CAlī (d. 807/1405), under marble cenotaphs
decorated as a typical
medieval Egyptian shrine. These men
were revered as saints in their own lifetimes, founded
their own sufi order, and contributed to the heritage
of Islamic mystical philosophy. In order to explore their contribution,
we must travel across the city to the library
of al-Azhar University. Here we find manu-
script copies of their writings—some existing nowhere else. These writings will be
the subject of our study.
The present
work, as I hope the title has made clear,
is not a survey of the
concept of ‘sanctity’ throughout all of medieval Islamic thought. Beyond noting
the essentials of the idea in an introductory fashion, I will restrict
our investi- gation to the writings of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’, to their direct intellectual influences and their immediate
milieu. Briefly, our concern in this book will be to answer as best we can the following questions: How did these mystical thinkers
understand sanctity? Upon what ideas from the Islamic tradition
did they rely? and
What contribution did they in turn make to this tradition? In the course of
our exploration, however,
the scope at times will appear much wider, taking in
related issues from philosophy, theology, and social history.
Before exploring the idea of sainthood itself
we must first
set out the his-
torical parameters and landmarks of the Islamic
mystical tradition, particularly the elements
that will be relevant to our study. We begin by noting that the foun- dational
document of the Islamic religion, the Qur’an, provides little explicit
treatment of mystical themes. In the later chapters of this study we shall discuss
the story of Moses and al-Khaďir, which is
probably the closest the Qur’an comes to treating the concept of ‘sainthood’. Another significant passage, but in this
instance largely symbolic, is the Parable of the Niche of Light (24:35):
Allah is the
Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there
were a Niche, and within it a Lamp; the Lamp is enclosed in Glass; the glass as
it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed
Tree, an Olive,
neither of the East nor the West,
whose Oil is well-nigh Luminous. Though fire scarce touched
it: Light upon Light!
Allah doth set forth Parables
for men: and Allah doth know all things.2
The symbol
of light will later be picked up by various mystical thinkers, the most prominent
being the theologian al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111)
and the philoso-
pher
al-Suhrawardī al-Maqtūl (d. 587/1191).3 Parables
notwithstanding, it would be difficult
to find in the Qur’anic
text anything approaching a sustained mystical
doctrine.4 Islamic mysticism would instead be
forced to seize upon various passages and through creative
interpretations use them as vehicles
for futher speculation. Specific examples of mystical scriptural exegesis (tafs•r) are too many to mention,
but one Qur’anic
passage—alluding to a night journey
by the Prophet—came to play an important role in most later schools
of mystical thought. This is
the story of the MiCrāj, an ascent through the seven heavens leading ultimately to contact with God. The scriptural basis for this story is the
following:
Glory to [Allah] Who did take His Servant
for a Journey by night from
the Sacred Mosque, whose precincts
We did bless—in order that We
might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth [all
things]. (17:1)
For indeed
he [Muḳammad] saw him
[Gabriel] at a second descent, near the Lote-tree, beyond which none may pass: Near it is the Garden
of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was
shrouded (In mystery unspeak- able!). [His] sight never swerved,
nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the signs of his Lord, the
Greatest! (53:13–18)
From this
scant account, the hadith literature developed an elaborate tale of Muḳammad being transported from Mecca to Jerusalem, by a
mythical beast, and from there led upward through the seven heavens, meeting various prophets
along the way. The account
usually concludes with Muḳammad’s negotiations
with God concerning the number
of daily prayers
encumbant upon his new reli- gious community.5 The theme of MiCrāj was later
taken up by the mystics al- Basṭāmī (d. 261/875) and Ibn CArabī (d. 638/1240), who recorded their own Heavenly ascensions.6 Later, we shall also see that these heavens
and prophets reappear in the writings
of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’, though interpreted in a novel way.
The earliest
doctrinal developments of the Islamic community—despite the accounts
of the hadith literature—are largely
beyond historical reconstruc- tion. This is true also for the mystical tradition,
the reconstruction of which
is only possible from about one hundred
years after the Prophet’s death. Here,
in the shadow of the great pious ascetic and theologian Ḥasan al-Ba?rī (d. 110/728), and the early ShīCī imāms, particularly JaCfar al-?ādiq (d. 145/765),
various spiritual movements developed. A tradition of ethical self-reflection,
with the aim of controlling vanity and pride, developed with the Iraqi moral-
ist al-Muḳāsibī (d. 243/857).7 Other
essential early thinkers were Abī Yazīd al-Basṭāmī, who seems
to have been the first
to develop the concept of ‘fanå’’
(the mystic soul passing
away into God) and the tradition of shaịaИāt (ecstatic
utterances),8 and
Abū al-Qāsim al-Junayd (d. 297/909), the representative of a
more sober approach to mystical experience and language.9 A
particularly important contribution was made by Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), who among
other things advanced the idea of the Light of the prophet
Muḳammad as a uni- versal spiritual reality.10 This idea had also been touched
upon earlier by JaCfar al-?ādiq.11
Although the essential theological tenets of Islamic
belief remained unchallenged, there does appear to have been a distinct shift within the mysti-
cal tradition from about the turn of the third/nineth century. A survey of the
extant literature of the earlier
“classical” era shows a distinct
lack of interest in what we
would call either “philosophical” or “metaphysical” issues. In con- trast, by
the seventh/thirteenth century the medieval movement—known then universally as
“sufism”—had fully embraced metaphysics.12 Significant
also was a shift in the understanding of the transmission of mystical knowledge. The fifth/eleventh century
roughly divides the period of the “training
shaykh” from that of the “teaching
shaykh.”13 Distinction between these two pedagogical
models, while never airtight, is based on the former as a simple transmitter of
sufi wisdom, with the latter explicitly functioning as a spiritual guide to the
adepts under his direction. This shift signaled a new theoretical dimmension
that was to parallel the transformative spiritual exercises meted out to adepts.14 The
term sufi itself, designating a
Muslim mystic, appeared in the late sec- ond/eighth century in Kūfa, Iraq; but beyond followers who gathered around certain prominent
teachers, it is difficult to identify any distinct organizational basis for sufism. The
properly sufi institutions known variously as “tekkes,” “ribāịs,” “khānqāhs” and “zāwiyas,” appeared from the turn of the fourth/tenth
century throughout most regions of the Islamic
world.
An early
controversy that was to define
the future direction of mainstream sufism took place in the regions
of Khurāsān (Central
Asia) and Iraq.
The issue at hand was how to treat the nafs (lower soul). Early ascetic
practices had con- cerned themselves with renunciation,
aiming to control the appetites of the lower self, which were understood to
hamper one’s approach to the divine.15 One
form this self-discipline took was the school of Muḳammad ibn Karrām (d. 255/869),
called the “Karrāmiyya.” Typically, this was an overt asceticism, which saw renunciation almost
as a social ethic.16 Distinct from this
was the position on the nafs (lower
soul) taken by the Malāmatiyya, a
group that held that public diplay of renunciation was itself a pandering to
the lower soul’s appetite for recognition.17 Instead, the Malāmatiyya sought to control the nafs while out of the public eye, or
even by evoking censure. This movement did meet with some success and would reappear in various forms in later centuries.18 In turn, the ascetics and the Malāmatiyya were opposed by Abū al-Ḥakīm al- Tirmidhī (d. between 295/905
and 300/910). His approach was one that sought
to transcend
the lower soul by developing the mystical perspicacity of the believing
heart. This “seeing” heart transforms the negative, selfish character of the
nafs into a positive one, which thus
encourages the seeking and fearing of God. This strategy
aimed at abandoning the nafs,
rather than obsessing over its control and
humiliation.19
We cannot
here do justice
to all the developments within
the mystical tra- dition, but one set of philosophical
concepts must be mentioned. This is the Neoplatonic tradition, which came to be incorporated into the mainstream mys- tical tradition in the centuries
following the death of Ibn Sīnā, its greatest expo- nent.20 Although Neoplatonism had always been an essential element of the the- ology of the IsmāCīlī ShīCīs, it had not become
central for the early mystics.
It was not until the early medieval period
that sufism began to express
itself using a Neoplatonic vocabulary. This system,
first elaborated by the Greco-Egyptian Plotinus (d. 210 a.d.), was rather different
from what was to become the Qur’anic
worldview in that it described
God as a distant Necessary
Being, which in con-
templating Itself, gives rise to the First Intellect. This emanation continues
in stages, producing the heavenly spheres
and ultimately the Active Intellect (al- ’aql al-fa’’āl),
which provides the forms for all the material world. From the perspective of
the individual here below, the highest goal is to develop one’s imaginative faculty
to the point where it can reach
the Active Intellect directly, thus gaining access to its complete store of intelligible forms. This is how, for example, prophecy and miracles
are possible.21 We
shall see later in our study
of sainthood that Neoplatonic structures are behind much of what is proposed. Brief mention must be made here of the most important
institutional devel- opment in the sufi tradition,
that of the ịarīqa (order or brotherhood).22 From the midsixth/twelfth century
orders developed, each being based
on the teachings and spiritual authority
of an eponymous saintly founder. They were distinct
organizations, each with its own devotional rituals
(e.g., dhikr, du’a),
spiritual disciplines (e.g., khalwa, murāqaba), spiritual
lineage (isnād), location
(zāwiya,
khānqāh, ribāị, tekke), and mystical literature (poetic, hagiographical, and doc-
trinal). The exclusive nature of these orders
made them different from the earli- er
forms of association among sufis. A great number
have appeared throughout the Islamic world, the most succcessful being derived from CAbd al-Qādir al- Jīlānī (d. 561/1166) (al-Qādiriyya), CAbd al-Qāhir al-Suhrawardī (d. 563/1167) (al-Suhrawardiyya), Aḳmad al-RifāCī (d. 571/1175)
(al-RifāCiyya), Abū al- Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (d. 658/1258) (al-Shādhiliyya), and Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (d. 672/1273) (al-Mawlawiyya). Most
orders appearing after the eigth/fourteenth
century are branches
of one of these original
five.
As for the concept
of ‘sanctity’ itself,
we may say generally that its vocab- ulary has a scriptural basis. We find the word walāya used in the Qur’an
twice. Of a wealthy man, a nonbeliever, who has lost his riches, we
read, “The only protection comes from Allah
(al-walāya li-Llāh), the True
One” (18:44). In Sūrat
al-Anfāl (8:72) we read, “As to those who believed but came not into exile; You owe no duty of protection (walāya) to them until they come into exile.”
In the first example, walāya is divine authority, while in the
second it represents the ties of allegiance between believers. As for the term walī (one who gives or receives walāya), it is mentioned more than one
hundred times in the Qur’an, meaning “patron,” “protector” (divine or otherwise), “friend,” and “ally.”
The terms awliyā’ Allāh (10:62), the “friends or saints of God,” and their opposite, the awliyā’ al-Shayịān (4:76),
also appear.23
Of course
these terms cannot
be said to have carried
the identical meaning at the time of the Prophet
as they would
in the medieval or even classical peri- ods. As will be seen below,
the concept of sanctity has its own history of devel-
opment. Nevertheless, the semantic shifts in the history of religious thought
should not be seen as complete breaks.
Michel Chodkiewicz points
out that one must
not make a too rigid distinction between
Qur’anic sanctity and that of the
classical period. He suggests that in addition
to the terms walī and walāya the Qur’an (56:10–11, 88-–89) also uses terms such as aṣИāb al-yamīn (compan- ions of God’s right side) and
muqarrabūn (those close to God) in
order to communicate the full range of the concept of sanctity.24
It was with
the great figures of classical mystical thought, such as Ḥasan al-Ba?rī, Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, al-Basṭāmī, and Sahl
al-Tustarī that the funda- mental notions
of sancitity were fleshed out. These developments and elabora- tions
continued throughout the Middle Ages,
where they were taken up rather dramatically by Ibn CArabī (d. 638/1240). In the ShīCī world, the doctrine of the Imāms can be seen as embodying the essentials of walāya as it existed in Sunni
circles, or one might understand it at least
as serving much the same function.
Regardless of how one positions
the idea of walāya in ShīCism, it is remarkable
how great an impact the writings of Ibn CArabī made in those circles.
It seems that in Ibn CArabī’s doctrine of walāya both
the ShīCī and Sunnī esoteric tradi- tions were able to find a
conception that spoke to them.25 We
shall present a substantial discussion of Ibn CArabī in our first chapter.
❊
In the study
that follows, the early development of sufism will not be addressed; neither
will our focus be the origins of the mystical tradition. It is hoped, however,
that a contribution will be made to the history
of the religious thought of the Middle Ages.26 In short,
this research explores
the development of the concept of ‘sainthood’, after Ibn CArabī (al-Shaykh al-Akbar), and specif- ically in Egypt. While much has been written on Ibn CArabī, little scholarly effort has been put into exploring those who came after him. The Wafā’iyya are
important in this post–Ibn CArabī world. They
were not commentators on the shaykh’s works, nor were they popularizers of his thought,
instead they took in
his
teachings, digested them, and turned to work out their own observations and
understandings
of the mystical universe. To do this, they employed the lan- guage and doctrines taught
them by Ibn CArabī. The Akbarian corpus
was not a passive object of study
for Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’, rather, having
taken it to heart,
they used it as a vehicle for their own mystical speculations on saint- hood and
other topics including the nature of existence itself.
The first chapter of this study will survey the various doctrines of walåya as developed by al-Tirmidhī and Ibn CArabī. From this we isolate a number of mod- els, which
are used for comparative purposes
throughout the rest of the study.
Although we also touch briefly
on a number of other figures, many avenues of research on this subject remain open. The second chapter turns to the other tradi- tion in which the Wafā’iyya had roots,
that of the early Shādhiliyya sufi order. Here we introduce the central figures
and attempt to outline a general theory of
sanctity. In this section we introduce the unexplored writings of Muḳammad Wafā’s teacher
Ibn Bākhilā. The third chapter
is a historical exploration of the
practices and development of this unusual sufi order and the vicissitudes of the Wafā’ family in Cairo. The following chapter
takes up the writings of Muḳam- mad and CAlī Wafā’. Since more than
twenty-eight titles are attributed to them— with almost all
remaining in manuscript form—I have tried to present a basic account of the contents
of each. The most important categories of these writings
are poetry and mystical treatises. It should be noted that beyond our
study of sanctity, these new sources offer an abundance of material for further
study. The fifth chapter turns to Muḳammad Wafā’s theory of sainthood. In the course of this analysis a number of related topics
are addressed, such as the nature of God and existence, the levels of creation, and the spiritual abilities of humanity.
In the last chapter we find many of the same themes we encountered with Muḳammad in the fifth chapter. Here CAlī
Wafā’ follows his father in approach and concern, but
clearly he has original contributions to make in a number of places. His expansion on the theory
of the Seal of Saints,
and his dramatic
ver- sion of the centenarian “Renewer of Religion” make for exciting
reading.
This book is thus concerned
with the Wafā’s and their mystical philoso-
phy—particularly
their theory of sanctity. Understanding the significance of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ would be impossible without
stopping to consider what for them was a central
issue. By following
them in their intellectual con- cerns we are not only given a better
sense of their worldview, but we are also allowed to dig deepest, as it were,
where the ground is most fertile. Although
research into other elements of Wafā’ thought
and practice would certainly yield interesting results,
by taking up walåya as the central theme
of our study it seems fair to claim that we are following the
strengths of the authors. From an individual perspective, we shall see that for
both Muḳammad and CAlī the nature of sainthood had implications for their own identitiy. The father defined himself, at critical moments
in both his writings and his public life, through
his discourse on sanctity. The son’s presentation of his father relied substantially on
this same discourse. Yet not only did >Al• argue for his father’s sanctity, but his own self-identification became wrapped up in the same issues. We
shall see how >Al• struggles to find a place for himself
behind his father in the pantheon
of saints. Beyond this concern with self-identification, an argument for rele-
vance can also be made with regard
to this book being focussed
on walåya. In the chapters
below it will become clear that the theory of sanctity serves well as a ground
for comparison with other thinkers. Much of the relevance of the Wafå’s is to be found
in their treatment of what at their time was a central issue in Islamic mystical thought. In
order to situate them within their intellectual sufi milieu, we must find
points for comparison, and the theory of sanctity serves us well here. Finally, approaching the universe of the Wafå’s principally
via the concept of sanctity
does not exclude
other aspects of their thought.
This exploration will take us through
a variety of mystical themes and issues,
all of which are important and
worthy of attention. These elements touch on the nature of being and mystical
knowing, and form the matrix that anchors the Wafå’ theory of sainthood.
Chapter 1
Tirmidh•, Ibn >Arab•, and Others on Sanctity
Tirmidh• on Walåya
The earliest
thinker to systematically address the subject of sanctity was al- Hak•m al-Tirmidh• (d. cir. 300/910).1 Of
course he was not the only thinker
to discuss saints and sainthood; two Iraqi contemporaries, al-Kharråz (d. 286/899) and Ibn Ab• al-Dunyå (d. 281/894), also reflected on the subject.2 Their work however, did not approach that of
Tirmidh• in coherence or
sophistication.3 One eleventh-century writer tells us that there were even earlier
books written on sainthood, but that these have been lost.4 These books may have been simple compilations of sayings by sufi masters
on the subject, or thematic
collections of a˙åd•th, or
perhaps something more discursive. Since these sources may never be recovered,
we might never be fully able to assess the originality of Tirmidh•’s contribution to this field. Nevertheless, in his Kitåb khatm al-awliyå, (or Kitåb s•rat al-awliyå)5 Tirmidh• presents us with the earliest coherent
doc- trine of walåya. In light
of what we do know was being written at the same time on the subject, and even
later, this book is truly impressive in its detail and creativity.
Tirmidh• was probably the most prolific writer on mystical topics of
his time. Beyond the Kitåb khatm al-awliyå, there are a number of works pertain- ing to walåya that await analysis.6 In
spite of his contribution to Islamic mysti- cism, Tirmidh• has always been somewhat on the periphery of the tradition.
Regarding the history of his doctrine of sanctity, it is clear
that from the time of his death at the end of the
third/nineth century, up into the seventh/thirteenth, there is almost no
mention made of it. As we shall see
below, however, there were some criticisms of certain sufi doctrines that are described
as privileging
sainthood over prophecy. We cannot be completely certain,
but in most cases it seems fair to suspect that these are
criticisms of Tirmidhī’s teaching
that the sainthood of the Prophet is in one way superior
to his prophecy. We shall
dis- cuss this doctrine in some detail below. Historically, Tirmidhī’s doctrine of walåya
(more particularly his theory of the Seal of saints—khatm al-awliyå’) finally made its way into currency with the attention given it by Ibn
CArabī in the midseventh/thirteenth century. It is
also of note that al-Shādhilī—who probably had not read Ibn CArabī—held Kitåb khatm al-awliyå in high regard and read it with his inner circle
of followers (see chapter 2).
Another factor
in Tirmidhī’s relative obscurity was the fact that he was an “Easterner,” that is, he was from Tirmidh, south of Samarqand, in present-day
Uzbekistan, as opposed
to the dominant center of Baghdad. Little
is known of the
details of his life, including his education. Of particular interest
to our sub- ject at hand is the religious milieu
of Khurāsān. It seems that Tirmidhī partici- pated in the spiritual debates
of his time. By the end of the third/nineth century the asceticism (zuhd)
that had dominated the early devotional landscape, in Khurāsān and
elsewhere, had largely been displaced by the Malāmatiyya movement (established in Nishāpūr by Ḥamdūn al-Qa??ār d. 271/884). This movement stressed malåmat
al-nafs, subjecting
the lower-self, or ego, to blame with the intention of diminishing it.7 Although the debates of the time have left little record of themselves, there do exist letters from Tirmidhī in which he crit- icizes the Malāmatiyya.8 In general,
he objects to the great attention this group
devotes to their nafs and accuses
them of underestimating the role of faith in spiritual development. Another important school of the time in
Nishāpūr was the ascetic-minded Karrāmiyya, established by Muḳammad Ibn Karrām (d.
255/869).9 Undoubtedly, Tirmidhī would have disapproved of their emphasis on asceticism, but
he seems to have made no direct mention of them.
With regard to his theory of walåya, Tirmidhī presents a novel understanding of a number of elements. First,
he distinguishes between
the divine communi- cation to the prophet and that
to the saint. The general theological position is that a prophet is inspired by
wa˙y and that a saint is inspired by ilhåm. Tir- midhī elaborates on this, adding that revelation reaches the
prophet as God’s kalåm (speech) and
the saints as God’s ˙ad•th (speech).10
The difference between prophethood and [sainthood] is that prophet- hood consists of speech (kalåm) which detaches itself from God as
revelation (wa˙y), and it is accompanied
by a spirit (r¥˙) from God.
Revelation comes to an end and God seals it with the spirit and the spirit causes (a prophet)
to accept it.11 Moreover, this must be accepted
as true. If anyone were to reject it, he would be an infidel
because he would have rejected
the word (kalåm) of God. As for the
one pos- sessed of [sainthood]—God is in charge of the speech (˙ad•th) (he hears)12 from the celestial treasure
chambers, and God causes it to
Tirmidh•, Ibn >Arab•, and Others on Sanctity 11
reach him. Thus he receives supernatural speech [˙ad•th]. This super- natural
speech detaches itself from God [and reaches the saint] by means of a tongue
[of truth], and accompanying supernatural speech (˙ad•th) is God-inspired peace of mind (sak•na)13 which occurs
in the heart of the man drawn
to God [majdh¥b].14
So the saints have their own connection to the divine,
distinct from that of the prophets. It is also mentioned that
the message received by the prophet may not
be rejected by the believer. Tirmidh• mentions in a following passage that the
speech received by the saint is useful, but its acceptance is not obligatory
for the believer. He says that “if anyone rejects
it, he is not an infidel. And yet
in rejecting it, he will suffer failure and undergo evil consequences, and his
heart will be confounded.”15 It is later
explained why ignoring the saint who has received ˙ad•th is a bad idea.
As for the
man who hears [˙ad•th], the [˙ad•th] he hears is divine support and an increase
of awareness with regard to the Holy Law of the messenger (fimß.JH ]ui.å Dė ]iiƒ }эhiу M vii∫ï aJ aeivs). When he [the saint] dispenses that awareness to the servants
of God, this is a means and a
direction to God which he [the saint] disposes over. Whoever rejects him [the saint] loses his blessing [baraka] and his light, for this is a
matter of a righteous guide who points the way to God.16
Here we see
Tirmidh• laying out the
distinction between the authority of prophecy
and that of sainthood.17 Both are of divine inspiration, and the lower assists in understanding the Law
brought by prophecy, but the authority of sainthood is not binding upon the
believing community. This is a significant point, which will be taken up later
by Ibn >Arab• and also the early Shåd- hiliyya. The epistemology of walåya is thus twofold. Mystical knowledge entails not only an
understanding of spiritual realities (e.g., experience of the divine, merging
of the self with the eternal, etc.), but it also bestows insight into the
seemingly more mundane reality of God’s Law on earth.18
In addition
to this distinction between prophecy and walåya,
Tirmidh• also describes two
grades of sainthood. As in the
distinction between walåya and nubuwwa, this difference hinges on modes
of communication from the Divine. There are those saints, mentioned above, who
receive ˙ad•th, and there are those who only converse
(yunåj¥na) with God. Tirmidh•’s unknown
interviewer asks, “You have described the difference between the prophet and those who receive ˙ad•th. What then are the other saints like?” He answers as follows:
The people
of the Way converse ( m“hii) [with God], while those who receive ˙ad•th are thus informed (
mivzi). I explained this ˙ad•th to
you earlier.
Converstation [with God], on the other hand is a gift (>aịå’). The recipient receives
utterances (maqålåt) in the form of
light as if someone were saying this or that to him. But with these utterances
are neither . . . the Spirit [by which the prophets are informed], nor the
God-inspired peace of mind [found in those who receive ˙ad•th]. Thus,
the recipient experiences doubt and is not sure whether the Enemy (Satan) is in some
way associated with it or whether the lower
soul, with its deception and cunning wiles,
is min- gled in it.19
Like the greater, this lesser sainthood is of divine
origin, but without
the God- inspired sak•na to accompany it, its bearer is unsure.
One who holds the lesser sainthood is informed by “utterances,” in contrast to the superior
communica- tion, which would have been by ˙ad•th. This “conversation” with God is not confirmed by the accompanying form of Spirit
known as sak•na. These lesser
saints, because they cannot be sure of their communications, are thus not able
to offer the guidance in matters of Law that their superiors can.
The following
hierarchy is established. At bottom is the class of monothe- ists made up of the pious (>ubbåd), the
ascetics (zuhhåd),20 and so on. Then there is the first
level of saints, those whose dialogue with God is left uncon- firmed either by sak•na or by the divine Spirit. This is followed by the higher saints,
whose ˙ad•th is confirmed; and
finally there is the level of the prophets/messengers, whose kalåm is confirmed by the Spirit.
Tirmidh•, in his
description of this hierarchy, also presents a cumulative relationship between
the levels. In other words,
the powers of the lower
levels are included
in those of the higher. “The mu˙addath receives ˙ad•th, and firåsa (clairvoyance),
and ilhåm (inspiration) and
truthfulness. The prophet has all this as well as prophethood, and in turn the
messenger has all this and messengerhood. The others from among the saints
(i.e. those of najwa and the maqålåt) have only firåsa, ilhåm,
and truthfulness.”21 Thus, although the mode of divine
communi- cation at each of the three levels
is distinct—at least
in name—each one leads
to its superior, with the highest level encompassing the two lower.
It is interest- ing to note the phenomenological element here in Tirmidh•’s epistemology. An essential element of higher communication
with God is the accompanying Spirit: the r¥˙
for the prophets and the sak•na for
the higher saints. This Spirit is so important
that without either form of it, even though one may be receiving divine communication, one is not qualified to interpret the Law or to guide
souls.
The picture
becomes less clear, however, when we introduce another of Tirmidh•’s novel ideas. This is his second typology of saints.
Although we noted above his distinction between
those saints who receive sak•na and
those who do not, this typology is quite distinct. In this scheme the
superior saint is called the “true saint of God” (h˝äs akJH DJM), and the inferior is the “saint of what
is due to God” (akJH Rs DJM).22 The latter is presented as a
holy man who controls his lower self by a
discipline of piety and correct behavior. Through these efforts he puts himself
in a position to receive the mercy of God (raИma),
which will raise him to a place near God. In contrast,
the “true saint of God” is
raised to the divine presence by God’s generosity (jūd). We read,
For the first of them [walāya] comes
forth through divine
compassion (raИma), and God
takes it upon Himself to transport him in one instant from the House of
Grandeur to the place of divine proximity [maqām
al-qurba]. For the second of them [walāya]
comes forth through divine generosity (jūd),
and God takes it upon Himself to transport him in a single instant from the
place of divine proximity through one realm after another to the Possessor of
sovereignty.23
This model
of the levels of sainthood follows the system
of cumulative walāya
described earlier. Here, the superior figure has mastered the level reached
by the lesser24 (i.e., reaching the maqām al-qurba), but for him this is
only the first step. His final stage is reached once divine generosity has
taken him to the next level. In this model, against the ascetics and Malåmatiyya, we see Tirmidh• again prioritizing divine election over individual effort. That is to say, spiritual discipline is
only a first step in the ascent to God.
Another
important element in Tirmidh•’s theory of sanctity is the assem- bly (dīwān) of saints. He is certainly not
the first to describe this assembly, since versions of it are mentioned in the
hadith literature. One tradition, known as the “hadith of >Abd Allåh ibn Mas>ud” describes
the assembly of 356 saints: 300 are “on the heart of” Adam, 40 on that of Moses (or Noah), 7 on Abraham,
5 (or 4) on the angel Gabriel,
3 on Michael, and 1 on the heart of Isråf•l, the angel
of resurrection. When one of them
dies, one below takes his place. The
single one is commonly called “qutb”
(pole) or “ghawth” (rescue), with the abdāl (replacements) (either
40 or 7) and siḍḍīqūn (sincere) referring either to a class or to saints in general.25 The idea of an assembly of 40
saints certainly predates Islam. Goldziher points to the 40 martyrs of
Sebastian as a precedent.26 The Qur’an mentions
the number 40 for the most part in relation to Moses.27
This assembly, according to Tirmidh• and later
Muslim thinkers, plays
an important role in the preservation of life here on earth.
In one passage he says, “These forty are the guarantee of
protection for the (Muslim) community. Through them the earth exists and
through them the people pray for rain. When they die, the community
will suffer what it has been threatened with.”28 So the assembly of
saints seems to play an intercessory role for the commu- nity. Elsewhere, Tirmidh• describes the end of the rule of the assembly of forty
and the subsequent rise of the Seal of saints.
Then when
God took his Prophet unto Him, He caused forty strictly faithful men (siḍḍīqūn) to emerge in His community.
Through them the earth exists,
and they are the people of His house and His family. Whenever one of them dies, another
follows after him and occupies his position, and so it will continue until
their number is exhausted and the time comes for the world
to end. Then God will send a [saint]
whom He has chosen and elected... and He will bestow on him every- thing he has bestowed
upon the [other
saints] but He will distinguish him with the Seal [of
Sainthood] with God (khātim al-walāya). And he
will be God’s proof (Иujjat Allāh) against all other [saints] on the
Day of Judgement. By means of this Seal he will possess
the sincerity of [sainthood]
with God, the same way that Muḳammad
possessed the sincerity of prophethood.29
Here we have first
a restatement of the dependence of the world
upon the forty. The existence of the community
seems to be tied to prophetic revelation and saintly inspiration. The time Muḳammad was on earth has ended—and thus so
has prophetic revelation; the community is then sustained for a period by the
forty. Tirmidh• does not elaborate on
these forty, rather his primary concern seems
to be their Seal. This figure, at the end of the above passage,
has his role explicitly compared to that of Muḳammad, the Seal of the prophets. With this
figure Tirmidh• provides us with a third level of saint. Not only is this Seal of
sainthood superior, but he also has an apocalyptic function. We are told that
when these forty die, the community will “suffer what it has been threatened
with,” that is, divine judgment and retribution—judgment day. The Seal will
appear at the end of time.
The
spiritual authority of this Seal is based first on his passing through God’s attributes and reaching the divine essence.
Tirmidh• says,
[In the
realm of each divine name] there is an assembly of intimate converse (najwā) and gifts of honour for the
people of that realm. And there God has made stations for the hearts of His
chosen few. They are the ones who go forward from the place [of divine proxim-
ity] to God’s realm. Many [a saint]
has his station in God’s first realm
. . . and
many [have] advanced to a station in the second, third or fourth realm of God. And whenever
[one] advances to another realm, the name of that realm is bestowed on him until he is such that he has advanced through all these realms to the realm of Unicity
and Single- ness (mulk al-waИdāniyya al-fardiyya) . . . He is the chief [sayyid] of the [saints of God] and he possesses
the seal of [sainthood] from his Lord . . . He has reached God’s interior [bāịin].30
Thus, the Seal has access to the most intimate contact
with God. Tirmidh• then raises the question of the relationship between this sainthood
and prophethood. In describing
the Seal he says, “He is very close [in rank] to the prophets, in fact he has almost
attained their status”31 and describes him as drawing
on the treasure chambers
of the prophets. Tirmidh• concludes, “Indeed, the covering
has been removed for him from the stations of the prophets, and from their
ranks, and from their gifts and their rare presents.” Elaborating on this relation-
ship
between the Seal and prophethood, Tirmidh• describes the levels of partic- ipation in nubuwwa accorded to the various levels
of walāya. He writes, “[T]here are
ranks amongst those drawn to God (majdhūbūn)
and those who hear (Иadīth). Some of them have been given one-third
of prophethood, while others have been given half, and
others still have been given more. But the most highly endowed in this respect
is the one who possesses the Seal of (Sainthood).”32 Thus,
we see that the boundary between the greatest saint and the realm of prophecy
is rather flexible. This final
saint, although he does not function as a prophet, in some way can access
prophethood.
It is also striking
to note the parallels Tirmidh• draws between
the Seal and the prophet Muḳammad. He describes the Prophet thus:
The first
thing God thought
was the thought
of Muḳammad . . . Then he was the first, on the [Well-guarded] Tablet (lawИ). Then he was the
first in the covenant
with God (mīthāq) . . . He will be the first to whom
God speaks (khiịāb). He will be the first to go before God (wifāda) and the first to
practice intercession (shafā’a).33
Later on, Tirmidh• describes the Seal of saints:
This [saint,
the Seal,] was what God thought of first in the primal beginning . . . Then he was the first on the [Well-guarded] Tablet, then the first
in the Covenant (mīthāq). And then he will be the first
on the Day of Congregation
[of the dead] (yawm al-maИshar), then
he will be the first
whom God will address (khiịāb), then the first
to go before God (wifāda),
then the first to undertake intercession (shafā’a).34
Further, in
an earlier passage, Tirmidh• mentions
that the Seal’s position among the saints is like that of Muḳammad among the prophets.
This model
of walāya is rather
simple. Just as there were prophets before Muḳammad, there are saints before the Seal; and just as Muḳammad was the completion of the era of prophecy, the Seal of saints is the completion of the age of sanctity. Although the Qur’an
distinguishes between the prophets (17:55),
it praises those who make no distinctions between them (2:136). However,
the
Qur’an does mention Muḳammad specifically as the khåtam al-nabiy•n (33:40), a title that was taken up by hadith scholars
in an effort to portray
Muḳammad as the
superior, rather than simply the final, prophet.35 Regarding Tirmidhī’s doc- trine of the Seal of sainthood, it is clear that it reflects the ideas of both final and
superior. Our discussions above have shown that the Seal of saints
is both last of the saints and also best. In Ibn CArabī’s model of walåya, as will be seen below, there must be more than one Seal of walåya since
there is more than one kind of walåya. Ibn CArabī will also
elaborate greatly on the cumulative rela- tionship mentioned by Tirmidhī in his description of the prophet having his prophecy in
addition to all that the saint has.
Sahl Tustar•
on Walåya
An important
contemporary of Tirmidhī’s was Sahl
Tustarī (d. 283/896). Although
he did not influence the understanding of walåya
to the degree Tir- midhī did, and as we shall see he was probably
not read by the Shādhiliyya or the Wafā’iyya, he did have some interesting things
to say about sanctity.
As Tirmidhī has noted, walåya endows
its holder with a unique under- standing of the Law—but this understanding is
not authoritative. In a similar vein Tustarī claims that the mystical understanding of the Qur’an
granted to the saints provides
guidance to the community in both the exoteric and esoteric
aspects of scripture.36 He also describes
the categories of saints in the d•wån.
He claims to have met the one thousand five hundred sincere
ones (ṣidd•q¥n), and among them the forty substitutes (budalå’) and the seven pegs (awtåd). These classes will become very
elaborate three and a half centuries later with Ibn CArabī.
In a novel discussion, Tustarī draws on the various forms of the root WLY to describe the relationship between saints and the prophet Muḳammad. He writes,
The walåyat Allåh (friendship with God) is
the election (ikhtiyår) of one of whom He takes possession
of (istawlåhu). The walåyat al-ras¥l
(friendship with the prophet) is God’s notification of the Prophet
that he is the wal• al-mu’min•n (friend of the faithful). Thus the Prophet
is bound to be a friend
(yuwålå) of one whose
friend is God (man walå
Allåh).37
Beyond this, Tustarī distinguishes between
the himma (spiritual aspiration)38 of
the prophet and that of the saint. It is by this himma,
which is clothed
in lights, that the prophets reach the throne of God. In the case of the saints,
their himma is clothed in robes of confirmation (ta’y•d), and they may only approach the divine presence thanks to
permit passes they have been given.39
In what is
certainly his greatest contribution to mystical thought, Tustarī elaborated on the idea of the Muḳammadan Light as the first of God’s cre- ation.40 The gnostic echoes are clear, yet
this concept for later thinkers gave rise to the all-encompassing notion of the
Muḳammadan Reality. For Tustarī, this Muḳammadan Light, in preexistence, is the source of the prophets and the
elite mystics (the muråd¥n versus the mur•d•n). In preexistence they are derived
from Muḳammad, which explains
their latent spiritual abilities when they are in creation.41
Lesser Treatments of Walåya
Although Tirmidhī’s work on walåya presented a more or less coherent
theory, and Tustarī had reflected seriously on the subject, most other early sufi thinkers seem to broach the topic only in
passing.42 They did not produce a theory of walåya per se. This fact should not surprise us since a quick look at almost any
of the sufi literature of the classical
period will show that sanctity
itself is not a
separate mystical theme
or issue for discussion. Of course all mystical thought itself is predicated on some kind of sanctity; virtually all reflection on spiritual
realities or spiritual discipline assumes
a rapprochement with the divine.
It may be said that whenever
God is approached, sanctity becomes an issue. Never- theless, discussions of the details
of a theory of walåya were
not common. One interesting example is that of the Persian writer
CAlī ibn CUthmān al-Jullābī al- Hujwīrī (d.
464/1071). In a wide-ranging survey of sufis and sufi doctrine, he says of
Tirmidhī that “he was one of the
religious leaders of his time and the author of many works on every branch of exoteric and esoteric science. His doc- trine was based on saintship (walåya ),
and he used to explain
the true nature
of saintship and the degrees of saints and the observance of the proper
arrange- ment of their ranks.”43 Despite
this promising introduction, Hujwīrī’s account of Tirmidhī avoids any mention of the Seal of saints.44 This omission, in light of the high esteem
in which Hujwīrī holds Tirmidhī, must have been the result
of self-consorship.
Although a coherent doctrine of walåya was rare among sufi masters before
the
seventh/thirteenth century, by the very nature of their spiritual concerns they all had something
to say on the matter.
Simple descriptions of the saints as
God’s elect were common. One early writer of mystical exegesis was Ibn CAṭā’ (d. 309/921). He interprets S¥rat al-Mulk (Q. 67:5) “We have adorned the lower heaven with lamps” as meaning
“We have adorned
the hearts of the saints with
lights of gnosis (ma>rifa).”45 A simplified presentation of walåya is
found in al- Kalābādhī’s well-known sufi manual Kitåb al-ta>arruf. Here he describes two quite rudimentary levels of sainthood,
The first is
merely a departure from enmity, and in this sense is gen- eral to all believers; . . . it is only to be regarded
in a general sense, as in
the phrase “The believer is the friend
(walī) of God.” The second is a sainthood of peculiar election
and choice . . . When a man possesses this, he is preserved from regarding himself,
and therefore he does not fall into conceit;. . . He is saved
from the faults inherent in human nature, although the stamp of humanity remains
in him. . . Neverthe- less, he will not be divinely
preserved from committing lesser or greater sins [versus a prophet]: but . . .
repentance will be close at hand to him.46
Although al-Kalābādhī wrote
some one hundred
years after Tirmidhī, it seems he never elaborated seriously on the
nature of sainthood.
Another
significant figure in the history of sufi theory is al-Qushayrī (d.
465/1073). His Risāla is probably the
most widely cited work among subse- quent thinkers. Yet, here too we find an absence
of teaching directly
on walāya. Although he provides
a short chapter on walāya in his Risāla, he does not seem
to add much to our understanding. In one passage he compares the passive to the active nature of walāya. He tells us, “The word “saint”
has two meanings: in its passive
sense it means he whom God takes care of (yatawalla) . . . and in its
active sense it is he who takes
care of God’s
worship and piety.”47 Further
along, a discussion is provided of the saint being protected (maИfū?) from grave sins, as distinct from the prophet
being infallible (ma’ṣūm). Turning
to another important thinker,
the Persian sufi Rūzbihān Baqlī (d. 606/1209), it should be noted that he had a significant impact
on Ibn CArabī and other mystical theo- rizers. However,
his own writings
were much more concerned with accounts of his dramatic spiritual life than systematic expositions on the theory of walāya.48 It is interesting to note that Ghazālī (d.
505/1111), in his Kimiyā-i sa’ādat describes
the divine knowledge available to both saints and prophets; this is ’ilm ladunī (knowledge from God’s presence). Although Ghazālī does not elab- orate on walāya per
se, it seems this kind of knowledge would be key in any understanding of sanctity. He also mentions
that the common
people may par- tially access this knowledge
from God’s presence
through their dreams.49 This
is not such a novel idea, however, since in the hadith literature dreams had been described as part of prophecy. Abū CĪsā al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Hanbal both report the following: “Anas ibn Mālik related: The messenger of Allāh said: Mission (risāla)
and prophecy have come to an end and there will be no mes- senger or prophet
after me. (Mālik) said: This fell hard upon the people. (The
Prophet) said: But the mubashshirāt (remain). They said: Oh messenger of Allāh, what are the mubashshirāt
? He said: The dream of the
Muslim. It is a part of prophecy.”50 Al-Bukhārī also mentions that “the dream of the believer is
one of 46 parts of prophecy” (ṢaИīИ, Aḳkām, 4).
One
recurring issue among sufi theorists was that of the question of the
superiority of the prophet over the saint.
In his Kitåb al-kashf
wa al-bayån, al- Kharrāz (d. 286/899)
attacks some unnamed
sufis for having
placed the saints above the Prophet. He asserts
instead that walåya existed before nubuwwa (prophecy), and that nubuwwa simply confers an additional superiority.51 This
criticism is echoed a century
later by al-Sarrāj (d. 378/988). He warns against those unnamed sufis who would situate
walåya over nubuwwa.52 There were a
few
early figures who were considered to have held this position, but conclusive
documentation is lacking.
Two in particular were al-Dārānī (d. 215/830) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥawārī (d.
246/860).53 It is not clear at this point how
we are to under- stand this accusation. The accusors, al-Kharrāz and al-Sarrāj, seem to be refer- ring to an established doctrine. The only substantive exposition of a walåya that might be seen to rival prophecy would
be that of Tirmidhī. Elements, noted above, such as his claim that the Seal of saints
receives a substantial portion of prophecy
may have been enough to draw these accusations. We have also noted that
Hujwīrī omitted the Seal of saints in his account of Tirmidhī’s teaching. However, the target is not necessarily Tirmidhī, since Hujwīrī says, “Certain Shaykhs formerly composed books on this
subject, but they became rare and soon disappeared.”54 Perhaps
an expressed priority of walåya over nubuwwa had been made by earlier mystics.55 In a recent work G. Elmore
has suggested that this issue was the cause célèbre
in debates of the tenth
century. He sees the
crucifixion of the extatic mystic
al-Ḥallāj (d. 309/922)
as marking the final vic- tory for the tenet of the superiority
of the prophet. The centrality
Elmore pro- poses for this issue is intriguing, but the fact that he presents
his analysis as grounds for understanding Ibn CArabī’s doctrine of the Seal of saints must make us wonder
if things are actually this neat and tidy. The possibility must be held out, I believe, that this was not a doctrine actually
held by anyone.
It would not be the first case of phantom
opponents in the history of Islamic thought (e.g., the Ḥashwiyya, the Ḥulūliyya).56 This issue requires further
research, including a close rereading
of the relevant ninth- and tenth-century texts. Because our dis- cussion here does not address this question, we shall leave this task to others.
Walåya and Sh•>ism
The ShīCī worldview has always hung on an understanding of walåya particular to it. Whatever
the form taken, Ithnā CAsharī (Twelver) or IsmāCīlī, a central tenet of ShīCism was recognition of the transfer
of religious authority (walåya) from the prophet Muḳammad to CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. 41/661).
This included both temporal
authority, as leader of the community, and spiritual authority. Recognition of the ShīCī Imāms, who one after another took up this walåya, came to be a central
tenet in the ShīCī doctrine of salvation.
[A]ccording
to standard ShīCī doctrine, its major
dogma insists that only the transfer of wilāya
from Muḳammad to CAlī and subsequent imams makes
Islam the “perfect
religion” (Sura 5:3).
In fact, wilāya,
as adherence to the imams and as recognition of their mission as the true
“holders of the (divine) Command” (ūlī al-amr)
and the exclu- sive possessors of the true meaning of the Qur’an
and the “knowledge of the hidden” (’ilm al-ghayb), remains the key to
salvation, without which no pious act of obedience to God (ịā’a) is truly valid. It is for these reasons that wilāya, and not the profession of
monotheism (tawИīd) as in Sunnī Islam, appears as the principal
“pillar of Islam” in the classical collections of ShīCī traditions.57
This cycle
of walāya picks up with CAlī when it was passed on to him by Muḳammad,58 as described in the
traditions of Ghadīr Khumm.59 In turn, the Imāms (the true awliyā’)
initiate their followers into the esoteric reality of prophecy.60 The parallel with the sufi idea of the rule of saints extending
from the death of Muḳammad to the
end of the world is clear.
The last of the Imāms, in the Ithnā CAshari tradition, is understood to remain alive in occultation (ghayb), awaiting his return at the end
of time.61 A
further elaboration on the office of Imam was the belief that in spite of the various
his- torical figures to whom it has adhered
until 260/874, it is in essence atemporal. Na?īr al-Dīn al-Tūsī (d.
672/1274) described the imam thus: “L’Imam—à sa mention soit le salut—n’a pas eu de commencement à l’origine; entre
temps, il ne subit ni altération
ni changement; il n’a pas de terme à la fin.”62 It will be seen later, in our discussion of Ibn CArabī, that a Sunnī understanding of an eternal
walāya
(as represented in the Muḳammadan Reality) was possible.
One
interesting figure who did make a significant effort to reconcile Twelver ShīCism with sufism was Ḥaydar Āmulī (d. end of eighth/fourteenth cen- tury). He wrote his Jāmi’ al-asrār to reconcile the secrets of God (asrār Allāh), the secrets of the prophets,
and the secrets of the Imāms (asrār al-awliyā’).63 The work stresses common elements between the two groups, such as the lofty status recognized for CAlī and affiliations with JaCfar al-Sāďiq, the sixth Imām, through early sufi figures such as Ḥasan al-Ba?rī (d. 110/728). But Āmulī’s most signifi- cant foray into the the sufi concept of ‘walāya’ was certainly his commentary on Ibn CArabī’s Fuṣūṣ, called “Naṣṣ al-nuṣūṣ.”64 Here he takes up Ibn CArabī’s ver- sion of the Seal of sainthood and inserts the ShīCī Imams into the model.65
Ibn >Arab•
and Walåya
Beyond Tirmidhī’s initial discussions of sanctity in the tenth
century, the most important elaboration of the topic
came from Ibn CArabī (d. 638/1240). This
Tirmidhī, Ibn ’Arabī, and Others on Sanctity 21
Andalusian
mystic left an immense body of writing.66 The
best known of his works are the Fuṣūṣ
al-Иikam and the voluminous Al-FutūИāt
al-Makkiyya, which in modern printings occupies eight volumes.67 In addition to being an avid writer,
he also traveled
extensively throughout his adult life.
He was born in the city of Murcia in the year 560/1165,
into a family of means.
The family moved to Seville,
where Ibn >Arab• was educated and probably worked in gov- ernment
service until he left Spain in 590/1193. He studied and taught across the Maghreb,
visited Egypt, Iraq,
and Turkey, and spent his last years
in Dam- ascus, where he is
buried.68
The thought of Ibn >Arab•, or the Greatest Shaykh (al-shaykh
al-akbar), has been the subject of a number of academic studies. Some of the earlier highlights in this field are the contributions of H. Corbin,69 M. Asín Palacios,70 A. E.
>Aff•f•,71 and T. Izutsu.72 Particularly
useful additions to the field have been made
recently by W. C. Chittick.73 In our particular subfield
of interest, that is
walāya, the most outstanding study is
that of Michel Chodkiewicz, Le Sceau des
Saints (Gallimard, 1986).74 This
impressive monograph is the only sus- tained analysis of sainthood written to
date.
The writings of Ibn >Arab• are numerous and often dense. It is not possible for us to address fully the many insights he brought to
Islamic mystical thought. For example,
his understanding of divine self-disclosure (tajallī) and the
so-called Oneness of Being75 are two important theories
we will not explore here.
However, his doctrine of walāya is
certainly central to his mystical legacy. Chodkiewicz himself says, “It would
not be untrue to say that in one sense Ibn >Arab•, from the first to the last line of his work, never spoke of any- thing other than sainthood, of its
ways and its goals.”76
The dīwān of saints, for Ibn ‘Arab•, is quite complex. Strictly speaking, there are 84 classes
(ịabaqāt) of saints in the assembly
of saints. However,
the first 49 differ from the remaining 35. The first group consists of the lesser saints
who are those
people who have attained a certain degree
of spiritual life. As a group,
their number varies.
The second group, that of the 35 levels, is constant
in number—a total of 589 individuals.77 Both groups consist of ịabaqāt, which we may call a “horizontal” system of classes,
yet there also exists what we may call a vertical system of
classification. This system is based on the idea of prophetic inheritance (wirātha); that is, every
saint can be classified according to the prophet from whom he
draws his spiritual inheritance. Chodkiewcz describes this inheritance as conferring “a precise and visible character on the behaviour, virtues
and graces of the walī.”78 The most outward manifestation of a saint’s inheritance is the type of miracles he performs;
if he is Moseslike (Mūsāwī), then his face or hand might glow (cf. Q. 27:12), if he is an inheritor of Jesus (’Īsawī)
then he might walk on water or raise the dead.79
So the saints may be classed
horizontally according to their spiritual
func- tion and vertically according to their
distinguishing prophetic inheritance. This
makes for a
great variety of specific sainthoods, but the complexity does not stop there.
Ibn >Arab•’s understanding of the assembly of saints claims that each level a saint reaches includes
all the levels below it. That is, if the seventh
level, for example, is reached,
that individual may be found
at each preceeding level. Progress up the ịabaqāt, in other words,
is cumulative.80 It
would appear then, that with all three elements
of classification in play—the inheritance, the horizontal classes, and the cumulative nature of the
latter—the varieties of sainthood in the dīwān
are innumerable.
For the
lower group of saints, its 49 levels consist of spiritual categories described largely
by certain Qur’anic
terms, such as “those who submit,” “the believers,” or “the devout.”
To these names
are attached interpretations that far surpass their
usual meanings.81 At the top of this horizontal classification is the level of the malāmiyya (men of blame). Within this group are the umanā’ (trustworthy) and the afrād (solitaries). Little is known of
the trustworthy “since they behave with creatures
according to the normal demands
of faith . . . It is at the Day of Resurrection that their eminent degree will appear to creatures,
while here below they were unknown among men.”82 The
category of the soli-
taries includes such figures as the quịb (pole), awtād (pegs), abdāl (substitutes), nuqabā’ (representatives), nujabā’ (nobles), and rajabiyyūn
(those whose spir- itual state only manifests during
the month of Rajab). At any point in time there is only one pole, two imams,
four awtād, and seven abdāl. The pole is described as “the centre of the circle of the universe
. . . the mirror of God, and
the pivot of the world.”83 This pole and the two imams
are joined by the substi- tute of al-Kha∂ir, to form together the four pegs.84
Thus, at the pinacle
of the congress of saints we find a group of four mor-
tal
saints. But Ibn >Arab• then adds another dimension that ties the dīwān of the saints to the realms of prophethood and mission. In short, he claims that these
four pegs are actually only the substitutes of the four true awtād. These four are the four living
messengers: Idr•s (Enoch), Jesus,
Elijah, and al-Kha∂ir.85 So like the vertical
classification mentioned earlier, which produced prophetic inheritances among
the saints, the ultimate saints are essentially messengers (whose representatives are saints). Ibn >Arab•
writes,
These four beings exist
in the flesh in this world below,
and are its . . .
awtād. Two of them are the two Imams
and one of them is the Pole, who is the place of God’s beholding on this earth.
Messengers have not ceased and will not cease to be in this world until the Day of Res-
urrection . . . Within
this community, there corresponds at all times to
each of these Messengers a being who is “on the heart” of that Mes- senger and is his deputy (nā’ib). [Most know these four] only through
these deputies.86
This incorporation of nubuwwa into the congress of saints is far removed
from the d•wån as conceived
by Tirmidhī. It will be remembered that in that earlier
system not only was there no presence of messengers, but the entire congress
apparently came into existence only after the death of the prophet
Muḳammad.
In a final
twist, Ibn CArabī again
transforms the apex of the hierarchy of the
congress of saints.
He writes, “As for the pole, it is the spirit of Muḳammad (r¥˙ Mu˙ammad),
by which all the Messengers and all the Prophets are sus- tained.”
Chodkiewicz then concludes, “Idrīs, Elijah, Jesus and Khaďir are, like- wise, simply differentiated projections of the ˙aq•qa mu˙ammadiyya: in a certain sense,
they too are only ‘deputies.’”87
Beyond this description of the d•wån, Ibn CArabī takes Tirmidhī’s concept of
the Seal of sainthood and elborates upon it.
As we saw above, for Tirmidhī the Seal is essentially the final saint. But, in Ibn CArabī’s model, the
Seal has three manifestations. The first is the “Seal of Muḳammadan sainthood,” the second is the “Seal of general
sainthood” and the third is the “Seal of chil- dren.” The Seal of children is not a well-developed idea; it simply signifies the end
of time, being
the last human
born.88 On
the other hand,
Muḳammadan and general sainthood are fully developed concepts. Legislative prophecy (nubuwwa tashr•>), with the death of Muḳammad, has ended.
However, general prophecy continues and is synonymous with
walåya. This walåya takes two forms, Muḳammadan
sainthood and general sainthood—each with its own Seal.
This general
prophecy (nubuwwa >åmma) is what
God leaves open for humanity’s guidance. Ibn CArabī writes,
Know that walåya is an all-inclusive and general
function that never comes to an end, and which brings general [divine]
communications. As for the legsilative function of prophecy and mission,
this came to an end with Muḳammad, since there
will be no law-bringing prophet after him or community to receive
such, nor any messenger bringing divine law. This statement is a terrible
blow to the friends (awliyå’) of God because it implies the cessation
of the experience of total and perfect servanthood . . . God, however,
is kind to his servants
and has left for them general
prophecy, which brings no law with it. He has also left to them the power of legislation (tashr•>) through the exercise
of individual judgement (ijtihåd)
concerning rules and regulations.89
In the
second half of this passage Ibn CArabī is implying
that the saints, referred to here as his servants, through general prophecy,
have a function in legislative interpretation. Ibn CArabī goes on to describe this function of inter-
preter as it is found
in Muḳammad. It is through the same walåya (or
nubuwwa
>åmma) mentioned
above left for the saints
that Muḳammad interprets the
divine law
that he himself—in his function as messenger—has brought. We read,
When the Prophet speaks on matters
that lie outside
the scope of law,
he is then speaking as a saint and a gnostic, so that his station as a knower
[of truth] is more complete and perfect than that as a [mes- senger] or lawgiver. If you hear any of the [People
of God] transmit- ting sayings from him to the
effect that Saintship is higher than Prophecy,
he means only what we have just said. Likewise
if he says that the saint
is superior to the prophet
and the [messenger], he means only that
this is so within one person. This is because the [messen- ger], in his
Saintship, is more prefect than he is as a prophet or a [messenger]. It does
not mean that any saint coming after him is higher than he.90
So Muḳammad can function through sainthood or through his
prophecy. His prophecy, however, is limited to a time and place,
but walåya is universal and timeless. So within his person (or within that of any other
prophet or messen- ger), sainthood is superior to prophecy; but an individual
who has sainthood, but not prophecy
or mission, is not superior
to one who possesses prophecy,
or mission. This is the case because risåla and
nubuwwa are cumulative. In other
words, the messenger has mission, prophecy and sainthood; the prophet has
prophecy and sainthood; the saint has only sainthood.91
This is the
genius of Ibn CArabī’s doctrine of sainthood. Here walåya is extended far beyond the usual understanding of the saint. Unlike the doctrines
that preceeded it, this version of sainthood does not speak of a graying of the
line between the ultimate saints and the lower functions of the prophets, it
rather expands walåya into
a universal medium—it
becomes the hyle in which all else operates.92
As we mentioned earlier,
there are three
Seals. The Seal of the children we have mentioned. As for seals of sainthood, one seals general sainthood, while
the other seals Muḳammadan sainthood. Ibn CArabī describes them,
There are in
fact two Seals, one with which God seals sainthood in general and another with
which He seals Muḳammadan sainthood. CĪsā [i.e.
Jesus] is the Seal of Sainthood in an absolute
sense. He is the
saint who par excellence possesses the non-legislative prophetic func- tion in the time of this Community [i.e., the Muslim
community] . . .
When he descends at the end of time, it will be as the heir and the Seal, and
after him there will be no saint to be the holder of prophet- hood in general . . . The office of the Seal of Muḳammadan Sainthood
belongs to an Arab . . . I met him in 595 AH . . . As God has sealed
legislative
prophethood through Muḳammad,
through the Muḳam- madan Seal he has
sealed the sainthood which comes from the Mu- ḳammadan heritage, not the sainthood
which comes from the heritage of other prophets.93
So walåya from
the heritage of the prophet
Muḳammad (note the return of the vertical classification) is sealed in
the time of Ibn CArabī. Yet general walåya continues, manifested among those saints who inherit from prophets other than
Muḳammad. This walåya will
continue to be manifested until the end of time, at which point it will be sealed by
Jesus. The identity of this seal of Muḳam- madan
sainthood is unclear. As noted above, Ibn CArabī claims to have met him, but elsewhere he claims
himself to be this figure.94 CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, although not specifically called the Seal of Muḳammadan sainthood, may also
be the continuation of this walåya.
In an important passage CAlī is singled
out as the closest
of all humanity to Muḳammad, and most disposed to carrying on the Prophet’s sanctity.95
In his
description of the seal of saints Ibn CArabī describes a
figure who subordinates himself to the law, but in reality possesses
a more immediate link to God. In discussing the hadith account
of a vision Muḳammad had in which
he was the missing brick
(i.e., the seal)
in a wall symbolizing prophethood, Ibn CArabī adds the
vision of the seal of (Muḳammadan)
sainthood, here seeing two bricks. He recounts,
The reason
for his seeing two bricks is that, outwardly, he follows the Law of the Seal of
[Messengers], represented by the silver brick. This is his outer aspect. . .
Inwardly, however, he receives directly from God what he appears [outwardly] to
follow. . . He derives his knowledge from the same source as the angel who
reveals it to the [Messenger].96
Thus the
seal appears to be essentially superior. Further, this seal of saint- hood—in
light of the cessation of prophecy and mission—also becomes the medium by which
the messengers acquire their knowledge of God.
[N]one of the prophets
and [messengers] can attain to [knowledge of God] except from the Niche (mishkåt) of the Seal of the (Messen-
gers), nor are any of the saints able to attain to it except from the Niche of
the Seal of Saints, so that, in effect, none of the [messen- gers] can attain
to it, when they do so, except from the Niche of the Seal of Saints. This is because the office of [messenger]
and prophet (by prophet I mean the bringer of Sacred Law) comes to an end, while
Sainthood never ceases. Thus the [messengers], as being also
saints, attain only to what we have
mentioned from the Niche of the Seal of Saints, this being even more the case
with the lesser saints.97
This passage
makes it clear that the Seal of sainthood is in reality that by which prophets
and messengers—through their walåya—attain
knowledge of God.98 However, this lofty function of the
Seal of sainthood is in a sense neu- tralized.
It appears that the Seal of sainthood
is in essence simply one aspect of the Seal of messengers. This shift marks
the introduction of the eternal,
univer- sal Muḳammadan Reality (or Muḳammadan Spirit). Ibn >Arab•
writes, “As for
the Seal of Saints . . . this sainthood is among the excellencies of the Seal
of Messengers, Muḳammad.”99 In a particularly relevant
passage, Ibn >Arab• sig- nals that this Muḳammadan Reality is the source for all the highest spiritual
offices: “This Muḳammadan Spirit has
places in the universe where it mani- fests
itself. The most perfect (of these places)
are the Pole of (each)
Time, the afråd, the Muḳammadan Seal of Sainthood and the Seal of Universal Saint-
hood, Jesus.”100 Thus, these figures are simply the
various representatives for the Muḳammadan Reality; and the apparent
superiority of the seal of sainthood
over the prophets and messengers just mentioned is only a priority among
aspects of the Muḳammadan Reality. This superiority is not that of one individ-
ual over another, but rather that of walåya
over nubuwwa within the Muḳam- madan Reality.
This universal Muḳammad is described elsewhere in cosmological terms. We read, “The first being to be
endowed with existence was . . . the ‘divine calamus’, the ‘first Intellect’
who is also the ‘Muḳammadan Reality’ or the
‘Reality out of which all things were created’.”101 This
Reality is also the medium of divine creation: “The Spirit attributed to God
(Q. 32:8, where it is said that God breathed “His Spirit” into Adam) is the Muḳammadan Reality.”102
Chapter 2
The Early Shādhiliyya and Sanctity
As mentioned
in the introduction, the Wafā’iyya order
is a derivative of the Shādhiliyya
order. In chapters 4 and 5 it will be seen in detail the ways by which CAlī and Muḳammad Wafā’ carried on, or diverged from, Abū al-Ḥasan al- Shādhilī’s teachings
on sainthood. The task of the chapter
at hand is to explore these original Shādhilite teachings. Our exploration will touch first on the Shād- hiliyya order itself, its main proponents, and its primary
literature. Further, an attempt will be made to outline
what might be called a “Shādhiliyya-specific” doctrine of walåya. Of course it must be remembered that in speaking of the
“doctrine” of this sufi order, we are not necessarily describing teachings that
are exclusive to the Shādhiliyya or
that are wholly consistent with all other writings produced within the order. It must be remembered, too, that the saintly
founder was not a full-time theologian, and his teachings are not necessarily
systematic. These and other teachings
of the order often elude any systematiza- tion on the part of
researchers not only because of the oral (and often anec- dotal) nature of the
record of the words of al-Shādhilī, but also because these teachings are elaborated upon by later
leaders of the order. This dilemma is the
same for many schools of thought, mystical or not, where a charismatic founder is held up as the fountainhead of a movement,
when in fact subsequent minds
have contributed much. This
challenge to discern the primary teaching of
a founder (e.g.,
founder of a legal school,
a sectarian leader,
etc.) as distinct from later elaborations is
important. Yet of greater significance is the under- standing of the amalgam
of ideas that is produced
by this process. For example, academic research on the historical Jesus
is often fascinating, but this informa- tion does not tell us much about
Christian thought, doctrine, or even the early church. The point here is simply
that any discussion of the teachings of the
Shādhiliyya order will be necessarily a fuzzy delineation of
doctrine. Also, it will not suffice to only reproduce the hagiographical record
of the saint’s pro-
nouncements on walāya; the
contributions of the writings of the recognized leaders of the order after him
must also be taken into consideration.
The roots of
the Shādhiliyya are to be
found in the Maghreb. It is here that the founder, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī, was born of a sharifan family and established himself
as a leader. Having come originally from the tribal
area of Ghumāra in Morocco (south of Ceuta), born around 583/1187,1 al-Shādhilī probably moved
to Tunis as a boy. The events
of his early life are obscure, but it
is clear that he was educated and that he came to nurture contacts
with estab- lished shaykhs in
Tunis.2 The young Shādhilī relates that
his search for the “quịb of the age”3 took him to Iraq, where he was told
by the saintly figure Abū al-Fatḳ al-Wāsiṭī (d. 632/1234) to return to his native
Ghumāra. Here al-
Shādhilī became the
follower of CAbd al-Salām Ibn Mashīsh (or Bashīsh) (d. 622/1225).4 Ibn Mashīsh himself had been the student of the greatest
Maghrebi saint, Abū Madyan (d.
595/1198).5
At an undetermined point in time al-Shādhilī came to be associated with the village of al-Shādhila, some seventy kilometers south of Tunis. This association was due to his frequent retreats to a nearby cave in Jabal
Zaghwān.6 Having established a following
in Tunis, al-Shādhilī traveled to Egypt, in 642/1244.7 It is in Egypt that the Shādhiliyya
order saw its greatest flowering. Here many important figures came to the order, both in Alexandria and Cairo. Before dis-
cussing these figures, however, let us take a moment to survey the literature written
by and about these individuals.
Literature and History
of the Shådhiliyya
The Shādhiliyya order was for the first seventy years or so after
its founder’s death headed by a recognized inheritor of leadership, or khalīfa. The succes- sion line descended
from al-Shādhilī (d. 658/1259) to al-Mursī (d. 686/1287) to Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī (d.
709/1309) and to Dā’ūd Ibn Bākhilā (d. 733/1332). This
line of succession should not be taken too literally, however. After the
indisputable succession of al-Mursī, having
been appointed by al- Shādhilī himself, the order quickly
spread beyond the confines of its first ribāị in Alexandria. In a few decades
no single shaykh
could convincingly claim
to be the head of the entire order in Egypt and the Maghreb.8 Returning to the question of the
literature of the order, it should first be noted that al-Shādhilī himself left no systematic writings. His most important compositions were his
supplications (du’ā). Many of these
are preserved, along with letters of guid- ance written by al-Shādhilī to followers back in Tunis,
in the work Durrat al-
asrār wa tuИfat al-abrār by Muḳammad Ibn Abī al-Qāsim al-Himyarī, or Ibn
al-?abbāgh
(d.724/1323 or 733/1332). The author of this hagiography, of whom we know
virtually nothing, compiled accounts of Shādhili’s life and death, miracles, letters to followers in
Tunis, supplications, injunctions, and elaborations on certain traditional
mystical ideas. Ibn al-?abbāgh’s composi- tion is of great value, despite the
occasional borrowing from the work of Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī, due to its Maghrebi orientation. The only other substan- tial hagiography of al-Shādhilī was composed by Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī, which is certainly
Egyptian in orientation. This work, entitled
Laịā’if al-minan, includes hagiographical accounts
of the author’s shaykh, al-Mursī,9 along with those of al-Shādhilī. In the first chapter Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh makes mention
of the earlier notices on
al-Shādhilī by al-Qasṭalānī (d.
686/1287), Abū CAbd Allāh ibn al-NuCām (d. 682/1284), CAbd al-Ghaffār ibn Nūḳ (d. 708/1308)10 and ?afī al-Dīn ibn Abī al-Man?ūr
(d.682/1283).11
In addition
to these two hagiographies, the Durrat al-asrār and
the Laịā’if al-minan, there now appears to be a third primary source
for the teachings of al-Shādhilī. It is a rather short exposition on a number of traditional sufi ideas, such as intercession, sin, mystical vision,
gnosis, and so on. The text in manu-
script form is cataloged under the following title: Risālat al-Shaykh Abū al- Ḥasan al-Shādhilī.12
Of the fifty-six sections that make up this work, I have been
able to locate five in the Durrat
al-asrār, and none in the Laịā’if al-
minan. With the facts available
to us at present, it is not possible to know which,
of the Durrat al-asrār
or the Risālat al-Shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī, is the earlier
source. Despite the questions of priority and the anonymous nature of the
original compiler, the Risāla has not
receded into obscurity; in fact, the entirety of the manuscript is reproduced in Ibn CAyyād, al-Mafākhir al-’aliyya fī ma’āthir al-Shādhiliyya.13 Note should also be made here that the hagiographi-
cal
and doctrinal material presented in Ibn Bākhilā’s al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya con- cerning al-Shādhilī is drawn from Laịā’if
al-minan.
In addition
to these primary sources there exist also a number of signifi- cant works that
have served as elaborations on the doctrines of the Shādhilite school. Among these,
the better known would be Aḳmad Zarrūq (d. 900/1494) Qawā’id al-taṣawwuf 14 and al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), Ta’yīd al-Иaqīqat al-’aliyya wa tashyīd al-ịarīqa al-Shādhiliyya.15
The biographical dictionaries, from the eighth/fourteenth century
onward, invariably contain entries
on al-Shādhilī. The earliest substantial entry is to be
found in the Mir’āt al-janān of
al-YāfiCī, (d. 768/1367).16 Later hagiographical compilations, drawing
variously on all of these sources, include the above mentioned al-Mafākhir al-’aliyya. This work contains
accounts of al-Shādhilī’s life and
miracles, his sayings, his supplications, and various commentaries. The author,
Ibn CAyyād, remains unknown to us, but from his having quoted
of al-Munāwī (d. 1031/1622), we can place
him in the latter half of the eleventh/
seventeenth century.17 The famous Egyptian scholar
CAbd al-Ḥalīm Maḳmūd
(d. 1978)
produced al-Madrasa al-Shādhiliyya
al-Иadītha wa imāmuhā Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī in
1967. Of all these later
compilations, the most impres-
sive is surely the 1951 publication by CAlī Sālim al-CAmmār entitled Abū al- Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (2 vols.), also
in Egypt.18
Beyond the hagiographies composed,
the early Shādhiliyya was informed by the discourses on mystical thought produced by Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī. His most
famous work is certainly his collection of aphorisms known as al- Ḥikam al-’Aịā’iyya.19 This poetic masterpiece has
circulated throughout the Muslim world and has been the subject of a number of commentaries. Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī also composed
MiftāИ al-falāИ, a manual
of sufi devotional practice with an extensive
discussion of invocation (dhikr).20 Other important works include
a meditation on the name of God, entitled al-Qaṣd al-mujarrad fī ma’rifat al-Ism al-Mufarrad,21
and al-Tanwīr
fī isqāị al-tadbīr.22 The impact of Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh on the Shādhiliyya order would be hard to overstate. Due to the strength of
his writings and his position as the most prominent student of al-Shādhilī’s successor al-Mursī, it is through
him that the order assumed
much of the character it did.23
Al-Shådhil•, Tirmidh•, and Ibn >Arab•
As noted in
chapter 1, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and Ibn CArabī had much to say about walāya, among other mystical topics. An important question then is,
What are the connections between
these thinkers and the Shādhiliyya? Further
along we will see that Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ read both Tirmidhī and Ibn CArabī directly, but to what extent
did the Shādhiliyya order take up these ideas and become a medium for their
interpretation and transmission?
We do have
some clear notices that al-Shādhilī read Tirmidhī’s Kitāb khatm al-awliyā’. The Laịā’if al-minan recounts a story of
al-Mursī miracu- lously traveling to Alexandria in order to sit with al-Shādhilī while
he reads the Kitāb khatm
al-awliyā’.24 In the same hagiography we also read of al-Shādhilī listing
fifteen karāmāt al-quịb, that is, the
miracles worked by the highest saint, which serve as proofs
of his superiority. To this account Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh adds, “This [list functions] like that which al-Tirmidhī mentioned in his book Kitāb khatm al-awliyā’; namely,
he asked one making false claims to walāya, “Describe to us the stations of
the saints.” After this he [Tirmidhī] posed a
number of questions to this pretender to walāya.”25
Further on the question of intertext, we note that Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh elsewhere offers two quotations directly
from Ibn CArabī,26 and also Ibn CArabī’s recount- ing
of the story of a vessel, destined for use in the privy, speaking at a dinner
table.27 In
addition, it is mentioned that al-Shādhilī was familiar
with one Abū al-CIlm Yasīn, who is identified as a disciple
of Ibn CArabī.28 More interesting
though is
the account of a meeting between al-Shādhilī and ?adr al-Dīn al- Qūnawī (d. 672/1273), a well-known student
and commentator on Ibn CArabī. The
encounter is described thus:
When the
shaykh ?adr al-Dīn al-Qūnāwī came to
Egypt as an envoy (!mßN), he met with Shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan [al-Shādhilī]. He [al- Qūnawī] spoke
in the presence [of al-Shādhilī] on many different sci- ences. The shaykh [al-Shādhilī] waited with his head bowed for
al-Qūnawī to finish. Then he raised his head and asked, “Tell me (§ƒMnføı)
where the Pole of the age is today,
and who is his sincere com- panion, and what things does he know?”
To this al-Qūnawī was silent and offered no answer.29
Unfortunately Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh provides no further commentary on this story. The late
Paul Nwyia understood this account as a rejection by al-Shādhilī of the
authority of Ibn CArabī.30 This understanding assumes that al-Qūnawī has been
forced to silently concede that the pole of the age is al-Shādhilī, and not
Ibn CArabī. However, it must be noted that Ibn CArabī did not claim for himself the office of quịb. Further,
the timing of this encounter, which must have taken
place after al-Qūnawī’s second visit to
Egypt (i.e., 640/1249), is evidence against this being a debate
over polehood at all. Ibn CArabī would at
that point have already been dead two years and thus would no longer have been
a candidate for the office.31
The Early Figures
of the Order
In general,
it seems fair to say that the Shādhiliyya
order is conservative by nature. The charismatic example of its founder
excludes both antinomian behavior and excessive
devotional practices. The figure of the saint al-Shādhilī is rarely
presented as demonstrating his spiritual status through the execution of miracles, although he certainly makes clear claims
to being the geatest saint. It is partly due to this
conservative image, and partly to the literary body pro- vided by Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh, that this order enjoyed the allegiance of a good number of important figures in medieval
Egypt. Later writers
would stress, in their gen- eral
characterizations of Shādhlite thought, and with an eye to certain antisufi criticisms, that the doctrine
of oneness of being (waИdat al-wujūd) is absent from this
order.32
Before
moving on to a discussion of these figures we can finish our dis- cussion of
the Shādhiliyya by comparing
it to another important order, the Aḳmadiyya,
founded at about the same time. This ịarīqa
is named for its founder, Aḳmad al-Badawī (d. 675/1276).33 Jean-Claude Garcin characterizes
this order
in the fifteenth century as “service oriented” and preserving a rural element in its identity. In the arena
of sufi practice, the order is typified as nur-
turing asceticism and humility, scrupulousness in questions of illicit and
licit behavior, and a tendency to shun those of worldly authority. In contrast,
the Shādhiliyya of this period stressed the instruction of disciples (murīdīn ), asso-
ciated with those in power,
and stressed supplication (du’ā) and sermonizing in their ritual.34
In Egypt the two centuries following the death of Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskan- darī, corresponding roughly with the end of Mamluk rule, were
undoubtedly the golden age of the Shādhiliyya
order. This period saw the expansion of a number of sufi orders. There were
also many important writers and thinkers associated with the Shādhiliyya. The student of Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh, Taqī al-Dīn al- Subkī (d. 756/1355), wrote a refutation of some of Ibn Taymiyya’s criticisms of sufism,
defending the practice of supplications for the Prophet.35
In adition to the Shādhilī branch, which
descended from al-Mursī to Muḳammad Wafā’, there was the line of the Ḥanafiyya, which also ran from al-Mursī, but took another path.36 Mention
must also be made of Abū al-Mawāhib Ibn
Zaghdān (or Zaghdūn) al-Tūnsī (d. 882/1477). He was a Shādhilite who came to associ- ate himself with the Wafā’iyya. There are over a dozen titles
attributed to him, including one on listening to music and dancing in sufi Иadras and
an account of the Wafā’ family.37
Between Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī and Muḳammad Wafā’ there was another Egyptian Shādhilī shaykh
of note, Dā’ūd Ibn Bākhilā (or Ibn Mākhilā) al-Shādhilī al-Iskandarī. This Ibn Bākhilā was Muḳammad Wafā’s spiritual director and his initiator into the order.
Since this teacher is far less known to scholarship than his predecessor Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh, a discussion of him and his writings seems
appropriate here. Ibn Bākhilā’s best-known work is his ’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq.38 He knew well the hagiographical sources
for al-Shādhilī and the miraculous stories and sayings
of al-Mursī; so not surprisingly, in his writings he quotes from them with no substantial mention
of other saints.
In his discus- sions of walāya he echos much of the complexity
of Ibn CAṭā’ Allah’s treatment of the
subject in the latter’s Laịā’if al-minan.
We may say that Ibn Bākhilā’s conception of walāya was thoroughly
“Shādhilite.” He wrote within the literary context of this order, reflecting his earlier teachers,
and sought to present these mystical doctrines to those who would follow the order. His commentary on al-
Shādhilī’s Ḥizb al-baИr, entitled al-Laịīfa
al-marḍiyya,39 was not only the first
systematic commentary on this quasi-sacred text—a fact which certainly served
to underscore his own spiritual authority within the order—but also it provided him the occasion to authoritatively interpret
the essentials of Shādhilite mysti-
cism. As we shall see, these essentials have a lot to do with walāya.
Ibn Bākhilā’s own
writings tell us nothing of the details of his life. One typically hagiographical account, which seems to have been put into circulation
The Early Shådhiliyya and Sanctity 33
early, tells
us that Ibn Båkhilå was an illiterate guard of the household of the governor of Alexandria. In spite of his low standing, the governor came to rec- ognize his saintly authority to such
an extent that the two men had a peculiar agreement worked out. When the governor held court, Ibn Båkhilå
used to sit
facing him. They shared a system of
signals by which the governor would be told whether an accused was guilty or
innocent. Ibn Båkhilå’s signs were that if he grasped his beard and pulled it to
his chest, the governor would know that the accused
was guilty, and if
he pulled it upwards, then the accused was innocent.40
This device
of the saint wielding the true power behind the mundane worldly authorities is
a popular one in sufi hagiographies. However, it seems that Ibn Båkhilå was a rather more substantial intellectual figure than this account
sug- gests. The biographical collections on the Målik• jurists of
the period offer a more substantial portrait. We are told that
at a young age [Ibn Båkhilå] studied
at the Kihåriyya school in Cairo
. . . which today is know as the Jåmi> Jawdar•, in Jawdariyya Íagh•ra. In this mosque
>Umar ibn Idr•s is burried.
[Ibn Båkhilå] then moved
to Alexandria, where he became
the companion of Ab¥ al->Abbås al- Murs• . . . and from whom he learned a love of sufism. After [the
shaykh’s] death, he followed his student Yåq¥t al->Arsh•. While in Alexandria he studied at Masjid Badr al-D•n al-Jamål• [in the
>Aṭṭåriyya]. Once he finished his studies he went on to the canonical
[summary] court (mu˙kama shar>iyya) as a chamberlain (˙åjib); he then rose to become clerk (kåtib jalsa), a position he held until
his death . . . (Ibn Båkhilå) died in Alexandria in 733 ah, and is burried
in his zåwiya there, on the street
of Tåj al-D•n al->Ådil•.41
So Ibn Båkhilå was an accomplished jurist before he took up the sufi path. The breadth of his learning
is indicated by the fact that to him are attributed both a
summary of a work by al-Qå∂• >Abd al-Wahhåb and a summary of a work on
grammar by al-Zajjåj•, in addition
to smaller works
on fiqh and rhetoric.42
The Writings of Ibn Båkhilå
Of the shaykh’s two extant works,
his >Uy¥n al-˙aqå’iq is
certainly more in the
inspired mystical style one might expect from the head of a sufi order. It con-
tains neither an introduction nor a conclusion, appearing to be a nonthematic
compilation of Ibn Båkhilå’s utterances in the “wa qåla . . .wa qåla . . .” form.
In addition
to its discussions of walāya, it
touches on many typical themes of sufi thought: the levels of divine secrets,
exoteric versus esoteric knowledge, the hierarchies of believers, “humanity” as
a spiritual veil, the soul’s struggle against the lower self, and the
extinction and persistence of the soul in the divine. In this work Ibn Bākhilā also
touches on the progressive Self-disclosure (tajallī) of the Divine and the levels of the seen and unseen
worlds. Also pre- sented is an
unusual discussion of roles of the Muḳammadan
darkness and light.43 This work is in the traditional style of accounts
of the teachings of sufi shaykhs, that is, lengthy
compilations of statements on themes without a sus- tained development.
In contrast
to his ’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq, Ibn Bākhilā’s al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya presents us with a
much more systematic discussion. The subject here is the famous du’ā (supplication) “Ḥizb al-baḳr” by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī. In the
introduction Ibn Bākhilā supplies a number of basic sufi concepts, along with a discussion on the variants
of the Иadīth qudsī
“Whoever attacks My saint has made
war on Me.”44 In the first of three following sections making up the main body of the book, Ibn Bākhilā discusses
the recognized spiritual benefits of reciting
this prayer. He also presents
a number of hagiographical episodes
from the life of its composer. Ibn Bākhilā’s source
for these accounts
appears to be Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī. From this
same source he repeats a number of comments on the discipline of the Shādhiliyya order. This section ends with a lengthy quote from the pro-Shādhilite poetry of al-Bū?īrī.45
The second
section presents the text of Ḥizb al-baИr46 along with com- ments pointing
out the Qur’anic sources for certain phrases
and explaining cer- tain vocabulary used. Ibn Bākhilā goes on to
recount some of the miraculous stories of the power of this prayer, which
include passengers on the Nile and the Indian Ocean
being saved from storms and travelers being
saved from ban- dits. An interesting point is also
taken up here; it centers on the question of how prophets, saints, the learned,
and the commoner can all petition God for forgiveness or protection using
the same formula.
The question is: Can they be
asking for the same thing?
Ibn Bākhilā’s answer
will be discussed below.
In the final
section the issue of the prayer’s use of Qur’anic phrases is taken up. In defending
the intertextual nature of Ḥizb al-baИr
(and incidentally,
the legitimacy of the divine inspiration of saints like al-Shādhilī) Ibn Bākhilā makes use of a range of arguments. He draws on fiqh sources (Qāďī CIyād’s dis- cussion of Muḳammad’s use of Qur’anic phrases
as supplication),47 theological arguments (al-Bāqillānī’s doctrine of i’jāz,
or inimitability of the Qur’an,48 allowing
for intertextual use, but insisting that the quote loses it miraculous nature),
and the principles of rhetoric (iqtibās,
or adaptation, in composition preserving the integrity of the original Qur’anic
or hadith source).49
This prayer
commentary shows Ibn Bākhilā to have been a well-trained theologian in addition to being
a sufi master. Although Qur’anic
commentary
The Early Shādhiliyya and Sanctity 35
had become a
sophisticated science before the Middle Ages,
it seems that Ibn Bākhilā’s al-Laịīfa
al-marḍiyya was the first sustained
systematic commentary on a sufi prayer. This small branch of “literary
sufism” has survived into modern
times.50
Ibn Bākhilā’s ’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq is a compilation of
mystical sayings. It provides no details
on the life of Ibn Bākhilā and makes
almost no mention
of karāmāt. In contrast, his al-Laịīfa
al-marḍiyya repeats a number of al-Shādhilī’s miracles and those of his inspired
composition, Ḥizb al-baИr. This work offers an additional element in its
presenting a record of walāya. The
prayer itself becomes, to some extent, a vehicle for sanctity. Just as al-Shādhilī’s sainthood is attested to, so is the divinely inspired nature of the Иizb. The discussion of walāya not only positions the saint carefully in relation to the prophets, messen-
gers, and the common believers,
it likewise makes efforts to position the Иizb in relation to the Qur’an and simply
mundane compositions.
Proximity to the Divine
The concept
of walāya, as it was developed in the
early Shādhiliyya, repre- sents
a complex of ideas. In a discussion of walāya
in the thought of Ibn CArabī, Michel
Chodkiewicz points to a number of concepts that were to remain essential for
most mystical thinkers after the second half of the sev- enth/thirteenth century.
For Ibn CArabī, hagiology is made up of three parts: the Nature of sanctity, which is based on
the notion of proximity (qurba); the
Forms of sanctity, which are based on the prophetic heritage (wirātha), which the saints follow in both apparent and esoteric ways; and finally
the Functions of sanctity,
which are tied up with the idea of substitution (niyāba), which manifests itself in the hierarchy of saints (quịb, abdāl etc.).51 Although these ideas are to be found in embryonic form in the sufi tradition before Ibn CArabī, his
elaborations and innovations on these concepts set the tone and direction for almost
all mystical speculation that followed. As discussed in the previous chapter, he reintroduced the
“Seal of the saints,” an echo of the theological position on Muḳammad as the “Seal of the prophets.” The term Seal of the saints came into wide use after Ibn CArabī. The Wafā’iyya of Egypt, for example, took up this idea, with CAlī Wafā’ attributing the title to his father Muḳammad Wafā’, and tying to it the concept of ‘tajdīd’ (the periodic renewal of the Islamic religion).
This new dimension of the renewer turned the Seal into a cyclical seal of saints. Not unlike the extension of prophecy via sainthood, which shall
be discussed below, CAlī Wafā’s renewing seal extends the concept of the ulti- mate saint. We shall discuss the Wafā’iyya in later chapters.
Returning to the analysis proposed by Chodkiewicz, the idea of “proximity” to the divine is found throughout mystical thought—be it Islamic or not. In the
>Uy¥n al-˙aqå’iq we note a few examples of this dimension, which in Islamic mysticism is often held to be the
result of fanå’ or extinction of the
self in God.52 Ibn
Bākhilā tells us that in this spiritual state the gnostic
(>årif) sees the
invisible realm (ghayb) and that he
is thus no longer an “I,” at least until he regains his normal state. “If the
gnostic witnesses the unseen, the Throne [of God], His foot-stool, or anything else, then he is not a man, rather he is some- thing other than that which his people know . . . The description of his nature, when [he is] not a witness
of the unseen, is ‘I’.”53 The highest
of the gnostics is he who
transcends his own sense of self and of being. Ibn Bākhilā writes,
There are three kinds of servant
of God: the servant who does not see
his
sin—he is far [from God]; the servant who acknowledges his sin— he is happy; and the servant who does not see his own existence—he is the true witness [of God] . . . For any gnostic whose existence does not
die before his spiritual follower,
that follower will never reach God.54
This
transcendence is thus an essential qualification for the spiritual guide. Also, thanks
to their being
closer to the realm of the unseen,
the saints are the
only ones in creation who know the esoteric secrets of the Qur’an.55 Mutual love, between God and his creation,
may also lead to this proximity. Al-Shādhilī writes, “He who loves God and is loved
by him, his walåya has been estab-
lished (a÷i!M Jfi väė) . . . He whose
walåya has been established in relation to God, has no fear of meeting God (in
the hereafter).”56
The saints, being closer than the rest of creation to God, act as a barzakh
(intermediary / lit. isthmus) for the divine light. Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh writes,
[God] sent
His light upon the hearts of His saints, and thus the heav- ens of their
spirits were illuminated, along with the earths of their lower spirits (nuf¥sihim) and bodily forms . . . He
made their hearts the site of the manifestation of His Essence
and the appearance of His Attributes. He created them that He might appear
in them specifically (h˝amaø Liiė .iziJ Lˆ.iΩí); He is the Apparent, generally, in all things.
He
appears in them by His Secrets and Lights, manifesting in them and in others by
His Power and Might . . . He brings them to Him, through a gate of truth, by
way of extinction (fanå) from all
that is other than Him, and sends them out, through a gate of truth, to cre-
ation subsisting (båq•n) (in God) by
His Light and Splendour. They are baråzikh
(sing. barzakh) of the Light, and
mines of the Secrets. He connects with them after having cut them off, and separates
them after having united with them.57
This passage
reflects the Akbarian
emphasis on God having created
in order to be known58 but gives the saints a privileged position in the process of God
The Early Shådhiliyya and Sanctity 37
becoming known. For the saint, this function as barzakh can only be fully exe-
cuted by abandoning his proximity
to God. Specifically, the highest
saint is he who is first absorbed into the Divine (fanå’) and then returned to creation to
guide others and to contemplate God through His signs in creation (baqå’).59 In another passage, al-Shādhilī echoes the
superiority of the sainthood that sees the divine behind his creation. We read,
There are
two kinds of saints: he who is annihilated from all things (wal• yafnå) and sees nothing but God, and the saint who subsists (wal• yabqå) in all things and sees God in all things. The second is more
complete, since God only created His kingdom in order to be seen in it.
The existents are mirrors of the Attributes, and he who is removed from existence is removed from witnessing God60 in it. The existents
were not created for you to simply see them, but rather so that you might see in
them their Lord. The aim of the Lord
is that you see them with an eye that is blind to them, that you see them due
to His appearance in them, and that you do not see them because
of their existence.61
The idea of the superiority of experience of the Divine through creation—versus transcending creation—is also well established in the writings of Ibn CArabī.62
The Levels of Walåya
Beyond this dimension of simple proximity to the divine,
a further distinction may be made. This is the
division of sanctity into a superior walåya
and a lesser walåya. For Ḥakīm Tirmidhī, as was seen above, this distinction is to be made between the “true saint of God” (wal• Allåh ˙aqqan) and the “saint of
God’s Truth” (wal• ˙aqq Allåh). The first is chosen by God through
divine gen- erosity (j¥d), while the second must make great
spiritual efforts in order to approach God, which ultimately attracts
divine compassion (ra˙ma). This com-
passion allows him to approach
the initial level of proximity granted to the wal• Allåh ˙aqqan but never to surpass
it.63 This idea of attaining walåya through ones own efforts seems to underly
al-Shādhilī’s statement, “If you want to have a share (naṣ•b) of what the saints of God have, then you must abandon all people except for him who guides you to God, by true signs and solid acts—which are not opposed by the Book or the sunna.”64
This distinction of walåya on two levels was taken up later in the ranks
of the Shādhiliyya. Abū al-CAbbās al-Mursī speaks of special servants who are superior to the general
saints. Their actions, attributes, and essences are veri- fied in those of God. Their share of the divine Secrets is so
great, in fact, that it inhibits the common saint’s access to God.65 In the Durrat al-asrår of Ibn al-?abbāgh, al-Shādhilī relates words on this subject. He says:
If there
should occur to your mind anything that puts you at ease, gives you joy, makes
you sad, upon which or on account of which your mind is laden
with care, that is a defect which
will cause you to
fall from the greatest sainthood (walāya
kubrā) . . . (Yet) it may be that you will obtain the lesser sainthood
(walāya ṣughrā) in the ranks
of religious faith and abundance
of religious works.
In the lesser saint- hood there
are never lacking
the whispering and passing thoughts, for you are far from the lowest heaven and near to Satan and your passion
which listens stealthily, makes suggestions, and gives false reports. But if you are aided by the stars of knowledge
of the faith, the planets of certainty (yaqīn), and the constancy of the divine upholding, then your
(greater) sainthood in this matter is achieved.66
It appears
that not only are there
two levels of sanctity, but that those
of lesser walāya can benefit
from the walāya of
their superiors. Ibn CAbbād al-Rundī (d.
792/1390), interpreting al-Shādhilī’s cryptic
satement, “He who reads this sup-
plication (Иizb), he has what we
have, and he is obliged as we are,” says that the true reader inherits
from the saints walāya,
proximity to God and the ability
to perform miracles.67 This idea of ones walāya in a relationship with the walāya of others is not new; the famous
Junayd of Baghdad (d. 298/910) stated, “Adherence to this our science is walāya; if this blessing has escaped you personally, then do not fail to adhere to it in others.”68 Ibn CArabī noted the potential walāya in
all humans, which
is at heart simply the rediscovery of the
divine Attributes and Names, in the
form of which Adam was created.69
In the Laịā’if al-minan, Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī describes this sanctity of two levels.
He writes, “There are two kinds of sanctity: one where the saint
takes God as a friend
(walī yatawallā Allāh), and another where
it is God who choses the saint as friend (walī yatawallā-hu Allāh) . . .70 The first mode repre- sents minor sainthood (walāya ṣughrā), the second, major
sainthood (walāya kubrā).”71 Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh elaborates further on the model, noting
that one may say “sainthood
of faith” (walāyat al-īmān) and
“sainthood of certainty” (walāyat al-yaqīn); or yet “sainthood of the truthful” (walāyat al-ṣādiqīn) and “sainthood of the sincere” (walāyat al-ṣiddīqīn). “The first element
of these pairs consists
of working for God with pure intention, having complete confi- dence in him and the retribution He has promised. As for the second, the higher
level, it occurs by the extinction in man of his ego from the world, and his sub- sistence uniquely in God.”72 Further, he notes, “The two modes
of sainthood previously evoked may also be described as “sainthood of elucidation” (walāya dalīl wa burhān) and “sainthood of witnessing” (walāya shuhūd
wa ’iyān). The first is that of men of reason, while the second belongs to those of true vision.”73 Concerning this two-tiered model of sanctity,
it is clear that the early
Shādhilī thinkers had developed a more nuanced
and complex doctrine than
had existed
in earlier sources.
Even the prolific
Ibn >Arab•, a contemporary of al-Shådhil•, does not seem to have elaborated on the concept
in this way. Cer- tainly Ibn >Arab•, and Tirmidh• before him, distinguished between those who are chosen by God and those who
approach Him by their own efforts. But for Ibn >Arab•
it
seems that sanctity has no function as a kind of ladder against which the progress of the soul may be measured.74 From our discussions in the
previous chapter, it is clear that for Ibn >Arab• walāya does not contain within it stages through which the
improving soul passes. The reason for this new elaboration on walāya within the Shådhiliyya is not completely clear, but per- haps it is the context of the sufi
order that played a role.75 Perhaps the impor-
tance of teaching disciples—in distinction to an emphasis on philosophical
speculation—presented the occasion for such a model of walāya.76
In his ’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq, Ibn Båkhilå also discusses
the two-tiered model of
sanctity. He writes:
“There are two groups of saints: the servant who speaks
from the treasury of his heart, and the servant
who speaks from the treasury
of his unseen (ghaybihi). He
who speaks from the treasury of his heart is restricted (maИṣūr), while he who speaks from the treasury
of his unseen is not restricted.”77
Ibn Båkhilå also describes three modes of knowing reality.
“The first mode belongs to those who have little vision, and who use
interpretation (i’tibār). The second
mode belongs to those who see by the manifestation of lights (bi-tajallī al-anwār); while the third
belongs to those who see by the extinction of the signs (āthār) of creation.”78 Although
not named in this pas- sage, it would seem that those who use interpretation
would be the doctors of dogmatic religion, while those who see by the lights
are those of lesser saint- hood, and those who transcend the signs of creation,
as we saw earlier from Ibn >Aṭå’ Allåh al-Iskandar•, are the people of greater sainthood. The point here is that although Ibn Båkhilå does not use the terms walāya ṣughra or
kubrā, his doctrine of walāya is
in fact two-tiered.
Ibn Båkhilå describes another
dual form of walāya.
This is best seen as a
model that contains a God-centred walāya and
a human-centred walāya.
Walāya is of two kinds: It is
active as subject (fā’il) . . . or as
object (maf’ūl) . . . If it functions
as subject, then God takes charge of (tawallā)
His servant and sets him in the way of obedience, shelters him from
disobedience, and bestows upon him gnosis, all of this by His guidance. If it
is active as object, then the servant turns towards God and is granted
obedience or His command [in the case of mes- sengers], and the avoidance of divine proscriptions, while being occu- pied with service to Him.79
Thus, the
first form of walāya describes God’s
upholding of humanity, and the second, humanity’s best response. This depiction may be understood as
presenting walåya as a two-sided coin, with divine
guidance on the one hand, and human service
on the other. This understanding is quite natural
in light of the alternating meaning
of the term wal• (pl. awliyå), or saint, derived
from the same root as walåya, that is WLY. In fact the word wal• is found
in the Qur’an referring both to God, as guardian, and to His saints. For example, in 7:196 we read
“My protector is Allāh (wal•-ya), who sent down the Book,”
and in 10:62 “Truly, the saints (awliyå)
will have no fear, nor shall they grieve.”
Sanctity and Prophecy
An essential
dimension of the concept of walåya as
developed in the Shād- hiliyya tradition was that of the extension, in one form or another,
of the role of prophecy (nubuwwa) into walåya. In the doctrine of Ibn CArabī, as inherited from Tirmidhī, sanctity
exists not only in the saints but also in the prophets.
In effect, walåya encompasses
prophecy and messengerhood. Yet, at the same time, the saints as individuals
are the inheritors of certain prophets, and this heritage (wiråtha) provides a spiritual model for the saints.80 It appears that this expansion of walåya was not taken up by the earliest
Shādhilī shaykhs.
Although it is clear that they had read Tirmidhī’s Khatm al-awliyå’ and
knew something of Ibn CArabī,81 their concept of sainthood did not take up the exten-
sion of walåya upward into the realm of prophecy;
it did not take up the idea of
nubuwwa
>åmma.82 The distinction between sanctity and prophecy was more
clearly preserved, seeking simply to extend the function of prophecy down- ward
into the realm of sainthood.
However, the Shādhilite tradition
did follow Tirmidhī and Ibn CArabī
in
the
recognition of saints as the inheritors of the prophets. According to Tir- midhī, the saint’s inheritance may consist of a share of
prophecy. This share dictates his position in the hierarchy of saints.
There are
ranks amongst persons drawn unto God (majdh¥b¥n)
and those who hear supernatural speech (mu˙addath¥n).
Some of them have been given
a third of prophethood, while
others have been given
a half and others still have been given more. But the most highly endowed in
this respect is the one who possesses the seal of [saint- hood] (khatm al-walåya) with God.83
As noted
above, in the Akbarian system the
forms walåya takes in individual
saints is determined by prophetic heritage (wiråtha). This dynamic is certainly
present in the early Shādhiliyya, but there
is little elaboration. For example, in a passage intended to refute those who
would deny the miracles of the saints, Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh argues that these
miracles are linked to powers beyond the saints
themselves.
More precisely, these miracles are possible only because of the saint’s
association with a prophet.
Perhaps the
reason for denying miracles (karāma)
is the begrudging of them the one to whom they have come. In fact, when
miracles appear through (a saint), they are simply witness to the sincerity of
the path of him he follows (matbū’ihi). They are a karāma when they occur to a saint;
and they are a mu’jiza (prophetic evidentiary miracle)
when they occur to him [whom the saint] follows (mutāba’atihi). Thus they say, every karāma for a saint is a mu’jiza
for the prophet that the saint follows. So do not watch the follower, rather look at the
might of his leader.84
Although the
term wirātha is not used here, it is
clear that it is the basic con- cept being described. It is interesting to note
that this model of inheritance places the prophets squarely between the saints
and God—in contrast to the principle that sainthood is based on an ultimate
proximity to the divine.
In other passages the idea of prophetic heritage may be presented generally or quite specifically. Al-Shādhilī himself
makes the general statement, “Even though the ranks of the prophets and
messengers are illustrious, [the saints] have
a share (naṣīb) in them, since
there is no prophet or messenger who does
not have an heir (wārith) from this community. Every heir has a rank according
to his inheritance from his legate.”85 Although
his theory of prophetic inheri- tance is not well developed, al-Shādhilī did add a
second tier to wirātha. He states,
“Among the [saints] there are a number who exclusively enjoy the endowment (mādda) from the Prophet of God, which
they witness as the essence of certainty—but this number is small. And yet
those of verification (taИqīq) are
many. Every prophet and saint has some endowment from the Prophet.”86 The last
line is particularly significant. It sets up a second level of inheritance, namely,
from the prophets
upward to Muḳammad. In the wirātha model presented by Ibn CArabī the Иaqīqa muИammadiyya would
be put into service here as the overarching entity from which all
prophetic heritage is inherited. For al-Shādhilī himself this
seems to be the case also, but again, elaboration is lacking.
In the Durrat al-asrār, al-Shādhilī is recorded
as saying that the saints
are
the
substitutes (abdāl) for the
messengers (rusul) and the prophets (anbiyā’); naturally those who are the
substitutes for Muḳammad are the elite. He
says,
The saints are divided
into two categories. One of them substitutes for the [messengers], and the other substitutes for the prophets. The substi-
tutes of the prophets are the righteous
ones (al-ṣāliИūn) and the sub-
stitutes of the messengers are the sincere
(al-ṣiddīqūn). The difference
between the righteous ones and the sincere is like the difference between the prophets
and messengers. There
are some of one, and some of the
other—except that, among them, there are a number who exclusively
enjoy the endowment from the [Messenger] of God.87
The term abdāl is used here in the early Shādhiliyya not as a part of a set hierar- chy, but rather as a more general saintly
category. In the preceding passage
no clear priority is given to either the substitutes of the prophets
or the substitutes of the messengers. However, elsewhere we are told
that the substitutes of the messengers are the elite, while the common are the substitutes of the prophets.88 Yet the following seems to suggest that the substitutes of the prophets constitute
the highest position
possible. “This is the path of ascent
to the presence of the Most High, Most Lofty. This is the
path of the beloved, substitutes of the prophets (abdāl al-anbiyā’), and of what is accorded any one of them beyond
this, no person can describe
a single particle.”89 In light of the lack of any fur- ther discussion of abdāl in the sources, it is safe to say
that these discussions suggest the early Shādhiliyya did not follow the fixed hierarchical model estab- lished
by Ibn CArabī.
This
extension of prophecy toward the saints may be found also in Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī. He states,
“[K]now that the lights appearing
from the saints of God are from the emanation of the lights of prophethood upon them.” Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh develops this idea further, identifying the
content of this irradi- ation (anwār)
as being the Muḳammadan Reality. He
continues, “So the Muḳammadan Reality
(al-Иaqīqa al-muИammadiyya) resembles the sun, and the hearts of the saints are like
moons.”90 Elsewhere he links the prophets to
the saints by stating that “the graces received by the saints are from the Muḳammadan Reality; and the saints are the lights of prophethood,
and the dawning of their illuminations. The
manifestations of the lights of saint-
hood are permanent due to the permanence of the lights of prophethood.”91 Of
course this does not mean that the saints have wholly taken up the prophetic
function. Rather, they remain in their realm as saints, but their function is
to hold the place of the Prophet once he has left his earthly community. We read, “The Prophet
calls [us] to God by the insight
(baṣīra) of his function
as perfect messenger. And the saints
call [us to God] according to their insights, either by Polehood (quịbāniyya), sincerity (ṣiddīqiyya), or sainthood (walāya ).”92
As mentioned
in the previous chapter, Gerald Elmore has suggested that the debate
that arose in the third/ninth century over the issue of the superiority of the saint over the prophet (DfiJH
ÒH DJmJH $iȧȧï) was a central point
of contention between sufism and its critics. He mentions statements from early
figures such as Abū Yazīd Basṭāmī that seem to take the saints as superior to the prophets; for example, “We plunged
into a sea, while the prophets remained
on the shore.”93 Elmore goes on to show how Ibn CArabī tried
to rationalize these
kinds of
statements
in order to preserve the theologically necessary superiority of the prophets. A generation
later, Nūr al-Dīn Isfarāyinī (d. 717/1317), in the same conservative spirit, reconciled
the following two statements: “The end of the saints is the beginning point of
the prophets” and “The end of the prophets is the starting point of the saints.”
The first sentence
is taken to refer to the mysti- cal path, thus the implication being
that the most elite stage
of sainthood ends at the point prophethood begins. The
second proposition, having come from SaCd al-Dīn al-Ḥammū’ī (d. 649/1252),94 Isfarāyinī takes
as refering to sharia,
that is, that the prophets
have finished bringing
the divine law, and the task of guiding the community has then been
left to the saints.95 Al-Shādhilī does not address this topic directly, but he does seem to
place the elite of the saints above the prophets in one statement. We must note
first who this elite is. We are told, “To realize perfection in their [the
sufis’] state is difficult except for the saint at the end of his state (fī nihāya
Иālihi), or the sincere (ṣiddīq) at the
beginning (of his state); because the end (ghāyāt)
of the saints is the starting point (bidāyāt) of the sincere.”96 This sincere
one is thus to be understood as a
spiritual elite, in contrast to the general category of saints. 97 In the following passage this
elite seems to be one person who takes up God’s decree after the prophets and
messengers:
The prophets, messengers and poles all held closely to [God’s decree], witnessing
only God and His decree. They made clear statements, explicated, commented and prescribed religious
laws to those beneath them in
rank, until the command of God should come to the sincere one (ṣiddīq), chosen
for Himself, whom He willed
for the purpose
of revealing this science . . . and the science of the spirit, the
science of love, and the science of the intermediate state (barzakh) before the beginning of
existence (wujūd).98
From this
statement it seems that al-Shādhilī is not only echoing the idea that “[t]he end of the
prophets is the starting point of the saints,” probably in the sense of sharia,
mentioned above, but his ṣiddīq is
also an allusion to the Seal of saints. This sincere one, in light
of his role, is the fulfillment of the religious sciences established by the
prophets and propagated by the poles.
In Ibn Bākhilā’s thought
the extension of prophecy to include sanctity is also well represented.
Although he maintains a clear distinction between the levels of sainthood and
prophecy, the essence of the divine, as it moves into both realms, is one.
First, Ibn Bākhilā approaches from the perspective of the simple believer. He
writes, “By the light of prophethoods (nubuwwāt)
faith is strong, and you accept religious practices (a’māl). By the light of the saint- hoods (walāyāt) you remember the acts of devotion, and you complete the
states by following and emulation, and wanting to follow the rays of the greater
light by way
of the lesser light.”99 Thus, the believer
follows both the lower saints and the higher prophets. The first category leads to the second. In com- paring the
natures of these two groups, Ibn Båkhilå places them at a distance from each other, stressing their
differences.
The realities
of the prophets are established in the realm of the unseen
(ghayb), and in their
real essences (bi-dhawātihim al-Иaqīqiyya) they are there. They have tenuities
(raqā’iq) to the world of witnessing . . . and the apparent
realms. The saints
are in the world of witnessing, but they have tenuities to the unseen.
The prophets penetrated the veil [which separates the two domains]
with their realities, while the saints penetrated the veil by their
tenuitites.100
Elsewhere
Ibn Båkhilå explains that the saints, like the prophets, receive divine
communications that they are to pass on to the believers. As in the above quotations, he is here distinguishing between
the two groups.
However, he will follow
this with an explanation that does away with any differences in the essence of these communications.
He writes, “The true path (al-ịarīq al-
Иaqīqī) for creation
on earth is to reach God. The door open to them [on earth] leads to gnosis (ma’rifa) of God. The reason for this knowledge
(’ilm) of God is simply two things:
the revelation (waИy) to the prophets,
and the inspiration (’ilm ilhāmī)
to the saints.”101 Ibn Båkhilå goes on,
however, to say that the essences of these two modes of divine communication
are one. We read,
When the
exalted [divine] unveiling (kashf)
descends to the first level, it appears in the clearest form of its
self-disclosure (tajallī) to those it touches. This is the original knowledge
(’ilm aṣlī) and the uni-
versal light (nūr kullī). These
belong to the prophets. If it descends from here, and is then attained, this is
inspirational knowledge (’ilm ilhāmī) and the opening
light, which is certainty to the greatest
of the servants, and the
saints.102
Thus a
divine Self-disclosure passes through consecutive stages—being first accessible
to prophets, and then to saints and elite believers. A prophet’s knowledge of
the divine is different from that of the saint, due to them being at different
levels, yet this knowledge is at the same time of a single essence. The prophets
and the saints do not offer the believer parallel
communications, they offer the same knowledge, but from different
perspectives, and one after the other.103
As mentioned
above, Ibn Båkhilå’s al-Laịīfa
al-marḍiyya takes up the question of saints and prophets. The primary
concern of its commentary on Ḥizb al-baИr
is to explain
how the “inspired” prayer of a saint can contain
quo-
tations from the revelation (Qur’an) to a prophet. The question is not just,
Is it appropriate to quote
and paraphrase the Qur’an? but also, How can the saint (and his common followers) petition for what should be reserved for prophets
only? Ibn Båkhilå’s answers to these questions shine an indirect light on
his notion of walāya. In his comments
on al-Shådhil•’s petition, “nas’aluka
al- ’iṣma” (we ask you for protection / inerrancy), he notes that ’iṣma,
as generally understood, is restricted to prophets, who are protected
from committing grave sins. He reconciles this doctrine
with the saint’s petition by saying, “He [al- Shådhil•] did not ask to be preserved from disobedience (ma’ṣiyya), nor from
doubt or uncertainty or delusion
completely—for inerrancy (’iṣma) is particu-
lar to the prophets . . . [Rather] he asked for ’iṣma from the kind [of doubts and delusion] that blocks the heart from
faith in the unseen.”104 Elsewhere Ibn Båkhilå repeats this
idea more clearly, pointing out that (not unlike nubuwwa and ilhām sharing
a common essence) ’iṣma takes form
according to its loca- tion. He writes, “The prophets have an ’iṣma specific to them, and the saints
have theirs, likewise the pious and the [common] believers—all according to their state (Иāl).”105 Further, ’iṣma may be attained
by those other than prophets
and messengers, according to what is proper for their spiritual level.106
The
operative distinction here is “according to their level.” For Ibn Båkhilå this also
allows him to account for other apparent paradoxes. On the issue of how both
the common believer and the saint—and a prophet for that matter—may make the
identical supplication, for example for forgiveness, in Ḥizb al-baИr, Ibn Båkhilå points out that since the petitioners are at different
spiritual levels, the meaning of their petitions is different. He writes,
But what are
the devotions (’ibādāt) of the
messengers compared to those of the prophets? What are the devotions of the
prophets com- pared to those
of the saints? and those
of the saints compared to those
of the pious, etc., to the last level of believer? It is inconceivable that the realities [of these devotions] differ in themselves, rather, [the case must be that] they differ according
to the state of him to whom they appear . . . Both the master
of the exalted spiritual level
(maqām), and he
who is lower, ask with one word,
one reality, yet [the realities] dif- fer due to the difference of [the petitioners’] levels. The prophets
ask for forgiveness, and most [common] servants do likewise, but how
different their requests are! The pardon requested by the prophets is different
from that requested by others. The difference is not to be found in the reality
of forgiveness itself,
but rather in the understand- ing (i’tibār) of its location (maИall).107
Ibn Båkhilå applies the
same argument to the meaning of the phrase “[Lord,] subjugate to us this sea as You subjugated the sea to Moses.” He remarks that
this should
not necessarily be taken as a request to God each time to part the seas, rather
it should be understood as a petition for the miracle of God’s omnipotence working
good in our lives—establishing in us righteousness, god- liness, wisdom. He says, “Know that the appearance of omnipotence (qudra) is sometimes by grace and [dramatic] miracle
and the breaking of the anticipated
norms; or it is by the miracle
of fixing norms and engendering wisdom . . . The second kind [of miracle]
is for the generality of creation, while the first kind is only
for the elite of the prophets and the saints.”108 Thus, Ibn Båkhilå’s discus- sions in al-Laịīfa
al-marḍiyya—reflecting his earlier
discussions of walāya—
move to blur the barriers between the prophets and the saints (not unlike the
effort to defend the blurry lines between
the Qur’an and the Иizb). This is done by extension to the saints of attributes
previously reserved for the prophets. The same blurring of lines occurs in Ibn
Båkhilå’s
resolution of the apparent paradox of a prophet asking
for forgiveness, like any other
simple believer; or a common believer asking for the same
divine favor for which a saint or a prophet might petition.
❊
We see that for Ibn Båkhilå the concept
of walāya is rather
complex. His master, Ibn >Aṭå’ Allåh al-Iskandar•, had laid out the two-tiered model,
that of greater and lesser sanctity. Ibn Båkhilå took this up and expanded upon it. We noted
that this model was not that followed
by Ibn >Arab•. It seems that for Ibn
Båkhilå and the Shådhilite tradition, one of the dimensions of walāya may be found—at least potentially—in every believer. This lower dimension also func- tions as a stepping-stone for the soul along a path to higher degrees
of sanctity.
It was also pointed
out that Ibn Båkhilå’s doctrine
of walāya, in the Shåd- hilite tradition, sought
to expand the realm of prophecy and messengerhood to intersect with sanctity. While
recognizing that saints and prophets receive knowledge of, and from, the divine
in different ways (one by inspiration, the other by revelation), the essence of this divine
informing (tajallī) is the same in
both instances. In the more theologically driven work, al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya, the discussion of inerrancy (’iṣma) is based on the same understanding, which is that the nature of understanding
and communication with God is relative to one’s spiritual level. Like walāya taking on different forms
at different levels, the same petitions of God may be used by prophets,
saints, and even the com- mon believer.
Before moving on to our discussion of the Wafå’iyya, a few words should be said concerning the doctrine of walāya as we have encountered it so far.
These comments will also serve us later in chapters 5 and 6, when we discuss
the Wafå’iyya contribution to the concept
of walāya. We have seen that for the early
Shådhiliyya the idea of proximity to the divine
(qurba) is a primary
ele- ment. We also noted the development of a two-tiered model, which in shorthand
we may describe as the distinction between a greater
and a lesser sainthood. It was
noted that these two tiers present a gradation of walāya;
that is, a sanctity
that increases in quality as the individual ascends the levels.
This model places walāya in the sphere of spiritual discipline, that is, the way
followed by an individual seeker. From its earliest formulations, sufi theory
has always con- ceived of spiritual discipline as a path (ịarīqa) consisting of spiritual levels (maqāmāt) to be attained. It appears that at least part of the doctrine
of sanctity held by the early Shādhiliyya saw walāya as one of these paths. It is also worth noting that this model is certainly
closer to Tirmidhī’s system of
distinguish- ing between two types of saints than it is to Ibn CArabī’s elaborate typologies of saints.
We also noted the difference between
what we called Ibn CArabī’s “infla- tion” of walāya upward, and the early Shādhiliyya’s extending of prophetic function downward. This
is the contrast between the emphasis on the eternal nature of walāya in Ibn CArabī and the understanding in the early Shādhiliyya that sainthood was essentially the extension of the prophetic
role—beyond the lifetime of the Prophet—into the mundane world
through the saints.
This latter position again is
much more in accord with Tirmidhī’s system
than it is with that of Ibn CArabī.
The early Shādhiliyya did not follow Ibn CArabī in his universalizing of walāya or the figure of Muḳammad
(although Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī does briefly mention the concept). Nor did the early Shādhiliyya take up Ibn CArabī’s elaborations
on the role of the Seal. This idea
was known to them at least through Tirmidhī’s works, but they appear to have steered away from it. The objection may be raised
here that Ibn CArabī’s concept of nubuwwa ’āmma
would have to be considered an extension of the prophetic function. Yet for our
purposes of comparison, the point being made is that, despite the terminology
involved, for Ibn CArabī, walāya has a much inflated
role in comparison to its understanding among the Shādhiliyya, for whom walāya is more like a counter
balance or completion of prophecy.
Chapter 3
The Wafā’iyya in Time and Space
Arriving from the Maghreb
Before moving to discuss the writings of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ we should first take up the essential outline of their lives and the wider
context in which they lived. The Wafā’iyya is certainly an Egyptian order,
but its origins
are to be found within the
currents of a much wider tide of migration from the Maghreb. Movement from Arabia across North Africa has a long history. The
arrival of Idrīs ibn CAbd Allāh from
Arabia in 172/788 ultimately led to the founding of Fez and the Idrīsid dynasty, which
was to last into the fourth/tenth
century.1 Moving in the other direction, from
west to east, the Fatimid Caliph al-MuCizz, in the
latter half of the fourth/tenth century, would extend the nas- cent Fatimid
empire from Tunisia into Egypt.2 The tide was again reversed in the
fifth/eleventh century with the demographically significant migration of the Banū Ḥilāl Arab tribes
from the Ḥijāz into the Maghreb. Although
nowhere near a movement on the same scale, we saw earlier that al-Shādhilī, and a
number of his followers, were part of the steady trickle of scholars and mer-
chants from Morocco and Tunisia
in the seventh/thirteenth century. Moving to
Alexandria at the beginning of what was to be a long period of prosperity under the Mamluks,
al-Shādhilī’s order was to enjoy great success in Egypt and was thus
positioned to expand into the Levant and the eastern lands of the Islamic world.
Al-Shādhilī died in 656/1258, but of course
Maghrebis contin- ued to
arrive in Egypt most simply on the way to Arabia,
but many to seek a new life in the growing cities of Alexandria and Cairo. Following the same road, and at roughly the same time as al-Shādhilī, was the grandfather of Muḳammad Wafā’, Muḳammad al-Najm of Tunis. Before jumping into geneologies and
geography, however,
let us read a traditional general narrative of Muḳammad Wafā’ and his roots. This account will serve us later as a jumping-off point to further details.
Muḳammad Wafā’, the founder of the Wafā’iyya:
He was born
in Alexandria in 702/1301. His speech
concerning the mystical sciences was peculiar (F∂n¥). He wrote many works,
among them Kitåb al->ur¥s, Kitåb al-sha>å’ir and a great d•wån of poetry.3 It is
said that he is named Wafā’ because
one day the Nile stopped its yearly rise, falling
short of its completion (al-wafå’).4 The people of Cairo were resolved to
flee the land [in anticipation of famine], when Muḳammad Wafā’ appeared
at the river’s edge and said, “By the grace of God, Rise!” The river then rose
and the water reached its proper level.
He travelled
in the Way of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī, under the
guidance of Dā’ūd ibn Mākhilā. He went to Akhmīm [near Suhāj], marrying there and establishing a large zåwiya. People
flocked to visit him. He then moved
to Cairo, taking
up residence on the island
of al- Rūďa. There, engaging in devotions and busying himself with
the remembrance of God, his fame spread to the most distant corners.
He died in
Cairo, on the 11th of RabīC al-Awwal, in
the year 765/1363, and is burried in the Qarāfa cemetery between the [sufi shaykhs] Abū al-SaCūd ibn Abī al-CAshā’ir and Tāj al-Dīn ibn CAṭā’ Allāh
al-Iskandarī, according to his wish
before dying: “Burry me between SaCd and CAṭā’.”5
Muḳammad Wafā’ was Maghrebi
in origin, his grandfather Mu- ḳammad al-Najm having
arrived at Alexandria. He [al-Najm] was the
master of splendid mystical states,
and clear miracles.
He joined with the
pole Ibrāhīm al-Dasūqī, and they both drew on [the teachings of] his master.6 Al-Najm’s
place of birth was Tunis, and his family are from there and the area of Sfax.7 He settled
in Alexandria, where he was blessed
with a son, Muḳammad al-Awsaṭ, the father of Muḳam- mad Wafā’.
Muḳammad al-Awsaṭ was famous for his sanctity,
being among the companions of
knowledge and excellence. He died young, being burried in their zåwiya in
Alexandria, known as the Najmiyya, beside his father.
When Muḳammad Wafā’ died, he left two sons, CAlī Wafā’ and Shihāb al-Dīn Aḳmad Wafā’. They were
young at the time, and so were raised under
the tutelage of Muḳammad al-ZaylaCī. When CAlī reached the age of seventeen, he took his father’s place, holding [sufi]
The Wafå’iyya in Time and
Space 51
gatherings.
His dhikr spread throughout the land,
and his followers multiplied.
For the most
part he resided on the island of al-Rūďa. He com-
posed supplications, prayers, admonitions, poetry and other works. His death
was at home, on Tuesday
the second of Dhū al-Ḥijja, in the year 807/1405. By way of sons he had Abū al-CAbbās Aḳmad, Abū al- Tayyib, Abū al-Tāhir and Abū al-Qāsim.8
Halfway
through this account, mention is made of Muḳammad al-Najm. In spite
of his being described here as having
“splendid mystical states,
and clear miracles,” there
seems to be no mention of him, either in the Egyptian or Tunisian sources,
beyond his position
in the Wafā’ geneology. In fact, the fam-
ily’s descent is rather unremarkable until it is traced back to the second/eighth
century. At this point CAlid credentials are established through
Idrīs ibn CAbd Allāh ibn Ḥasan ibn CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, the founder of the Idrīsid state in Morocco.9 Although this family was clearly CAlid by blood,
it cannot be said to have
been ShīCī in any overt way. The Idrīsids ruled far from the struggles tak- ing
place in the Islamic heartland seeking to restore
the house of the Prophet
to the caliphate, and at a period before the development of ShīCism as a distinct doctrinal system. Idrīs himself died during the lifetime of the seventh ShīCī Imām, Mūsā al-Kā?im (d.183/799).10 Although
the Idrīsids were not ShīCite, this does not mean that the family
that came to be known
as the Wafā’ did not
proudly identify themselves as descendants of the Ahl al-Bayt, that is, people of the Prophet’s family.
As we shall see below,
this has remained
an important part of their
social standing.
This pedigree
claimed by the Wafā’ family is quite distinct, however, from the spiritual ancestors it claims
in its silsila (chain of transmission) of esoteric
science. Sources for the Wafā’iyya order reproduce a line of esoteric initiation that goes back through
various sufi figures
and Imāms to Ḥusayn ibn CAlī. The line first runs through
the Shaykhs of the early Shādhiliyya: Dā’ūd ibn Bākhilā (733/1332),
Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh Iskandarī (709/1309), al-Mursī (686/1287), al- Shādhilī (658/1258), Ibn Mashīsh (622/1225) . . . al-Junayd (297/909), al-Sarī al-Saqaṭī (cir. 253/867), MaCrūf al-Karkhī (200/815), CAlī al-Riďā (203/818, eighth ShīCī Imām), Mūsā al-Kā?im (183/799, seventh
Imām), JaCfar al-?ādiq (148/765, sixth Imām), Muḳammad Bāqir (117/735 or 122/740, fifth Imām), Zayn al-CĀbidīn (94/712
fourth Imām), Imām al-Ḥusayn (61/681 third Imām), CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (40/661).11 The silsila represents a claim to a
tradition of mystical knowledge, but here, as is usually the case in the
Islamic mysticism, there is no tangible conncection between those at one end of
the chain and those at the other. In other words, the tar•qa Wafā’iyya has not actually inher- ited teachings, texts, or practices from ShīCī Imāms. As we saw in the previous
chapter, the
early Shādhiliyya cannot be said
to hold any ideas of spiritual authority that directly reflect the ShīCī doctrine of the Imāms. Later
on, when we explore CAlī and Muḳammad Wafā’s teachings on walåya,
beyond certain shared terminology and veneration of CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, it will become clear that they do not reflect a ShīCī theology.12
In the hagiographical passage
quoted above, mention
is made of the origin of Muḳammad Wafā’s laqab or honorific, Wafā’. This title has served as the family name down to the modern
era—often appearing as Ibn Wafā’ (e.g., CAlī ibn Wafā’). However, this laqab was not unknown before
Muḳammad adopted it in the eighth/fourteenth century. The name Abū al-Wafā’ was used by three
tribes: the Ḥijāzī tribe
descended from Abū al-Wafā’ Aḳmad ibn Sulayman, parts of the Tamīm tribe of the Ḥijāz, and one tribe from Iraq.13 Of
the latter tribe, the famous saint Abū al-Wafā’ Tāj al-CĀrifīn (d.
501/1107) had been a teacher of CAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (d. 561/1166)
in Iraq.14 Some of the families derived from Tāj al-CĀrifīn, known as Wafā’iyya,
traveled to Egypt and the Levant at various
points in time.15 One family
was that of Abū al-Wafā’ Tāj al- Dīn Muḳammad (d.
803/1401), which settled in Jerusalem in 782/1380. His great-great grandfather, Badr al-Dīn Muḳammad (d. 650/1253), had originally moved
from Iraq to Palestine. Tāj al-Dīn Muḳammad
brought what was to become known as the “zåwiya
of the Abū al-Wafā family,” across from the western edge of the Ḥarām enclosure.16 His descendants were the shaykhs
of the Wafā’iyya order in Jerusalem.17 This family is not related to the Wafā’s of Egypt, nor does their Wafā’iyya order appear to have any connection to the the Wafā’iyya of Cairo.18 Another well-known descendant of Tāj al-Dīn Muḳam- mad was Abū Bakr al-Wafā’ī (d. 991/1583), who lived in Damascus and Aleppo and about whom more
than one hagiography was written.19 However,
the “Wafā’iyya” of Syria (a branch of the Shādhiliyya) existed from the mideigh- teenth century through to about
1950. Its founder was another Abū al-Wafā’, who died
in 1140/1727.20
In the passage
quoted above, we heard the miracle of Muḳammad’s com-
manding the Nile to rise. Not surprisingly, however, this is not the only report of signs of his sanctity.
In the hagiography composed by Abū al-Laṭā’if,21 an account
is related in which the head of the Shādhiliyya order in Egypt, Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh
al-Iskandarī, visits the infant Muḳammad Wafā’. In view
of Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh’s death date, this encounter would have been possible, since Muḳammad was seven years old at the shaykh’s death. Abū al-Laṭā’if tells
us, “When Sayyidī al-Kabīr [Muḳammad Wafā’] was born, Tāj al-Dīn ibn CAṭā’ Allāh came with a number of companions to his home in order to visit him. When he saw the swaddling baby he kissed
him, saying to his friends, ‘This one has come [into the world] with the
science of our [spiritual] realities.’”22 Apparently
Muḳammad Wafā’ was more than
precocious as child. It is said that he com- posed his many books on the sufi Way before reaching
the age of ten.23
The spiritual link between Muḳammad Wafā’ and his son CAlī
is also a sig- nificant concern in the hagiography. Although CAlī was only six years old when his father died, he describes him as a storehouse of mystical
knowledge from which he continues to draw.24 On
the authority of CAlī’s nephew, it
is related that on his deathbed Muḳammad took
the form of CAlī, saying, “My vision is his vision.”25 Elsewhere
the story is told of Muḳammad Wafā’ passing down
his gift for mystical poetry
to his son CAlī. ShaCrānī tells us,
When [Muḳammad’s] death neared, he conferred his belt (minịaqa) upon al-Abzārī, the composer
of muwashshahāị poems, saying,
“This is placed with you in trust until you confer it upon my son CAlī.” While he had the belt he composed elegant
muwashshahāị. Once CAlī grew up, and he conferred it upon him,
he returned to his previous condition of not being able to compose muwashshahāị.26
Although CAlī Wafā was his father’s second
son, Shihāb al-Dīn being the first,
there is no question as to his superior status. As we shall see in the following chapters, CAlī was a mystical writer and of great ability. His older brother,
however, clearly made no such contribution. Nevertheless, the older Shihāb al-Dīn did direct
the Wafā’iyya order for seven
years after the death of his younger brother.
There does
appear in this hagiographical tradition a need to demonstrate the superiority of the Wafā’s over their
spiritual forefathers. As we saw above,
Muḳammad’s superiority is recognized by Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī. The claim is also made by Muḳammad himself that although he was schooled
in the mystical
sciences by Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh’s student, Dā’ūd ibn Bākhilā, he has since eclipsed that tradition and set out on his own Way. He says, “We were directed
(Fs÷i˚) first by Dā’ūd, but now this connection with him is broken, as it is with
all
others.”27 CAlī Wafā’ later contributes to the superior image of the Wafā’iyya. As we read
earlier, an associate of CAlī’s great-grandfather,
Muḳammad al- Najm, was Ibrāhīm al-Dasūqī. This great Egyptian
saint founded a popular sufi order, the Burhāniyya. It was probably the success of this order
that led CAlī to consider
this saint another figure to be spiritually surpassed. Abū al-Laṭā’if tells the story of CAlī traveling to the grave of al-Dasūqī, only to be ignored by its living occupant. In response to
this snub, CAlī begins
reciting “Allāh, Allāh,” at which
point all the plants on earth join him in recitation.28 This con- cern with surpassing one’s predecessors is not without
precedent. Abū al- Ḥasan al-Shādhilī himself, when asked about
his spiritual masters,
said that at one
point he had been directed
(Fs÷˚HJiZ) by CAbd al-Salām ibn Mashīsh, but now he
swims in the five Adamic seas of the Prophet, Abū Bakr, CUmar, CUthmān, and CAlī, and the five spiritual
seas of Gabriel, Michael, CAzrā’īl, Isrāfīl and the Great Spirit (.fZ !H ,M.JH).29
Not surpisingly,
in addition to their relations with other saints, Muḳam- mad and CAlī Wafā’ were able to
get the best of all sorts of enemies. In the hagiography, the cases range from a scheming vizier,
to a doubting shaykh, to abusive Mamluke soldiers.30 It
must be noted,
however, that most of the mira-
cles attributed to Muḳammad and his son are rather more straighforward. Typi- cally, an eastern holy man visits
and has produced for him lemon from his native land or a boy drowned in the
Nile is brought back to life.31
The spiritual
authority of the Wafā’iyya was certainly
not based primarily on their abilities to out-perform their rivals or to impress
visitors. A more sub-
stantial portrait of sanctity is also offered in the hagiography. Less
dramatic, but more interesting for our study, are the statments that reflect an understanding
of sainthood itself.
In one place Muḳammad Wafā’ makes the following claim: “Every saint of God, from my time
to the advent of the [final] Hour, draws from me, either at his start or his
end.” The passage (presumably Abū al- Laṭā’if speaking here) goes on to identify Muḳammad Wafā’ as the “Seal of saints, as indicated by the author
of the >Anqå mughrib.”32 Yet as we shall
see in the next chapter, where Muḳammad Wafā’s
understanding of sanctity is explored, statements of Sealhood will be based more precisely on Muḳammad’s own interpretation of the Seal of saints.
For example, we shall see that Muḳam- mad Wafā’ claims for himself an office of Sealhood which,
as distinct from the
system of Ibn CArabī, incorporates
both general and Muḳammadan sainthood.
Wafā’ sanctity is
also attested to through symbolic visions. The story is told that in a dream CAlī once found himself traveling through the heavens. There he found an elegant palace,
around which were a number of open graves.
These sweet-smelling graves contained living occupants wrapped in white
shrouds. When CAlī asked them who they were, he was informed
that they are all the saints of their times and
that their master is their Seal. They await this Seal’s intercession. When CAlī Wafā’ finally reaches
the door of the palace,
he opens it only to find himself seated as the master of the palace.33
Beyond the claims to Sealhood, CAlī Wafā’s spiritual authority
is based, in the hagiography, upon his encounters with the Prophet Muḳammad. The first of these occured when CAlī was a boy studying Qur’anic recitation. After a difficult lesson, he describes the following vision: “Then, in a
waking state, I saw the Prophet. He was wearing a white cotton
shirt, which suddenly
appeared on me. He then said to me, “Read!” so I read for him Surat al-Ḍuḳā (Q. 93).”34 The sim- ilarity to the traditional account of the vision of Gabriel to the Prophet is striking. There the angel brought
to Muḳammad the first
Revelation, saying, “Read!”35 CAlī Wafā’ goes on to relate a second vision, which occured near the grave of
his father in the Qarāfa cemetery.
He says, “At the age of twenty-one, I was praying the morning prayers at al-Qarāfa, when I saw the Prophet before me. He embraced me, saying,
‘Truly, your Lord blesses you.’”
CAlī
goes on to say, “I
took
[the function of] his tongue, from that time onwards.”36 This is a rather bold
claim, leaving no doubt as to the elite nature of CAlī Wafā’s sanctity. Even when the Prophet appears
to one of CAlī’s followers, it is to announce
that CAlī’s special spiritual status
means that his supplications to God are never left unheeded.37
In addition
to the hagiographical tradition, however,
we do have one con- temporary souce that takes a critical
stand toward the Wafā’iyya. This is the
biographer and chronicler Ibn Ḥajar al-CAsqalānī (d. 852/1449). In his entry on
CAlī Wafā’, he praises the subject’s personal qualities but objects to some of the practices
that take place at the Wafā’ dhikr.
Ibn Ḥajar says that CAlī Wafā’ is “vigilant,
keen of mind and cultured,” but although “I met him, I reject his companions
gesturing in prostration towards him.” Also,
while in the middle of a samā’ ceremony, he turned about saying, “Wherever
you turn, there is the Face of God” (Q. 2:115). Those present
in the mosque cried out, “You have blasphemed!
You have blasphemed!” so he and his companions left.38 It would thus appear that CAlī
Wafā’ at times faced public censure for the excesses of his prayer and
the intense devotion he received from his followers. The biogra- phers have left us no other firsthand accounts
of CAlī Wafā’, so there is no way
to verify Ibn Ḥajar’s observations.
Nevertheless, the limited details that have come down to us concerning the Wafā’ home on the island
of al-Rūďa appear, at
least circumstantially, to corroborate Ibn Ḥajar’s portrait of a sufi Shaykh challenging the boundaries
of conventional ritual.
It appears
that CAlī withdrew the activities of the Wafā’iyya to the family
home on al-Rūďa. This privacy no doubt allowed
him, and subsequent khalifas of the order, the freedom to pursue their spiritual
practices. Ibn Ḥajar himself describes
a Wafā’ house which was
self-sufficient. Apparently Muḳammad Wafā’ set up a minbar in his home, from which he preached to his companions and followers as part of the
Friday prayers.39 This unusual observance of the
otherwise community-oriented Friday prayers is not pointed to approvingly.
That the Wafā’ home on al-Rūďa was the center of the sufi order there is no doubt. A ninth/fifteenth
century figure, al-Zawāwī, provides us with an inde- pendent account. He became an
acquaintance of Yaḳya ibn Wafā’ (d. 857/ 1453), the fourth khalifa of the Wafā’iyya. Al-Zawāwī refers to the house on al- Rūďa as the “bayt al-dhikr” (house of remembrance),
and speaks of aspirants entering cells there to practice khalwa (seclusion).40 Later
sources tell us that Muḳammad Wafā’s Ḥizb al-fatИ was
recited in the family bayt al-sajjāda each week.41 The
historical records, to my knowledge, have not left us any more detailed accounts
of the ritual-devotional practices of the early
Wafā’iyya. Yet we may understand that generally an
aura of elitism and charismatic mystery seem to have been nurtured. The later
chronicler, al-Maqrīzī, notes that CAlī Wafā’ and his brother, Shihāb al-Dīn, received exagerated affections from their followers. He also
implies that this situation was encouraged by their habit of only appearing in
public for spiritual gatherings and in order to visit their father’s grave.42
Among the Elite of Cairo
The creative
energy of the first generations of Wafā’s was not sustained once the family became established in
the capital. The concerns Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ had regarding sanctity
were not pursued
by their progeny,
and the Wafā’iyya ceased to produce mystical
literature beyond the occasional effort
at poetry.43 The Wafā’ family
did prosper, however,
but only in the way of social prestige and wealth. As is the case so often with dynamic
founders, their fol- lowers tend to ride on their coattails of tradition and
charisma.
The office of the khalifa, or the shaykh al-sajjåda of the Wafā’iyya order, was held by the head of the family.
Unlike the larger sufi orders,
which usually broke down into regional
branches not long after the death of the founder,44 the
Wafā’iyya never spread
beyond Cairo in any meaningful way.45 Not only was
this order limited to Cairo, but its spiritual leadership was derived exclusively from within the family
bloodline. The various biographical sources agree on the line of shaykhs as
follows:46
1.
CAlī Wafā’ (d. 807/1405) [brother to the following]
2.
Shihāb al-Dīn Aḳmad Abū al-CAbbās ibn Muḳammad Wafā’ (d. 814/1412) [father to. . .]
3.
Abū al-Fatḳ Muḳammad ibn Wafā’ (d. 852/1448) [brother to]
4.
Abū al-Siyādāt Yaḳya ibn Wafā’ (d. 857/1453) [uncle to]
5.
Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Marāḳim (d. 867/1462) [father to]
6.
Muḳibb al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Faďl (d. 888/1483) [father to]
7.
Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm Abū al-Makārim (d. 908/1502) [father to]
8.
Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Faďl al-Majdhūb (d. 942/1536) [father to]
9.
Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm Abū al-Makārim (d. 966/1558 or 968/1560) [father to]
10.
Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Faďl (d. 1008/1599) [grandfather to no. 12] [uncle to]
11.
Zayn al-Dīn ibn CAbd al-Fattāḳ Abū al-Ikrām (d. 1054/1644) [father to no. 13] [uncle to]
12.
Sharaf al-Dīn Yaḳya Abū al-Luṭf (d. 1067/1655) [cousin to]
13.
Zayn al-Dīn CAbd al-Wahhāb Abū al-Takh?ī? (d. 1098/1687) [father to]
14.
Jamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf Abū al-Irshād (d. 1113/1701) [grandfather to no. 19] [brother to]
15.
Sharaf al-Dīn CAbd al-Khāliq Abū al-Khayr (d. 1161/1748) [grandfather to no. 18] [uncle to]
16.
Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Ishrāq (d. 1171/1758) [uncle to]
17.
Majd al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Hādī (d. 1176/1762) [cousin to]
18.
Shihāb al-Dīn Aḳmad Abū al-Imdād (d. 1182/1768) [cousin to]
19.
Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Anwār (d. 1228/1813) [uncle to]
20.
Aḳmad Abū al-Iqbāl (d.?) [father to]
21.
Aḳmad Abū al-Na?r (d. 1280/1864) [father to]
22.
Aḳmad CAbd al-Khāliq Abū al-Futuḳāt (d. 1324/1907).47
Not
mentioned in this list of the shaykhs of the sajjāda Wafā’iyya is the
brother of Abū al-Fatḳ (no. 3), CAbd al-Raḳmān Abū al-Faďl (d. 814/1412). He
is
described by Ibn Ḥajar and al-Sakhāwī as a
promising mystical thinker and poet, but he died the same year as his father,
having drowned in the Nile.48 Another
important early figure was CAlī Wafā’s daughter, Ḥusnā’ (d. 888/1483). She was certainly more
accomplished them her two sisters and four brothers. The biographer al-Sakhāwī tells
us that she was the first director
of the (Sultan) Īnāl ribāị, located near the Wafā’iyya zāwiya in the CAbd al-Bāsiṭ quarter.49 The Wafā’ early on had established themselves among the civilian élite.
The Sultan Jaqmaq (d.
857/1453) was a companion and one-time student of Abū al-Fatḳ (no. 3), even appearing in one of the shaykh’s miracle
stories.50
Generally, it may be said that most of the Wafā’ shaykhs were neither inno- vative
thinkers nor productive writers. Indicative of the conservative nature taken on by the Wafā’ family is the record of their treatment of Abū al-Mawāhib ibn Zaghdān al-Tūnisī al-Shādhilī (d. 882/1477). Although Abū al-Mawāhib was a
prolific and popular mystical writer of the Shādhilī tradition,
the “sons of Abū al-Wafā’” seized
him in their zāwiya and beat him.
Bleeding from his head, he declared submissively, “You are my masters, and I am your servant.”51 Despite ShaCrānī’s reverence for the founders Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’, and his long association
with Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Faďl al-Majdhūb (khalifa no. 8), he describes Abū al-Mawāhib as the
true inheritor of CAlī Wafā’s eloquence.
ShaCrānī52 calls Abū al-Faďl al-Majdhūb the “Seal of the cycles” and attrib- utes miracles
to him. However,
the significance of the Wafā’iyya by this time
certainly lay in more worldly pursuits. Before discussing the history of the
Wafā’iyya among the religious elite of Cairo, let us finish with the silsila of the
order. The nineteenth khalifa,
Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Anwār, claimed to be the Seal of the saints of the Wafā’iyya.53 Although in fact he would be suc- ceeded, his
grandiose claim was not far off the mark. After his spectacular career—as
will be seen below—there would be only three more Wafā’ shaykhs. When Aḳmad CAbd al-Khāliq died in 1324/1906, his only surviving children were daughters, one of whom had married
CAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Bakrī, who then inherited the sajjāda
of the Wafā’iyya. Being from the Bakrī family, this marked the end of
the Wafā’iyya family’s association with the order.54
As for the physical
presence of the Wafā’iyya order and family, we heard
earlier of the movement from Tunis
to Alexandria by Muḳammad al-Najm in the early seventh/thirteenth century, and of Muḳammad Wafā’s successful
move to Akhmīm.55 The presence in
Cairo was first established as a family home on the island of al-Rūďa, which as we also saw, doubled as a mosque- zāwiya. At some point al-Rūďa was abandoned; no trace of the site exists today. Early
on, the “zāwiya of the ribāt,” located in the CAbd al-Bāsit quarter,
played a central role for the order. The building no longer survives. Al-Bakrī describes a ritual procession of each newly appointed
khalifa out of the zāwiyat al-ribāị.56 Close by, in the same quarter, was
the Ribāt Zawjat Īnāl. Also near by was the Sabīl al-Wafā’iyya, established in 846/1442, and associ-
ated with Īnāl.57 However, the most
important site, the Great zāwiya, was
established in the southern Qarāfa cemetery, near the shrine
of Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh Iskandarī. The history of this complex is not clear either, at least
before the year 1191/1777. At a later date, but before the end of the
twelfth/eighteenth century, a large family home was built near the lagoon
Birkat al-Fīl.58 This compound contained a large
hall that was at times used for festivities.59
At the heart
of the Great zāwiya are the graves of
Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’, covered by an elegant
wooden dome. On the east side of the father
and son graves is a small pool (approximately 1 m2) which used to be filled
with red sand.60 It is not clear to me what this
sand was used for. Surrounding this are the graves of seventeen of their
descendants from various eras.61 At
some point after the death of CAlī Wafā’, a structure was built some fifteen meters from the east side of the dome. This structure almost certainly functioned as a zāwiya and later
extended either as a roof over graves
or as a wall around
them. (Traditionally, in the Qarāfa cemetery family plots are walled in, but the more
elaborate may have roofs.)62 Detailed records of
this complex appear as of 1191/1777. Al-Jabartī tells us that in 1190 a.h., Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Anwār ( khalifa no. 19) petitioned the representative of the Ottoman
gover- nor Muḳammad Pasha al-CIzzatī for help in
repairing the Wafā’s ancestral zāwiya.
Abū
al-Anwār was helped in this matter
by the support of one Muḳam- mad Murtaďā.63 In response
to this request, the Porte ordered fifty purses to be
taken from his Egyptian treasury for the project—followed by an additional sum later, to complete
the task. Jarbartī describes the repairs, which were more like rennovations, thus:
The walls
were torn down and widened at the base, with the result that the tombs and
crypts in the foundations were destroyed. Then walls were built and decorated
with inscriptions, various kinds of multi-colored marble, gold overlay,
and marble pillars
. . . Residences and other
chambers were built around the zāwiya,
and the adjacent palace where Shams al-Dīn (Abū al-Anwār) and his women used to stay during the annual mawlid festivities was enlarged.64
The result was a zāwiya-mosque shrine, measuring approximately twenty-seven metres by twenty-nine metres, built around
the family burial plot. Included
are
an
impressive miИrāb and minbar. Doors in the mosque lead to a
servant’s quarters and to the quarters of the attendant responsible for lamp lighting. These quarters
are now in ruin. Two more doors lead
to parts of the adjoining living complex. (I have not been able to investigate this area.) Inscriptions above the door mark
the year 1191 AH as the date of the firmān
from Sultan CAbd al- Ḥamīd for the
construction.65
The Wafā’iyya observed a number of holidays (mawāsim) throughout the year. The mawlid of
al-Muḳarram, marking
the start of the New Year, became an important occasion under the
direction of Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Ishrāq (no. 16). The sources do little more than mention the
observance of this holiday.66 Nor
do we have any details of the Wafā’iyya’s
observance of their mawlid of the eighth month, ShaCbān, from the 18th to the 23rd.67 One cel- ebrated occasion,
unique to the Wafā’iyya, was their takniyya. At this annual gathering the khalifa
of the order would bestow
a surname, or kunya,
upon each of those attending. We know this was an early practice within
the order since al-Zawāwī, in his dream journal,
describes a visit from CAlī Wafā’ in which the
saint changes al-Zawāwī’s kunya. Apparently, the fourth khalifa, Abū al-Siyādāt Yaḳya ibn Wafā’, had
conferred upon him the name Abū CĀbid, which was here
changed to Abū Ḥāmid.68 One date given for the takniyya ceremony is 27 Ramaďān,69 but al-Jabartī mentions
that he received the kunya Abū al-CAzm from Shihāb al-Dīn Aḳmad Abū al-Imdād (no. 18)
in the year 1177/1764, as part of the celebration of the mawlid al-nabī (the Prophet’s birthday).70 This
mawlid
takes place on the eleventh
day of the month of al-RabīC al-Awwal. A fourth occasion
is also mentioned, that of the mī’ād. The term may be translated
as either “promise”
or “meeting,” but unfortunately no details of this event are
recorded in our sources.71
Fortunately however,
details of the investiture of novices have come down to us. This should not surprise us
since the ceremony was rather colourful. A
common ritual, from the earliest
sufi organizations, was the passing
down of a shaykh’s mantle (khirqa) to his successor, as a sign of endorsement. However, in the medieval
period the practice
of handing down a mantle
became degraded and referred
usually to a simple induction into an order.72 Many energetic sufis “received the khirqa” from shaykhs of more than one order.
Abū
Faďl CAbd al- Raḳmān, the
brother of the third khalifa of the Wafā’iyya, is credited with instituting a peculiar form of khirqa passing, centered not around a mantle but
around the tāj and shadd (crown and belt).73 We have no description of this
investiture ceremony, but it seems
likely that the “crown” was a colored
fabric to be worn as part of one’s normal headdress
as later became common practice for members of sufi orders during
public gatherings. As for the belt,
the story of the minịaq of
Muḳammad Wafā’ being passed
down to CAlī—representing
the transfer of his elegance and charisma—comes to mind.
As we saw
earlier, Shaykh Shams al-Dīn Abū al-Anwār (no. 19)
had an important impact on the fortunes
of the Wafā’ zāwiya. Also, a significant
achievement
would be his development of the al-Ḥusayn
mawlid in Cairo. In 1228/1813, after
the head of the Bakrī family had
fallen out of favor with the ruler Murād
Bey, Abū al-Anwār took over the
former’s post as supervisor of the Ḥusayn
shrine-mosque. In this period, Abū al-Anwār also managed
to seize control
of several major shrines, including those of al-ShāfiCī, al-Nafīsa, and al- Zaynab.74 Abū al-Anwār apparently took his position
as director of the Ḥusayn
shrine to heart. It is recorded that he built a house for himself on the east
side of the shrine (which itself is located across the street from al-Azhar)
for use during the mawlid festivities.
These festivities, which had to that date lasted only for one night,
were extended at the insistence of Abū al-Anwār (with the help
of the local police!) to fifteen nights
in length. He was also responsible for expanding the shrine-mosque of al-Ḥusayn and for instuting the practice of
night processions by the sufi orders accompanied by drums, pipes, and torches during the mawlid.75 In the literary
sphere, although Abū al-Anwār was not a prolific writer himself, he did attract (and perhaps patronize) some of the impor-
tant poets of his day. Nineteenth-century figures
such as Ismā’īl al-Khashshāb, al-Ṭahṭāwī, and al-CAṭṭār associated themselves
with the Wafā’iyya and its
charismatic leader.76
In the
mid-eighth century the Wafā’iyya
family had risen to become one of the most prestigious families
of Cairo. It formed one of the four recognized lines of decendants of the Prophet’s
family. The family
represented the lineage of CAlī ibn Abī
Ṭālib, while the CInāniyya represented that of CUmar ibn al- Khaṭṭāb,
the Khuďayriyya that of al-Zubayr ibn al-CAwwām, and the Bakriyya that of Abū Bakr al-?iddīq. These families were entitled to substantial privileges
as the representatives of the ashråf,
but they also constituted sufi orders.77 In
1812, by order of a firmån from Muḳammad CAlī, the head of the Bakrīs (shaykh
al-sajjåda al-Bakriyya) was given authority over all the sufi orders and their related institutions in Egypt. However,
this effort at centralizing, and thus
controlling, the orders
did not affect
the Wafā’iyya, who remained
subject only to khedival decree.78
The single
representative of the descendants of the Prophet, the office of naq•b al-ashråf, came to be appointed by
the Porte. In Egypt, this post was held by Turks until the middle of the eighteenth century, when it went to Majd
al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Hādī
(no. 17) shortly before his death.79 Abū al- Ḥādī was succeeded as shaykh al-sajjåda and naq•b by his cousin Shihāb al- Dīn Aḳmad Abū al-Imdād in 1176/1762. Apparently, for Abū al-Imdād, serving
both offices was too much, and he resigned the office of naq•b to Muḳammad
(al-Bakrī) al-?iddīqī.80 The Bakrī shaykhs were to hold this office
until the Turk Yusuf Efendī secured the office. The Egyptian ashråf refused to recognize him, and he was replaced ten weeks later
by CUmar Makram al-Asyūṭī, who in 1224/1809 was divested of the office
by Muḳammad CAlī, and Abū al-Anwār (no. 19), who was seen to be more supportive of the new ruler, was invested.81
The Wafå’iyya in Time and
Space 61
Abū al-Anwār, before his death in 1228/1813, had designated his nephew Aḳmad
Abū al-Iqbāl (no. 20) as his successor to not only the direction of the Wafā’ order
but also to the position of naq•b
al-ashråf and control of the al- Ḥusayn
mawlid and shrine.82 However, the Pasha was not swayed
by these appointments. Instead, he moved to divest the Wafā’s of any authority beyond their own order. Aḳmad Abū al-Iqbāl was dismissed from the office of naq•b al-ashråf, the post being
transferred to Muḳammad al-Dawākhilī
for a period of three years and then back into the Bakrī line.83 Neither was Aḳmad Abū al-
Iqbāl to inherit control
of the Ḥusayn shrine.
Contrary to the wishes of Abū al-
Anwār, the Pasha appointed the
merchant al-Maḳrūqī to the post, above Abū
al-Iqbāl.84
❊
Although the written sources
have not allowed
us to embark on a thorough
historical study of the the formative period of the Wafā’iyya, we should note that Muḳammad
Wafā’ spent his early years in the
shadow of an important event. This was the appearance of the theologian and Ḥanbalite jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d.
728/1328). A gifted writer and speaker, Ibn
Taymiyya convinc- ingly challenged a
number of common devotional practices—in particular, many forms of
pilgrimage to holy places—and certain mystical teachings of Ibn CArabī.85 Despite his abilities, and the support
of some, he spent much of his career imprisoned in Damascus or Cairo. One of his major opponents in Egypt was Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī, the third head of the Shādhiliyya and the mas- ter of Muḳammad
Wafā’s teacher, Dā’ūd Ibn Bākhilā.86 Due
to the opposition of Sufi shaykhs
such as Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh and Ibn Taymiyya’s political clumsi- ness, the latter’s polemics
had little real impact on the religious practices of his time.87 However, in Egypt, Ibn Taymiyya’s arguments were repeated by a few strident polemicists in the eighth/fourteenth century.
The anti–Ibn CArabī cam- paign then gathered
momentum in the next century.88 However, a recent study of these polemics has concluded that
the impact of the hard-line opponents of Ibn
CArabī’s teachings was limited.89 The stalemate, if not victory, of the reli- gious mainstream with Ibn Taymiyya and
his later emulators must have had some impact on Muḳammad Wafā’. The details
of his education, and more importantly the intellectual activities of his father, Muḳammad al-Awsaṭ, at the
family zåwiya in Alexandria, have not come down to us, but
it is certain that Muḳammad Wafā’s
exposure to Akbarian thought was at least indirectly encour- aged by the succesful
defence of Ibn CArabī in Egypt. The situation, however, is
murky since neither
Muḳammad nor CAlī Wafā’ mention these wider debates in their
writings.
A general note should be made here of the religious climate
prevailing in Cairo during the lifetime of CAlī. Although ShīCism, since the fall of the Fāṭimids, had very little organized presence
in Egypt, the eighth/fourteenth
and
ninth/fifteenth centuries saw the flowering of a truly international com-
munity in Cairo. Under the third reign of al-Nā?ir Muḳammad
(709/1309– 741/1340) an unprecedented number of khånqåhs were built—most of which housed foreign sufi communities.90 While these khånqåhs were certainly not bastions of ShīCī thought, they did represent the occasion for an exchange of
ideas between Cairo and other
regions of the Islamic world.
There representa- tives of
the mystical traditions of Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen may well have transmitted pro-CAlid concepts and traditions into the
intellectual milieu of CAlī Wafā’.91 We do know also that some form of ShīCism survived in Middle
Egypt, particularly around
Akhmīm and Qūs, the region
in which Muḳammad Wafā’ established his first zåwiya.
If the details of the intellectual roots of the Wafā’iyya are unavailable to us,92 the historical presence of the order and the family are not. Broadly speaking, we saw that this family
was derived from the family
of the Prophet, through Idrīs ibn CAbd Allāh, and that its origins were Maghrebi. At roughly the same time as al-Shādhilī was
establishing his order in Alexandria, Muḳammad Wafā’s grandfather was building his zåwiya-mosque in the same city. Strictly speaking,
however, the Wafā’iyya began
only once Muḳammad Wafā’ had established
himself in Cairo and had determined to sever himself from his Shādhilī roots. From
this point on, the new sufi order, animated by the mystical writings and
saintly figures of the father and son founders, began to thrive. For reasons unknown
to us, this order remained within the Wafā’ family rather than branch- ing out into the
population at large. The followers of this Way were never numerous, and most
ritual practices, except the processions, were not con- ducted in public. No detailed account
of the training of adepts has come down
to us, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that a high level of learning
was expected, thus constituting an elite group of followers. This elitism would have been necessary, regardless, in
light of the Akbarian basis of Muḳammad Wafā’s mystical
teachings. We shall
discuss this basis
in subsequent chapters. Of significance also is the
later history of the Wafā’ family in
the religious institutions of Cairo.
The office of naq•b al-ashråf was
held at various times by Wafā’s, after the mid-twelfth/eighteenth century.
Also of note was the impor-
tant role played by Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Anwār in the
develop- ment of the Ḥusayn mawlid and the expansion of the
shrine-mosque of the same name. We may conclude
with the general
observation that the sanctity of the
Wafā’iyya began on a sure footing.
The founding figures
were recognized as inspired
mystical writers whose hagiography supported
their sanctity. Yet as
a family-based sufi order, the latter Wafā’ shaykhs’ claim to authority seems to have rested
more on the charisma of their sharifan descent.93
Figure 1. Cairo cemetery (City of the Dead)
Figure 2. Entrance to Wafå’ mosque
Figure 3. Tombs in Wafå’ mosque
Figure 4. Grave marker, >Al• Wafå’
Figure 5. The Wafå’ house
Figure 6. Remains
of fountain in Wafå’ house
The Wafå’s in Cairo (del. N. Lacoste)
(Table 1.0)
The Early Wafå’iyya
Muḳammad al-Najm (from Sfax / Tunis) (d. ?, Alexandria)
Muḳammad al-Awsaṭ
(d. ?, Alexandria)
Muḳammad Wafå’ (702/1302-765/1363, Cairo)
Shihåb al-D•n Aḳmad Ab¥ al->Abbås (d. 814/1412) >Al• Wafå’ (759/1357–807/1405)
Ab¥ al-Fatḳ (d. 852/1448) Ibråh•m Ab¥ al-Makårim (d. 833/1428)
Ab¥
al-Fa∂l (d. 814/1410) Yaḳia Ab¥ al-Siyådåt (d.
857/1453)
Shams al-D•n Ab¥
al-Maråhim (d. 867/1462)
Muḳibb al-D•n
Muḳammad Ab¥ al-Fa∂l (d. 888/1462)
Ab¥ al-Jawd Ḥasan (d. 805/1405)
(daughters)
Burhån al-D•n Ibråh•m
Ab¥ al-Makårim (d. 908/1502) (sons)
Shams al-D•n Muḳammad Ab¥ al-Fa∂l (d. 942/1536)
Ḥusnå
(d. 888/1483) Raḳma (d. ?)
Duḳå (d. ?)
Ab¥ al->Abbås Aḳmad (d. 825/1421) Ab¥ al-Tayyib Muḳammad
(d. 807/1405) Ab¥ al-Tåhir Muḳammad
(d. in Yemen?) Ab¥ al-Qåsim Muḳammad (d. 833/1429)
Chapter 4
The Writings of the Wafā’s
Before discussing the thought of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’, we should
take a closer look at their
literary production. Since almost all of this material remains in manuscript
form, something of a preliminary description seems in order. Beyond our
immediate project, which is a better understanding of the concept of walåya,
this chapter will bring to light sources
that other researchers might find useful. It should be noted also that these descriptions are summary in nature and that they only hint at the entire philosophy of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’. A number
of themes mentioned here will be dealt with in detail
in later chapters, while
others will be left for future study.
All the
major biographical writers of the nineth/fifteenth century seem to have taken note of the charismatic figures Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’. How- ever, some of these early accounts
were rather hostile,
criticizing both the doc-
trinal content of their writings
and their comportment with their followers. The famous detractor of Ibn CArabī, CAbd al-Raḳmān al-Sakhāwī (d.
903/1497),1 presents one assessment of CAlī Wafā’: “His poetry cries out mystical union (itti˙åd) (with the Divine)
to the point of heresy—and likewise the verse of his father.”2 This
accusation of blurring the distinction between the worshipper and God became
common in antisufi polemics. In this particular assessment, however, al-Sakhāwī is quoting
directly from an earlier source, Ibn Ḥajar al- CAsqalānī (d.
852/1449).3 As noted in the previous chapter,
Ibn Ḥajar also objected
to the practice of the companions of CAlī Wafā’ prostrating themselves to him. With regard to Ibn CArabī, al-CAsqalānī seems to have taken an unevenly negative stand.4
Of course,
these criticisms were not the last word on the Wafā’iyya. The writer/compiler CAbd al-Wahhāb al-ShaCrānī (d. 973/1565) held both the father
and son in
high esteem. In his immensely popular biographical dictionary of sufi figures,
al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā (or Lawāqih al-anwār
fi ịabaqāt al-akhyār), his longest
entry by far is on CAlī
Wafā’.5 This priority of place accorded to CAlī
can
be accounted for partially by ShaCrānī’s association with the Shādhiliyya order in Egypt.6 However,
the sheer size of the entry, forty-three pages, calls for some reflection. The notice on Muḳammad Wafā’ is barely
one page long, while that for al-Shādhilī is only
eight and a half. Not surprisingly, in light of other works dedicated wholly to him, Ibn CArabī receives less than one page in the Ṭabaqāt. The fact that Muḳammad Wafā’s shaykh, Ibn Bākhilā, is quoted
at some length (nineteen pages) makes it clear that ShaCrānī was intentionally
focusing on this branch of the Shādhiliyya.
Here we might propose that since ShaCrānī had taken
it upon himself to make Ibn CArabī’s teachings more acces- sible, he must have seen CAlī Wafā’ as the
inheritor of this great shaykh. We also saw in the last chapter that ShaCrānī had established personal
contacts with the shaykhs of
the Wafā’iyya order and family.
As will be seen in the next chapters, ShaCrānī’s quotations of CAlī
Wafā’ do indeed point out his debt to Ibn CArabī’s work. However,
ShaCrānī nowhere describes CAlī or the Wafā’iyya as
“Akbarian,” nor does he explicitely mention any parallels in their doctrine.
Since no new documents are likely to present themselves, we can only surmise
ShaCrānī’s intentions. My guess is that his earlier
interest in Ibn CArabī made him responsive to the work of CAlī Wafā’ and that his long entry in al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā was an effort to advertise
what had become in Egypt the latest mani-
festation of Akbarian mystical teaching.
Although the writings of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ do not seem to have
circulated widely—except via ShaCrānī’s Ṭabaqāt and to a
lesser degree his Yawāqīt—they have not fallen
into utter obscurity. Al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) quotes
from CAlī
Wafā’ in his Ta’yīd al-Иaqīqa al-’aliyya (pp. 73,
74). In the latter tenth/sixteenth century a commentary on Muḳammad Wafā’s Kitāb al-azal was written by one Abū al-Madad ibn
Aḳmad (d. 1008/1599), entitled Kashf al- asrār al-azaliyya.7 Also, the famous Syrian figure al-Nābulusī (d. 1143/1730) was somewhat familiar with the poetry of CAlī Wafā’. He quotes
from it in his
commentary on Shaykh Arslān’s Risāla.8 The
founder of the ịarīqa Sam- māniyya, Muḳammad CAbd al-Karīm al-Sammān (d. 1189/1775), also quotes from this
source.9 Also in the twelfth/eighteenth
century, the Khalwatī leader Aḳmad al-Dardīr (d. 1201/1786) wrote a commentary on a Wafā’ prayer.10 The popular Egyptian writer Yūsuf Shirbinī, also of
the late 18th century, quotes four unlikely lines from CAlī
Wafā’ in his Hazz al-quИūf.11 In modern-day Egypt,
the sufi shaykh al-Ḥajj Ḥamdī Ḥizāb has quoted
from CAlī Wafā’ in an exposi-
tion on the preexistence of the light of the prophet Muḳammad.12 Nevertheless, with
the Wafā’ writings having
remained for the most part unpublished in the modern era (with the exception of
Muḳammad’s Kitāb
al-azal and Dīwān) it cannot be said that they enjoy a wide cirulation among sufis.
Poetry
As we have seen, Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ were well known as composers
of mystical poetry. A collection of poetry from each of them has been pre-
served. The Dīwān of Muḳammad Wafā’ has
recently been published along with a commentary.13 It
consists of forty-five poems (qaṣā’id,
sing. qaṣīda), followed by al-Tā’iyya al-kubrā, which is comprised
of 1002 hemistiches. This long poem is the subject of a kind of poetic
auto-commentary, or takhmīs,
in which each hemistich is restated but then completed with three new lines of poetry. Eighteen short qaṣā’id follow. The poetry is sophisticated, touching
on a variety of mystical themes.14
The Dīwān of CAlī Wafā’ has not been
published, but I have consulted a copy of the 188 folio manuscript. The work is a lengthy
collection of poems of
various lengths and styles, ranging from four lines to over forty. The hemistiches
are usually divided by markers, and voweling is supplied. There is no
com- mentary supplied, and beyond the occasional notice
of the rhyming letter, there are no significant titles. As we
saw earlier, the Wafā’s were noted for their
composition in the complex style of the muwashshaИ. However, in this Dīwān none of the poems seems to be in
this style.15
At first reading, one sees that this is dense mystical
poetry. It is significant
that many of the pieces are written in the voice of the divine first Person. In
some cases it is clear
that the narrator
is God, but in others
it is possible to take the poet as the voice. In the
following example the poet is conversing with existence, which has been exiled
from God:
All existence asked me who I am.
I answered, I am the most foreign
of foreigners.16
Existence said, Then you are that through which my substance is wealthy, because you are the
poorest of the poor.
To me are the wonders
and marvels which are in
the perception of (both) the ignorant and the wise.
In Surat al-Ikhlā? came my exile.17
The rational thinkers
marvel at the freedmen.18
The following
verse may be understood to be either in the voice of the Divine creative aspect or from the perspective of the Muḳammadan Reality (i.e., Perfect Human). The Akbarian doctrine of the Perfect Human
held this individual to be the isthmus
between God and creation (not unlike the role the First Intellect played for the Neoplatonists).
I am the final point, in whose shadow
you will find that which opened existence and ranked (it).
Thus I am the pole of existence and center point
of the source
which is the unseen of the seeing,
(and) hidden from it.19
The
following is in the same vein, but communicates a certain finality. The claim
to being a Seal, of some kind, is implied.
I am the pole of existence without
doubt,
and the imam who guides those of my time.
My time is an all-encompassing era,
in which the existence of meanings has expired.
If the veil is annihilated from the eye (>ain) of my unveiling, the secret witnesses its
unseen in my elucidation.
Discard “becoming” ( m…) from your witnessing and obliterate the dot of the letter ghain
(Á) if you want to see me.20
This
collection also contains a number of devotional pieces, some directed to God, others
to the Prophet. These poems
may well have had a use in the ritual practices of the Wafā’iyya order, although
this remains an open question.
Supplications (du>å)
Prayer
compositions have played an important role in the founding of sufi orders. It
appears that all orders use devotional prayers (a˙zåb, sing. ˙izb) in
their communal ritual. Often, these are the compositions of the eponymous
founder. As we noted in chapter 2,
Ibn Bākhilā even wrote a commentary on one of the a˙zåb of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī. There are
a number of signifi- cant dimensions to these prayers, the most important of
which is the claim to walåya by the
author. These are inspired compositions, which are bestowed only upon saintly figures.
The popular success
of a ˙izb is invariably tied to, or reflects upon, the sanctity
of its progenitor. In other
words, these prayers
serve as vehicles for the spiritual authority of their authors.
The ritual
function of these
prayers must also be considered. Their recita- tion,
in addition to the practice of dhikr (repetition
of the names of God), is central to sufi worship. It would be hard to conceive
of the gathering of a sufi order without ˙izb recitation. It is significant that Muḳammad Wafā’ composed a˙zåb (or at least has them attributed
to him), since these compositions would have been essential for an independent
order to break away from the Shād- hiliyya.
In other words, Muḳammad Wafā’s assertion that he was no longer a fol- lower of the Shādhilī way, but rather the founder of a new order, in part rested on his ability to produce
divinely inspired prayers. This claim to independence relied on his walåya being recognized by his followers,
and new a˙zåb were part of this claim
to sanctity.21
It should
not surprise us then to find aИzāb attributed
to Muḳammad Wafā’. In manuscript form we have Ḥizb al-sādāt fī jāmi’ al-asrār, Ḥizb al- fardāniyya and Ḥizb
al-azal.22 In the bibliographical record
there also was a Ḥizb al-fatИ published in Egypt at the turn of the century.23
Jurisprudence (fiqh) and Exegesis (tafs•r)
Although the fame of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ was based on their poety and their mystical
writings, they were trained in jurisprudence of the Mālikī rite. To Muḳammad is attributed a work on fiqh, Bahjat al-irshād (The
Splendor of Guidance); although the early sources do not make note of it.24 Attributed to CAlī, and also now lost, is a
fiqh work the title of which suggests
it dealt with the four legal schools in some way: al-Kawthar al-mutra’ min al-abИur al- arba’ (The Kawthar full from the four seas).25 Mention is made of this book by
al-CAsqalānī in the nineth/fifteenth century.26 He is also the only source
to men- tion the Bā’ith ’alā al-khalāṣ fī aИwāl al-khawāṣṣ (The Occasion of Deliverance
in the States of the Elite). I have not seen this work, but it has
recently been found under a slightly different title, and listed as author
unknown, in the British Library.27 This
work is apparently a defence of preachers and story- tellers (quṣṣāṣ) as transmitters of religious knowledge. In this debate CAlī Wafā’ argues against
those who would
restrict the dissemination of religious teaching to the professional class of the
ulama.28 Ibn
al-CImād, among others, tells that CAlī also wrote a Qur’an commentary (tafsīr).29 The
sixteenth-century collec- tion of exegetes, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, notes CAlī Wafā’s tafsīr,
yet provides no details.30 This work does not appear to have
survived.
Mystical Treatises
(Muḥammad Wafā’)
This group
of writings certainly represents the primary intellectual effort of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’. As we shall see when we return to our discussion of the doctrine of sanctity in the next chapter, the mystical speculations of the Wafā’s fall generally into the tradition of Ibn CArabī. This is not to say, how- ever, that these two writers saw their purpose
as one of simply expanding
upon the thought of Ibn CArabī. This task fell to a group
of thinkers we may place
in the “Akbarian school”
proper. Of these the most outstanding were ?adr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 673/1274), Mu’ayyad al-Dīn al-Jandī (d. cir. 700/1300), CAbd al- Razzāq al-Qāshānī (d. cir. 735/1334), and Dā’ūd al-Qay?arī (d.
751/1351).31 These figures composed a number of commentaries on the works of Ibn CArabī, in addition
to their own mystical writings
in the Akbarian tradition. In contrast,
Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ composed no such commentaries, nor do they mention Ibn CArabī’s name, yet their writing
relied heavily on his philosophy.
The Kitåb al-azal
(The Book of Preexistence), stands out among the writ- ings of Muḳammad Wafā’. While
formally a commentary on the Names of God, it is a philosophical text, clearly in the tradition of Ibn CArabī. It consists of sixty-one sections, some of which are only a few sentences in length. In the
introduction (p. 12), the editor describes the text as belonging to the “Oneness of Being” (wa˙dat al-wuj¥d) school. This assessment bears up upon inspec-
tion. It should also be said that this text is significant for its systematic
use of philosophical terminology. It is not inconceivable, therefore, that our
author was influenced by the writings
of Akbarian followers, such as al-Qūnawī, who had
interpreted Ibn CArabī in quite philosophical terms.
We shall return to this subject in later chapters.
The Kitåb al-azal
touches on a variety of specific concepts, but the idea of
the “Oneness of Being” recurs.
Typical in style and vocabulary is the following from the section entitled
“Realities”:
The Name
“He” (al-Huwa) is the absolute name, which is the reality of the [divine]
Essence which you can neither know, nor be ignorant of .32
The reality
of the other [than God] (al-ghayr) is independence in person
(nafs) and in existence
(wuj¥d). Yet, a thing only has existence
by His existence, so there is no real independence. When the condi- tion is
absent, then so is the conditioned, thus there is no “other.” [God] the Manifest then requires the other; but being either Manifest
or Nonmanifest does not penetrate to the absolute Essence, which is Him. Likewise
[is the case for] all the levels
of differentiation, oppo- sition, difference, homologousness
and contrariness. All of this [i.e. qualification] is not said of Him, rather it is said to the levels of exis-
tence and possibility, according to what is appropriate to each level.33
Thus
creation, or the “other,” has no independent existence; its existence is
conditional upon that of the Divine. Without
God’s existence nothing
else can be. Further, this conditional
existence is qualified by the infinite levels of dif- ferentiation through
which it may pass. It is this qualification that makes con- ditional existence distinct from its
divine source and makes it apparent to us here below. The idea of a single existence, shared by all, is clear. We are told that existence “is one in
itself, with no duality or plurality. There is no exis- tence to any existent,
except He.”34
Elsewhere
the creative movement from God is described as the Throne, which serves as the existential
medium for all creation. We are told,
The Throne (>arsh) is that by which what was not came into being; and what had not been thought was thought. Everything that reaches
form or
conception does so by [the Throne’s] power . . . The entity (kå’in) is by it, and it [the Throne] is
in it. It is not possible for [the entity] to be removed from it [the Throne]. It [the Throne] is like the sea, and the entities are as its waves.35
Thus all
entities come into being thanks to the Throne. They take their own forms in this process,
but in the end they are simply variations within a univer- sal whole.
Our comments
on the mystical philosophy of Kitåb al-azal are
necessarily brief, having served
here only as an indicator of that work’s
content and style. Of course, to describe
a work as being in the wa˙dat al-wuj¥d
tradition is only a start, leaving serious reading yet
to be done. However, we may, in general, restate the importance of this work as Muḳammad Wafā’s most philosophically consistent effort. The style and vocabulary is
unlike that used in his other expositions of mystical thought.
A work that
is more typical of the literary production of Muḳammad Wafā’ is Sha>å’ir
al->irfån f• alwå˙ al-kitmån (The
Marks of Gnosis on the Tablets of Secrecy).
The language used is less philosophical in tone, but many
of the concepts that are to be found in Kitåb
al-azal are present in this work. The text is divided into 114 “marks”
(note the number of suras in the Qur’an is also 114) , or sha>å’ir. Strangely,
the Dār al-Kutub manuscript consists of only the first 108 “marks.”36 The
first pages contain short enigmatic phrases in rhyming prose (saj> ). For example,
Praise
be to God who blots out the sunan (customary practices) with the sunan,
And completes the graces with the
graces, [He is] is the appearance of the secret
in the open,
And the entry of time into time.
[He is] the collector of the nations
into nations,37 Producing wisdom by [His] Wisdom.
He sent down the spirits
in the angelic forms,
Making clear for the eloquent
and the unintelligible.
He mixed obscurity
into the clarification.
A speaker was not silent,
nor did he speak.
He has caused
the evenings to run into the mornings,38
He who is unsure [in faith]36 neither perceives nor speaks.
He obscured the secrets within the lights, And the mute and dumb spoke.40
The style
is certainly allusive, but the mystic
theme of hidden
truths is central. With a deceptive
change in form, the first sha>•ra presents
a number of mystical
definitions.
However, they are so concise that they seem to evoke more ques- tions than they
answer. We read,
Mystical
union (itti˙åd) is the last of the
levels of withness;41 . . . Humility is the quieting of the soul along the path of
eternity; . . . Scrupulousness is choosing the preferable; . . . Hope is
awareness of the occurrence (˙uṣ¥l);
. . . Spiritual chivalry (futuwwa) is
vision by the eye of beauty. Joy is witnessing from pure mercy (ra˙ma); . . . Wisdom (˙ikma) is witnessing union in
difference; . . . Perspicacity (firåsa) is the extraction of the unseen from the seen. Glorification is the memory of al-Ḥaqq in everything; . . . Gnosis (ma>rifa) is witness- ing al-Ḥaqq in all things by His Rule (˙ukm).42
The
remaining sha>å’ir take a more
discursive form, touching in some detail on mystical themes. Muḳammad Wafā’ takes up cosmology on a number of
occasions. The three worlds of the Corporeal (mulk), Sovereign (malak¥t), and Omnipotent (jabar¥t) are sometimes assigned angels (Isrāfīl, Michael,
and Gabriel respectively).43 In sha>•ra 29, the human faculties such as gnosis,
vision, inspiration, and bewilderment are tied into the levels of creation.44 These levels of
creation are elsewhere described as the divine possibilities (as distinct from the
necessary), which can be divided
into three: the world of command (>ålam
al-amr), the world of creation (>ålam
al-khalq), and the world of becoming (>ålam
al-kawn).45
In the Sha>å’ir al->irfån the themes of oneness and the divine origin of cre- ation are also present. There are veils that serve to differentiate
between the various modes of necessary being and thus are responsible for the levels of cre- ation. Their ultimate source,
however, remains an aspect of the Divine. We read, “If the veil of beings
( Hm… !H njß) is raised
then the majesty
of humanity ( hs˚!Hfihl“)
will appear. If the veil of mankind is raised then the face of the Merciful
will manifest.”46 From the perspective of the
individual soul, the divine is not far off either. We are told,
“The interior of the heart
is the mirror of al-Ḥaqq and the
site of sincerity. He to whom his Lord makes Himself known has his heart
turned to Him, and in it (his heart) appear
the lights of His
Truth.”47 Further along, Muḳammad Wafā’ repeats a favorite hadith among the sufis, as an elucidation of the soul’s
proximity to the divine: “He who knows himself knows his lord.”48
Another
major work of Muḳammad Wafā’ is the Nafå’is al->irfån min anfås al-Ra˙mån (The
Gems of Gnosis from the Breaths of the Merciful). It consists of 295 “gems.”
The Dār al-Kutub manuscript provides a twelve-folio introduction, which is absent
from the Azhariyya manuscript. At least
some of this introduction is
simply taken from elsewhere in the body of the text (e.g., gems 276, 278, 281,
285). The Dār al-Kutub manuscript,
in turn, omits gems
113–233,
which appear in the Azhariyya and
Berlin copies.49 A
short version, consisting of only 50 “gems,” has been published.50
Although it is not possible for us to summarize this work—due to its com- partmentalized structure—we may
offer samples of the important themes and questions. First, as a general observation it can be said that this work is written using less philosophical
terminology than the previous two titles we have described. More typically sufi
themes are also addressed. In the introduction there is discussion of the link
between the spiritual follower and his shaykh. We read, for example,
“He who knows himself knows his shaykh . . . He who
does not find his shaykh does not find his heart; he who does not find his heart has
failed to find his Lord . . . Your shaykh is he who empties you of yourself, and fills you with himself.”51 There is also a significant discussion of walåya in
a number of nafå’is. These statements will be incorporated into our discussion in chapter 6 below.
In a number of places Muḳammad Wafā’ takes up the subject
of the three worlds, or three levels of creation,52 as was done in Sh>å’ir
al->irfån.The lowest level is that of the Corporeal world (:klHLJh¨), which is associated with the five senses and is linked
via the “common
sense” (Ú.÷a¬ ,s) to the World of Sover-
eignty (Ôm;kęJHLJh¨). This world is the level of the intellect and the five internal senses. From here the link is made by the “common intellect” (Ú.÷a¬ $ä¨) to the World of Omnipotence (ÔM.fĽHLJh¨). This is the level of the five comprehen- sions (ÔhƄhsH) and is linked by the “Throne
of the Merciful”53 to the absolute
Necessary (Rka¬ Ïm“M), which itself is from the essence of God. We will discuss
the details of this cosmology in more detail in chapter 5.
The manuscript
also touches on the subject of the relation of God’s pre- existence to his everlastingness. In naf•sa 25 these two aspects
of the divine are shown to
be accessible to the gnostic.
The One
said, From every side I am the First as the Merciful and the Last in Humanity; the Apparent in creation, and the Hidden in truth. So he who knows Me thus and realizes
Me in all this, I have gathered his last into his first, and numbered his apparent among
his hidden, so that he becomes pre-existent (hiJyH)
without an end to his first, and becomes everlasting (hivęa)
without an external
to his internal.54
Thus, the
human soul, by knowing God, may attain to a mode of eternity. There are a number
of other substantial discussions taken up. Of these,
perhaps the most interesting are those of the variety of divine Names,
the various divine Presences in creation, or the effusion of creation itself by
way of the First
Intellect (fiM!H$äuJH).
Moving
further away from philosophical language and style is Muḳam- mad Wafā’s Kitåb al-ma>år•j (The
Book of Ladders).55 The single form of
ma’ārīj is mi’rāj, which may also signify the Prophet Muḳammad’s night jour- ney
to the heavens. Mystics such as Abū Yazīd al-Basṭāmī and Ibn CArabī fol- lowed
this prophetic model with accounts of their own ascensions into the heavens,56 but this manuscript describes no
such event. The general direction of the work is one that presents prayer, in
its various forms, as various “lad- ders” upward. Muḳammad Wafā’ treats questions of ṣalāt,
describing its possi- ble spiritual types. He associates,
for example, various bodily locations with elements of communal prayer.57 In the latter part of the work it
seems that Muḳammad Wafā’ has come to
substitute the word mi’rāj for what
usually in Sufi writings would
be the maqām (spiritual station). Scattered throughout the text also are a number of minor mystical commentaries on
certain passages from the Qur’an.
A shorter work, of only thirteen folios, is
Muḳammad Wafā’s Ṣuwar al- nūrāniyya
fī ’ulūm al-sarayāniyya (The Luminous Forms of the Sciences of Dis- persion).
It is divided into twenty-five sections, or ṣuwar
(sing. ṣūra). These sections are given titles
such as the following: “The Form of the Muḳammadan Spirits” ( ṣūrat al-arwāИ
al-MuИammadiyya), “The Form of Prayer”
(ṣūrat al- ṣalāt), “The Form of the Key” (ṣūrat al-miftāИ), “The Form of Descent” (ṣūrat
al-tanazzul). The first folios, however, contain short statements that may
be described as something between definitions and aphorisms. For example, we
read, “The witnessing of al-Ḥaqq in all
things is the straight path to God” and “Elucidation is an existence based upon
the mental faculties of the finders.”58 Some
of the “Forms” are quite short, for example two related definitions are: “The
Form Pre-existence is the essence of the unseen, beyond the attribute of existential sharing (flVm“m©H
ÚHnjå!H). The Form Everlasting is the essence
of (physical) seeing within the attribute of existential
sharing.”59 These pro- nouncements are
certainly brief. The term existential
sharing is unusual, but here it seems to be an equivalent to creation, in
as much as it conditionally partakes in the permanent divine Existence.60 Elsewhere, however, ideas are a
little more fleshed out. Thus, in the “Form of Indwelling” (ṣūrat al-Иulūl) Muḳammad Wafā’ explains that there are two different perceptions of (Divine) Indwelling. This indwelling is a kind of unveiling,
the mistaken perception of which is reached by delusion (takhayyul). A second perception, that by verifi- cation
(taИqīq), is sound. This sound
perception may then attain one of two different kinds of indwelling, either
that of connecting (ta’alluq) or
divine Self-disclosure (tajallī). The
manuscript is corrupt in a number of places, but we may propose the following
reading:
The Form of Indwelling is the first of the levels of unveiling, which is
false by the corruption of delusion, but is sound
by verification. This indwelling is of two kinds, [the first is] the “indwelling of connection.”
This is like knowledge as it is connected to the known,
or as decree is
The Writings
of the Wafā’s 81
connected to the decreed.
It is a causal connection . . . It is said of the
“indwelling of connection” that it is a union (ittiИād) by the compre- hension of the connected by the
connecting and not as the union (ittiИād) of a substance with an accident. . . [Of the second
kind], the “indwelling of
Self-disclosure,” it is called “oneness”; it is without the metaphor of duality
or withness, for this is absolute comprehen- sion (iИāịa muịlaqa), like
water which is held together in ice.61
Thus the “indwelling
of connection” concerns the union of the effect with the cause, not the inherence of the accident
in the substance. In this sense, its exis-
tential basis is fleeting. The indwelling of Self-disclosure (Иulūl al-tajallī) is part of the eternal
Divine. It is not the result of a causal relationship, rather it is part of the absolute Oneness of God.
In his MiftāИ al-sūr min ’ayn al-khabar (The Key to the Enclosure from the Source of Intelligence) Muḳammad Wafā’ takes up for discussion a number of concepts related to worship. One of
these is the word Иamd (praise),
which operates on a number of existential levels and which has a role to play
in the Divine act of creation.62 Other terms and names
receiving elaboration or com-
mentary are “al-RaИmān al-RaИīm” (the Merciful, the Compassionate), “Māliki yawm al-dīn” (Lord of the day of judgment) and al-Malik (Lord /
King). Muḳammad Wafā’ also devotes
three folios to a discussion of the mystical
sig- nificance of various
letters of the alphabet.63 It
is significant that at the outset of this work Muḳammad Wafā’ makes clear the inspired nature of his composition. We read, “He (Muḳammad Wafā’) said: ‘I heard God in my secret / essence (Î.ß) say, ‘I
by Myself am the Secret without end. My Existence is from Its own sufficiency. And the source of sources in Me does not
change.”64
Another substantial work is Muḳammad Wafā’s Kitāb ta’ṣīl al-azmān
wa tafṣīl al-akwān (The
Book of the Foundation of Times and the Particularization of Beings).65 The text deals with a number of
themes, including the mystical dimensions of various
prophets. Cosmology is also discussed. In one instance a four-fold hierarchy is laid
out, called the “levels of the four thrones.” This model is distinct from the
well-known model of the three worlds of mulk,
malakūt, and jabarūt. At the first throne, that of the level of natural disposi-
tions (7hfƄ), we find the four elements (water, earth, wind, and fire) and the
three entities (mineral, plant, and animal). At the second throne, that of sover- eignty (malakūt), we find the hearts and the subtleties of humanity. We
also find the following four “elements,” which are the faculties of conceiving (fikr),
remembrance (dhikr), preservation (Иaf?), and fantasy (khayāl). The three enti- ties present
are the angels, the jinn, and the demons. The third throne is called the “world of (Divine)
command.” This is the location
of the descending of the Night of Power,66 and the true location
of witnessing the Divine. The four ele- ments here are the four spirits (,HM,H), which are called “God be praised”
(subИan Allāh), “Praise
be to God” (al-Иamdu
li Allāh), “there is no God” (lā ilāha), and “God is Greatest” (Allāhu Akbar). The three entities—reflecting mis- sion,
prophecy, and sainthood—are the Divine dispatch (irsāl), notification (inbā’),
and friendship (walā’). The fourth throne is that of necessity. It
is the level of God. The
four elements are the First, the Last, the Apparent, and the Hid- den
(cf. Q. 57:3). The place of the
three entities is held by the Divine Names, Attributes and Essence.67 It is interesting to note in this
model the use of both philosophical categories and devotional vocabulary as parts of a cosmology.
As its title
suggests, Al-Maqāmāt al-saniyya li
al-sāda al-ṣūfiyya (The Sublime Stations of the Sufis),
is to be located firmly
in the arena of traditional sufi writing. This short
piece (nine folios) consists of 101 brief definitions. Each definition is followed by a Иaqīqa (reality) and a ghāya (purpose), which expand on the definition. The terms covered are what
would be expected in any sufi manual of spiritual discipline. For example, we
find entries on Fear (khawf), Trust
in God (tawakkul), Patience (ṣabr), Poverty (faqr), Tasting (dhawq),
Spiritual expansion (basị), Spiritual
contraction (qabḍ), Extinction (fanā’)
and Gnosis (ma’rifa). The entry for the term Union (jam’ )
reads,
Union is the negation of “withness”, and the absence of differentiation completely (]ik;Jhƒ). Its reality is the union (эhїH) of the levels of the
world into One which is self-determined with the existence of what is thereby united in it. Its purpose is the vision (]i Â,) of the everlasting by the eye of pre-existence, which neither speaks
nor is spoken of.68
In the following entry
Unity (tawИīd) is described as “a reality
which does not divide in oneness, nor is it
distinguished by plurality, nor is it numerable as numbers that have no end.
Its reality is a meaning the hearts
do not deny, but which the intellects cannot imagine, and the eloquence of explanation does not
reach it. Its purpose is negation of
all others.”69 The “reality” and the “pur- pose”
seem to extend the initial abstract definition from the perspective of either
the cosmos or the individual. This
structure, however, is not adhered to strictly. Of Inspiration (ilhām) we read, “Ilhām is
revelation (waИy)
which the notion of al-Ḥaqq inspires in every heart that has lent its ear, and is a
witness. Its reality is the address (khiịāb) to the master
of true tasting
(dhawq). Its pur- pose is the tongue speaking in words
for which untruth is impossible.70
Another short piece is the Fuṣūl al-Иaqā’iq (Sections on Realities). It opens with two
pages of supplication and then presents thirteen sections of varying length.
The tone of the entire work reflects divine emanation and presence in creation.
The shortest section reads,
Praise be to the Self-discloser (§k[÷lH
hzfß) of the Secrets of His Pre- existence, by [way of] the Commanding Spirit blown into the form of
knowledge by the essence
of union (,ęĽH giuƒ). [The Spirit] lets each
benefit from a lordly Grace (laị•fa), and divine Tenuity (raq•qa);71 it is by this Tenuity
that [the Command’s] existence stands in its unseen, to which none may rise, and it is by that Grace that its essence
(>ayn) is directed.72
It is difficult to read many of these
Sections with certainty, since each seems
to have been composed
independently. Sustained development here as in most of Muḳammad Wafā’s other writings
is lacking. Nevertheless, in the passage
just quoted it seems that the dynamic of creation is based on the
Commanding Spirit, which has an eternal unseen, in addition to the form it
produces. This form is sustained by a Grace
and a Tenuity. The Tenuity
povides an exitential basis in the unseen, while the
Grace determines its essence in the apparent.
The work Kitåb al->ur¥sh (Book of Thrones)
may be found attributed to both CAlī and Muḳammad Wafā’.73 Although not used in our study here,
this work deserves further attention.
Mystical Treatises (>Al• Wafå’)
In addition
to the eleven titles of Muḳammad Wafā’, the al-Azhar majm¥>a,
(majāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313) also has two short works it attributes to CAlī
Wafā’. The shorter, only four folios in length, entitled Libås al-futuwwa (The Garments of Chivalry), makes mention of CAlī twice; he is clearly the author. The six-folio Kitåb al-wåridåt (The Book of Spiritual Inrushes), however, makes no mention
of its author. The copyist notes on the front cover that this text is
“something from the wåridåt of CAlī.” This is most certainly a reference to the long work entitled
Majm¥> wåridåt >Al• ibn Wafå’.74 Of the shorter work, Kitåb al-wåridåt, some comment may be made. As the title suggests (wåridåt here having the sense of spiritual
inrushes) the work takes the form of concise sayings. We read,
He said,
He who witnesses al-Ḥaqq in all things fears
Him in all things, and he who fears Him in all things believes in Him
through all things, and he who witnesses God alone, He appoints him ruler of all things.
He said, He
who is poor in God is rich in all (other) things, and for him who is rich in
God, all things are poor to him.75
Also discussed in this short work is the three-fold cosmology of mulk, malak¥t,
and jabar¥t.76 Despite the copyist’s assertion, this text is not to be found in the Majm¥>
Wåridåt >Al• ibn
Wafå. In fact it is made up of sections taken from Muḳammad Wafā’s Nafå’is. So
too is the shorter Berlin manuscript.
One of >Al• Wafå’s longest
works is a collection of spiritual advice to his readers. The Waṣåyå Sayyid• >Al• Wafå’ (The Injunctions of >Al• Wafå’) exists as a
110-folio manuscript.77 It also constitutes
the first half (48 fols) of the Majm¥>
Wåridåt >Al• ibn Wafå’. A variety of topics is touched upon, including
existence, knowledge, and spiritual guidance. The Divine is the source
of existence and therefore the source of one’s understanding of Him. >Al• Wafå’ tells us,
He is the
single existence present in every “one” (wå˙id);
He is the Witnessed and the Witness. There is to each of His levels a saying, and to each domain (fih[¬)
in Him a man. The wiseman only speaks by the
tongue of each level, and treats it only according to its measure and scales:
“We have only sent messengers in the language of their people, to explain the
sign to them.” (Q. 14:4)78
He also writes, “It is said that knowledge
and gnosis and understanding are the
presence of a thing in oneself. Thus only He knows or understands anything; so
know who you are, oh he who knows only by his known!”79
Elsewhere he adds, “The gnostic is the source (>ayn) of what he knows, and the verifier (mu˙aqqiq) is the reality (˙aq•qa)
of what he verifies (˙aqqaqahu).”80 This theme of mystical epistemology is extended by >Al• toward his understanding of the spiritual guide. He
writes,
If you find your true teacher,
you have found your reality.
If you find your reality you have found God. If you find God, then you have found everything; so everything
desired is simply [to be found] in love (wajd)
of this teacher.81
You are in
the form in which you see your teacher, so see what you want. If you see him as creation,
then you are a “creation.” If you witness him as truth,
then you are a “truth.”
God said, “I am according to My servant’s opinion of Me,
so he thinks of Me as he wills.”82
This work is
certainly the most simple in style and vocabulary of all the titles from >Al• Wafå’. It must be seen as a central
text for any understanding of the
teachings within the Wafå’iyya sufi
order. In other words, this is the closest thing to a novice’s
handbook that has come down to us from >Al•.
The authorship of the Kitåb al-masåmi> al-rabbåniyya (The Book of Lordly Hearings)83 is
debatable. This lengthy work opens by telling us that what fol- lows is from Muḳammad Wafå’ as
recounted by his son >Al•. The question quickly arises as to how >Al•, who would have been an infant when his father died, could here be giving an account of his father’s
teaching. Of course,
>Al• could
have simply been relating these teachings according to the written
record
his father had left behind. Perhaps
this work should be understood as the son’s digest of his father’s
work. A closer
comparison of all the relevant
manuscripts would be the only way to settle this question.
The text itself is divided up into sections
marked by the word listen!. The overall tone is quite in line with
the other writings. The following is illustra- tive: “All existents are levels of your existence, in relation to you; for nothing
appears before you except that which is you, and is from you, and to you.”84 Elsewhere we read, “The All is from you and to you, while He is
your Ruler [in creation], appointed by the decrees at each level [of creation]
according to [that level’s] ability. So note [reader] what you see. Each level
has its saying, and to each domain its man.”85 These
notices reflect God as existence simply manifested in different forms at
different levels. At the same time,
aspects of the Divine may be found either in their necessary
(eternal) form, or in their pos-
sible (temporal) form. CAlī Wafā’ writes, “The ‘Wise Spirit’ of God (r¥˙ ˙ak•m), which is the starting point of the [human] virtues and praises,
is the face of [God’s] Lordship in the realm of possibility.”86 He then takes this a step further,
describing the distinction between the Divine and its worldly
agents as the dif-
ference between the Spirit’s permanent and potential modes. “For him in whom the divine Existence appears
as the r¥˙ ˙ak•m, he is the god, the lord, the truth, by
virtue of his existence; and he is the messenger, the prophet and the guiding saint, by virtue of his
possibility (imkån).”87 The point here is that one who
receives the r¥˙ ˙ak•m is divine
inasmuch as he shares in necessary existence but is only a messenger, prophet,
or saint through his contingent being. In a discussion that sheds light on the
central role played by the spiritual advisor, CAlī Wafā’ says, “If you know your teacher,
the imam guiding
you by his nec- essary divine
existence, then you know your Lord al-Ḥaqq. Do you know who He
is? He is simply the source of your divine
existence, as determined for you at the level of the distinction of your being.”88 It is the permanent aspect of the Divine that is presented to the seeker
in the form of his guide. The seeker recog- nizes its nature thanks to his own small part of the necessary
existence. Further reading of Kitåb al-masåmi> al-rabbåniyya would produce many more state- ments of this kind.
A picture emerges
that is at once emanationist—the Divine out-pouring that takes various forms through its descent—and ontological. It is an ontology that
recognizes that both the necessary (eternal) and the possible (temporal) modes
of existence are in play at the same time.
Of CAlī Wafā’s writings, his Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya (The Keys to
the Lofty Treasury) is certainly his most sustained discussion of walåya. His lengthy comments on sayings
from al-Junayd and al-Basṭāmī also serve to position this work squarely in the sufi
tradition.89 However, this is not to say that
Neoplatonism cannot also be of service. For example,CAlī identifies the Adamic sphere,
which the Prophet reached on his mi>råj, as being equivalent
to the sphere of the Active
Intellect.90
In accord
with his other writings, the oneness of God and creation is a sig- nificant element. We are told that although the single real existence is particu-
larized into creation, it maintains its link to its original divine source.
Reality is a single essential existence
particularized by its own princi- ples, which are its attributes and
existences (mawjūdāt). Creation is
the levels of proportion which
are fixed within
their limits as immuta-
bles, verified in perceptions (madārik)
affected by them . . . As al- Ḥaqq said,
“Verily, all things We have created in proportion.” (Q. 54:49) But according to the reading
of ḍamma over the lām of “kull”:
“Verily, We are all the things We have created
in proportion.”91
In the same vein,
describing the Divine
as the Essence of creation, CAlī Wafā’ notes, “It is nothing but Him when the Secret of
existence manifests in a par- ticularity in time.”92 Elsewhere he echoes the image of the Divine
as the source of all existence. We read,
The reality of (the Prophet’s) existence is “I created everything for your sake, and I created
you for my sake” This is the meaning of the root’s saying to the branch:
“You are from me” that is, “You are from me in existence (wujūdan), and I am from you in witnessing (shuhūdan).” He who realizes
these words has seen the noble Oneness
with the eye of
the Lofty, the Great.93
These
statements and a number of others in the text not mentioned here all show
clearly CAlī Wafā’ as a proponent
of the “Oneness of Being” school. A
number of other topics are dealt with in this work. CAlī Wafā’s commentary on Abraham having asked God how he gives life to the dead (Q. 2:260) takes the
form of twenty-five questions and answers. In this discussion he argues, among other things, that Abraham was able to adopt the Divine perspective— along with his human
one—within his understanding.94 Elsewhere
CAlī com- ments on the mystical
significance of a number of events in the life of Joseph.
I have recently located
a work entitled Ḥikam ’Alī Wafā’. The title recalls Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī’s Ḥikam, a collection of mystical aphorisms, which would reach an audience far beyond the Shādhiliyya order. In contrast, this Wafā’ Ḥikam is not
mentioned in the biographical sources, nor have I seen mention of it anywhere
else. This manuscript should be looked at more closely, and at this early stage
we can accept its purported authorship only with caution.95 Also attributed to CAlī Wafā’ is a description of the heavenly
ascensions (ma’ārīj) of the prophets Adam, Idrīs, Nūh, Mūsā, CIsā, Ibrāhīm, and Muḳammad. A preliminary reading of the manuscript finds, as one might
The Writings
of the Wafā’s 87
expect for
such a topic of discussion, numerous references to the qiṣaṣ al- anbiyā’ (tales of the prophets) literature. However, not one of the biographical sources for >Al• Wafå’ mentions
this work. Its purported authorship thus calls for
confirmation.96
Chapter 5
Sanctity and Muḳammad Wafā’
So far we
have described the understanding of sainthood among the spiritual predecessors of the Wafā’iyya. These may be divided generally into two camps, that of Tirmidhī / Ibn CArabī, and that of the early Shādhiliyya. In a summary
way, we can point to Ibn CArabī’s concept of ‘General
prophecy’ (nubuwwa
>åmma) as his pivotal
innovation, an innovation that “solved” the problem of sainthood, as it were, by accounting
for the continued spiritual authority of saints after the final historical
revelation of the Qur’an and the ideal model of the Prophet Muḳammad. In Ibn CArabī’s system, this General prophecy took the form of
two kinds of walåya, Muḳammadan sainthood and General saint- hood. Muḳammadan sainthood was sealed by Ibn CArabī himself, and Jesus will seal General sainthood
at the end of time. This model allows two things. First, ultimate sainthood may be claimed
by Ibn CArabī as the khatm al-walåya
al-Mu˙ammadiyya, while a lesser sainthood
continues, thus accounting for the spiritual
authority of subsequent saints. The early Shādhiliyya, as we have noted, presented a somewhat
different understanding of walåya.
In short, they did
not develop the idea of nubuwwa >åmma, and their “solution” to the ques- tion of the continued
authority of sainthood
was not as tidy. The main thrust of
their doctrine seems to have been to simply extend the functions of prophecy
downward into the realm of sainthood. The saints are thus somehow
the exten- sion of the ended
prophetic function. Also an essential component of their understanding of walåya was its role as a measure of an
individual’s spiritual progress. Important figures
have accessed the “greater walåya,” while
the rest of humanity
seeks to develop
its “lesser walåya.” This two-tiered conception is similar to Tirmidhī’s theory, inasmuch
as the latter recognized a superior saint and an inferior one.
The task at
hand for us in this chapter is to explore Muḳammad Wafā’s position within
this complex of ideas. Regarding his doctrine of walāya,
it will be seen that his “solution” was to introduce
a cyclical element
to the equation. He substitutes Ibn CArabī’s General prophecy
with the idea of tajdīd (renewal). As we shall see, this model
allows Muḳammad Wafā’—like Ibn CArabī—to claim for himself
the ultimate degree
of sainthood, but it makes little room for
later manifestations of spiritual authority. This model of walāya is a substantial
departure from that presented by the early Shādhiliyya.
Before
discussing Muḳammad Wafā’ on walāya we must first take stock of certain
supporting elements of his thought.
We begin with his understanding of existence. At the start
of the previous chapter we noted Ibn Ḥajar al- CAsqalānī’s accusation that the Wafā’s presented an extreme doctrine
of mysti- cal union.
The conservative critic
based his comments
on poetry he had heard from Muḳammad Wafā’. By contrast,
our assessment below will take a wider perspective on his writings.
Absolute Being and Its Self-disclosure
The concept
of ‘Absolute Being’
(wujūd muịlaq) revolves around the question of the nature of existence in
relation to the divine. In the previous chapter, in our description of Kitāb al-azal, we noted the “Oneness of Being” perspective taken up by Muḳammad Wafā’. The implications of this viewpoint
are signifi- cant. Seeing
God’s existence as the only existence, while a logically tenable position, was not generally
acceptable to the Muslim orthodoxy. The need was felt, even among a majority of
mystical thinkers, to preserve some recogniza- ble distinction between the
Divine and creation. The relationship
between the central Islamic tenet
of the Oneness of God (tawИīd)
and the existential nature of creation became
the matter of debate. Beyond
the extreme position
of those who would argue for a God immanent in all creation, the dominant understand- ing in sufism came to be one
that recognized both the Absolute
Being of God and a qualified or contingent being for all else.
Certainly the most sophisticated exposition of this oneness of God in rela-
tion to the plurality of creation came from Ibn CArabī. His position on this, thanks to his later followers, came to be called “Oneness
of Being” (waИdat al- wujūd).1 This
doctrine posited first the absolute Being, “for nothing exists other than God, His attributes and His acts.
Everything is Him, is through
Him, proceeds from Him, returns to Him; and were He to veil Himself from the uni- verse even for the space of the blinking
of an eye, the universe
would straight- away cease to exist.”2 To this is added the idea of God’s Self-disclosure (tajallī), thus providing a mode
of existence with apparent independence. This Self- disclosure must occur through His names
and attributes, since Absolute Being
Sanctity and MuИammad Wafā’ 91
is beyond
creation’s ability to comprehend. Ibn CArabī writes, “God
does not disclose Himself in the name One, and there cannot be Self-disclosure
within it, nor in the name God. But Self-disclosure does occur in the other
Names that are known to us.”3 This Self-disclosure is unlimited
in its possibilities, but its divine origin is concealed by the veils it
acquires as it takes particular form. Only by spiritual insight can any of
these existential veils be lifted.
Ibn CArabī’s teachings on this subject are rather elaborate, but these are the
basic ideas of what we may call his doctrine of the “Oneness of Being.”4 In light of this explanation, we
shall turn our attention to Muḳammad Wafā’ in order to
situate him within the discussion of the nature of Divine and created existence.
There is no shortage
of passages in which this Oneness is referred to. We
read, for example, “The essential existence (al-wujūd al-dhāt) is (God) the Encompassing, since it is the
existence of all the existents. It is the [divine name] “god,” since it is described
by the encompassing attributes; through
the connections of wisdom (]ię;rHÔhäku÷Jhƒ); its name is Allah.”5 Here, as with the examples
of “waИdat al-wujūd” we saw in the
last chapter, it is important to note that Muḳammad Wafā’ usually follows comments on the absolute
being of God with descriptions of this being’s particularization. Both of these
are present in the passage just cited. Mention is first made of the
encompassing nature of God’s
existence but this is immediately followed by its particulariza-
tion. The point is that Muḳammad Wafā’ at once upholds the concept of a single absolute existence, but also emphasizes the dynamic relative
existence of par- ticular entities derived from this absolute.
The vehicle
for the particularization of this absolute
existence—according to both Muḳammad Wafā’ and Ibn CArabī6—is the dynamic
of Self-disclosure (tajallī). The Sha’ā’ir
al-’irfān describes this process as part of the divine aspect
of Encompassing: “The Encompassing (iИāịa)
is multiplication of the one by Self-disclosure into various forms,
like water as it thickens
with cold.”7 These Self-manifestations take place through
a complex process.
Muḳammad Wafā’ describes necessary existence
as the sustainer of the divine Attributes, but adds,
This [existence] Self-discloses upon levels of possibility accord- ing to the preparedness (эHvu÷ßH) of each level.
Preparedness
is the reality (Иaqīqa) of prime
matter (]i˚!miˆ) which subsists in the essence of the possible. This reality is
divinely derived (7H.÷ø!H g¬),
rather than directly created.
The reality
of this derivation is the preparation of prime matter for the accepting of form. This form [the result of existence reaching preparedness] is directly created.
. . . The
reality of its preparedness is the acceptance of the Self- disclosure of the
Necessary.8
Thus the
result of Self-disclosure—moving things from the possible into the necessary—is
determined by the particular abilities of the various levels of prime matter to
accept the Self-disclosure of Necessary Being. This ability is essential to (possible) prime
matter; in other
words, it is not as such part of the process of divine Self-disclosure.9 The result
of the preparedness receiving the Self-disclosure is the form. What
results from this reception is “direct cre- ation,” a moving into existence
according to a form, which itself was deter- mined by the simply derived (i.e.,
possible) preparedness.
This
Self-disclosure plays a dual role. On the one hand it serves to bring the Divine nearer to His servants,
but on the other, it acts as a veil. In a discus-
sion emphasizing the need of the worshipper to transcend the product of Self-
disclosure, the highest level of forgiveness is that in which one’s derivative
existence is surpassed.
Forgiveness
and unbelief are both from the veil (of Self-disclosure); yet there is a
difference between them since unbelief is the hiding of al-Ḥaqq by creation, and asking forgiveness is the hiding of creation by al-Ḥaqq.10 Asking forgiveness occurs on three levels: [1.] By wearing down (ÚKi÷ßH),11 which is asking forgiveness essentially, and which is that
no sign (.iH) persists for the servant, and there is no notice to be had of his [own] being. [2.] By drowning
(@H.ż÷ßH), which is asking
forgiveness by the attributes, which is that the asker of forgiveness knows that it is he who has been forgiven. [3.] By
being veiled (,h÷÷ßH), which is asking forgiveness by the acts, which is
that his being in things is by his Lord, and not by himself.12
Thus
“unbelief” is essentially allowing creation to distract from the Divine, while
“forgiveness” is allowing the Divine to distract us from creation. The three modes of asking forgiveness then are the levels of existential rapproche- ment with the absolute Being.
The highest level is one at which the servant’s being is obliterated in his essence.
The other levels
consist of existential differ- entiation of the servant from his Lord.
Also, by
serving as a link between created beings and God, tajall• pro- vides potentially limitless knowledge. Human
perception (ÚH,эH)—like any other creation—is the product of a particular
reception of Self-disclosure.
Without
doubt, perception is the mirror of the unveiling of the Self-disclosure of
knowledge in the known. So in perception mani- fests the known containing the
Self-disclosure, without attaining quiddity . . .13
Every known
thing has a locus which
accepts its Self-disclosure at the time of reception,
so its image manifests in [the locus] as the
[locus] is then. It is said of this image, by virtue of this Self-disclosure, that it is a
“possible occurrence.”
So by this, everything from the unseen reality has a position in per- ception able to receive
its Self-disclosure by [God’s] determination.14
Thus our
knowing a thing consists of our accepting the Self-disclosure that engenders an
image, according to its locus. This image is our understanding. Although
it is the result—at least initially—of a Self-disclosure, it remains only an impermanent possibility; it is a possibility that is determined by the process of determination as a particular.
This determination is due to the receptive locus.15 In the last line of the passage it is made clear that all things in the realm
of the unseen truths are potentially subject
to becoming a Self-disclosure.
As for
Self-disclosure as an active creative principle, the following pas- sage
provides an example of its use specifically from the perspective of the
creation of the intellects and material beings. The technical terms used would reward closer analysis, but such an exercise will have to wait for another study. The general message, however, is
first that God, through His aspect as the Encompassing Intellect, moves by tajall• to give rise to form, which
itself is the reception of an absolute. From this form are generated the souls
and the intellects, which are the progenitors of humanity. From there Muḳammad Wafā’ goes on to restate
the creative descent
according to a Neoplatonic model. Here
the First Intellect is described
as engendering the souls and intellects within the
absolute Soul, or the spiritual world, giving rise to creation in all its
varieties. The passage begins as follows:
When the
Essential Will turned towards creating the form of all- encompassing Knowledge, It originated through
Self-disclosure, with respect to the form of intellected encompassing, absolute receptacles [to receive] the encompassing
influences in various particular ways. That Will gave to the form of knowledge—through its receptacles for divine origination, in this
respect—intellects as fathers and souls as mothers, like Adam and Eve.
Thus the entity knowledge, through its essential disposition, receives from the
existentiating Will the specifics that are intellects and souls. Within
the physi- cal realm, each of
these,
established
the form of itself and the multiplications of the individu- als [constituting]
its species within the comprehension of its genus, like the plants in their
morphological differentiation and in their variety of taste, smell and touch, beyond what the human imagination
may conceive.
Within this existential drama the First Intellect16 gives rise to the absolute prin- ciple, in this case, of souls and intellects, located in the absolute Soul.17 These
principles function as the “seeds” for each particular subsequently created.
If this is
understood, then we say, according to similitude, that the First Intellect as the first
fatherhood originates intellects and souls in the
absolute Soul. Each of these
[intellects and souls]
is an absolute in itself,
and the encompassing of their species and genera is like the seed of the
plants. If it brings out its branches, leaves and fruit, then its particular
form appears in its very fruit, which is its unique and ultimate level.
Thus the
fruit, or the various things in creation, are in some sense the fulfill- ment
of their principles in the Universal Soul. The passage then moves to the
question of humanity and its variety in intellect and soul. We saw above that
the priciples of intellect and soul are unitary and undifferentiated in the
First Intellect and that the fathers
and mothers in the absolute
Soul constitute differ- entiation. Our intellects may
share a common source, but they have different fathers and mothers, representing different predispositions to receiving the cre-
ative Self-disclosure.
When the
fruit of the whole is the children of Adam, all of them [the fruits] are based upon intellect and soul, being
the fruit of diver-
sity. And the fathers and mothers which were from the divine Self- disclosure
are the creators and originators. Every tree is [from] a seed of their fruit, a
root of their tree. Thus, the world occurred in its form with innumerable faces, and inexhaustible [divine] help. So each
intellect judges the world by the form which has occurred in it, like . . . the viewpoints of the
creeds and the sects18 according to the differences of their conceptions.
This is the
existential blueprint for God’s progressively differentiated Self- disclosure, yet also possible
is a “perfect intellect” that offers a mystical return to the unified.
In various
spheres and horizons, each [sect] knows its own ṣalāt and praise, but the perfect intellect is the seed of the
fruit of the encom- passing tree of all roots and divisions. Vision does not know this face
[of the perfect intellect], yet it knows all visions.
As is said, “Is it not
He who encompasses all things?” (Q. 41:54)19
The world
thus occurs in an endless variety, yet the perfect intellect knows these forms within itself.
It knows these forms are not inherent
but derived
ultimately
from God’s Will. This mystical perspective is possible only
within the existential framework, based on divine Self-disclosure, laid out
above.
The Preexistential and
the Everlasting
A peculiar
set of concepts that Muḳammad Wafā’ develops is that of ‘azaliyya’ (preexistence) and ‘abadiyya’ (everlastingness). Although he does not take up the wider philosophical or theological questions of time in his writings, Muḳam- mad Wafā’ nevertheless addresses this pair of ideas on more than one occasion. In one instance, the two are
distinguished categorically:
Know that
the encompassing Throne is that below which is the likeness of everything. It
has two sides to it: a side of Omnicient- Merciful-Necessary-Pre-existence
(]d˜h¨ ]d˚hlπN ]df“HM ]d©BH), and a side of All-Hearing-Compassionate-Possible-Everlastingness (]di;ó
]∂vƒH
]dudlß ]dldπN). The first is by knowledge and the second is by percep- tion
(ÚHNVH).20
These two sides might
be awkwardly named,
but the essential point is that the
Preexistential is distinct
first because it is “necessary,” while the Everlasting is of the “possible” realm. As is clear from the other
adjectives provided, God “knows” everything before creation, and He “hears”
everything in time after creation. The second side of the Throne, the
contingent, is fully within time. The same kind of temporal/existential
distinction is made elsewhere by our author.
We read, “Pre-existence is encompassing in oneness, while Everlasting
is encompassing in plurality . . . The first is by necessity while the second is by possibility.”21
Preexistence is thus understood to be in the realm
of God’s nec- essary attributes, while Everlastingness is the corollary
present as temporalized individualization.
In a further elaboration, Muḳammad Wafā’ introduces an inverse relation- ship. He describes each element
as a dimension of the other:
What is interior to the Preexistent is what is manifest in the Everlast- ing; and likewise the opposite.
None other than the servant appeared in the Everlasting, yet his opposite was
hidden in him. None other than a Lord appeared in the Preexistent, while that which was hidden was the form of the first [i.e. the
servant]. Thus, that which appears because it was hidden, was hidden because it
appeared.22
These brief remarks are the extent of the substantive discussion in the sources. However, there are a few
observations we can make. It is clear that the two aspects, the Preexistent and
the Everlasting, function as the necessary and the possible (or divine and human) realms.
The point being made here, however, is
to highlight the link between
the two. The created servant
appears in the Ever-
lasting created realm, but he is at the same time the possessor of “his opposite.” This opposite
is an existential opposite, a Lordly potential. Likewise, the Lord’s
standing in Preexistence contains within it its opposite, a potential
servanthood.
Spiritual Anthropology
For Muḳammad Wafā’, the nature of humanity
must be understood as at once
having its source in the Divine, yet being a manifestation of one particular
aspect of God: the Name al-Raḳmān (the Merciful). Like Ibn CArabī, Muḳam- mad Wafā’ attributes to Adam a share in the Divine
Names. In the Sha>å’ir
al-
>irfån we are told that in the spiritual realm, before
creation of the material world, Adam
was not simply taught the names of things but was himself the product of Divine
Names: “Know that humanity is a collection of the Lordly Names which were known
by Adam in the spiritual realm of Malakūt, and which contain both essential realities and particulars, and thus are the strongest links (Rªhë,) (to God).”23 Ibn CArabī, in a different context,
also assigns Divine Names to Adam: “God created Adam upon His own form.
Hence He ascribed to him all His Most Beautiful
Names.”24
Muḳammad Wafā’ goes on to single out the name al-Raḳmān as the source of mankind’s spiritual reality. First, the act of creating is
tied to al-Raḳmān: “Knowledge and the known, creation and the created,
origination (gi m;ï) and becoming
( mZ); the first pair is [engendered] by God, the second by al-Raḳmān, and the
third is by al-Ḥaqq.”25 However, not only is al-Raḳmān the source
of creation and the created, it is the Divine aspect that is immediately
accessible and linked to mankind. We are told,
God is the unseen of all things, and everything is identical (>aynuhu) with Him . . . for the absolute Unseen only appears
as identical [to something], either by Self-disclosure or act or likeness or
composi- tion . . . “Your
Lord creates and chooses what He wills;
they have no choice in the matter.”
(Q. 28:68) But when the lights of the knowledge of [divine] Presence burn the perceiving sense, it sees the unseen
of all things in its essence
[i.e. God]. “Say: None in heaven or on earth knows the unseen except God.” (Q.
27:65) Humanity is the couch (.i.ß) of al-Raḳmān; in gnosis
is the extinction of man and the sub- sistence
of al-Raḳmān. Al-Raḳmān is the source
(>ayn) of the unseen
of everything.26
Thus, by its
faculty of gnosis, humanity may see the unseen. It is by its being the couch
(i.e., the receiver of the divine Self-disclosure) of al-Raḳmān that
Sanctity and MuИammad Wafā’ 97
mankind attains
this perspective. It is as a mode of al-Raḳmān (the Eternal, the Necessary) that one is more than
simply that which is in heaven or on earth (the created, the possible).
This same
spiritual anthropology is echoed in Muḳammad Wafā’s com- ments on the veils of creation. He describes a
striping away that leads from humanity to the Divine. Part of a passage from
the Sha’ā’ir we saw earlier, runs as
follows: “The interior (bāịin) of the
heart is the mirror of al-Ḥaqq and the site of sincerity; and he to whom his Lord makes Himself known his heart is turned toward Him (afkë
aiJHFkä˚H); and in it [his heart] are Self-disclosed the lights of His
truth, and in it are confirmed [the meanings] of the signs of His creation.”27 Here the essential connection
between an individual and God is recast in physical
terms. The perception of this Divine
presence within oneself allows an understanding that is
beyond the normal perspective of a created being. It is by the existential link
between the Divine and humanity—usually described as a process
of Self-disclosure—that one may share in God’s knowl-
edge. This dynamic appears to go both
ways, that is, downward into creation, as well as upward. We read, “The heart of the gnostic
is the Pen of al-Raḳmān, by which He writes upon the Tablet of possibility what is, and what has been.”28 Although brief, this passage clearly points
to the heart as a tool used in the process of creation,
that is, the process of divine Self-disclosure. Note also the association once more of al-Raḳmān with
creation.
This
essential link between God and humanity has implications for the latter’s self-knowledge. In short, humanity’s knowledge of self is also knowl-
edge of the Divine: “He who finds the reality (Иaqīqa) of God’s secret has found
his heart, and he who knows it [his heart] knows his Lord, and he who is
ignorant of it [should know] ‘There is no power except in God’” (Q. 2:165).29 This is of course an often-repeated
idea in the work of Ibn CArabī, as it is for
Muḳammad Wafā’. However, knowledge may be described in a rather different way. Muḳammad Wafā’ more than once speaks of the individual as the source of
his own knowledge: “What unveils
to you is your own known [things],
from you and to you—at every level according
to its measure.”30 In the same vein is
the following comment on gnostics and verifiers:
The gnostic
is identical (’ayn) with his gnosis,
and the verifier is the
reality of what he realizes (aääs h¬ ]äiäs RäzlH). Commensurate with the
witnessing of perfection and completion is the love of the witness for what he
witnesses. Commensurate with the sincerity of love is the realization of the
lover in his beloved. Commensurate with realization is the manifestation of the
Realized by virtue of what is
realized to him by the source and by the sign. God is All- knowing and All-encompassing. It is He, in as much as He is it (mˆ mˆ
mˆ
mˆ hęƒ).31
In this passage the initial assertion that the verifier
is himself the source of ver-
ification is subsequently shifted to point to the Divine as the ultimate
source. The gnostic is the source of his gnosis inasmuch as it is manifested to
him through his sincerity in witnessing and love. In other words, it is by the
fact that God may be found in himself that the gnostic or verifier may find his
“own” gnosis and reality. The last sentence of the passage may therefore be
better understood—be it awkward sounding—as “He (the gnostic) is Him, in as
much as He is him.”
Cosmology
The question
of how existence, in all its forms, is organized is important to any mystical
or philosophical speculation. The ultimate order of things pro- vides a
structure within which all else must operate. In Muḳammad Wafā’s thinking, however,
cosmology is much more than a simple accounting of stars
and spheres; significantly, it includes the human being.
As we saw earlier,
Muḳammad Wafā’ was no stranger to the Neoplatonic understanding of the
universe, which was headed by the First Intellect, fol- lowed by an absolute
Soul.32 However, this cosmological system
was not the one earnestly adopted
by him. Instead, he focused
on a cosmology that recog- nized three worlds—the world of omnipotence
(Jabarūt), the world of sover-
eignty (Malakūt), and the corporeal
world (Mulk). This was not exactly the system adopted by Ibn CArabī, since the latter held, in at least one
important discussion, Jabarūt to be an
intermediary world between the worlds of Mulk and Malakūt.33 It is interesting to note, however, that al-Qāshānī’s definitions of the three worlds, a century later, are in line with those of Muḳammad Wafā.34 As we shall see, Muḳammad Wafā’ has a number of ideas play out in his descrip- tions of the cosmos.
All things
may be divided between the necessary and the possible. The first category is
engendered by God’s Command, while the second is brought about by His aspect as
Creator.
[1] The
Spirit of Command (r¥˙ al-amr) is
from the treasury of the world of divine
Power (qudra), and in it the unseen of the Necessary determines itself through
Self-disclosure of the beautiful Names and lofty Attributes. . . and the archangels by the Throne
and the Seat and
the Tablet and the Pen . . . [2] The Spirit of Creation
(r¥˙ al-khalq) is from the treasury of the world
of [divine] Wisdom,
and by it the bod- ily forms and spiritual shapes are
determined; . . . and these two are Mulk and Malakūt, and the world and the hereafter, and what is in them of
things heard, seen and felt.35
Sanctity and Mu˙ammad Wafå’ 99
Here Muḳammad Wafā’ has divided
the cosmos into two, the necessary realm of God’s Names and Attributes and
the realm of possible created beings— whether
seen or unseen.
The lower realm
consists of Mulk and Malakūt, while the higher will elsewhere
be identified as Jabarūt. In a brief, but clearer, distinc-
tion between
the three worlds,
Muḳammad Wafā’ writes, “The world of com-
mand, the world of creation, and the world of becoming—these are Jabarūt, Mulk and Malakūt; charity,
faith and submission; the reality of certainty, the eye of certainty, and the
knowledge of certainty; need, poverty and needful- ness. These three levels
are the beginning, the end and the middle.”36 Here the division of worlds is extended to mirror certain
virtues, to distinguish between modes of spiritual insight. Another brief statement ties
the three worlds directly to specific divine aspects: “The worlds are three:
the world of Mulk, which accepts
(Gƒh®) divine Acts only; the world of Malakūt, which accepts
the divine Self-disclosures; and the world of Jabarūt, which accepts
the divine Reali- ties. The first is by Act, the second by Attribute and the third by Essence.”37 The
model here seems in effect
to be cumulative. The lowest
world, that of Mulk, is the realm that exists by—or
receives—only God’s Act. The Jabarūt accepts
these Acts and in addition
has some kind of access
to the divine Attributes and Essence. In his Kitåb al-azal
Muḳammad Wafā writes, “Jabarūt is by the Essence and Attributes; Malakūt is by the Names and the Named;
Mulk is by the tenu- ities and the moments.”38 Here the Attributes are placed at
the level of the Essence, with the successive level of Malakūt representing the Names and the
Named. That the Attributes have now moved up to the Jabarūt signals an inconsistency, and the exact difference
between the Names and the Attributes
is not clear, yet the scheme of first an unknowable essence, second a general
particularization, and third the specific entites remains clear.
Elsewhere Muḳammad Wafā’ supplies a more detailed account
of the
worlds, one that introduces their
constituent elements. Of the three worlds,
The first is
the world of Jabarūt which is the divine
world, the second is the Malakūt which is
the spiritual world, and the third is Mulk which is the world of formal soul.
The first in Jabarūt is the divine world,
and what reaches it does so at two bows’-length.39 The
second world is that of Malakūt which is
the world of spirit, and what reaches it is “gabrielness” acquired through
angelic inspiration descending to the heart. “The sure Spirit came down with it
to your heart.” (Q. 26:193-194) The
third is Mulk, which is the world of pil- lars [of the physical world], of the
engendered. And what reaches it is
the Jinn, by the righteous Command . . .
The world of Mulk is centered
in the body encompassing the four
elements, which are water, fire,
earth and wind,
from which are born
the minerals, the plants, the animals and the [practical] Reason used
for the lives of people. The world of Malakūt is centered
in the sepa- rated Spirit,40 which encompasses the four gems: the intellect, the soul,
the creative faculty,
and the commanding Spirit. Present through these are the Preserved Tablet,
the Pen, the Throne and the Seat. The world of Jabarūt is self-standing by encompassing the absolute Being, dis-
tinguished by the four [divine] realities: Knowledge, Life, true Exis- tence
and the encompassing Face—[all of which] descended [from this realm] by the Attribute, the Name, Light and
Self-disclosure.41
So the description of the three worlds presents
a progression from the most ele-
mental, up to the spritiual substances, finally ascending to the eternal
attributes of the Divine. There is here also an association of specific
figures with each world: the Prophet (by two bows’-length) with Jabarūt, the angel Gabriel (by “gabrielness”) in Malakūt, and the elemental Jinn with the lower world of Mulk.
The three worlds are also represented by unique kinds of angels. We read of the “pure
illuminated angels and cherubs” of the Jabarūt; the angels Gabriel, Michael, Isrāfīl, and CIzrā’īl of the spiritual world
that is the Malakūt; and the “earthly angels, the souls of the
spheres and the knowing messengers” to be found in the world of the four elements,
that is, the world of Mulk.42 In
marked distinction from this angelology, Muḳammad Wafā’ elsewhere says, “Gabriel is the Jabarūt, the eye of all unseen of the Godhead . . . and Michael is the Malakūt, the eye of
all the spiritual, angelic, soulful and immaginal shapes.”43 Thus the archangels may have a metonymic function, each representing an entire realm.
A
particularly interesting element of Muḳammad Wafā’s understanding of the three worlds is his description of
the connections between them. In Peripatetic
psychology the five bodily senses
are accompanied by a “common sense” (˙iss mushtarak), which is the cognitive faculty lying behind the
five senses. Muḳammad Wafā’ introduces the
latter as the link (barzakh) between
the world of Mulk and Malakūt. More
significantly, he describes a related link, between Malakūt and Jabarūt, which he calls the “common intellect” (>aql mushtarak).44 In a passage describing these links
we read,
The possible
is divided into the visible (mulk•)
and the invisible (malak¥t•) realms.
The visible is divided into six parts: the five senses
and the “common sense.” The invisible is divided into six parts:
esti- mation (]lˆmj¬), imagination, preserving, remembering, reflection and the “common
intellect.” The “common
sense” is the link between
the visible and invisible. The “common intellect” is the link between the invisible and the Jabarūt.
Know that
the five senses, along with the “common sense,” are the six days in which God
made creation. They are known as
“days” because they are the lights of elucidation, the clarification of vague-
ness and the revealing of the unseen.
They are the keys to the heavens and earth.
Thus, seeing
(baṣar) is the key to the
treasure-house of visible things, and their light and elucidation. And [so are]
hearing, . . . smelling, . . . tasting,
. . . touching. The “common sense” is all of these things, their presence and
preservation, in the state of the absence of their original sources.45
Imagination
is their treasure-house and the utmost occasion of their pure form. This is the clear horizon,
and the furthest Lote-tree.46 Thus the invisible lights [of the
unseen world] are face to face with these visible lights.
These twelve
lights are the realities of the preparedness of the tablet. All of its levels are accepting of the
emanated forms from the Pen. This
is the
“rational faculty” (]äƄhiJH }mäJH).
God has
elucidated this in the transcript that is humanity.
So he who knows himself
knows his Lord. He is the throne, under which is found the likeness
of all things.47
The
definition given here of “common sense” is straightforward. This sense and that of the “common intellect,” as stated at the end of the quotation, consti- tute the “rational faculty.” The
“common intellect” operates in parallel to “common sense,” at the point between
Malakūt and Jabarūt. The “rational fac- ulty,” according to Ibn Sīnā is the
hightest part of the soul and receives from the eternal Active Intellect.48 However, this is not Muḳammad Wafā’s final
word on the matter.
Elsewhere,
to these two linking senses is added a third, the “choice con- nection”
(,h÷ż¬ aßM). This connection links Jabarūt (here representing a further set of abilities) to
the absolute Necessary. This set is described not with phil- sophical
terminology, but rather with traditional mystical terms.
There are three worlds:
the world of Mulk, which
is a place from the viewpoint of sensation by the five senses. The “common sense”
is the link (barzakh) between the Mulk and Malakūt, which is the second world. This is a place from the viewpoint
of the intellect ($ä¨), which is the five interior senses, like estimation (]ięˆM), imagination, preserv-
ing, remembering and thinking. The “common intellect” is the link
between Malakūt and Jabarūt. Jabarūt is the
third world, and is the place of the five
comprehensions49 (ÔhƄhsH):
the heart, the fu’ād (heart), the spirit,
the secret, the unseen secret;
and the “choice
connection” is the link
between the absolute Necessary and Jabarūt. This “choice connection” is the Throne
of al-Raḳmān, hidden
in it by Omnipotence and
appearing from it by Self-disclosure; and it acts without restric- tion by choice because
absolute Necessity effuses
from the Essence.50
Thus the “common intellect” is the cognitive
faculty behind the senses, leading to the world of Jabarūt. This Jabarūt itself is
then linked to the Divine by the “choice connection”—another
term Muḳammad Wafā’ appears to have coined. This connection is equated with the function
of the Throne of Mercy,
although in the previous quotation it appears at a lower level. It is
noteworthy that the proviso is made that it “acts without
restriction and by choice.” This is proba- bly a nod to the Qur’anic vision
of God as unfettered and omnipotent, as dis- tinct from the philosophical
vision that often denied God any choice in the matter of emanation. Perhaps
more interesting though is this term choice con- nection. In the previous
quotation we met the “rational
faculty,” which seemed to be the highest human point; yet here the “choice connection,” located beyond a further
set of (mystical) senses, seems to represent
that point. This connection
functions much as the >aql quds• did for Ibn Sīnā, an intelligence that is described as having ready access to the Active Intellect.51 Significantly, Muḳammad Wafā’s formulation presents a dimension beyond the Neoplatonic “rational soul.” This development (which is more anthropological than it is cosmological) shows
us where Muḳammad Wafā’s true intellectual allegiance lies. That is, he is above all a mystical writer, and thus the
highest human dimensions are described using sufi terminology. It would be fair
to conclude that Muḳammad Wafā’ uses philosophical models and language
as far as they may be of service to him
in presenting his own mystical vision.52
Thus this “cosmology” is not a physical model of the universe. For Muḳam-
mad Wafā’ the structure of existence may be made sense of in a number of dis-
tinct ways. We saw earlier in this
section that the lower worlds represent possible existence, while the upper
represents necessary existence. This is a philosophi-
cal
perspective, yet we also saw a theological one. There Jabarūt was associated with God’s Realities and Essence, with Malakūt presenting God’s Attributes,
and Mulk the divine Acts. We were elsewhere presented with a rather linear
prespective that simply presented the lowest world as the material realm, the
median as spiritual realm, and the higher as the divine realm.
In an alternate model of cosmology, Muḳammad Wafā’ describes a universe, each part of
which has its own ruler. The focus of
this model is, however, the human form that becomes a microcosm of the larger
cosmology. We are told,
The world is divided into two: the world of spirits (∏HMNH) and
the world of bodies. Then it is divided into four branches: spirits of prophethood, angelic spirits (]d;g¬ ∏HMNH), spirits of jinn, and the Adamic forms. The First Intellect is the father
of the spirits of prophethood, like Adam is the
father of the human forms (∏hfå!H mƒH), and likewise Gabriel53 is
the father of the angelic spirits, like Iblīs (Satan) is the father of the Jinn spirits. All that is of human form has a prophetic
spiritual form manifesting to it and rising
from it, commanding it and forbidding it,
inspiring
it, improving it and making it pious. To
each Adamic form there are two associates (K∂ n®), one is angelic
and the other jinn-like.
These two struggle, and if the angelic triumphs over the jinn-like, then clearness
is established in the water by the falling of the sediment,
and the commanding prophetic spirit rises, and its image appears in
him/it by manifestation—like the shape of the seer appears in a mir- ror. If it conquers
the jinn, then its affinity
is close to the angelic,
but if it is far, then it is Satanic, and muddiness prevails. Sight is
then veiled and communication is cut, for “He to whom God does not give
light, has none.” (Q.24:40) This Commanding Spirit
is that which will settle the
account of the servant on Judgement Day, and will reward him according to his acts, since, “Your soul
suffices to make an account against you.” (Q.17:14). He who knows himself, knows his Lord.54
This
model—which is perhaps as soteriological as it is cosmological—has as its
ultimate concern the fate of each “Adamic form,” that is, the individual soul. In this system
the First Intellect engenders the spirits
of prophecy, which function as warners and moral aids
to the soul. Despite this help, the soul becomes the battleground for the
forces of Satan and those of Gabriel. The final lines of this passage, evoking
the image of one’s own soul standing
as wit- ness, provide a novel
perspective on the oft-repeated hadith “He who knows himself knows his Lord.”
The implication is that if one wants to know God the keeper-of-accounts, one need only know
oneself.
The Teaching Shaykh and Beyond
From our
discussion earlier in chapter 3, it is clear that Muḳammad Wafā’s saintly persona
was well established. His position as a “teaching shaykh,” that is, as a master
who teaches mystical
theory to his followers (shaykh al-ta’līm), is evident from his voluminous writings. As we have noted, however,
Muḳam- mad Wafā’ himself did not place much emphasis
on the pedagogical role of the
shaykh as spiritual guide (shaykh al-tarbiyya).55 Instead he seems to have nur- tured for himself an inspired and mysterious image,
one that did not much care
for the psychology of spiritual direction. Nevertheless, help for the aspirant on the sufi way is not wholly absent in his writings. Muḳammad Wafā’ was after all striking out from the Shādhiliyya on an independent course,
which necessitated at least
some attention to the development of aspirants. In the previous
chapter we mentioned the short work by Muḳammad Wafā’, Maqāmāt al-saniyya li al-
sāda
al-ṣūfiyya (The Sublime Stations of the Sufis). There we saw that this work presents short
definitions of mystical
vocabulary followed by cursory elabora- tions. The tone and form suggest
this is a pedagogical text, a kind of manual
intended for
the novice. However, this kind of writing within the oeuvre of Muḳammad Wafā’ is a remarkable exception. The composition in question cov- ers only nine of the approximately three hundred folios
his writings occupy.
Yet this is not to say that all of Muḳammad Wafā’s writing is philosophi-
cal and abstract. At the beginning
of the Sha>å’ir al->irfån the reader is pro-
vided with basic definitions of a number of mystical terms:
Servanthood
fixes the command
of Lordship. Oneness is
the last level of with-ness (]iu¬) . . . Humility is the quieting of the soul
along the paths of pre-existence . . . Asceticism
is leaving all things ($;JH Ú.ï) . . . Courtesy (adab) is standing in the provisions of the moment. Cer- tainty is the absence of
indecision. Remembrance (dhikr) is the sum- moning of the remembered
. . . Perspicacity (]ßH.ė) is the extraction of the unseen from the seen. Extinction is consuming everything in God. Persistence is the fixing of everything
by God.56
Beyond these
rudimentary pronouncements, we do find other passages that treat some of the basic distinctions of which an aspirant should
be made aware. In the following, the categories
of spiritual men are described.
For the ascetics, their sciences are embodied in their acts. For the sufis, their sciences are embodied in their states.
For the gnostics, their acts are embodied in their gnosis. For the verifiers, their states are embodied
in their realities. Thus the ascetics
find what they know by what they do;
and the sufis
find what they verify by the traits
they assume;57 and the gnostics
find what they do by what they know; and the verifiers find what they assume as traits by that which they are verified of.58
The distinctions being made here are rather straightforward, adhering
to a spir- itual hierarchy that privileges realities (˙aqå’iq) and gnosis over temporary
states and acts. In the same line of discussion—that of the basic categories of
mystics—Muḳammad Wafā’ elsewhere
writes,
The face of
the gnostic is a mirror of the Self-disclosures of known Attributes. The verifier is the model of what is verified to him. And the sufi
has assumed the traits, which are attributed to the object of his desire in sanctification. Union is the source of his perfection, occurring
only with the melting together
of opposites, which is impossible nor- mally and conceptually.59
These
discussions of categories are rather brief, and they are noticeably miss- ing the expected advice as to how the novice is to make headway on the spiri- tual path. It seems
that Muḳammad Wafā’s advice, on this level,
is restricted to
making
observations such as, “The knower (L©h¨)
realizes al-Ḥaqq from the side of
creation, but the gnostic (ˇNh¨) realizes creation from the side of al- Ḥaqq.”60 The apparent
lack of concern
exhibited for the spiritual advancement of lowly aspirants is
striking—especially from the perspective of a hopeful founder of a new sufi
order.
However the
case may appear, we should not be surprised that Muḳam- mad Wafā’ has some interesting speculations on the deeper mystical aspects
of the subject. He characterizes the relationship between
the spiritual aspirant
and the master as one of existential union. This union even comes to
mirror that between the servant
and God. To start with, he ties together the essence of the
aspirant, his spiritual guide and his Lord.
He who has no teacher,
has no protector; and to him who has no protector Satan draws near.61
He who knows himself knows his shaykh.
He who has not found
his shaykh has not found
his heart, and he who has not
found his heart has lost his Lord.62
The details
of the presence and function
of the shaykh are also described. This relationship is rather mysterious
but seems to center on the attributes of the shaykh. The description runs as
follows,
Your shaykh
is he who causes you to hear when he is silent. He makes you oblivious when he speaks.
He causes you to be lost when he
finds [God in ecstasy]; and he causes you to find [God] when he is
silent. Your shaykh is he who informs
you by his speech, and he veri- fies you by his [spiritual] state,
and he establishes you by his vanish- ing, and effaces you by his
perfection.63
The point
that the aspirant
is existentially linked
to the attributes of the shaykh
is clear. Elsewhere, Muḳammad Wafā’ describes this relationship as extending
beyond the visible world. We read, “The heart of the aspirant is the house of
his teacher, and his body is his grave in which he is buried,
and from which
he rises.”64 This image is further developed by
Muḳammad Wafā’ when he con-
cludes, “He who has no son is not remembered.” The gist of the images is that the
timeless unseen spiritual presence of the shaykh is to be found in the heart of
his follower.65 The connection between aspirant
and shaykh is also explained in the context of the “Oneness
of Being” insight. We encountered a passage earlier that is worth repeating
here:
If you know
your teacher and imam—guiding you by his necessary divine existence, then you
know your Lord, al-Ḥaqq. Do you know who He is? He is simply
the source of your divine
existence, as
determined for you on the level of distinction of your being, by which you
see that you have no existence except
Him (aHmß :J mZ !).66
Thus the guide, by his own share in necessary existence, is to his follower the divine Presence. An individual may
find the Divine in himself, but also, and perhaps more easily, it may be accessed in certain others.
It is also made clear that knowing al-Ḥaqq in the teacher is a specific
insight, which hinges
on ones seeing that there is
no real existence except in God.
In an even
more dramatic formulation of the relationship of the aspirant with his guide, Muḳammad Wafā’ describes the former as a kind of manifesta- tion of the latter.
In one brief statement the follower is identified with the cre- ative “mercy” of his master. We read, “The heart of the aspirant
is a throne for the ra˙måniyya (mercifulness) of his teacher
to sit upon.”67 As we noted
earlier in this chapter, the creative impulse of the Divine is
associated with its name al-Ra˙mån (the
merciful); here that function is being transferred through the teacher. This
transference is repeated at a lower level by other statements describing the
aspirant as a kind of mouthpiece for communication of the insights of the shaykh.
One such passage
runs: “The sincere
aspirant is the elo-
quent pulpit (RƄh˚.fi¬) whom the teacher climbs
after his divesting himself of the physical
worlds (LsĽHLJHm¨). He informs, by his sincere tongue, of what he has witnessed of the realities.”68 From this it is clear that the follower
becomes a medium for use by the spiritually elevated (or deceased?) shaykh. Further, it seems this follower must himself have
first achieved a purifying spiritual insight.
The passage ends by stating that this follower’s task is then to broad-
cast what has been communicated to him.69
It would be
fair to say that Muḳammad Wafā’s thinking on the “guiding shaykh,” and advice to novices
in general, is rudimentary, and does not hold our author’s attention. Yet the idea of the spiritual function
of the shaykh, and the
aspirant’s relationship to him, received substantial reflection. It should be
no surprise to find Muḳammad Wafā’ at some point referring the question back to
the imanent existential divine Reality of creation. In this context
the shaykh serves as simply one of a number of possible divine Self-disclosures. Thus, to
know the shaykh is to know the Lord. More intriguingly perhaps,
Muḳammad Wafā’ also describes
the transference of spiritual insight
from the shaykh
to the aspirant and emphasizes the latter’s central
function as an inheritor, as it were, and as a transmitter.
The Muḥammadan Reality and the Pole
Central to the philosophy of Ibn CArabī was the existential position of the prophet Muḳammad. In his cosmic function, the Prophet operated essentially as the First
Intellect, that is, the first in creation, from which all else is derived. Ibn CArabī himself equates this First Intellect with the
Muḳammadan Reality (˙aq•qa Mu˙ammadiyya).70 In a
brief definition of this term, al-Qāshānī tells us,
“The Muḳammadan Reality
is the Essence in its primary individuation,71 for it con-
tains all of the Beautiful Names and is itself the Greatest Name.”72 Muḳammad Wafā’, in his own writings, does not deal with the term ˙aq•qa Mu˙ammadiyya directly; however,
he does seem to apply the equivalent concept to his own per- son. He recounts: “Al-Ḥaqq said to me, ‘You are the elite, to you is the measure (,Hvä¬) of all things, yet you have none with Me; for none contains Me other than you, since there is nothing
like you. You are the source of My Truth [in creation]
and everything is a metaphor
(yh[¬) for you. I am present in the truth and absent
in the metaphor’.”73 It is clear from this that Muḳammad Wafā’s understanding
of his own spiritual authority accorded him an exceptional position. Just as the Muḳammadan Reality functions as the “primary individuation,” so this elite fig- ure is at once distinct from,
yet the source
of, all creation.
Tied to the idea of the Muḳammadan Reality, for Ibn CArabī, is the concept of the ‘perfect human
being’ (insån kåmil). The difference
between the two figures of the perfect human
and the Muḳammadan Reality is often hard to dis- tinguish, since they perform
the same intermediary function between God and
creation.74 Al-Qāshānī describes the perfect human being as the realization of the
Divine in creation. He defines the “Divine Form” as, “The perfect human being,
who has verified the realities of the Divine Names.”75 This description points to the central
role of this figure in the generation of the created
entities, which are the realities. Elsewhere al-Qāshānī describes the perfect human as the intermediate realm (barzakh) between
the necessary and the possible, that is, between the Divine and creation.76 In a dramatic account of the
created world, Ibn CArabī touches on
the centrality of this perfect human being. He compares the rational soul’s function within an individual to the role played by the perfect human in the cosmos. We
read,
The angels in respect
to the whole cosmos are like the forms manifest within man’s imagination, as also
are the jinn. So the cosmos is a great human being only through the existence (wuj¥d) of the perfect human being,
who is its rationally speaking
soul. In the same way the
configuration of the human being is a human being only through the rationally
speaking soul . . . The soul of the cosmos, who is Muḳammad, achieves the degree of perfection through the
comple- tion of the divine form . . . and in the subsistence of the cosmos
through him.77
In this
image, Muḳammad is the soul, the
essential reality, of the body that is creation. Muḳammad Wafā’ does not take up the same imagery, but
not sur-
prisingly, he does echo Ibn CArabī’s understanding
of the perfect human being. From the Nafā’is al-’irfān we read,
That which is described by the Attributes of the Essence
is the Great- est Name in the horizon
of the Beautiful Names. It is the loftiest like- ness in the world of Jabarūt, the prior (Rƒhß) and the eternal
(Òmië) in the world of Awe. It is the encompassing spirit in the world of com- mand, which is the holy Spirit in the world of Malakūt and the origi-
nating (,ȧHM) reality in the world of creation. The perfect human being is the effuser of forms (,maJH
ġhiė) in the world of becoming. “And to
Him all matters return.” (Q. 11:123)78
In this
passage Muḳammad Wafā’ begins by pointing to the zenith of the unseen, the
Greatest Name. This Name includes,
and is somehow a reflection of, the named entities at lower levels. To this
creative cosmic scenario—one we have discussed
above—is added the perfect human, who is the provider
of the forms that will receive
the divine creative
Command. In this sense, every- thing is to be understood as
returning to God.
In chapter
1, during our discussion of Ibn CArabī’s dīwān, we saw that the
supreme figure of the saintly hierarchy was the pole (quịb). To this figure is attributed an unsurpassed role in the
cosmos, being the temporal embodiment of the spirit
of Muḳammad (rūИ MuИammad).79 In
the writings of Muḳammad Wafā’ the hierarchy of saints does not receive
a great deal of attention. The dis- cussions of
the pole show that our author assumes a prior familiarity with the dīwān as understood by Ibn CArabī. Shaykh Wafā’s presentation of the pole is
comparatively rudimentary, simply stressing this figure’s role as a locus of
divine Effusion. To start with, we
are told that the pole, along with other elite figures of the hierarchy, are
found in God. We read,
In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. “There
is noth- ing like Him; He is the All-hearing and the All-seeing” (Q. 42:11). In Him are the pole, the imam, the sucour
(ghawth), the solitary (fard), the khalifa, and the verifier (muИaqqiq). Those
beneath, like the pegs
(awtād) and the substitutes (abdāl), the nobles (nujabā’ )
and others, exceed in
numbers, and they persist in secrets.80
No
substantial discussion is provided of these lesser figures. Rather the focus
becomes the pole. We are told later in the Nafā’is al-’irfān that
the quịb is the vehicle for God’s creation and
command:
The heart of
the pole is the Greatest Name of God; and His Face is His most noble Essence,
by which is established creation
and [divine]
Command, and
it [the heart of the pole] is the axis of the secret and notoriety. “And all of
the hearts of humanity are between two of His fingers, like one heart.”81 They are His speaking tongues and
His truthful words and His rending and repairing pens.82
Thus the Face
of God is extended into creation and Command takes, in its loftiest form, the
shape of the heart of the pole. (As was noted above, the Greatest Name may be
equated with the Muḳammadan Reality.) This point is recast by Muḳammad Wafā’ in terms that draw a striking
picture of the pole as the agent of divine effusion. We read,
The pole is
a substitute (badal) for the name
“Allāh”; he is the pre-
server (gęii¬) of the names of descent, like the Name of God is the Preserver (gęii¬)
of the names of the Sublime. And as God has ninety- nine names, likewise the pole has ninety-nine names.
Every one of his
names is the eye of His Unseen and the apparent of His Hidden, and the Face of his Essence,
and the Self-disclosure of His Names
and Attrib- utes. So he who
knows him knows God’s Presence, but to he who denies him [we say]: “There is no power or strength
except in God.”83
The parallel
between God as the Preserver and the pole as preserver is not developed in the
manuscript beyond this statement, but the implication is that God’s ninety-nine
Names are somehow mirrored by the pole’s ninety-nine names. The last sentence
in the passage ties knowing
“him,” the pole, to know- ing the divine Presence.
From these brief treatments of the pole and his associates, we see that the
function of the Muḳammadan Reality is born
by either the perfect human being or the pole. As we noted, the pole has
ninety-nine names by which he preserves creation, and the perfect human is he
by whom these forms are effused. The
figure of pole will reappear in the following section on walåya.
Sanctity, the Renewer, and the Seal
In earlier
chapters we explored
the parameters of the idea of sainthood accord- ing to Tirmidhī, Ibn CArabī and the early Shādhiliyya. It is with these models in mind, along with the observations
above on various mystical figures, that we now
move forward to consider Muḳammad Wafā’s teaching on walåya.
One of the first things to be
noted here is the absence of a fully self-consistent doc- trine. In the teachings
of earlier figures
we have been able to sketch the outline
of a doctrine, but in the writings
of Muḳammad Wafā’ things are not so tidy. In fact, there seem to be three different
treatments of walåya. The first we
may
call the more “traditional” treatment, reflecting the simple position
of the saint as closer to the divine source than others (what was
described as qurba in the early Shādhiliyya). In the second type of discussion Muḳammad Wafā’ pres- ents a walåya that more closely follows
Ibn CArabī’s positions on the superior-
ity of prophethood over sainthood, and the (perhaps
awkward) case for the
reverse. The third kind of discussion of sainthood is one that contains an ele-
ment of the apocalyptic. Here Muḳammad Wafā’ introduces the idea of the
“Renewer of religion at the start of each century” (tajd•d) into his doctrine of walåya, and hints at his own central role in the approaching apocalyptic drama. The most elementary treatment of walåya according to Muḳammad Wafā’ may be found in statements like the following, “The prophets are the risings
of the Truth (˙aqq), and the saints are the settings of the secrets
of Reality (˙aq•qa), the sources (>uy¥n) of His Mercy, and the unseen of Divinity.”84 This
contrasting of the clear role of the prophet with the hidden
secrets represented by the saint is rather straightforward. In the Kitåb al-azal
we are provided
with definitions of saint and sainthood that may also be considered
basic. In a sec-
tion entitled “On the Realization of the Circle of the Saint” we read,
Walåya: The special shared responsibility in the Essence,
neces- sitating vision and elect governing.
Wal•: He who is entrusted with the command
of his patron, and is entrusted with his own command, because
it is wholly from it [i.e. the patron’s command].
Comment: The
special wal• is the face of the
Essence, which visions do not perceive; and to him turn the faces from every
side; and with him all the utmost degrees are reached.85
Thus sainthood
itself includes an essential rapprochement, which entails mys- tical vision and authority. This may be understood as a short description of the
positive content of sainthood. Following this, the notice of the saint as the
medium for God’s command recalls
the hadith in which God says of the elect servant, “If I love him I am his
hearing by which he hears and his sight by which he sees.”86 Muḳammad Wafā’s final comment
adds a dimension that is roughly equivalent to the walåya kubrå we saw earlier in the Shādhiliyya. In this dimension the special saint plays a mediating role between the Divine and creation.
A basic
distinction between walåya and risåla is also presented, which serves to underline the view that sanctity is the improvement of an individual, while prophecy
and mission are offices dispensed by God to appropriate people.
Note the categorical distinction being made in the following passage:
Risåla
(mission) occurs by descent from the presence of necessity to
the presence of possibility, as “The Faithful
Spirit came down to your
[Muḳammad’s] heart.” (Q. 26:193–194). Walåya is ascension from the presence of possibility to the presence
of necessity by the sign of
“Praise Him who took his servant on a night-journey” (Q. 17:1); for God sent down a message to the servant,
and the servant ascended to his Lord in walåya.87
The distinction presented here is one that juxtaposes the downward movement of risåla with the upward rise of walåya.
Each movement may stand on its own as a definition, but the two may be
connected—at least according to this statement. The reference to a “night-journey” recalls the event of the Prophet’s
having been raised through the heavens to God’s presence. This example includes
both the element of the chosen prophet and the rising saint. This is followed
by the final line, stating that God sent down, while the servant rose upwards.
The walåya presented in the above
quotation, when viewed on its own, also clearly reflects the early Shādhiliyya notion of walåya
kubrå.
Elsewhere,
this walåya kubrå reappears, but with
an elevated status approaching that of the Muḳammadan Reality. In the Nafå’is
al->irfån one lengthy passage
opens with a description of the generation of existences by the
absolute Intellect and the Spirit
of Command. It goes on to trace
the descent of the Secret of Grace through revelation
(wa˙y) into humanity. The pivotal
importance of the Prophet’s night journey is asserted:
When he travelled by night to Him within two bow’s-length, “and He inspired him”
(Q.53:10) with existential knowledge, [his] pre-exis- tence was enroled in his
everlastingness, and his singleness was hid- den within His oneness
(avsH), and all the monads (эhsũ) were turned
away from the single (vsHM)
by the One (vsH); and so the tongue of walåya kubrå
recited: “He is the One God, the Eternal not begotten.”
(Q. 112:1–4)88
This passage
is dense to the point of obscurity, and the manuscript copies do not inspire
confidence. However, we can make some observations. The one- ness of God is certainly the gist of the communication to Muḳammad, but the more significant point for our
discussion is the use of the phrase “tongue of walåya kubrå” in reference to the Prophet.89 This description fits well into the
model of the special saint, as described above. This same passage goes on to
speak of Muḳammad’s prophetic
function and to describe his state as the Seal of
sainthoods: “The human secret (]i˚hs˚H
}.i.ß) and the silent reality (]äiäs
]iïm;ß)90 appear in every secret,
and are included in every knowledge which has
neither been known nor taught
until the Seal of sainthoods; and the fixing
of all the tidings are
deposited in trust with him; and faces turn to him from all directions.”91 Here the Seal of sainthoods seems
to function as the Muḳam- madan Reality;
that is, he is the central figure in the realization of the secrets
and realities
hidden in all knowledge. Distinct
from the Muḳammadan Reality,
however, this portrait of the Seal of sainthoods emphasizes his role in esoteric
knowledge over his role in the dynamic of creation. Further along in this pas-
sage we also find reference
to a “Khaďir-ian” sainthood, which is established, along with prophecy, among
the Jews (Isrå’iliyya) by the hidden
Spirit.
Quite a distinct discussion of walåya is presented when Muḳammad Wafā’ takes up the
issue of ranking among mission, prophethood, and sainthood. Here we can see
clearly our author functioning as the inheritor of Ibn CArabī. As we saw in chapter 1, Ibn CArabī made the innovative claim that prophet- hood
and mission are superior to walåya,
when they are present in different people, but walåya is superior to the other two when they coexist within one
individual. The logical difficulty in
sustaining this position aside, for our pur- poses the significance is that it
reappears as an important element of Muḳam- mad Wafā’s teaching. We note first a description of two orders, that of “sciences of presence”
and that of “religious sciences,” each of which
provides a differ- ent perspective on the three
entities risåla, nubuwwa, and walåya.
Know that polehood is of two kinds: polehood
in the sciences of pres- ence (]i˚vJ
Òmk¨), and polehood of the religious sciences (]iiiэ Òmk¨). The difference between the
two is that the first occurs by the instructing sciences (]iȧi.uï Òmk¨) and the latter by the commanding sciences (]iȧik;ï Òmk¨). Each one divides into three levels,
walåya, nubuwwa, and risåla; but in the [sciences] of
presence, the [order] is reversed because the first in the religious [sciences]
is he who befriends God by [following] His commands, and His prohibitions. Yet, in the [sci- ences] of presence the saint is he whom God befriends, whether it be by the Essence, “If I love him I am
him,”92 or it be by the Attributes, “If I love him I am his
hearing by which he hears and his sight by which he sees,” or it be by the Acts, “Do what you will, you are for-
given.”93 The
union between all these [aspects]
is an unattainable per-
fection (Ú,vi ! fihęZ). The prophethood of presence and the religious mission move in the depths of spirituality at the level
of Majesty with the movement of He-ness. And God
knows well the secrets of the hearts. If this is understood, then [so is] the
difference between the Mūsawiyya and
the Khaďiriyya.94
Thus are
presented two distinct perspectives: one mystical (Khaďir-ian), and one exoteric or literal (Moses-ian).95 The height of the first perspective
is walåya, because it is the saint
who is befriended by God essentially, by Attribute and by Act. This priority
is reversed in favor of the messenger
when the second perspective is adopted. This perspective values more highly he who follows God’s exoteric commands
and prohibitions. The comparison of the
“prophethood
of presence” and the “religious mission” among spirituality, with Majesty among
He-ness seems to be an effort to underline their impor- tance as the visible
face of their perspectives in the realm of spirituality. In other words,
nubuwwa laduniyya functions as a name or attribute that serves to conceal its essence in the realm
of spirituality; the same function
is in effect for risåla d•niyya.96 Although it is not clear
what we are supposed to make of the “spirituality” mentioned, it is certain
that Muḳammad Wafā’ wants to under-
score the Magisterial function of nubuwwa laduniyya and
risåla d•niyya. This
function is characterized by an authority that veils an intimate hidden
interior. Thus in the realm of spirituality, we are perhaps to
understand the nubuwwa laduniyya as
specifically an external figure in the spiritual realm (as opposed to the essential walåya ),
and the risåla d•niyya
as authoritative reality,
superior to walåya from the exoteric perspective, even in the domain of spirit. However we read the details
of the passage above,97 the
essential point is that this discus-
sion is an effort to recognize the differences between
the esoteric and exoteric
conceptions, without subordinating one perspective to the other.
The union of these two perspectives, after all, is
a heretofore “unattainable perfection.”
This two-sided model is elsewhere taken up with the distinction being made between exoteric
walåya and esoteric walåya. Again,
sainthood, prophecy, and mission are to be found in reverse
priority. We are told,
Walåya has an interior and an
exterior. Its external is the enabling of the
servant to befriend
God, to obey His command
and His proscrip- tions, and to follow
His Wish (aïhȧ.¬).
Prophethood is above
the level (]“,э) of walåya,
and risåla is above this. God selects the prophets for information about, and acquaintance
with, the things of the unseen and that which is unveiled of the Malakūt. Also, God has
helped the messengers by the descent of the Holy Spirit and the aid in wisdom
and power to call [people] to God, and the evidentiary miracles (mu>jizåt), and the external proofs,
etc. But as for walåya båịina, it is that by which
God befriends His servant in his essence, and informs him about Himself,
concerning the hidden of His Names and Attrib-
utes. He places him in the sacred domain of His Self-disclosure. He takes him from himself
and extinguishes him from himself
and makes him persist in Him,
so he is not him, but only Him. This walåya
is what Muḳammad ascended to when
Gabriel left him at the furthest Lote-tree; He was through it [walåya] at a distance of “two bows’-
length or closer.” Prophethood, from this perspective, is below ( Mэ) the station (maqåm) of his walåya, and
risåla is below the station of his nubuwwa. And walåya, nubuwwa and risåla are in the world of power (qudra), by this Rule, according to this
hierarchy (Fiï.ï); the first is by existence, while the second is in potential.98
So in the
first order, that of exterior sanctity, the hierarchy is topped by the
messenger who has been granted
help from the Spirit, success
calling people to God, and proof of his status in the
form of miracles. Below this are the prophets, who benefit from insight into
the unseen. The lowest are the saints (here equivalent to the pious),
who attain their position by following the divine
Command. The interior, or esoteric, walåya is described as the result of
one’s extinction in, and essential identification with, God. The passage goes
on to assert that this walåya was
attained by Muḳammad and that his
prophethood and mission were thereby subordinated within him to walåya.99
Turning to
Muḳammad Wafā’s third distinct treatment of walåya, we notice connections between the Seal of saints, the
cyclical Renewer of reli- gion,100 and the end of time. A picture emerges
in which the Seal—as opposed to sealing general walåya or Muḳammadan walåya,
according to Ibn CArabī— in fact marks the end or fulfilment of the “word.”
This word itself is presented variously as “tidings” or as
revelation.
Muḳammad Wafā’ mentions briefly the Seal of sainthoods.
We are told that as the divine Word is sincere and just,
The words
complete in justice and sincerity are the beauty (Ksπ) of the word of the Spirit in the world
of Jabarūt; and the word of Gabriel
is in the world of Malakūt, and the
word of Adam is in the world of
Mulk, and the word of Jesus is in the world of prophethoods, and the
word of Muḳammad is in the messengerhoods; but the unifying
word of words (Ôhlg;g© ]u¬hĽH
]lg;©H) is that of the Seal of sainthoods from the
illiterate community, who ascertains God by divine Secrets. “And to Him return all things,
so worship Him and put your trust in Him.” (Q.
11:123)101
This use of
“word” (a term associated with divine creativity) is interesting inasmuch as it
functions below the realm of Jabarūt as a
lesser creative force. Particularly notable in the passage
is first mention
of Muḳammad as informing risåla yet in the next phrase pointing to a different figure as the
union of this and all words. Apparently
Muḳammad (at least in that particular form) is not
this unifier, and thus not the Seal of sainthoods. What are the possibilities
when we consider the identity
of this Seal? One might argue that the Muḳam- madan Reality or the Perfect human being already serve
this function. This may be true,
but we would be seriously diverging from the use of the term Seal of sainthood if we were not to seek
to identify the holder of the station. The fact is that Tirmidhī, Ibn CArabī, and Muḳammad Wafā (as noted above)
con- sider this figure to be much more tangible. Further, if our writer
had intended the cosmic Muḳammad as this Seal, we might expect
some clearer allusion— something to differentiate him
from the “Muḳammad” just mentioned.
It thus
seems unlikely
that this Seal of sainthoods is a synonym
for the Muḳammadan Reality. Thus the field of candidates for Sealhood is narrowed down to Ibn CArabī and Muḳammad Wafā’ himself. Since Ibn CArabī is never
mentioned in the writings of
Muḳammad Wafā’, it would be willful to insist that he is the unnamed Seal.
Discussions elsewhere will point instead
to Muḳammad Wafā’. The hadith of the “Renewer
of religion” appearing every century itself reappears on a number of occasions
in Muḳammad Wafā’s writings. In the fol-
lowing he not only cites the hadith,
but he also adds to it:
“God causes
to appear at the start of every century a man by whom He renews this [Islamic]
religion.”102 This is the believer
whose heart has embraced
Reality through a gnosis of which all else is incapable.
“My earth and My heaven do not embrace Me, but the heart of My believing servant
does embrace Me”103 . . . And he belongs
to both the most important shaykhs of his time and the nobles of his
era. And with this appearance at the start of each century, each one [of these Renewers]
has in his time seventy-thousand guiding signs (Ò@¨H) and rising lights of
emulation. By this is understood the secret of the Seven oft-repeated.104 “Truly God has seventy-thousand veils of light and darkness.”105
Here the Renewer is described as being chosen
from among the important fig- ures of his time. One particular
benefit of his appearance is an understanding of the Seven oft-repeated, in other words, revelation. According to the claim of
the first hadith noted, a renewer will appear each century. Since
our author was born at the start of the eighth
century Hijrī, there would have been
seven or eight of these Renewers to appear.
For Muḳammad Wafā’ the number seven recurs, being completed by an eighth. In the following
passage he sets up groups of seven (e.g., Attributes, prophets, centuries) to
be sealed by an eighth. We are told
that,
When there were seven days, God struck a similitude of the Seven oft-
repeated which are the
Self-disclosures of the Attributes of the Essence. These are Life, Knowledge, Power, Will, Hearing,
Seeing and Speak- ing. Then [He struck] the great Qur’ān and the Self-disclosure of the Essence, to which refer
all the Names and Attributes. Then
the eight throne-bearers descended . . . to the seven heavenly received com-
mands . . . and descended in [the missions
of] Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Moses, David, Sulaiman and Jesus. [The throne-bearers] then appeared
in Muḳammad, and he is their
“day of Assembly”106 and the arrange-
ment of their affair. Then they turned towards the umm• community and the Aḳmadī milla,107 by
virtue of the tradition, “God dispatches at
the start of
every century a man by whom He renews the religion of this community.” This is the reality of the polehood, up
to [the year] 800. The uniting eighth appears as . . . the seal of the Seven
oft- repeated, the organizer of their realities among both concrete and
abstract things, from the umm• community
and the Muḳammadan Aḳmadī milla. [This unifying eighth,
being himself] the great Qur’ān, [is] known as “In the Name of God the Merciful, the
Compassion- ate.” And “this is the Day of Assembly of which there is no doubt”
(Q. 42:7) or denial. “This is the day for which mankind is gathered together. That will be a day of Testimony.” (Q. 11:103)108
This passage
is rather dense, but the theme of the completing eighth is evident. First the Seven oft-repeated
gives rise to seven divine Attributes,
to which is added the great Qur’an.109 Then
the eight throne bearers descend to the seven prophets.110
This descent is completed by their reaching Muḳammad, who marks their end as the “day of Assembly” marks
the day of Judgment for humanity. At this point Muḳammad Wafā’ introduces the hadith of the Renewer of religion.
He states that polehood in this era—up to the year 800—will be a completion of
the Seven oft-repeated. The next line strikingly identifies the Seal as the great
Qur’an (symbolized as: In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate).111 In this passage the entity of the Seven oft-repeated (usually understood as the Fātiḳa) functions
as a principle of divine Self-disclosure. This Self-disclosure, in the form of
the throne bearers (who are to be under- stood
symbolically as the Seven “bearing” the Attributes of the Essence)
awaits this seal. Muḳammad completes the seven prophets,
a notice of his role as Seal of
the prophets. The Seal of the Seven oft-repeated is an unnamed
figure pres- ent at the year
800.112 Although the figure promised in the
hadith is simply a Renewer, according to Muḳammad Wafā’s calculations, the cycles are about to reach their final stage.
This cyclical
Renewer of religion
appears elsewhere, conveying
much the same finality.
We are told that the Prophet is the union of all prophetic tidings. This function is compared
to the final Renewer, who is the abode of the Great Tiding. The text runs,
The abode of
each tiding:113 Since what is announced is fixed,
then Noah is the abode of what Adam announced; and Abraham is the abode of what
Noah announced; and Moses is the abode of what Abraham announced; and Jesus is
the abode of what Moses announced; but Muḳammad is the abode of them all. Likewise the men dispatched at the start
of each century,
who are the abodes of the
Muḳammadan tidings. The master of the eighth time is the Seal of the age, and the source of total union,
the abode of the Great Tiding (cf.
Q. 38:67), which is called
“In the Name of God the Merciful,
the Compassionate.”114
Here is set up a continuum from Adam, down through the prophets, to the Seal, who is the Word of revelation. Again Muḳammad is the completion of prophet-
hood.115 Further down the chain are the
Renewers, who as the “abodes of the Muḳammadan
tidings” clearly function as the great saints. The final, and eighth, master
is the Seal, who is identified as the abode
of revelation. Distinct from Ibn CArabī’s doctrine of walåya, which posits a general and a Muḳam- madan Sainthood, this system presents three tiers (or
perhaps ages). As we have seen in this and earlier passages,
Muḳammad Wafā’s Seal is clearly asso- ciated with the revelation of God’s Word, that is, His final Word—as the year
800 approaches.
❊
Our investigation of Muḳammad Wafā’s teaching on walåya leads us to a number of conclusions. The concept, from
Ibn CArabī, of the
ranking of the messenger, prophet, and saint being reversed in the single
person of Muḳam- mad is not only
taken up by Muḳammad Wafā but also expanded upon. We saw that he presents
an interpretation that uses two perspectives—one of exo-
teric sanctity, the other of esoteric sanctity—to make two different hierarchies possible. Yet, the most significant observation is that of a picture of three tiers. The first is the prophetic Seal Muḳammad, the second is the progression of Renewers; and the
third is the Seal of the Word, who
completes the cycles of renewal. For the purposes of this study we may make some functional compar- isons. It seems that for Muḳammad Wafā’ the tier of the Renewers plays the role General
prophecy (nubuwwa >åmma) plays for Ibn CArabī. Of course, Ibn CArabī’s conception
extended to humanity in general, whereas Muḳammad Wafā’s renewers
are utterly Islamic.
Nevertheless, this General
prophecy, like the role of the Renewers, serves to extend the possibility of spiritual authority, beyond the age of messengers and prophets, into the era of post-Muḳammadan saints. It should be added here that the Greater
sainthood (walåya kubrå) of the
early Shādhiliyya plays a similar yet less clearly
defined role. On the question of Muḳammad Wafā’s Seal of
the age, this figure most closely approximates Ibn CArabī’s Seal of General sainthood (walåya >åmma), who more specifically,
is the apocalyptic figure Jesus. This comparison is somewhat forced,
however, since Muḳammad Wafā’s Seal of the age completes all sainthoods—sainthoods that for Ibn CArabī would be distinguished as either general
or Muḳammadan, thus each receiving its own distinct
Seal. For Muḳammad Wafā’ the final Seal
is not Jesus, but rather it appears to be himself.116
Chapter 6
Sanctity according to >Al• Wafå’
The medieval
Egyptian intellectual milieu in which the Wafå’s functioned has yet to be reconstructed in detail. As for >Al• Wafå’ personally, it will be seen in the following discussion that he was well versed in mystical
thought—from the early Shådhiliyya, the Akbarian
school, and the classical sufis. He was also
trained in kalåm (theology), as the
various discussions below make clear. His able
handling of concepts
such as the ‘senses’ and the ‘intellects’ signals a sub- stantial training in philosophy. Further, his reference to the biology of pregnancy
suggests a basic
grasp of the science of medicine. These observations are per-
haps
not surprising since our subject was
from a well-established family. An edu- cated man of the medieval Islamic
world would normally
have been exposed
to the principal sciences
as they existed in his day. However,
the distinct presence of a pro->Alid sentiment in >Al• Wafå’s speculations on sanctity demonstrate an openness to non-traditional Sunni sources. Of course Cairo was the cosmopoli-
tan hub of the mediteranean Muslim world, where ideas circulated rather freely among the learned classes.
It is in this milieu
that >Al• Wafå’ came into contact with not only the school of Ibn >Arab•, but also a pro->Alid perspective, or at least an intellectual perspective that
felt free to avail itself, mystically and philosophically, of what it found most compelling in the Sh•>• tradition.
In this chapter
we shall explore
>Al• Wafå’s thinking with particular
attenttion
to his theory of walåya. As his father did, >Al• lays the existential groundwork through a discussion of the
unity of God, creation, and Divine Self-disclosure. In brief, his position is that existence
is at once unified in God
and subject to the differentiation of creation but that the mystic vision holds
both perspectives simultaneously. This existential tension
reappears in his dis-
cussion of the role of the teacher, who functions for the
aspirant as a mediator
between contingent and necessary existence. These discussions are interesting
in themselves, but they also contextualize >Al•’s complex elaborations on sanctity. It will be
seen from his distinction between sainthood and prophecy that one perspective may encompass both elements. The nature of the mysteri- ous figure al-Khå∂ir is important here. Our discussion ends with >Al•’s explicit treatment of
sainthood, and his effort to identify himself and his father within this
mystical universe.
Divine Oneness, Self-disclosure, and Creation
In the previous chapter
we saw that Muḳammad Wafå was not without his crit-
ics. Al-Sakhåw• had pointed to what he saw as an excessive blurring of the
existential line between the Divine and creation in the writings of both father
Wafå’ and son. Polemics, and more often principled criticism, have been a his-
torical reality for most branches of sufism from early on in the medieval
period. Ibn al-Jawz• had (d. 597/1200)
ridiculed the miracles of a number of so-called saints in Iraq,1 and the Syrian doctor of law Ibn
Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) criticized a number of practices, in particular that of
shrine visita- tion.2 Yet critics could
also come from within. The sixteenth-century biogra- pher al-Sha>rån•, clearly an
ally of saints and sufism in general, mounted his own criticism
of one aspect of >Al• Wafå’s teaching. In what is his largest entry on any one figure
in his al-Tabaqāt al-kubrā, al-Sha>rån• stops to challenge a passage he has quoted
from >Al• Wafå’s Waṣāyā. The lengthy quotation pre- sented emphasizes the unity of the Creator and creation. We are told that “He [God] is the essence
of all that is existent, and everything in existence is His Attribute.”3 Further, there is nothing to the
plurality of these existents, since their single shared existence is their only
reality and essence. Discussion then turns to creation
itself, saying the first thing in existence
is not these existents, but
rather it is their ordaining (taqdīr).
This ordaining is, from their perspec- tive,
preexistential. Thus there are two phases of the creative
movement, one is ordaining while the other is a bringing
into tangible physical existence. The first is a descent of existence to a
station that has no existence, while the sec- ond is the descent
of that which
has no existence onto the station of existence.
The various ordainings may also be thought
of as the descent of metaphysical
existence (i.e., that of degree, attribute, meaning, truth, etc.) It is
according to these metaphysical existences, and specifically the essences thus
constructed, that the particulars are engendered.4 To
this al-Sha>rån• appends the following statement: “All that is in this utterance is based on the school of Absolute
One- ness (waИda muịlaqa).”5 This is a rather
striking charge to level, since the term Absolute Oneness
is certainly meant
to indicate an extreme form of identifica- tion of the Creator with
creation. The accusation is not categorical, however,
since al-Sha>rån• goes on to say that the rest of >Al• Wafå’s writings do not
demonstrate this excess.6 However, it seems that al-Sha>rån• is not being
quite honest here. The quotation he provides does begin with a comment
stressing the Absolute Oneness
perspective, but the subsequent discussion—also appearing in al-Sha>rån•’s epitome—of the processes of ordaining and coming
into being, certainly nuances the Absolute
Oneness position first established. The objection may be in fact to the
vocabulary used and not the overall posi- tion
taken. Al-Sha>rån• may have been nervous about the bold identification of God with existence, and the use of
“Attribute” as synonymous with creation would
have made him uncomfortable. Of course al-Sha>rån• does not want to
place >Al• Wafå’ once and for all in the camp of Absolute
Oneness, yet he does
feel it necessary to challenge
that position when it does emerge. This appears to be an exercise
in attacking a straw man for the benefit of a suspicious audience. Despite the insincerity of al-Sha>rån•’s comments, the subject matter remains important for us. In
what follows, we shall look more closely at >Al• Wafå’s position on Absolute Being and Self-disclosure. It will be seen that al-Sha>rån• certainly could have done a better job of analysis than he did
with the above comments. Although we may not say that there is a consciously distinct philoso-
phical doctrine of Existence in the writings of >Al• Wafå’, a survey of statements on the subject makes it clear that he holds an understanding of the Oneness
of God and creation, and yet points to a differentiation within this
Oneness. We will see also that he offers a synthetic understanding of the two
perspectives, which encompasses both at once. It is significant that >Al• Wafå’s teachings on this subject
employ the vocabulary of existence (wuj¥d) much more often than
his father did. We noted
in the previous chapter that Muḳammad Wafå’s doc- trine of sanctity and spiritual guidance
hung on this existential framework, and
we shall see that >Al•’s does likewise.
>Al• Wafå’ makes a number of statements that emphasize the single nature of God and creation. We read, for example, “He encompasses all, as if He were a sea and they [the entities] are
His waves; that is, He is the reality of every- thing and the essence of
everything, and everything is He Himself and His Attribute.”7 From this perspective, there
is no independence for either
the Cre- ator or creation. Thus acts such as prayer,
which seem to hinge on a distinction between servant and Lord, are in fact a Self-reflexive act. We are told, “Noth- ing trully thanks God except God;
the servant is powerless to do this.”8 Else-
where we read that the only true praise of God is from God Himself: “Every
seeker simply seeks al-Ḥaqq;
sometimes he reaches that object in truth, so he worships Him by an unveiling,
and sometimes he reaches it by imagination [only], so he worships Him through a
veil. Thus no worshiper truly
worships, except God [Himself].”9 The
implications of this oneness also apply to cre- ation. The truths that gifted souls may attain are themselves
indistinguishable from those souls: “The gnostic is the source of his gnosis,
the verifier is the
veracity (˙aq•qa) of what is verified to him.”10 Thus, with the truth and the
searcher being of the same nature, ones search is self-referential, not requiring
anything beyond this oneness.
This
perspective of Oneness is also expressed using the vocabulary of being. If God is in the end the only reality,
He is also the only true Being.
Thus we are told that the perfect understanding of creation is one that sees the Divine
behind it at all times.
>Al• Wafå’ writes, “He who witnesses the All-holy as the
existent of [all] matters simply
witnesses perfection in existence.”11 Elsewhere we are told that God is the essential
existence of all things in creation.
God is your existence
with regard to your essence,
while you are His
existence with regard to His entity (>ain) . . . He is the essential
Exis- tence determined [specifically] in all existants. All things are
His Attributes and Names; and by virtue of [essential Existence’s] divine level, the order of [common] existence functions
properly, and its standing is completed at every level according to its [that
level’s] due.12
Thus the essential existence of created things
is God. Yet from the perspective
of the Divine this creation is only an external form. For the created, however,
this existence is essential. God/existence may extend into creation, but His/its
presence there is only His/its
external aspect—His Attributes and Names. From the perspective of this aspect
itself, this extention is whole and essential.
This existential model may also be approached from the individual’s per- spective.
>Al• Wafå’ tells his reader that the existence of all things is identical to his or her own. He says, “If the existence of all is your own
existence, then the “all” is from Him
to you and by you.”13 This individual’s
existence, as he experiences it, is the “all.” Even the Divine, as it can be known, is from this
existence. We read,
Your
existence is your Lord by its lordship, and your God by its divinity, and your
Merciful by its mercy. And the same
is applicable by analogy to all meanings and attributes. Sometimes [your exis-
tence] appears to you by virtue of those levels, or some of them in your
perception, from a perspective by which you see them as you; and thus you see
it [the Lord, God etc.] by them [lordship, divinity etc.] [as] your existence.
Sometimes [your existence appears] from a perspective by which you see them
[lordship, divinity etc.] as other than you; and thus you see it [the Lord, God
etc] by them [lordship, divinity etc.] [as] the existence of other than you. In
reality it is only your existence, since
existence—why, how or wherever it appears—
only
appears to you because it is your own existence. You do not grasp
this nor anything else except by the fact that it is your existence which you have grasped.14
Despite the heavy reliance
on pronouns in this passage,
the point is clear. The individual’s experience is limited
to his own sphere of finite existence.15 Thus
“God” for him is simply the divine element of his own existence, or in other
words, his “God” is only present to the degree that his existence can portray
Him according to its limited
divinity. This experience may occur from two per- spectives, either one that sees God
through its own existence, or one that sees Him through what is understood to be the existence of another. These two per- spectives, however, are also both within
one’s sphere of limited existence. The passage concludes by pointing out that understanding is, in
effect, simply the exploration of the dimensions of one’s own existence.
From these quotations scattered throughout the writings of >Al• Wafå’, we see that the
concept of ‘oneness’ has more than a
single dimension. The first, and most obvious, is that of the Divine as source
of all creation.This may be looked at from the prespective of the Creator or
creation. For the latter, this reality means that in knowing oneself one knows
all else, including the Cre- ator. We saw also that this doctrine may be
expressed in terms of existence. Here God is in creation as its existence. From
the Divine perspective this is necessary Existence, but for creation,
the existence it knows is only contingent. Although we have here focused
on the “oneness” statements, we must also take into consideration the related
element of Self-disclosure (tajall•). As we saw at the start of this discussion, the degree of existential independence accorded to creation is important. An utter denial
of creation’s existence would lead to charges of pantheism. In the previous chapter we
noted that the most famous figure associated with this school
of wa˙da muịlaqa was
Ibn Sab>•n.16 For >Al• Wafå’, as for his father and for Ibn >Arab•, a degree of independence is indeed granted to creation. For the most part this is done
through the concept of divine Self-disclosure, which functions on the premise
that God/necessary
existence is meaningfully distinguishable from creation/contingent existence.
>Al• Wafå’ makes it quite clear that God’s Self-disclosure is an important, and independent, entity. In a
discussion reminiscent of a Gnostic theurgy, we are told that Self-disclosures
must be sought out among lesser forms of cre- ation. A picture is painted
of tajall• hidden among base material
existence.
It is related in the hadith that, “God created the bodies (Òhs“H) in dark- ness, and then He sprinkled upon them His light. He upon whom this
light is bestowed is guided, but he who misses it goes astray.”17 The meaning of the bodies being in
darkness is that they are levels of obscurity and deception. Their condition is
due to their corporeality being a dark fancy (Ldif©HLˆm©H), while the light scattered
upon them is
the
Ruling-Knowing-Rational-Spirit, which is from the Self-disclo- sure of the
Compassionate-Merciful-Existence. The bodies, which conceal these sprinkled . .
. spirits, are as a black veil covering the happy moon-lit face. He who, from this face,
only sees its veil, is not
happy, nor does he find joy. This is like he who sees of the saints
only their bodies; he does not then remember
God by witnessing the [hid- den] light to which
they point. He who raises
the veils is joyful at wit-
nessing the intended.18
The guiding
light concealed in levels of obscurity is the divine
Self-disclosure. The aim of the individual is to avoid the gross bodies
and to find the light. Here >Al• Wafå’ is certainly far from his previous statements on the Oneness of existence. Elsewhere we read that God’s Word may enter
the world, taking
on various forms. This remains in essence God, yet it is a distinct Self-disclosure. We read,
The Name is the identity (>ayn) of the Named at every level according
to its due19 . . . The Speech is the identity
of the Speaker in the audi-
tory realm. It was said: “We came to them with a Book (of guidance as a mercy
upon those who believe)” (Q. 7:52), so He is the Speaker and He is the Speech. The Qur’an is His rational
identity, and the Dis-
cernment (furqån) is His imaginary identity,20 and that which is read,
which is referred to by the pronoun “it” in “you read it” is His sensi- ble
identity. So the recited is a descent of the Discernment, which [itself] is a
descent of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the descent of the Speech, and the Speech is the Speaker [Himself]; and all are its diver- sified Self-determinations of the
sum of His Self-disclosure referred to as “Speech.”21
Here, although
the identification of God with his Speech
is clear, the important
point is that divine Attributes are present among creation—with a certain degree of independence. This Speech is a Self-disclosure of God, operating simultane- ously on three
levels, that of the rational, the imaginal, and the sensible.
The importance of Self-disclosure is also essential in the act and preserva- tion of creation.
We are told that, “the occasions of creation are Self-disclosures
of the All-Creating, and the occasions of subsistence are Self-disclosures of the
Sustainer.”22 >Al• Wafå’ also describes the levels of existential differentiation, which appear as divine Attributes. A passage we saw earlier, in chapter 4, makes this
point clearly:
Reality is a single essential existence
particularized by its own princi- ples, which are its attributes and
existences. Creation is the levels of
proportion which are fixed within their limits . . . As al-Ḥaqq said . . . according to the reading of ḍamma over the lām of the word “kull”: “Verily,
We are all things We have created in proportion.” (Q. 54:49)23
The essential
point here is the distinction made between elements
of an other- wise unified existence. The Qur’anic passage
notes that “all things” are created
in
proportion, that is, according to their established limits.24 CAlī Wafā’s unusual Qur’anic reading
emphasizes the common identity of “all things” with their original source,
rather than their idependent existence, as is assumed in the common textual
reading.
The question
might arise as to what the purpose
of Self-disclosure is at all. If
there is Oneness,
then why is there differentiation? CAlī Wafā’ does not pose
the question as such, but in effect he does answer it for us. In short, there
are two things to be said. The first, which will be dealt with in detail below, is that these two realities must be grasped
simultaneously if one is to attain the high-
est mystical insight. The second
is that differentiation plays an important teleo- logical role. The point here is
that creation is a mode of communication between the limited contingent souls
and the Ultimate Necessary. Creation serves
as a sign, directing searchers to the Truth beyond. CAlī Wafā’ makes this teleology clear in the following
passage:
The realm
of creation was actualized simply
for the recognition of al- Ḥaqq through the differentiation of His Names and His Attributes in the manifestations of His signs. “I was an unknown treasure,
so I cre- ated creation, and made Myself known to them; so by Me they know Me.”25 Another
confirmation of this is [the Qur’anic passage 51:56] “I created jinn and man only to worship
Me” that is, to know [Me].26 The more one knows the state of the signs, the more one knows of the
manifestations (nˆhz¬) of the Names and the Attributes; and the more one knows the manifestations of the
named and attributed, the more one knows of realities of these manifestations,
according to one’s gnosis of the external realities.27
Another
version of the same hadith is quoted elsewhere to much the same effect. Here CAlī Wafā’ comments quite directly:
He said of the hadith “I was an unknown treasure,” the meaning is the
level of abstraction (эnS). [The
meaning of] “And I wanted to be known, so I
created creation” is I ordained an elite (]iniväï h˚hi¨HÔN vë), I made Myself known to them and guided them to all of it [i.e. level of abstraction] by all of it [i.e.
creation]. “And by Me they know Me”, since I am the All.28
Thus, the goal of the divine
act of creation is that God become
known. The cre- ation which may know Him, according to CAlī Wafā’, is the spiritual elite
who will be guided
to Him by creation. This guiding is possible thanks
to creation’s essence, which
is itself divinity (i.e., He is the All). This elite may be the immutables we met earlier,
but more likely
it is the “elite” (makhṣūṣ), accord- ing to Muḳammad Wafā’, to whom God has given a “measure (NHvä¬) of all
things.”29
Thus far in our discussion we have described
first the idea of the Oneness
between the Creator and the created, and second the conditional independence of existence (usually
represented as a Self-disclosure). For CAlī Wafā’, these concepts are well established. Let us turn now to his resolution of this apparent opposition, that is, his
synthesis of these two perspectives. The most obvious resolution of the two perspectives is to point out that one defines
the other. To know
what oneness means, we must by implication know what differentiation is. This is made clear in
the following passage: “If it were not for the neces- sary, then the possible
would not appear
possible; and if it were not for the pos- sible, then the necessary
would not appear necessary. However,
the one affects the other, like the cause
upon the effect,
and the doer upon that which is done,
and the knower of the known.”30 Our
author goes on, however, to a more inter-
esting explanation of the reason
for both oneness
and differentiation. He points
to two simultaneous yet distinct
realms of truth.
We are told, “(He) is both the First and Last, the Apparent and Hidden (Q. 57:3); all of this is in the circle
of discerning differentiation (]i˚hë.ȧJH ]ië.ȧJH }.iHэ).
However, in the dominion of His
encompassing level, He is simply the Essence
and the necessary Existence.”31 Thus, in the realm of
differentiation God may be all things at once, yet He is also the one single necessary thing, this from the perspective of encompassing. God is all things;
on the one hand these
are differentiated things,
while on the other hand that thing is only One. Elsewhere
these two realms are described
in different terms. CAlī Wafā’ enjoins the
reader to consider simultaneously his own existence and his own existent being.
We read, “Look at al-Ḥaqq before He created creation, and look at what you see (ע.ï Hih¬.z˚H),
and you will not see other than Him . . . Your existence and your existent
being (Úэm“m¬ M Úэm“M), while
two by distinction, are one in truth.”32 The
insight presented here is one that tries to break down the conceptual barrier between the categories of One-
ness and differentiation. Our inclination is to think in one mode to the exclu-
sion of the other, in order to avoid logical inconsistencies, but here we are
challenged to take both into account simultaneously. In the following
passage the reader is told that both of these realms must be properly
seen:
Existence is one in essence, and many according
to its existences. The
existences are [only] various by the limits of their intellected or per- ceived quiddity,
and not in the reality
of their existence. So when you
look upon
the reality of existence and you return command of its existences to Him, then
you are an upholder of Oneness. When you look upon the limits of the
intellected quiddities and you return the command of their existence
to them, then you are an upholder
of plu- rality. When you have
done in each circle what wisdom requires be done of the necessities of the two views in that circle,
with your veri- fication of them, then you are the
proper perfect Sayyid.33
Thus, if we
can look upon reality, without its existential clothing, we may attain union.
If we look upon the entification of entities, beyond their exis- tence, then we
have reached a state of differentiation. The circles of both dif- ference and union each entail a particular verification. Perfection requires that both verifications be made.
This
insight, achieved by the perfect Sayyid, may also be described as a knowledge of both the realities of creation and the hidden divine Reality.
CAlī Wafā’, returning to a term used by his father,
calls those who have attained
this insight the “elite:”
“The elite (makhṣūṣ) of God is he who penetrates, in every
way, both His secret and what is commonly known of Him (*ni“). None but God encompasses him, and none but he encompasses God. However, the non-
elite are fettered to things
like the world,
heaven, the intermediary world, hell, and the afterlife.34 The
elite are not simply those
who have attained
to esoteric insights. They
have “penetrated” both the perspective of the esoteric and that of the exoteric. This is the resolution of what we described earlier
as the oppo- sition between divine
Oneness and its Self-manifestation. It is an answer which requires the synthesis of two
logically distinct (and self-consistent) modes of divine Reality.35
The Teacher and Oneness
As was seen in the previous
chapter, Muḳammad Wafā’s teaching on the role of the sufi shaykh was weak on
proscriptive details but dramatic in its claim that the shaykh is to be
understood as one of the manifestations of the divine Reality. CAlī Wafā’s discussions of the matter are much more extensive than
those of his father but are not a departure
in substance. The son’s treatment
of the role of the spiritual
master, like his father’s, describes
neither the stages of
the mystical way nor the various mystical unveilings received along the way.
Instead, a picture is drawn
in which the teacher represents an existential reality to his follower. The discussion is not about
the positive content
of any mystical techniques to be passed on; rather it is about
the proper understanding the stu- dent must have of the nature
and role of the shaykh.
The basic message
here is that the teacher is at once simply a part of contingent, differentiated existence,
yet he
serves to those beneath him as a sign pointing to the necessary divine
Existence. All creation
lacks necessary existence, but some manifestations are more important than others. Spiritual
guides, saints, prophets,
and messengers obviously have
more important roles to play. In his discussion of the shaykh,
>Al• Wafå’ centers on his existential role; an existence that must be understood in light of his doctrine of oneness and Self-disclosure.
>Al• Wafå’s statements on the spiritual
guide do include
some fairly tradi- tional insights, such as the need
of the aspirant for guidance. For example, in an echo of a popular sufi saying,
we are told, “He who has no teacher, has no protector. He who has no protector has Satan taking
care of him.”36 Predictably,
allegiance to ones guide is also noted: “The aspirtant
is he who is realised
in his [spiritual] goal
through the essence (’ayn) of his
teacher.”37 This loyalty must begin with imitation, if gnosis is to be passed on. >Al• Wafå’ writes,
“He who conforms to his
teacher in act, follows him by what he is told of his [the teacher’s] gnosis.
But he who is at variance with [the teacher]
in act, his follow- ing, [which is only] by the imagined meanings
of his [the teacher’s] sayings,
is lost.”38
We also find descriptions of the relationship between the aspirant
and his shaykh that use terminology usually reserved for the Divine.
We are told, “The true
follower is a throne for the Mercy (raИmāniyya)
of his teacher”39 Else- where >Al• Wafå’, in a description
comparing weak spiritual insight among common sufis to a barren womb, notes
that it is by an effusion (fayḍ) from
ones teacher that such insight is gained.
Doctors say
that coldness of the womb is the cause of barrenness. Likewise, the soul of the student,
when there is no anguish
of passion or burning
of desire for the goal,
there is not born in it the form of his
[teacher’s] command, by the effusion of his teacher upon it. In this he is
like wet fuel—the
firebrand produces nothing but smoke in him. This is like
the frivolous claims which occur to the souls among the general sufis (qawm), who are without the fire of
desire and sincerity.40
Thus the
spirit of the student must desire its spiritual goal in order for his teacher to effuse his command upon it. This is rather peculiar language,
but the message itself is
clear.
The epistemological role of the shaykh, in short, is that to truly know him
is to truly know God, as much as He may be grasped through creation. The links are repeatedly made between the self, the teacher, and God. “Your know-
ing
your own reality,” >Al• Wafå’ tells us, “is commensurate with your knowing your
teacher.”41 Knowing this teacher is key to
knowing oneself and thus to knowing God. We are told that “if you find your true teacher, you have found your reality. If you find your reality you have found God. If you find God, then
you have
found everything, so everything desired is simply in the love of this teacher.”42 The aim of the student is thus to
grasp the Divine, by finding his own reality, which itself may only be reached
through his teacher. As men- tioned above, >Al• Wafå’ is not concerned with describing the details of the sufi path, and here the specifics of loving the teacher or following his command are left unexplored.
The role of
the shaykh is a shifting one. First it is as a guiding will to which the student must submit himself,
second it is a manifestation of God. In the
following passage >Al• Wafå’ explains
these stages:
The teacher
is the manifestation of the secret of Lordship for his fol- lower. The follower must be attentive to the
command of his teacher and not turn away—to the left or the right—from this
teacher. Have you not heard the word of the older son Jacob, “I will not leave
this land until my father allows it” (Q. 12:80), then he said, “or Allah
commands me”; he also said to them,
“turn ye back to your father.” It is clear that the follower has no
direction to turn towards except that of his teacher, so much so that [even]
when he has realized [in him- self] the reality of his teacher, and the
difference between their two stations is resolved, God [still] is his direction by way of the direction of this teacher, by which the
follower becomes certain.43
Submission
to the teacher representing divine Lordship is essential because it leads to the improvement of the follower.
More interestingly, the point is made
that in approaching the teacher,
the student is approaching the direction of the
divine manifestation. Another description of the function of the teacher pro-
vides more detail. We are told,
The starting
point for the aspirant is that his intentions be endowed with the signs of the
People of prosperity and sanctity. And if the form of his [own] piety and
sanctity is unveiled in his vision of his teacher, in the clarity
that is the form of his teacher,
then he says that it is his teacher
who is the pious saint;
and so he asks for the blessings of his insights and . . . his
noble ideas. He seeks his favour until the angel of solicitude, Isråf•l, blows the form of the spirit of Adamic des- ignation
into the Trumpet of the form of his heart.44 So
here he sees his teacher as the Adam of the Time, the king of the reigns
of becom- ing, and he exalts
him as a son exalts his revered father. This occurs to the point that the veil
of his Adamic form is removed from the beauty
of what bestows honour on him from the Muhammadan Spirit. So here he sees his teacher as a Muhammadan Sayyid, to whom he is servant . . . and when he looks
upon his teacher
he sees only the One
Self-disclosing
in every aspect, according to the capacity of the wit- ness. So he becomes
non-existent in the face of being, and erased in a
presence of witnessing. So his first matter is conformity, the middle [matter]
is sincerity, and the last is realization.45
The first goal for the aspirant is to associate with proper teachers, here the “Peo- ple of prosperity and sanctity.” Then, if he sees his own sanctity
in the form of the teacher,
he will benefit from specific spiritual insight. Once his heart receives its angelic inspiration, he sees the teacher as the engendering figure of Adam. The next step has the aspirant
perceiving the Muhammadan nature of the teacher. Finally,
the insight is reached that this teacher
is simply a catalyst for the unlimited possibilities of God’s unveiling through creation and that the only
limitation lies in the viewer of this Self-disclosure. The student, through his wit- nessing
of his teacher, is able to transcend his particular and contingent exis- tence. >Al• Wafå’ then sumarizes neatly for us these levels of insight: the first is his “conformity” to the ways of the saintly teacher;
the second is a “sincerity” that inspires insight into the
higher mystical elements of the teacher’s nature; and “realization” is the final insight
grasping at least the beginning
of the Nec- essary existence beyond
the shaykh and all contingent creation.
This model of spiritual
direction rests on the idea that the teacher acts as a window
to the higher mystical realities, rather than as simply one who imparts a set of teachings to his
students. This model also differs from the traditional presentation of the
shaykh as spiritual guide to the aspirant. This traditional understanding is reflected typically
in the writings of the famous Ab¥ Madyan (d.
594/1198), where we are told,
The shaykh
is one to whom your essence bears
witness by entrusting itself (to his care), and (to whom) your innermost self (bears witness) by respecting and magnifying him.
The shaykh is one who instructs you with his morals, refines
you with his skills, and illuminates your inner being with his radiance. The
shaykh is one who makes you whole in his presence (with
God) and preserves you when you are far from the effects of his luminosity.46
This passage
makes clear the central role of the shaykh, but in comparison to the pronouncements of >Al• Wafå’ above, it is rudimentary.
Another
element of our writer’s concept of ‘spiritual direction’ is the shaykh’s
role as a mirror to the aspirant’s condition. We are told, “The reality of the special aspirant in relation to his teacher is like what one sees in the mirror of
oneself, corresponding to the mirror’s capacity.”47 In the same vein, elsewhere it is said, “Knowing (Gj†nu¬) your reality is commensurate with your knowledge
of your teacher.”48 How the aspirant sees his shaykh is the essential element
in
his definition of himself. >Al• Wafå’ tells us, “You are in the form which
you see your teacher
as . . . If you witness
him as creation, then you are a creation;
if you witness him as Truth, then you are a Truth.”49 The point is made clear in the following: “The image of the
speaking shaykh is a mirror of the secret of the sincere aspirant. When he [the student] looks into it [the
mirror] with per- spicacity, he sees in it the form of his [own] soul.”50 Thus the shaykh is not only a
window to reality beyond creation, but he also serves as the aspirant’s only
true insight into himself. The point is unclear—how one can only know oneself
through another—until we remember that for >Al• Wafå’ the role of the shaykh is existential, that is, his function is to offer access to (or a presence in) the realm of Necessary existence. This
is not done by the passing down of a mystical secret, rather it is presented as an occasion within contingent existence,
an occasion that is a key to the eternal
Necessary. As we saw above
in our dis- cussion of “Oneness
and the many,”
creation, or differentiation, does contain a seed
of its unified source. It is this seed that allows the many contingent beings to know at least the possibility of a higher necessary realm.
Thus the shaykh is
the mirror to the aspirant;
his origin is divine, and so the aspirant may see him- self in him in any number of forms. The Self-disclosures are infinite in possibil-
ity. The teacher
allows him to see his unlimited self and thus to see his Lord.
This existential function of the shaykh is clearly indicated. >Al• Wafå’ tells us that the aspirant’s very existence is derived from his shaykh.
We read, “The existence of the sincere aspirant,
whereby he is truth, is only with his teacher, who speaks the clear Truth.”51 This existence seems to be
transferred to the aspirant in much the same way classical sufism spoke of a
mystic soul extin- guishing itself in the Divine. In another passage we read,
“The tongue of the state of every teacher speaking the clear Truth says to each
sincere aspirant, “Approach me until I love you, for when I love you I see you as kin to me, and I am manifested in you to the degree
you are prepared for it.””52 >Al• Wafå’ makes it clear that
the aspirant’s only source of necessary existence is the shaykh. In the following passage he first
describes imagination as the possible of the cognitive reality and
this reality as the necessary to that imagined. The aspirant and his teacher
have a similar relationship.
The cognitive reality is necessary existence to its actual image
[imag- ination], and the actual image is possible existence to the
cognitive reality. O sincere
aspirant, your necessary existence, by which you are true,
is only with your teacher
speaking by the clear Truth.
If you are realized in him, then it is as if you will not cease in
truth, otherwise you remain [merely] created.53
The existential relationship is described rather briefly here, but the point is clear that the shaykh is the aspirant’s way out of possible or contingent existence into
necessary existence. This may also be described
as the relationship between the necessary and the possible. >Al• Wafå’ writes,
Truly the aspirant is one of the entities
of his teacher, in relation
to his teacher, while the teacher
is the reality of the existence of the aspirant, in relation to the aspirant.
Existence in all [cases] is single and com- prehensive. Thus the aspirant
realizes himself in his teacher in the meanings of perfection through
existence. And the teacher is realized
in his aspirant in the discernment of the gnostics
through witnessing. Thus the
perfect Sayyid said to his perfect aspirant, “You are from me, and I am from
you, O >Al•.”54
The follower
is here described as a possible entity, extended from its source, the teacher.
This follower attains to the “meanings of perfection” through an existentiation
from his teacher. The teacher himself is realized through the form of
witnessing by those who follow him. This understanding of the aspi- rants as entities of the teacher
is echoed in a discussion of the lights of both the
former and the latter. We are told,
The
tenuities of each day are its hours and its instants and moments. The lights
of the aspirants are tenuities of the lights
of their teachers. These lights of the teachers
are the realities of their aspirants’ lights.
These tenuities are for the aspirants their grade, which is according
to their encounter (wajd). So
the perfect moonlike tenuity is the perfect grade, and the accepting
of its receiver is Laylat al-qadr•
. . . There is nothing in the perfect aspirant except
his teacher.55
It must be noted
here that these
presentations of the teacher as existentially dis- tinct from—yet accessible to—his
follower are in structure similar
to the con- ception, explored earlier in this chapter, of the One and
creation. Creation, lacking necessity, has only possible existence. Yet this
possible existence is derived from necessary existence. Further, this possible
existence gives form and differentiation to the necessary. For the aspirant,
his necessary, immutable (spiritual?) existence is drawn from his teacher.
In turn, he himself serves
as an entification of the
shaykh.
On Walåya and Nubuwwa
A few observations may be made generally of >Al• Wafå’s discussions of this subject. The
first is that this is a departure from his theory of the dynamic of teacher
and aspirant. Contrary to what one might expect, the existential language
largely
falls away once sainthood is addressed. We saw how dramatic the claims were
regarding the shaykh’s function in creation and might expect the saint to operate in some similar
fashion, perhaps as some kind of super
teacher or a universalized presence of necessary existence. Instead,
this line of think- ing is set aside for one which sees sainthood in quite
different terms. As we shall see, >Al• Wafå’ reverts
to fairly standard
descriptions of the saints as the
inspired elect of God. It must be noted, however,
that our author does move on
to more fertile ground. The more significant point of concern
becomes the rela- tionship between sainthood and prophethood. Not unlike his predecessors, Ibn
>Arab•
and the early Shådhiliyya, it seems
that walåya for >Al• Wafå’ is to be understood largely in relation to nubuwwa.
According to
>Al• Wafå’, the saints are first
signs of God in creation. Through a rather loose interpretation of a Qur’anic
passage, the truth of the “perfecting saints” is placed beyond question.
“When you
see men engaged in vain discourse about our signs, then turn away from them.”
(Q. 6:68) In this is a notice
to turn away from
those who engage in vain discourse
concerning the truth of the perfecting saints (Kdgl;˜H/hd©M#H), for they are among the signs of God pointing to Him; as He said, “We have set you as a sign
to the people.” (Q. 2:259)56
Beyond the identification of the saints with the signs of God, the second quota- tion evokes a miraculous Qur’anic episode of revivification. The reader’s mind is
left to associate the “perfecting saints”
with the story
of a doubting man who had been dead for a hundred years,
returning to life, as a clear miracle. In a general way, the saints are also to
be thought of as effective guides for souls seeking God. “It is written in hadith: ‘He whose feet are dusty from the path of God, God will remove his face from the
Fire for seventy years.’ Included in
this is he who walks with a saint to the Face of God, hoping for His satisfac-
tion. Truly, God removes his face from the fire.”57 Thus,
according to >Al• Wafå’ the saint is a
leader upon the path of righteousness, a path that delivers the servant
from Hell. This guiding function
extends to wider circles also. We
are told that the kings
of this world
must submit to the saints,
who are the true
‘ulama of the community. They are the real guides since they are the inheritors
of God’s messengers and prophets.58 These saints
may be guides, but they are
not necessarily models of behavior. >Al• Wafå’ opens with a
discussion that concludes that not all truths and divine communications were contained in the
Prophet’s Sunna, as related to posterity by his companions, since “they forgot much and hid things that they saw a
benefit in hiding.” Thus we may not always know how to judge things that are
not subject to clear comment in scripture. Turning to the saints, the point is
made that in those instances we fail to grasp the meaning
of their actions
or words, we should “accept
their
spiritual states
(a˙wa\), lbut we do not emulate
them.”59 In
this discussion the example evoked is that of al-Kha∂ir,60 but a much wider issue is also being addressed by implication. This issue is the treatment
of what in sufi vocbulary is called the “majdh¥b,” or “he who is drawn to God.” This enraptured figure is a standard
saintly type, distinguished from the more sober model, in the accounts of sufi
lives and miracles. These individuals, present also in the medieval Christian
and Hindu worlds,
were characterized by miracle working, in addition to shocking
behavior while under
ecstatic influence. As we noted
in a previous chapter, however, the Wafå’iyya themselves were at the oppposite end of this spectrum
of saint typology. Defence of these enraptured was not a serious concern
for >Al• Wafå’, but the idea of inspiration as a continuing cur- rency in the religious economy was. Also, both the example of al-Kha∂ir and that of the many common enraptured individuals are
examples of a mystical inspiration independent of the norms
of exoteric religion. Kha∂ir’s inspiration was beyond the prophet
Moses’ grasp, and that of the enraptured is beyond the control of the doctors of Law.
Beyond these fairly general descriptions of sainthood, we find that >Al•
Wafå’ does have something more substantial to say on
the subject. Before we take up his interpretation of the Seal of Sainthood, we
must discuss his treat- ment of the figure al-Kha∂ir. It is through this figure, and specifically in his
relation to the prophet Moses, that >Al• Wafå’ fleshes
out his understanding of walåya. There is no unified theory
of sainthood presented in his comments, but three distinct points
are made. Before
exploring these in detail, we can identify them in shorthand. The first is that the prophet Moses, as an impatient student to the teacher al-Kha∂ir, acted inappropriately. The second is that the relation-
ship between these two figures
models the relationship between prophecy/mis-
sion and sainthood. The third point is that the figure of al-Kha∂ir, beyond this relationship, functions as the vehicle for the transmission of walåya,
whether it be to saints,
prophets, or messengers.
There is little debate in
>Al• Wafå’s mind about the prophet Moses’ failures
as a follower. In the Qur’anic
story, al-Kha∂ir is reluctant
to accept Moses as a follower, saying, “You will not have patience with me. How can you be patient about things which you do not
understand?”(18:67–68). When Moses insists, al-Kha∂ir agrees to lead him, but sets one condition, which >Al• Wafå’ com- ments on to draw out some more
general principles:
“If you would follow
me, then do not ask me anything
until I speak
to you concerning it.”(Q. 18:70) That is because the perfection of the fol- lower
is that he be certain of his leader and the path that is love and
glorification. Of its [love’s] effects is conformity of the will of the lover to that of his beloved.
He [the follower] does not anticipate him in speech or act. If he asks his leader about that which he has not spoken
to him of, then the wisdom of the leader has decided to not answer the
follower. If he answers him then harm would occur, contrary to wis- dom, but if he does not answer him then he will find no relief
from the agitation of the
follower. Thus the purity of love for him becomes cloudy, and the path connecting him to his leader is blocked.61
The image,
parallel to the Qur’anic story, is one of a pestering aspirant who will not
truly conform to the guidance of his teacher.
This disobedience taints his love for the shaykh.
What is more significant for our discussion of walåya is the fact that >Al• Wafå’ does not hold back in subordinating the prophet (in this case playing the role of
aspirant) to the saint (seen here in his role as teacher).62 The
impatience of the follower is certainly not an unusual
thing. We are told specifically
that some see only the external material forms of the saints: “This is like he
who sees of the saints only their bodies; he does not then remember God by
witnessing the [hidden] light to which they point.”63
The second question addressed
in >Al• Wafå’s discussion of the figure al-
Kha∂ir is that of the relationship between
prophecy/mission and sanctity. Nowhere does our writer make definite
conclusions on the subject, but his comments in a number of places do make
clear a particular understanding of this relationship. When al-Kha∂ir has reached
the limit of his patience
with the questioning Moses,
he draws the line, saying,
“This is the parting between
me and you” (Q. 18:78). >Al• Wafå’ comments on this separation: “It is a parting
between he who works in God (ya>malu bi-Allåh), and he
who works by the order of God (ya>malu bi-amri Allåh).”64 The context
described for this work is that done by al-Kha∂ir when he rebuilds a crumbling wall without asking for payment
from its owners (Q. 18:77). >Al• Wafå’ contrasts this with Moses’ hav- ing asked for
compensation from God on another occasion (Q. 28:24). The point here is that
al-Kha∂ir, as a saintly model,
represents “working in God,” that is, one who acts directly by God’s agency.
Here we remember the hadith popular among the sufis in which God says of His
closest servant: “If I love him I am his hearing . . . and his sight . . . and
his hand by which he strikes” (Bukhår•, Riqåq 38). This
is in contrast to the prophet who works only in response to God’s command. He
brings God’s message as he has been com- manded. (One thinks here of the start
of the prophet Muḳammad’s mission, which was marked by the command
“Recite!”) Yet heeding this command is the limit of a prophet’s
obedience, while the saint’s obedience
is of another order. Thus the unbridgeable difference between the saint (al-Kha∂ir) and the prophet
(Moses) is that the former
works as an extention of God’s Will and the latter in response to God’s Command.
Of his shocking (yet ultimately beneficent) acts,
al-Kha∂ir himself tells Moses,
“I did not do it of my own accord” (Q. 18:82), making it clear that he is not the author of these acts;
the implication being
that he is a vehicle for the divine Will.
>Al• Wafå’ also describes the difference between
the prophet and the saint in another way. The first is characterized as having
earned his position, while the latter has his bestowed upon him.
He said of the story of Moses and al-Kha∂ir: There are those worship- pers whom God has appointed to
the elucidation of the earned (Ôhfsj;˜H hdƒ); and there are those whom He has appointed
to the elu- cidation of the bestowed
(Ôhƒmˆm˜H hdƒ). Neither will oppose the
other, nor will he share what he has been appointed for, even though
the one is a prophet, the
other a saint.65
These descriptions of the prophets
and saints are not developed
further by our author, but the distinction being made
is categorical. The two explications,
or modes of perception, are mutually exclusive.
On the relationship of sanctity to prophecy >Al• Wafå’ also makes a second rather different claim. Through a lengthy comment on the unnamed
attendant (hj†) to Moses,
the point is made that prophecy retains
an authority over sanc-
tity. In contrast to the observation above,
distinguishing he who works in God
from he who works by God’s command,
here Moses’ attendant is a participant as neither, but rather the
beneficiary of an overall understanding of this rela- tionship, an understanding
that places both in their proper place. The passage opens with the following:
Moses met al-Kha∂ir with his attendant, only in order
to unite for this
attendant the sea of mission from his prophethood, and the sea of sanctity from
the particular quality of al-Kha∂ir. The secret in this is that the rule that
obtains between a saint and a messenger, which is necessarily linked to his [the latter’s]
sharia, is like the rule that obtains
between a star and the sun.66
The point
here is that the purpose
of the encounter between Moses
and Kha∂ir was to show to the attendant (who was to be the future khalifa)
the relationship between the role of the prophet
and that of the saint.
>Al• Wafå’ also speaks
of “the particular quality
of al-Kha∂ir,” meaning the form of the Kha∂ir-ian spirit as it appeared to Moses. This idea will be elaborated upon below. >Al• Wafå’ follows these statements by saying that the attribute of sainthood exists
along- side that of prophethood. In other words,
sanctity is not at odds with the Law,
rather it is the surrogate
in the absence of the lawgiver (prophet). The passage continues,
When the sun
sets, then each star appears by its own quality (L;πH); but when the sun appears, it incorporates the quality
of all the stars
within its
own quality. This is like when the
text appears, it incorpo- rates the qualities of all interpretations into it. The quality [here]
is the quality of the text.
When the text disappears, each interpreter returns to [his own interpretation]. This is like the quality
of each interpreter being, in the lifetime of the messenger of God,
incorporated into his [the messenger’s] quality.
If he affirms something it is fixed in his [the
interpreter’s] affirmation, and if he refuses something it is rejected
[by the interpreter].67
So the function of walåya is intimately linked to mission.
When the messenger (or sun or text) is absent,
sanctity (or stars or interpreters) appears in order to take his place. The
nature of this relationship is one in which the former nor- mally incorporates
the latter.
Our author
goes on to explain that sanctity, after the disappearance of Moses’ prophetic mission, will assert
itself and that his attendant has learned to act properly toward it.
The quality
of the saints among the Jews was, in the lifetime of Moses, incorporated into his quality.
Yet when his death approached, and the sun of his mission
disappeared behind the veil of his khalifa who would replace him, this khalifa
being his attendant with whom he went to see al-Kha∂ir, he [Moses] knew that the qualities of the saints would
appear in this attendant’s time. He [therefore] showed him what his treatment
of them should be when one of them appears during his [the attendant’s] rule.68
Thus the
attendant/khalifa has been taught how to deal with awliyå’ after the demise of the Prophet. >Al• Wafå’ restates the opening assertion that the lesson behind the
Qur’anic story is the relationship between walåya
and nubuwwa/ risåla: “He [Moses] united for him [the attendant] the two matters
of mission and sainthood . . . And he taught him that he must submit
esoterically to the saints, but if the law requires the rejection of something
of their acts, then he must reject it exoterically, so that those
not at their station will not imitate
their qualities.”69 The model of Moses’
reaction to the shocking acts of Kha∂ir is thus
one to be followed. The saint is to be accorded his authority, but actions
which transgress the law should be challenged.
So in these discussions of the relationship of sanctity to prophecy we have
seen >Al• Wafå’ characterize prophecy as a following of the divine
Command, while sainthood is described as “working in God.” The
implications of this distinction are not explored, but it is not hard to see
what is being indicated. Prophets are burdened
with a specific message, and their function
is to dissem- inate it to the community. Saints function not as
bearers of a Command but
rather as
the vehicle for the Command itself. Their actions are the form the message takes.
It is in the same vein that we are told the prophet has an earned insight, while the saint’s is
bestowed. Again, the assertion is
left unexplored, but the point
is an evocation of the view that prophets are chosen for their task according to their upstanding piety (and social
function), while saints
come in all shapes
and sizes. Sanctity
is bestowed according to God’s Will and cannot be anticipated by human
achievements.
We also saw, from the perspective of Moses’ attendant, that the quality
of sanctity is “in accord” with that of prophethood. This was explained
through the images of the sun incorporating the stars, the union of seas, and
the text holding all its interpretations. A picture is painted in which sanctity is a
lesser echo of prophecy. It is a stand-in for an original. The attendant’s lesson, after all, was
that both prophecy and sanctity are to be submitted to—the former through
adherence to the Law, and the latter esoterically.
Beyond this
treatment of the relation between walåya and
nubuwwa, for CAlī Wafā’ the figure
of al-Khaďir plays a yet more important role. Simply put, al-Khaďir is the spirit of walåya.
In his essence he is the inspiring
Spirit, while in his personification
he is usually al-Khaďir but may take other
forms. CAlī Wafā’s discussion of al-Khaďir and Moses now takes a significant turn. No longer is Moses simply
the prophet bearing
an exoteric revelation, but now his own
walåya is being addressed. This turn should
not surprise us since we have
seen the earlier discussions of Ibn CArabī and Muḳammad Wafā’ on this very point, that is, the presence
within a prophet / messenger of sanctity. This scheme
was addressed partly as a response
to the question of the superiority of prophecy
over sainthood. We saw that Ibn CArabī first argured that walåya is superior, but only within a single person; a prophet’s sanctity
is superior to his prophet- hood, but a saint is inferior
to a prophet. We also saw Muḳammad Wafā’s argu- ment for
this scheme, distinguishing between the two perspecives of esoteric and
exoteric walåya. In the following
discussion CAlī Wafā’ does not
repeat these discussions, he takes them for granted
and elaborates on the presence
of walåya in prophets and on
the content of this walåya.
Following the hierarchy of saints according to Ibn CArabī, CAlī Wafā’ asserts the presence in our physical world of two ever-living messengers, al-Khaďir and Ilyās.70 These two, we are told, are the “spirits
of inspiration” (arwå˙ al-ilhåm), while the angels Gabriel
and Michael are the spirits
of revelation (wa˙y).71 The only distinction offered between
al-Khaďir and Ilyās is that the former
is usu- ally seen as the result of spiritual
struggles (ÔHvˆh[¬), and the latter by spiritual
witnessing (ÔHvˆha¬).
However, this distinction apparently disappears for those
who have a “perfect
spirit, of both majesty and beauty.”72 Unfortunately the dis- tinction between
al-Khaďir and Ilyās is not developed, being all but abandoned
after this brief treatment.
Elsewhere
the reader is directed along a more fruitful line of speculation. The figure of
Moses reappears, but this time the concern is with his sanctity. First, the
point is made that “for each saint there is a Khaďir who personifies the spirit of his sanctity.
Likewise, for each prophet there is a form of Gabriel,
which personifies the spirit of his prophecy, and appears to his senses by his
own power.”73
CAlī Wafā’ seizes upon this al-Khaďir as the personification of sanctity. He introduces the Qur’anic term Trust (amåna)74 in order
to describe the presence of walåya within a prophet.
Know that
al-Khaďir is the manifestation
of what is hidden in the Trust of Moses, from the Spirit of Lordship.
Therefore, his [al- Khaďir’s]
external [acting] by which he manifested himself, was interpreted [in the Qur’ān] as belonging to the “footsteps” of Moses and his attendant
(hęˆ,hiũ) (Q. 18:64), while [al-Khaďir’s inner reality] is his being “one of the servants”
of the essential Secret of unification
and of the blessing of Nearness. (Q. 18:65)75
So the “Spirit of Lordship” is the animating force behind the Trust. Details
on this Spirit are sparse, but it must be assumed that it is part of
God’s participa- tion in the contract that is the Trust. The point is also made that al-Khaďir is the form taken by the exteriorized Spirit,
and as such appears as the “footsteps of Moses and his attendant,” that is,
appearing to them according to their own abilities to perceive. This point is echoed as the passage
continues:
The
Praiseworthy, Independent Ḥaqq,
disclosing Himself by this al- Khaďir to Moses and his attendant as He manifested Himself through His Spirit,
sending it down to Mary as a well-formed man, said, “They [Moses and the attendant] returned
along their footsteps” to its [the Spirit’s]
manifestation, by which He [had] manifested to her, so they
would perceive him [as she did], by their bodily senses, as a well- formed man: “So they found one of Our servants” [i.e. al-Khaďir] (Q. 18:65).76
Thus the
personification that is al-Khaďir is simply
one of many forms God has taken in His Self-disclosing communications to
humanity. Again, the point is made that the form taken by the Spirit depends on
the vision of its intended witness. The
personification of the Spirit is a sign fixed by him who would receive it.
In this passage CAlī Wafā’ goes on to mention that Moses’ opposition to al- Khaďir’s behaviour is due to this Trust. We are told that Moses “opposed
him [al-Khaďir] due to the nature of his [Moses’]
Trust, and treated
him as his
[Moses’] like.”77 From the human perspective of the Trust that Moses (and all others) has assumed, it is clear that if he were to treat al-Kha∂ir like one who is party to that contract, then objection
to his behavior would be necessary. Of course
in reality, the Spirit has not agreed to bear this Trust;
certainly God does not make contracts with Himself.
>Al• Wafå’ goes on to assert that this understanding between Moses and al- Kha∂ir is the result of the
Spirit’s explanation of the acts it carried out as al- Kha∂ir. This Spirit is the same as that which appeared to Moses
elsewhere.
When [Moses’] following [of al-Kha∂ir] ceased with
“the interpretation of that for which you were not able to have patience”
(Q. 18:78) from the governing of supremacy, because he [Moses] was at the level of the Trust, he [al-Kha∂ir] explained to him the [significance of the] events. The latter continued to unveil from the face of supremacy veils by his speech, “I wanted” (Q. 18:79) and “You made holes” (Q. 18:71). Then he said “We feared” (Q. 18:80) and “We wanted” (Q. 18:81), so that the secret
from its husk appeared to him [Moses]
by his [al-Kha∂ir’s] say- ing “Your Lord wanted that they
should reach maturity and get their treasure
out (from under the wall); a mercy from your Lord. I did not do it of my own accord” (Q. 18:82). Then it [the Spirit] informed
him, as it appeared
to him, by [the way he] put what he had done as coming by his own accord and none other.78 By this it was known that this man- ifestation
[of the Spirit] is “the interpretation of that for which you [Moses] were not able”—when it Self-disclosed upon the mountain— “to bear.” (Q. 18:78)79
And so the shift from the personification of the Spirit to the Spirit itself is iden- tified by the shift in language
from the first-person singular to the first-person
plural. This shift is also represented by the statement from al-Kha∂ir that he has not acted of his own accord, and the
interpretation supplied by the Spirit, acting on its own. This Spirit is in
fact the same Self-disclosure of God that had
previously overwhelmed Moses.80 The important difference is that here the Self-disclosure is mediated as an
interpretation; it is not al-Kha∂ir as an
actor but rather that which gives the true meaning of these acts.
>Al• Wafå’ follows this account with another example of the Spirit in a dif- ferent time
and place. Here it has taken the human form of the annunciating messenger to
Mary:
Likewise,
the Spirit of the esoteric dominion of Jesus’ Trust mani- fested to Mary as a well-formed man, saying according
to its personi- fication, “I am a messenger
from your Lord; to you will be the gift of
a holy son” (Q. 19:19). And He made
him a sign to the people and a
blessing from Him (cf. Q. 19:21).
This was a completed matter when
he unveiled for her the face of the Creator
( õm;¬), by saying,
“So [it will be]. Your Lord has said ‘For Me that is easy.’”
(Q. 19:21)81
This
additional example of a prophetic Trust underlines an essential point made in
the account of Moses. The distinction
is made between the personifi- cation delivering a message and the Spirit—in
its essential divine capacity— thereafter supplying the esoteric meaning. In
the case of both prophets, the Spirit is personified, the message it delivers
is challenged (by the doubting of Moses and Mary), and finally the Spirit
shifts into an exegetical mode for a resolution. This last mode is the Spirit as the divine Self-disclosure, and here it speaks as God in the first person.
In this exploration of the story of Moses and al-Kha∂ir, >Al• Wafå’ has pre- sented a significant insight
into the nature of walåya. The figure of al-Kha∂ir has been identified, along with other messengerlike figures,
as simply the exo-
teric element of the Spirit of dominion. This exoteric message leads to the
advent of the esoteric Self-disclosure, which is the Spirit in full presence.
The implication here is that walåya
has two realities to it when it appears in this world. The first, its exoteric reality, may be
confusing or straightforward, but its esoteric reality is that it represents a
Self-disclosure of God. This Self-dis- closing
Spirit, which >Al• Wafå’ elsewhere calls the “spirit
of saintly inspira- tion,” benefits both prophets and
saints alike. It may be that for each prophet there is a form of Gabriel and
for each saint a Kha∂ir, but as we have
seen, prophets also benefit
from one form or another
of al-Kha∂ir, and more specifi-
cally the Spirit of sanctity, which animates him.
In this discussion our author has laid out a portrait
of sanctity focusing
on the figure of al-Kha∂ir. In the
Qur’anic story Moses appears as the champion of exoteric knowledge, who is
taught a lesson on the esoteric by one “whom We have taught from Our Presence” (Q. 18:66). Yet in >Al• Wafå’s description above, Moses
is in the end accessing the spirit of walåya.
This spirit takes many forms. In fact its personification is determined by the one viewing it. In
summary, >Al• Wafå’ describes a mode of divine communication
parallel to that of revelation. This is usually called “inspiration” (ilhåm), but the significant point here
is its clear identification as the Self-disclosure of God.
The Seal of Sainthood
Although >Al• Wafå’ has presented some interesting reflections on al-Kha∂ir, walåya, and Self-disclosure, he does not appear to have devoted
the same cre- ative energy to the idea of the Seal of sainthood. Much as it was for his father, here the idea is accepted as common currency, and receives little direct attention.
Also, as we shall
see, there is more attention payed to whom this Seal might be than
there is to the nature
of the position.
While CAlī
Wafā’ does not take up the theory of the Seal, he does make occa- sional
mention of the office, comparing it to that of the Seal of the prophets. After
a discussion of the spheres of heaven, the prophets present in each, and the
kinds of revelation generated from each, we are told that along with each
revelation come leaders
and gnostics of an era to interpret that revelation. CAlī Wafā’ calls these gnostics “names.” They
are to be distinguished from the Lordly Names. We read,
And thus
with the masters of each time (waqt)
are appearances of names in addition to His Names. Their [the names’]
appearances in his [the master’s] time depend on whether his appearance is strong or weak.
As his appearance becomes strong, their appearance weakens; and as his appearance weakens, theirs strengthens. The Muḳammadan truth gave us a sign,
saying, “My companions are like the stars”82 for his appearance then was like that of the moon. His deputies and gnos-
tics were as numerous as the stars, but their appearance beside him was as that
of the stars beside the full moon. In the time (zaman) of the Seal of saints, there
is a wal• among the number [i.e.
the quintes- sence] of the saints
of all time, but the appearance of his command
is like the sun, while their
appearance beside him is like that of the stars with the sun.83
The point
is clear that as revelation is to be accompanied by its attendant sup- porters, so too the command
of the Seal of saints is supported
by lesser figures, that is, all previous saints. The
description of the gnostics becoming more or less apparent, depending on the presence
of their master,
is reminiscent of the
discussion we saw earlier in which prophecy
is described as the sun that hides the light of the stars/saints, but
here it is turned to the advent of the Seal of saints, who will (or at least
the wal• of his time will)
become the engulfing sun to those diminutive stars.84
This association of the Seal of prophets
with the Seal of saints is repeated in another discussion, in which CAlī Wafā’ describes an enemy for each prophet. In an echo
of the Qur’anic statement, “We have made for each prophet an enemy from among
the sinners” (Q. 25:31), various Antichrists (Dajjāl) are identified: for Moses there was Pharaoh, for Abraham there was Nimrod, for David,
Goliath. However, for the Seal of prophets and the Seal of saints there are no
such opponents, since their levels are unique.85 The
discussion is not carried further, but the essential point is the
identification of the unique posi- tion shared by the two Seals.86
This relationship between the two Seals is also described
as one in which the Seal of
sainthood stands in for the Prophet. We read,
The clear
Truth said, in His Muḳammadan
voice, by His necessary partner-in-speech (F“Hm©HIldg;ƒ) to the possible hearer, that, “If God willed, He would seal your heart.”
(Q. 42:24). (But)
if He wills, your divine existence
(Dˆ!!H ÚVm“M) is assigned
to the rule of the Seal of saints, sitting, by the Mercy of union,
upon your heart. [This Seal] exists thanks to the Seal of prophets
. . . in a realm in which each saint
arises from the heart of a prophet.87
Thus, if an individual is to become
a believer, God must place
him or her under the care
of the Seal of saints, who is in turn tied to the Seal of prophets. The passage continues
from here, commenting on a Qur’anic
passage dealing with the human desire to see God.
“Do they
wait” (Q. 2:210) that is, to see God so they know Him by their own eyes to be
God? “Only so God comes to them” that is, He appears to them so they can know
Him. “In the shadows of the clouds” which are His becoming (a˚m…) the master of the Divine Seal, who exists thanks to the proofs of
His elucidations [text unclear] . . . “The angels” are the forms
of His Lordly Wise Rulings.
“The matter is thus decided”
that is, finished. “And to God all things return” in this encompassing
fulfilling Seal.88
This passage
is rather elusive,
but the Seal here (whether
he be of prophecy or sanctity) plays an important
theophanic role. As the ultimate
seal he represents the Divine through proofs and elucidations.
Another
brief mention is made of the two Sealhoods elsewhere. The prophet Muḳammad said to CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, “You are my brother in this world and the next.”89 to which CAlī Wafā’ adds, “That is,
in the time of the Seal of prophecies and the time of the Seal of sainthoods.”90 An
identification is being made here of the Seal of prophets as this
worldly, and the Seal of saints as other worldly. We shall see shortly why CAlī Wafā’ would link the
afterlife with the era of the Seal of sainthood. The implication that CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib is the Seal of sainthood is also significant here.
Before moving
on, we should take note of the figure of CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
Although the explicit doctrines of ShīCism (e.g., the role of Imāms, resentment of
the first three caliphs as usurpers) are absent from the writings of both Muḳammad and CAlī
Wafā’, it should be said that their reverence for CAlī, who
has always
been held in high esteem
by most Sunni
sufis, is clear.
Drawing on
hadith literature, the following is representative of the role played by CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib among the Wafā’s.
In the hadith [it is said] “Abū Bakr is from me at the station of hearing,
and CUmar at the station
of seeing.” He [Muḳammad] accepted from CUthmān the pledge of
allegiance by his noble hand. He said, “By God, this is the hand of CUthmān.”91 So CUthmān is of him at the sta- tion of the hand. He (Muḳammad) said, “Nothing is said on my behalf, save by myself or CAlī.”92 for CAlī
is his tongue, and the tongue is the elite station
for a speaker. Thus, said CAlī, “I am the greatest
of the upright (ṣiddīq),” that
is, he who is truthful to the Muḳammadan
Truth; “and none says this after me except a liar.”93
These reports
present a picture
in which CAlī is clearly
more than simply
one of the caliphs.
He is the intimate of the Muḳammadan Reality. In the Sunnī con- text, one would certainly expect this ṣiddīq akbar to be Abū Bakr and not CAlī.94
There are a
few other references to CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib in the same vein throughout the writings of CAlī Wafā’. Of these,
one that goes beyond identify- ing CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib simply
as the Prophet’s intimate is a passage
that alludes to the Seal of Muḳammadan sainthood. ShaCrānī’s editing, however, is probla-
matic. CAlī Wafā’ is reported to
have said,
Verily, CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib was raised as Jesus was raised,95
and like- wise he will descend as Jesus will. And I [al-ShaCrānī] have said on this matter:
CAlī al-Khawwā? [d. after 941/1543]
said, “Verily, Noah preserved from the Ark a plank with the name CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib on it,
riding upon it to heaven. It remains preserved in the Chest of power until CAlī is raised.” God knows best of all this.96
Again, although
we would like our author
to expand on this point,
we can nev- ertheless follow his inferences. It is clear that in
claiming CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib was not killed
in 661 A.D., but rather
raised alive to God, CAlī Wafā’ is going beyond what would be expected of a non-ShīCite sufi. This assertion that both
Jesus and CAlī will
return—presumably at the end of time and as the Seal of general sainthood—is a
conflation of the Sunni and ShīCite positions.97 Also, the question must be asked as
to how one office may be held by two separate figures. Perhaps our author is
assigning the role of Messiah to one and that of the Seal of general
sainthood to the other. This analysis is only conjecture and would need to be confirmed by further evidence. The
quotation that follows, ostensibly from CAlī al-Khawwā?, is colorful
and certainly sounds pro-CAlid. The significant statement here is that CAlī will some day be raised to God, pre-
Sanctity according to ’Alī Wafā’ 145
sumably
after the Resurrection. This, however, is at odds with the original claim that CAlī was not killed and has already been raised. The quotation from CAlī al-Khawwā? seems to miss entirely the point intended by ShaCrānī. Leaving aside CAlī al-Khawwā?, for more detail on all this we should look to CAlī Wafā’s own writings. From a reconstruction of ShaCrānī’s sources (here the Waṣāyā of CAlī Wafā’) it is clear that his account
is only partially accurate. In its original, the passage ShaCrānī is paraphrasing mentions the return of Jesus and CAlī but is silent on either one being raised.
This discussion begins
with a recognition that the
soul (nafs) lives on after the death
of the body, awaiting the command to “return,” one assumes as part of the Day of Ressurection. CAlī Wafā’ then says,
“This is the Return (raja’a) by which
are awaited the like- nesses of Jesus and CAlī.”98 ShaCrānī’s presentation seems to be making an effort at solving a problem he sees in the original
passage. The problem
is that this Return has been
mentioned in light of general statements on the soul’s continued existence after death. It is clear to us now that ShaCrānī wanted to put a sharper point
on the matter. He did this first
by taking the satements on Jesus
and CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib out of context; second by completing the drama with a
bodily raising. The second is not a
far reach for the reader, due to the Islamic doctrine of the prophet Jesus
having been raised whole. For what he thought would be good measure, ShaCrānī has padded his presentation with a quote from his shaykh.
Despite this creative editing, it must be noted that CAlī
Wafā’s own position is only mildly pro-CAlid. This apocalyptic appearance of the “likenesses of Jesus and CAlī” is a refence to the
final Seal(s) of sainthood; a reference that does not hold CAlī to have been taken up like Jesus.
It does, how- ever, leave the door open to CAlī playing some part in the End time.
Unfortu- nately, this seems to be the only mention CAlī Wafā’ makes of CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib in this context. His use of the term “likeness” (mathal) is unusual and intriguing.99
Despite this
association of Jesus and CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib with the great “Return,” the question of the identity
of the Seal of saints is answered defini- tively by CAlī Wafā’ elsewhere in a number of places.
We shall see below that CAlī Wafā’ identifies himself as the holder of this office, arguing that the cycles of great
saints have come to an end with him. Before turning to these discus- sions, however,
we should note a few other passages
that deal directly
with the identity of the Seal, without touching
on these cycles.
At the end of the follow-
ing passage CAlī Wafā’ is identified as the Seal of saints,
but in getting to this identification the lofty position he
accords to this Seal in relation to the pre- Muḳammadan prophets is noteworthy.
Assenting (taṣdīq) is a quality;
and most of what occurs
by this qual- ity is according to seeing or
reporting. Verification (taИqīq) is
the quality which as a primary
certitude is not by acts of observation by
the senses,
nor by the intellects. This is like the faith of Abū Bakr and CUmar, which had no need of a
[miraculous] “breaking of the norm” or investigation. The Seal of the prophets said to Abū Bakr “I am the
Messenger of God” (cf. Q. 7:158). He [Abū Bakr] found cer- tainty in this, and accepted it. And CUmar heard al-Ḥaqq say to him, “To Him belongs
that which is in the heavens and the earth,
and what is between them and
what is under the soil.” (Q. 20:6). He too found certainty in this, and
accepted it. This is Assenting of Verification, and not Assenting by
demonstration. This has occured for none of the followers of the prophets,
except for the elect [followers] of the Seal of prophets. Likewise this occured
for none of the followers of the saints, except the followers of the Seal of
saints, since he [the Seal of saints] is upon the heart of the Seal of
prophets. The elite are on the heart
of the elite. So the companions of the Seal of prophets have Verification, and
the companions of the prophets who were sealed are all in [a state of] Assenting, while the companions of the
Seal of saints are in Verification.
I was told, in 795 AH, the following: “O CAlī, the companions of the saints are all in Assenting, while your companions are in Verifica- tion. God is the Most-high and
Most-knowing.100
Assenting is defined as that which
is seen or reported, in other words,
the reli- gious Law or prophetic admonitions. In distinction, Verification is the unseen
quality of the saints. The stress here is on the contrast
between the realm
of the seen, ordinary
acquired knowledge (i.e. prophetic), and that of the unseen, intuitive, special
knowledge (i.e. saintly). The companions
of the Prophet did not need the exoteric evidentiary proof of a “breaking of
the norm,”101 rather, by Verification they were connected to him. This spiritual association is unique to the
companions of the Seals of prophecy and sainthood. The status thus accorded
the companions of the Seal of sainthood is superior, at least spiritually,
to that of the companions of pre-Muḳammadan prophets. It is worth
repeating that the Sealhoods
share an esoteric
reality—which as we also saw in the above
discussions of al-Khaďir and Moses, is walåya. As for the identity of the Seal of saints, the short statement which puts into parallel the followers of CAlī
Wafā’ with those of the Prophet,
points clearly to him as the Seal of sainthood.
However, making
this relatively clear picture more cloudy, elsewhere
we find Muḳammad Wafā’ described as
the “Master of the Greatest Seal.” This term is peculiar, since from the
context it is clearly equivalent to the office of the Seal of saints. CAlī Wafā’ tells us,
In reality our teacher is the Master of the Greatest Seal (LjrH Fπh∑
Lz¨!H), and al-Shādhilī along with all the other saints [before] are sim-
ply the
soldiers of his kingdom, followers of his lead. Surely he who is among the troops is not the one in command!
It is our teacher who commands; he is not subject to command in the other
circles [either], since he is
the secret of the Seal of the prophets, and the inheritor of his perfection. As all the prophets are followers of their Seal, . . . like- wise all the saints are followers
of, and are guided by, their Seal.102
The
description of Muḳammad Wafā’ as the
inheritor of the perfection of the Prophet clearly echoes the earlier
identification of the two Sealhoods as the exclusive sources for Verification. Noteworthy also is the assertion
here that as the
Seal of prophecy
encompasses all previous
nubuwwa, so the Seal of saint- hood encompasses all previous walåya.
The Seal and the Renewer
of Religion
We saw in our discussions of walåya from Ibn CArabī and Tirmidhī that sanc- tity
may be seen to have a linear progression. That
is, nubuwwa is established in two
forms (tashr•> and >åmma),
the former being sealed before the latter; walåya, in its two forms (Muḳammadiyya and åmma) is also sealed
at sequen- tial points
in history. This scheme, as we have seen, is adopted incompletely by both the father Wafā’ and his son. One problem, from their perspective as later inheritors of
Ibn CArabī, was surely
this linear aspect of walåya, which
had identified Ibn CArabī as the Seal of Muḳammadan sainthood, leaving only Gen- eral sainthood to be
sealed by Jesus, marking the apocalypse. How was CAlī Wafā’ to situate himself and his saintly father within this universe? Muḳammad Wafā’, having been held up as superior to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī, certainly merited a loftier station than
one that simply put him in the line somehere between the Seal of Muḳammadan sainthood and the final Seal of General sainthood. We saw at the end of chapter
5 that Muḳammad Wafā’ inserted the tradition of the Renewer of religion
into the equation of walåya, while at
the same time blurring the categories of general and Muḳammadan sainthood, resulting in a cyclical walåya championed by seven great saints,
to be com- pleted by an eighth. This is modeled
on the seven prophets of the seven levels
of heaven visited by the Prophet in his ascension. CAlī Wafā’ takes up his father’s
arguments, refining and updating the final cycle.
Also, he relies
on the Renewer-of-religion tradition to make the time line cyclical, but ending at one
point. Like his father, he also seems to abandon any clear distinction between
General and Muḳammadan sainthood.
CAlī Wafā’ presents his interpretation of the cycles of sanctity in
two places. In the first he opens with a description of the seven heavens, each
of which is home to a prophet:
It is said
in the hadith of Muḳammad’s night journey (isrå) that he found Adam in the first heaven, the sphere of
the moon . . . It men- tions that he found in each heaven one of the ‘¥l• al->azm (holders of resolution) i.e. the seven messengers.
They are Adam, Noah, Abra- ham, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus. It also mentions that he found Adam,
Abraham, Moses and Jesus in person, while the guarantors are also mentioned:
Idrīs for Noah, . . . Joseph for David, Aaron for Solomon.103
The sequence
of prophets given here is identical to that given by Muḳammad Wafā’ in his
discussion of the cycles of prophecy.104 There,
however, the prophets were not identified as the inhabitants of the seven
heavens. These three guarantors mentioned, in the usual account of the
Prophet’s ascension, are prophets occupying their own heavens.
Unfortunately CAlī Wafā’ does not elaborate on their roles. A detailed
study of the medieval mi>råj literature would allow
us to comment on the significance of these figures.
At this point, our author goes on to say that the
various commands and laws sent down through each of these prophets are
particular to that prophet’s time and place, that is, to the receptive capacity
of the audience.105 Later, he describes how the
divine Command present in each cycle of the seven prophets is subsumed by the Command
descended to the following cycle. We are told that each prophet’s
message is included
in, and abrogated by, that of his successor. Significantly, in this description the Seal of the prophets
is followed by the Seal of saints.
Thus what
descended to Noah includes what came down to Adam, and a special addition. Likewise Abraham [included
all that was] with
Noah, and Moses that of Abraham, David that of Moses, Solomon that of David,
Jesus that of Solomon, since he includes all that pre- ceded him, along with
his special addition. Then came Muḳammad as the
Seal of prophecies, according to the benefiting dispositions of the eighth
sphere of stars, the sphere of [God’s] Footstool. He came with everything those
before him had, but with a special addition, as he came as Seal of saints
bringing what is suitable for the benefiting disposition from the ninth sphere of Aṭlas,106 the sphere
of the Throne. Because he brought a governing suitable for the
governing of the sphere of the fixed stars, and they [the earlier prophets] brought accord-
ing to the governings of the spheres
of the planets, their laws are sub- ject to abrogation, while his [the
Prophet’s] is not.107
So the
succession of prophets, each bearing a divine communication, contin- ued down
to the time of the Prophet, being included therein and thus abro- gated. Mention
is made of the Prophet
here in two aspects; the first, located
in
the sphere
of the Footstool, represents his prophetic function,
while the second, at the ninth sphere (that of the immutable
Throne), represents his saintly func- tion. From here CAlī Wafā’ explains that the eighth
sphere is the mediator of all
divine Aid or Command coming from the
ninth. He also tells us that through the ninth sphere, the Prophet is the
source of all sanctity.
Since the
quality of the ninth sphere is inseparable from the esoteric of the quality of
the eighth sphere, then Muḳammad, the
Seal of prophethoods, reaches the [position of] opener of sainthoods, announc-
ing the immutable Verification. His time contains what all earlier times
contain, for the learned of his community are like the prophets of other times.108
We see here the distinction between
Muḳammad’s prophetic and saintly roles, being represented as different
spheres. This discussion does not develop the point much, but it is clear that the Prophet’s walåya is
superior to his nubuwwa. CAlī Wafā’ now introduces the notion of the Renewer of religion,
with the result that these prophets come to be represented by a pole every century.
Each prophet—according to the Wafā’ roster, and not that of the traditonal accounts of the Prophet’s ascension—has had an identifiable representative at one time
on earth, with that of Muḳammad being
the last.
“God raises
at the start of each century one who renews
for this com- munity its religion.” Understand, each
century a pole comes down with a quality
(L…π) appropriate to the predisposition of the people
of his time. It is known thereby that the poles are equivalent to the
“holders of resolution,” and that they [the poles] are their [the prophets’]
inheritors. The first [pole] corresponds to Adam and was sent down on the day of the Farewell
pilgrimage;109 for time on [that] day turned back to a situation
[like that of the] day God created the heavens
and the earth. And the master of the second century is on the heart of Noah . . . and likewise [are
the poles] from one-hundred to eight-hundred years, until the Muḳammadan pole, the Seal of the saints . . . The teacher
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī [d. 658 AH] was the
pole of the seventh time; and the great completing speaker came down as the
Seal of sainthoods in the eighth time.110
Thus the
Renewer of religion presented at the head of each century is here identified as the pole. These poles, as we saw in Ibn CArabī and elsewhere, are described as the inheritors of their particular prophets. It
is interesting to see here CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib alluded to as the first pole, identified with Adam. CAlī Wafā’ also identifies
directly the pole of the seventh time, al-Shādhilī.111 The
Muḳammadan pole, the Seal of saints, is not named,
but he is described as the
“great completing speaker”
(DªhėmJHLЫ¨!HRƄhiJH). The last adjective is an uncom- mon modifer in Sufi
terminology, so it seems likely that it has been chosen specifically to evoke the name Wafā’. The fact that Muḳammad Wafā’ died in 765 A.H. also makes him the most
likely candidate as the Renewer of the “eighth time.”112
Elsewhere we
read of the seven prophets sealed by an eighth, and seven poles sealed by their
eighth. This passage begins with the
hadith report of the Renewer:
“God raises,
at the start of every one-hundred years, a man by whom He renews this religion.” This man is
the pole. We also read in the hadith that, “God places each saint upon the heart
of a prophet.” The
“holders of resolution” are the poles of the prophets, and they are seven, with
Muḳammad as their Seal, the eighth. As for the poles of the saints,
the eighth is their Seal,
and is upon the heart
of the Seal of prophets.113
Here again,
the identification is made of the Renewer
as the pole.114 It appears that the “holders of resolution” are
the seven prophets we saw in the passage quoted above. They are described here as “the poles of the prophets.” This may be an unusual choice
in terminology, but from the context it is clear
who these individuals are. Perhaps the term is used because
it echoes well the phrase
pole of the saints. Again,
the prophets are sealed by Muḳammad, their eighth,
while their appointed saints
are sealed by an eighth
also. At this point in the text,
CAlī Wafā’ embarks upon some rather convoluted calculations, switching back and forth between lunar and solar years,
in a reckoning that ends with the current date, that is, 799 a.h.,
as the beginning of the final century. This century will be followed by the
appearance of the Dajjāl and the
Mahdi. We are told,
For each of them [the poles]
there are one-hundred years by a reckon-
ing of 360 days. This hundred years began its cycle three months before his [the Prophet’s] death.115 Writing this, we are in the morning
of the fourth of RabīC al-Ākhir, year 799 by lunar reckoning . . . When
this, the eighth time, ends, the ninth appears, and is the century of the
signs of the Hour. Its [the Hour’s]
signal is the full appearance of the Mahdi, and the
Dajjāl leaves and Jesus
appears. The sun rises in the West, and the people receive what the Truthful
[i.e. God] has promissed them [in Scripture of the hereafter], so they come to
see. And this is extended over two-hundred years;
the first is the Muḳam- madan century, and the second is the century of Jesus.
By this, this
[prophetic]
cycle (dawr) ends and a new one
arrives, in which the [divine] Commands are realized.116
Apparently CAlī Wafā’ is writing at
the end of the eighth time and is about to witness the start of the century of
the signs of the End of Time. These signs include the appearance of the Mahdi,
Dajjāl, and Jesus.117 Elsewhere we are told that the eighth
century will produce a saint of Muḳammadan
sainthood and that the “second time” (zaman
thån•) will only begin after the turn of the ninth century.118 It should be noted here that CAlī Wafā’ has followed
his father in treating the
Renewer tradition as an eschatological schedule. In light of the
Landau-Tasseron study, this treatment is unusual if not unique
to the teachings of Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’. As noted in the previous chapter,
this theory of cyclical time is reminiscent of IsmāCīlī doctrine.119
We saw in the previous chapter
that Muḳammad Wafā’s reckoning of the
centuries, as CAlī’s calculations do, point to himself as a fulfillment of the eighth cycle and thus a sign of the End. CAlī Wafā’, in a dramatic allusion to his father’s eschatological import, describes an earthquake at the time of his birth (at the start of the eighth century
hijra), which marked the descent
of the Word by the “Seal
of the circle of the sainthood of oneness.” The event is described thus:
The greatest
and loftiest of words is the Word (kalima)
of the Lord of the single Muḳammadan existence, which was revealed
with the Seal of the circle of the sainthood of
oneness, since that is its [essential] meaning. It is the fulfilling word (]∂m†M
]lg…) which when it was revealed
to the earth through the generative laying down of an existentiating inspiration (hd˚hd… hdπM) in the pre-dawn
of Thursday the third of Dhū al-Ḥijja, 702 AH, the entire earth quaked at the time of the CĪd prayer120 on that day. This was as al-Ḥaqq informed [us],
in the sura, which the Perfect Sayyid called the Announcer . . . [text unclear]
And he made it as half of the
Qur’an as he compared himself to a brick in the prophetic house.
God said, “When
the Earth is shaken to its [utmost] convulsion, and the Earth throws
up its burdens [from within], and humanity cries [distressed]: “What is the matter with it?” On that Day will it declare its tidings; for that
thy Lord will have given it inspira- tion. On that Day will men proceed in
companies sorted out, to be shown the deeds that they [have done] . . . (Q.
99:1–6).121
This description matches closely the statement, quoted
at the end of chapter
5 above, made by Muḳammad Wafā’ to the effect
that “the master
of the eighth time is the Seal of the age, and the eye of total union,
the abode of the Great Tiding.” Here, the Word descends
with the Seal of sainthood, being somehow
the circle
of sainthood’s meaning.
The character of this Word is interesting, as it is a generative inspiration—having produced Muḳammad Wafā’—which will descend
to earth again at the end of Time. We may understand this gener- ative
character as the force that has produced the Seal on the third of Dhū al- Ḥijja.122 Unfortunately CAlī Wafā’ does not here expand on the title Perfect Sayyid, but it
would seem to be the prophet Muḳammad since
he has com- pared himself to a brick in the prophetic house.123 The Seal of sainthood, at least according to Ibn CArabī, would have been represented by two bricks,
one silver and one gold.124 The text itself is unclear, but this verse of the apocalyp-
tic earthquake seems to be to revelation what the prophet Muḳammad was to prophecy. Nevertheless, the passage is clearly tying together the Word, the Seal of
saints, the date 702 a.h., and the beginning of the End.
CAlī Wafā’ returns to this apocalyptic reckoning elsewhere. He describes a hidden Seal of sainthoods who appears
in 702 a.h. and signals a final era, which will be closed by a “coming of God.” We are told that the Seal of saint-
hoods (or Geatest seal) is an “unseen” that was not manifested at the time of
the Prophet. This manifestation occurs only in the “time of sainthoods,” with the “completing” (]∂h†m©H) sainthood manifesting itself in 702 a.h. This marks an era that will end in 823 a.h. “The time of this most holy manifestation is fixed by God. The years
of this manifestation are counted as the Seven
oft-repeated and the suras of the Qur’ān ; that is, 121 (i.e. 7+114). 702 plus 121 gives 823
a.h. Then God will come after this, as He wills, for ‘God is All-encompassing and All-knowing.’”125 In al-Masåmi> al-rabbåniyya (65a)
the year 823 is also reached, but through a much more
convoluted reckoning. Nevertheless, this speculation on the era of the Great
seal proved to be inaccurate. As we
know, CAlī Wafā’ died in 807 a.h.,
his brother Shihāb al-Dīn in 814, and the third khalifa of the order, Abū al-Fatḳ Muḳammad, in 852. The reference to Muḳam- mad Wafā’s birthday in 702 is clear, but why CAlī Wafā’ would have his calcu- lations point to 823 a.h.
remains a mystery.
As we saw
earlier, CAlī Wafā’s interpretation of the Renewer, combined with the cycle
of eight prophets and their saintly poles, not surprisingly, pointed to himself
as the final seal. His calculations were made as of the year 795 a.h.,
but we also have an account of a dramatic inspiration received four years
later. He says,
I received
an inspiration (ilhåm) in the year
799 a.h., which was not from my imagination, which said, “O CAlī, We have chosen you to
resurrect the souls from the tombs of their bodies. If We have com- manded you,
then take heed!” “And follow not the desires of those who know not. They will be of no use to you in the sight of God. It is only wrongdoers [that stand as]
protectors (awliyå’), one to another,
but God is the Protector (wal•) of
the righteous” (Q. 45:18–19).126
Sanctity according to ’Alī Wafā’ 153
This resurrecting makes little sense
on its own unless it is read in light
of CAlī Wafā’s earlier claims to being the Seal of sainthood and final
Renewer. If the ninth “time” is the last, then its Renewer certainly
must play an important role. While in the hereafter humanity will
be resurrected in both body and soul, according to this inspiration CAlī Wafā’ will raise the souls from their bodies. This statement is dramatic in its
resonances, but without further direct com- ment on the nature
of this “resurrecting,” it may best be taken
metaphorically, as a reference to the spiritual mission of the Seal or
the Renewer.
Also suggestive of an apocalyptic drama is the title Lord of Time, or ṢāИib al-Zamān. This title, usually
reserved for the awaited Hidden Imām of the
Twelver ShīCa, is certainly unexpected in a Sunnī context.127 The Hidden Imām may also be referred to as the “Mahdi.”128 However, CAlī Wafā’ does not use
the epithet in the context
of the signs of the End of Time. During
a discussion of the variety of forms in creation, the Lord of Time is described as the catalyst for the First Intellect: “The First Intellect
is the Rational faculty of the Lord of
Time. The effusor of the forms [of creation] is his sensory
spirit. The rest of the [lower] levels are to be similarly
understood.”129 By this characterization, the Lord of Time is indeed the primary mode of differentiation for the One moving
into the realm of the Many. This function is identical to that of the Muḳam- madan Reality. In the same vein is the following
presentation of the Lord of Time, but here an aspect of progression is added.
The Lord of
each Time is to his people a self-disclosure of their encompassing existence
by the entity that is his discerning truth . . . He is in his essence
(bi-’aynihi) their Necessary, and they his possibilities
. . . The Lord of each Time is greater
than what was self-disclosed to the
Lord of Time before him . . . thus one is prostrated to by the people
of his time, yet he in turn prostrates to the Lord of Time who is after him.130
The only other use of “Lord of Time” I have found in the writings of CAlī Wafā’ is in line with this usage.
We are told in a wider discussion of the Signs of God, “The Lord of every Time is God’s greatest Sign therein, for
his existent is the greatest Sign by which His existence appears there.”131 There is no clearly appocalyptic
element here. At most one might argue that the Mahdi/Lord of Time would certainly command
this role described, but the passage
is treating not a single event (or even person), but rather, the forms of the Muḳammadan Reality or perhaps even the Seals of sainthood.
In a similar vein is CAlī Wafā’s use of another epithet,
the Master of Time (ṢāИib al-waqt). This figure appears
to have no function beyond
that we have seen ascribed elsewhere to the pole of the age.132 In
the following passage
he is noted for his unique
access to God and his spiritual superiority. We read,
Know that
the Heralding Reality in each age is the Master of its/his Time. “Say: My way
is to supplicate to God in sureness; I and those who follow me.” (Q. 12:108)
Its mark is that their elucidations and their accounts are by his unveiling and elucidation. He is distinguished
from them by the fact that they have no way to it without
His Aid and Effusion.133
The “Master
of Time” (i.e., the Prophet
in this case) provides the followers of religion with understanding that is normally
beyond their reach. He is, like the most
general understanding of the power
of a saint, the channel
for beneficent divinity.
Another use of “Master
of Time” is one that describes Reality
progressing through various “Times.” We are told that in each Time a
Master is present both esoterically and exoterically, but the Time following this brings either an
interpretation or inspiration that provides the given esoteric with an
exoteric. Thus, the Master of each Time is a new insight upon the previous
Master, or form of Reality. First, this gnostic has an esoteric and an exoteric
element,
The interpretation (ta’w•l) of the former
is the sending-down (tanz•l) of the latter, and likewise for the Master
of each Time. His exoteric
is the esoteric of the Master of the preceeding Time. This is because all of them are one Reality appearing at
each Time as the meaning according to the perfections of the preparedness of
that Time134 .
. . [Thus] the clear
Reality is self-determined at each Time according to the perfections of that Time.135
The significance of the Master of the Time is that he openly represents the spir- itual message
of the previous form taken by the Reality. It appears according
to the capacity of every time, and the Master of that Time is its
esoteric reality. For our purposes,
the important point here is that the “Master of Time” is used
here by >Al• Wafå’ for a figure
who functions to differentiate the oneness of Reality. This is at odds with its use elsewhere (particulary the Sh•>ite context)
signaling a specific figure in the drama of the Apocalypse.
❊
By way of a
short concluding remark, we note first in this chapter the attention paid by >Al• Wafå’ to the notions of
Oneness and differentiation. While holding to the basic tenent that there is no
true reality beyond that of God, the Necessary, recognition must also be made
of His Self-disclosure. These two realms, while categorically exclusive, must
be simultaneously upheld. This is the challenge of a mystical vision of the
“All.” We also saw rather dramatic development of the relationship between the spiritual
guide
Sanctity according to >Al• Wafå’ 155
and his
follower. The existential reality of the shaykh was of primary impor- tance here. This teacher
not only reflects
the divine Self-disclosures, but what is more
important, he is a door for the follower to his own share in Necessary
existence. The follower may find the Eternal in himself, but this, strangely
enough, is not a short path. In fact, it is only through the teacher that he
may find this in himself. We also saw that >Al• Wafå’s understanding of sanctity is very much tied up with the idea of
prophecy. He distinguishes between the prophet carrying the Command and the
saint acting as the medium of that Command. Beyond this, he takes up the figure
of al-Kha∂ir, whom he identi-
fies as a form of the Spirit of inspiration. This Spirit addresses the walåya of both saints and prophets.
And finally, of a more practical concern,
we saw that
>Al• Wafå’, like his father
before him, claims
to be the Seal of sainthood. By using
the tradition of the Renewer
of religion, he builds up a cyclical
interpre- tation of this Sealhood and ties it into the signs of the End
of Time.
Conclusion
The goal of this study has been to explore the idea of sainthood as it developed within the mystical philosophy of Muḳammad and >Al• Wafå’. For these two
eighth/fourteenth-century Cairene sufis
the idea of sanctity was important, yet we have seen that a number of related
concepts serve as a supporting frame- work. A qualified “Oneness of Being,” God’s Self-disclosure, the nature of spiri-
tual guidance, and the cycles of the centuries are all elements tying
together a conceptual web.
We saw that
this father and son were uniquely positioned between the school of Ibn >Arab• and the sufi order of the Shådhiliyya. In general,
we may say that Wafå’ mystical thought
represents an integration of the Akbarian
con- cept of sainthood into the tradition of order-based sufism. This
Wafå’iyya order
was at once a branch
of the Shådhiliyya and a continuation of the school of mystical speculation established by Ibn >Arab•. More specifically, this new order served as a vehicle for the elaboration of Ibn >Arab•’s theories on saint- hood. Not only did the Wafå’s expand on the theoretical dimensions of walåya,
but they also used it to define and advance their own claims to sanctity. The
shift from theory into detailed identifications and theories on the End repre-
sents a turning point in the history of the Akbarian tradition and a departure
from that of the early Shådhiliyya. The Wafå’ hybrid also
marks an introduc- tion of Akbarian
sanctity into tar•qa-based sufism.
The Akbarian philosophy embraced by the Wafå’s, however, did not lead to an open incorporation of Ibn >Arab• into the wider Shådhiliyya order. The early Shådhiliyya was neither hostile to nor enthusiastically supportive of Ibn >Arab•. Historically,
this ambiguous posture seems to have persisted. Further study would be needed of the transmission of Ibn >Arab•’s teachings among latter
medieval mystics
for us to judge the wider importance of the Wafā’s as trans- mitters. It is hoped
this research, through
exploring walåya and its related con- cepts within the Wafā’iyya, has made this next step possible.
As we saw,
the Wafā’iyya both distinguished itself from the Shādhiliyya order and honored
its founder, al-Shādhilī. In the hagiographical accounts, the second khalifa
of that order is made to recognize
Muḳammad Wafā’s spiritual
superiority, while CAlī Wafā’ himself names al-Shādhilī as the pole of his age.
Elsewhere, however, al-Shādhilī is clearly subordinated as foot soldier
under a Wafā’ spiritual command. This ambiguous relationship (at once drawing recog- nition from,
yet claiming to surpass) is to be expected in light of what the Wafā’iyya was itself.
The most accurate
characterization would be to describe the Wafā’iyya as a mix of the Akbarian and Shādhilite traditions. The
former brought with it refined concepts of ontology and sanctity (along with a liberating
hermeneutic style), while the latter
supplied the important initiatic and spiritual credentials associated with
affiliation to the early Shādhilī shaykhs. Muḳam- mad Wafā’ not so much cut himself off from his Shādhilite shaykh Ibn Bākhilā but rather
left him behind when he decided to initiate his own new branch of the Shādhiliyya, one that included an Akbarian perspective.
The full
implications of the Wafā’s for later sufism will have to be taken up in later
research, since our goal here has been the more preliminary one of fully describing their teachings. We saw
in our first chapter that the roots of spec- ulation on sanctity were
set early on in the writings of the third/ninth-century figure al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī. His was the first sustained effort at fleshing out the
levels of sainthood. In his model, the Seal of saints crowned a hierarchy
consisting of the “True saints of God,” under whom there were the “Saints of
God’s Truth.” With Ibn CArabī four centuries later, the Seal of saints
took on a new dimension. The key
innovation here was the introduction of a “Univer- sal prophecy” distinct from
the usual “Legislative prophecy.” The
Seal of the latter was the prophet Muḳammad, but
the former, which is itself divided into
Universal and Muḳammadan sanctity, is
sealed first by Ibn CArabī him- self and then finally by the
returning apocalyptic Jesus. This concept of a Universal prophecy served as a
bridge between the realms of sanctity and prophecy. In short, it extended the
idea of sanctity upward, making it an inte- gral element of prophecy (i.e.,
sanctity is present within prophecy as its Uni- versal ahistorical form).
Our
attention then turned to the early Shādhiliyya and
its understanding of walåya,
particularly through the writings of Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī and his little-studied follower
Ibn Bākhilā. The former was certainly the most
important elaborator of the theory
of sanctity for the order.
His understanding of walåya was based on a two-tiered model,
which distinguished between Greater and Lesser
walåya. These categories resembled those presented by al-
Tirmidhī, in that they represent a walåya divinely bestowed
and a walåya
achieved through
spiritual self-discipline. Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh’s formulation, how- ever, stresses that in its lesser
form walåya exists potentially in
everyone and that one’s spiritual progress is the measure of the development of one’s Lesser walåya.
We saw that Ibn Bākhilā’s contribution to the theory
of sainthood centered around the idea of God’s Self-disclosure (tajall•) taking various
forms, depend- ing on the perspective of the viewer. Thus both revelation to prophets and inspi- ration
to saints are one in essence. The
specific form of this Self-disclosure is determined by the function
held by him who receives
it, an insight that would be
echoed by Muḳammad Wafā’. Ibn Bākhilā’s understanding of sainthood is rooted in this insight,
as is his explanation of the different functions and levels of supplication.
This discussion of the early Shādhiliyya concluded that these formulations served to extend the
prophetic role into the postprophetic world through the saints. That is, the saints inherit
from the messengers and prophets, serving
as their substitutes. In fact, their function is to make known the
communications from the Muḳammadan Reality—of course
not in its legal or literal forms,
but rather from its esoteric side.
For the sake of comparison, we characterized this as
a downward movement
of the function of prophecy. Sanctity is thus here the lesser continuation of prophecy. In contrast, we characterized Ibn CArabī’s system as an upward extension
of walåya; the central
insight here being that walåya is an integral part of prophecy.
In chapter 5
we saw that Muḳammad Wafā’ follows Ibn CArabī in some important ways. He describes two kinds of sanctity. One he characterizes as exo-
teric (Moseslike) and the other as esoteric
(Khaďir-ian). These two forms reflect the distinction made by
Ibn CArabī between
Legislative prophecy (nubuwwa tashr•>) and Universal prophecy (nubuwwa
>åmma or walåya). Further, Muḳam- mad Wafā’ follows Ibn CArabī’s argument that the former is superior to the latter, when both are considered within one person;
however, Legislative prophecy
is superior when in one person it is compared to the Universal prophecy
present in another individual. Yet Muḳammad Wafā’ does differ significantly in that he does not adopt the distinction between
the two kinds of nubuwwa >åmma
(the Muḳammadan and Universal).
For Ibn CArabī this
distinction provided two streams of sainthood to be sealed,
the first by Ibn CArabī himself, and the sec- ond by Jesus. For Muḳammad Wafā’ this is
reduced to only one Seal, who functions as the vehicle for God’s Word on earth.
This function is a significant innovation. Also important is the introduction of a cyclical
timeline. Adapting the
tradition of God appointing at the start of each century a renewer of reli-
gion (mujaddid), Muḳammad Wafā’ presents a line of seven cycles,
each last- ing a century and
each being informed by a great saint. These saints are, like the Seal,
described as “unifiers” of God’s Word, including the Qur’an. The final cycle in the line is the eighth, who will be living in the year 800 a.h. This
version of
the Seal of saints thus includes the apocalyptic function held by Jesus, as
Seal of Universal walāya in the Ibn CArabī model.
CAlī Wafā’s contribution to the theory
of sainthood is an extension of that of his father. He follows him in distinguishing between Moseslike and Khaďir- ian walāya,
but he takes the figure of al-Khaďir one step
further. Through a lengthy discussion of the Qur’anic story of Moses and the enigmatic al-Khaďir, CAlī Wafā’ argues that the figure of al-Khaďir is merely one of many possible forms of the Self-disclosing divine Spirit. Thus, the strange actions of al-Khaďir are in
reality the workings of this Spirit. More significantly, however, this Spirit
animates part of the Trust that constitutes the office of prophet. This
assertion makes sense in light of the fact that Muḳammad Wafā’, and Ibn CArabī before him, had clearly established the
presence of both prophecy and sanctity within a single person.
Thus the Spirit,
according to CAlī Wafā’, is not only al-Khaďir who inspires saints, but it also plays an essential role
in the walāya within the office of
prophet.
CAlī Wafā’s speculations on sainthood, which have taken up certain appar- ently IsmāCīlī elements
such as the nāịiq and the dawr, included arguments concerning the identity of the Seal. In his spiritual cosmology, there were eight cycles of prophets, who were each
represented by a saint (or pole) of the era. This figure also functions as that
century’s renewer (mujaddid). CAlī Wafā’ implicitly identifies CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib as the renewer of the first century and explicitly identifies Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī as that of the seventh.
The eighth is the Seal of
saints and is both the representative and inheritor of the Seal of prophets. In
this eight-fold line the clear choice for Seal of sainthood is Muḳammad Wafā’ (b. 702/1301), and CAlī follows suit. He describes his father’s birth year as the advent of he who would unite
the Word of God—a description of the Seal taken from his father’s own account. However,
it appears that CAlī does not in fact call his father the
“Seal of saints”; instead he calls him the “Great Seal.” This might be simply a
question of variant terminology, or it might be something more. It seems that CAlī
Wafā’ wants to venerate his father, yet he proceeds to
offer a calculation that points to the year in which he him- self is writing, 799 a.h., as the beginning
of the century that will see the End of Time and the Apocalypse. Also, this
is in accord with his father’s date of 800
a.h. as the year that will see the Seal of the eighth
cycle. This certainly points to CAlī Wafā’ as the final Seal of sainthood, but this reckoning presents a prob-
lem. If the seventh cycle was renewed
by al-Shādhilī (d. 658 a.h.), and
Muḳammad Wafā’ is the Great Seal (and supposedly the
Seal of sainthood), what exactly is CAlī Wafā’s title and role? The dilemma could
be resolved by making way for a ninth cycle, but this
would fly in the face of the cosmology so carefully laid out by Muḳammad Wafā’, which
identified eight heavens, eight prophets, and eight great saints. The problem
does not appear to have been resolved. However, from a wider perspective we may propose one answer:
CAlī Wafā’ reserved the unsurpassed sanctity of the Seal for his father. He asso- ciated him with the divine Word and called him the “Seal of the circle of Saint- hood.” However, for himself he
described a position that took the only next step possible, that is, that of an
apocalyptic function. He repeatedly points to himself in his calculations of the dawn of the End Time. Perhaps it should not surprise us that here, in all but
name, CAlī Wafā’ has finally turned to Ibn CArabī’s distinction between Muḳammadan sainthood and Universal sainthood. Without using the terms themselves, CAlī
Wafā’s dilemma, and his resolution of it, echo Ibn CArabī’s distinction
between an elite
Seal of Muḳammadan saint-
hood and an apocalyptic Seal of sainthood.
❊
Allow me to
conclude with a proposal for a wider perspective on the structure of Wafā’ mysticism. First it bears repeating that our subjects
were not constructing any grand philosophical model. Their concern
was to lay out their mystical vision in whatever
form was suitable. As we saw, properly philosoph- ical concepts
are not absent from their writings, yet Muḳammad and CAlī Wafā’ could never be considered good students of Ibn Sīnā. (The strength
and creativ- ity of mystical
writing probably rest on this flexible and ambiguous relationship
with traditional philosophy.) Having noted the absence of any consistent philo- sophical “system,” however, recognition must be made of a
certain structure. Our survey of Wafā’ thought has shown three basic concerns. For both Muḳam- mad and CAlī Wafā’ the Akbarian
ontology of a qualified Oneness of Being (often articulated through the theory
of tajall•) is a central ground.
Based on this, a theory of the nature of spiritual direction is constructed. The third con- cern, also grounded in that ontology, is with sanctity
and in particular its Seal. For both our writers, their
concepts of spiritual guidance and sanctity could only have taken the form they
did within that ontological universe. The
exag- gerated existential claims regarding the teacher draw on the language and
the principles of the qualified “Oneness of Being” ontology. The concern for
the Seal of saints can also be understood in much the same light. This concern
with the elevated spiritual guides, the teachers, the saints, and the seals of
sainthood finds its footing in that ontology. Thus, the categories of knowing
and being become intertwined; the saint is not only one who has greater
insight, from the Oneness
of Being perspective (and this is underlined by the Wafā’s), but he has an existential role to play. The
multivalent nature of divine Self- disclosure
reflects a dual epistemic and ontic role. It is worth noting that from the competing perspective of utter
oneness (associated with Ibn SabCīn), it would be of little
use to dwell on an existential role for saints—and by implica- tion for their apocalyptic Seal—since everything shares equally in the existen- tial identity with the Divine. In contrast, according
to the Akbarian and Wafā’ Oneness of Being, with its insistence on a qualified identification with the
Divine,
being and knowing retain a hierarchical differentiation. That is, not
everything shares equally
in identification with the Divine,
and thus the saints
and guides have an important role to play. The Wafå’s inflated concern with sanctity and their understanding of its very nature reflect
this mystical perspec- tive on knowing and being.
Notes
Introduction
1.
C. Williams, Islamic Monuments in Cairo: A Practical Guide (Cairo: American University
in Cairo Press, 1993) 230.
2.
CAbdullah Yūsuf CAlī, trans. The Holy Qur’ān (Brentwood, MA: Amana,
1989). Qur’anic quotations will be taken from this
translation. Words in parentheses are Y. CAlī’s completions. However,
in some places I will rely on my own translation.
3.
For more on these
figures see E. Ormsby, Theodicy in
Islamic Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); M.
Aminrezavi, Suhrawardi and the School of
Illumination (Surrey: Curzon, 1997).
4.
There do appear, however,
references to devotional practice. In two instances
we are told of Muḳammad’s practice of
spending much of the night in supererogatory prayer: (Q. 73:1–3) and (Q.
73:20).
5.
Various accounts
are provided by al-Bukhārī, amongs
others, in his ṢaИīИ,
?alāt, 1 and Manāqib, 42. See Encyclopedia of Islam second ed. s.v. “Mi’rāj” for more details on the historical and
literary development.
6.
For an introduction to these see M. Sells, Early Islamic Mysticism
(New York: Paulist,
1996) 242 ff. See also P. Lory, “Le Mi’rāj d’Abū Yazīd Bisṭāmī” in Le voyage ini- tiatique en terre d’Islam: ascensions célestes et itinéraires spirituels A. Amir-Moezzi ed. (Louvain-Paris: Peeters, 1996), and J. W. Morris, “Spiritual Ascension: Ibn CArabi and the Mi’rāj” (parts 1,
2) in Journal of the American Oriental Society vol. 107,
no. 4, 1987.
7.
See Sells, Early Islamic Mysticism
ch. 5; L. Massignon, Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la
mystique musulmane (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste, 1954) 245–50; al-Sulamī, Tabaqāt al-ṣūfiyya (Aleppo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Nafīs, 1986) 56–60. On this figure
in general, see Josef van Ess, Die
Gedankenwelt des Ḥāriị al-MuИāsibī (Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen
Seminars des Universität Bonn 1959).
8.
Sells, Early Islamic Mysticism ch. 7; Massignon, Essai sur les origines 274–80; al-Sulamī, Ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfiyya 67–74.
164 Notes to Introduction
9.
A. Abdel Kader, The Life, Personality, and Writings of
al-Junayd (London: Luzac, 1962); Farīd al-Dīn CAṭṭār, Tadhkirat al-awliyā
(Tehran: Kitabkhanah-i Markazi
1977)
416–51. The fifth/eleventh century writer al-Hujwīrī characterizes
Basṭāmī’s approach
as one of sukr (intoxication) and
Junayd’s as one of ṣaИw (sobriety).
Al- Hujwīrī, The Kashf
al-MaИjūb: The Oldest Persian Treatise on Ṣufiism R. Nicholson trans.
(London: Luzac, 1936) 189.
10.
G. Böwering, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Qur’anic Hermeneutics
of the Sufi Sahl at-Tustari (d. 283/896) (Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1980)
232. For an early account of his “school” see al-Hujwīrī, The Kashf al-MaИjūb 195–210. We shall return briefly to this thinker in the first
chapter of this study.
11.
Massignon, Essai sur les origines 205. P. Nwyia, Exegèse coranique et langage mystique (Beirut: Dar
al-Machreq, 1970) 156 ff.
12.
F. Meier,
“Khurāsān and the End of Classical Sufism”
in his Essays on Islamic
Piety and Mysticism J. O’Kane
trans. (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1999) 189. For a wider
outline see Meier’s “Mystic
Path” in The World of Islam:
Faith, People, Culture
B. Lewis ed. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1970).
13.
These terms, shaykh al-ta’līm and
shaykh al-tarbiyya, were first conied by the
Shādhilite writer Ibn CAbbād al-Rundī. See P. Nwyia, Ibn ’Abbād de Ronda (1333–1390), lettres de direction spirituelle (Al-Rasā’il
al-ṣughrā) (Beirut: Dār
al-Machriq, 1961) 106–15, 125–38.
14.
F. Meier, “Khurāsān and the End of Classical
Sufism” 195. J. Paul sees a shift at
this time to a model in which the saint exercises complete
authority over his follow-
ers; he becomes a patron
rather than simple
teacher. “Au début
du genre hagiographique dans le Khorasan” in Saints orientaux D.
Aigle ed. (Paris:
DeBoccard, 1995) 27–34.
See in the same volume T. Zarcone’s comments
on a shift to a more typically Islamic model for
saintly practice. “L’hagiographie dans le monde turc” 66–67.
15.
On the various forms of
asceticism, see Encyclopedia of Islam s.v.
“Zuhd.” New evidence suggests the earliest ascetic schools were established by
women in Iraq and Syria. See al-Sulami, Early Sufi Women (Dhikr al-niswa) R. Cornell ed. and trans. (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 1999)
55–63.
16.
W. Madelung, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran (Albany:
Bibliotheca Persica, 1988) 44.
17.
On the Malāmatiyya, founded by Abū Ḥaf? al-Ḥaddād (d.
265/878) and Ḥamdūn al-Qa??ār (d.
270/883), see A. CAfīfī, Al-Malāmatiyya wa al-Ṣūfiyya wa al- Futuwwa (Cairo: al-Ḥalabī,1945); J.
Chabbi, “Remarques sur le développement his- torique des mouvements ascétiques
et mystiques au Khurasan” in Studia
Islamica 46, 1977. 53–60.
18.
See A. T. Karramustafa, God’s Unruly
Friends: Dervish Groups
in the Islamic Later Middle Period, 1200–1550 (Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1994).
19.
S. Sviri, “Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and the Malāmatī Movement in Early ?ufism” in Classical Persian Ṣufism L. Lewisohn ed. (London: Khauiqahi Nimatullahi
Publications 1993) 611.
20.
H.
Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique (Paris: Gallimard, 1986) 238–47.
21.
Ibn Sina, Al-Ishārāt wa al-tanbihāt (4 vols.) S. Dunya ed. Cairo: Dār al-MaCārif,
n.d. 4:136-–64. M. Fakhry, A History
of Islamic Philosophy (New York: Columbia
Uni- versity Press, 1983) 144, 155.
22.
The best general study
of this subject is still J. S. Trimingham’s The
Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971).
23.
The second/eighth-century Qur’anic
exegete al-Muqātil identifies ten distinct
meanings derived from the root WLY.
See P. Nwyia, Exejèse coranique 114.
For a dis- cussion of the grammatical forms of the term see G.
Elmore, Islamic Sainthood in the Fullness
of Time: Ibn >Arab•’s Book of the Fabulous Gryphon (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 111–22.
24.
M. Chodkiewicz, “La
sainteté et les saints en islam” in Le
culte des saints dans le monde musulman H. Chambert-Loir and Cl. Gillot
eds. (Paris: École Français d’Extrème Orient, 1995) 15.
25.
See H. Landolt, “Walāyah” in Encyclopedia
of Religion M. Eliade ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1987)
319; K. M. al-Shaibi, Sufism and Shi’ism (Surrey: Laam, 1991) ch. 3;
M. A. Amir-Moezzi, The Divine Guide in
Early Shi’ism D. Streight trans. (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1994)
91–97; and H. Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique 455–58.
26.
In recent years in the
field of comparative religion advances have been made in the area of saints and
sainthood. My approach is rather different, but brief mention should be made of at least
two prominent analyses. Richard Kieckhefer sees the saint
as a figure who signals the tension between religious imitability and otherness and suggests
that comparisons between
sainthood in various
religious traditions can focus on the way this tension is dealt with in its
various historical and cultural contexts. Kieckhefer, R. and George Bond, eds.,
Sainthood: Its Manifestations in World Religions
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) 243–46.
A more sophisticated model is proposed
by K. Young, who presents a four-fold
model based on a dialectic between chaos and order. As heroes, prophets, or founders of a religion, holy figures may assert order in the face
of chaos. More specifically saintly
figures may then function as preservers of that
order through their exemplary practice. Once order has become routine it may
then be challenged by the inspired and often unpredictable saint, one type of
which is found within an existing religious institution and one from without.
Sharma, A., ed. Women Saints in World
Religions (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2000) 28–29.
1.
Tirmidh•, Ibn >Arab•, and Others on Sanctity
1. For his biography see the introduction of
al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, The Concept of
Sainthood in Early Islamic Mysticism B. Radtke and J. O’Kane trans.
(Surrey: Curzon, 1996) 2. On al-Tirmidhī’s birth and death dates see B. Radtke, “The Concept of Wilāya in Early Sufism” in Classical
Persian Sufism 483–83.
2.
Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, Kitåb al-awliyå’ in Majm¥>at Raså’il (Cairo: 1935);
Abū
SaCīd al-Kharrāz, Kitåb al-kashf wa al-bayån (Baghdad: 1967); and P. Nwyia, Exegèse
coranique 238 ff.
3.
Tirmidhī, The Concept of Sainthood 39.
An extensive collection of sayings on the
subject, from the classical and medieval periods,
is chapter 38 of R. Gramlich, Das
Sendschreiben al-Qushayis über das Sufitum (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1989).
4.
Al-Hujwīrī (d. 464/1071), The Kashf al-Ma˙j¥b 212: “Certain Shaykhs formerly composed books on this subject [sainthood], but they became rare and soon disappeared.”
5.
Radtke, in The Concept of Sainthood 10, establishes
S•rat al-awliyå’ as Tirmidhī’s original title for the book. I have decided to keep the
“suprious later title” Khatm al-walåya since
that is how the work is known to all later writers. (It seems to me ill advised to try to insist upon an alternative title to such a well-known work.) See also H.
Landolt’s review of Radtke’s Arabic edition of the work, Drei Schriften des Theosophen von Tirmidh, in The Journal of the American Oriental Society no. 114, 1994.
6.
Tirmidhī, The Concept of Sainthood 2–5.
7.
S.
Sviri, “Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and the Malāmatī Movement in Early Sufism” 606. See also al-Sulamī (d. 412/1021), Risålat al-malåmatiyya, translated by R.
Deladrière as Sulam•: La lucidité implacable (Paris: Arléa, 1991). This Malāmatī movement should be distinguished from the term malåm•
as it is later used by Ibn CArabī.
8.
More precisely, Tirmidhī criticizes behavior usually attributed to the Malāmatiyya. S. Sviri, “Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and the Malāmatī Movement in Early Sufism” 611. See his letter to Muḳammad Ibn al-Faďl al-Balkhī, translated in B. Radtke, Al-Ḥak•m al-Tirmdh•. Ein islamischer Theosoph des 3./9. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg: 1980)
123. See also the discussion in F. Meier’s
“Khurāsān and the End of Classical Sufism” 205 ff; and Tirmidhī, The Concept of
Sainthood 127, 128.
9.
On their distinctive theology
see W. Madelung, “Sufism and the Karrāmiyya” in Religious
Trends in Early Islamic Iran 40–43.
10.
Those who receive God’s
˙ad•th are mu˙addath¥n. See hadith refereces in Friedmann “The Finality
of Prophethood in Sunnī Islām” in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam no. 7, 1987. 203. When not referring to the Traditions, I have kept the term in
italics.
11.
The phrase “the spirit causes [a prophet] to accept it” is the translation Radtke gives for «aJmfë afė». The passage runs:
«·aJmfë afė·,M.Jhƒ L÷żi M DsmJH §ȧ_äi». An alternative would be “And thanks to
[the spirit] the [end of revelation] is accepted.” The adavan- tage of the latter
reading is that it alludes
to the continuing role of the spirit
after the end of revelation.
12.
«aeivs akJH §JM gl ]_i!mJH M» could also be translated
as “As for the one possessed
of
sainthood—God administers His speech [to him].”
13.
Sakīna is found in the Qur’an (2:248) associated with the Ark
(as in the Hebrew Bible) but it is more generally used in accounts of God
directly assisting Muḳammad in times of crisis (e.g., Q. 9:26, 9:40). It is striking
that Tirmidhī would use this
term in his doctrine of the inspiration of saints, when its scriptural referrent is to the
Prophet.
14.
Tirmidhī, The Concept of Sainthood 111;
Tirmidhī, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå O. Yaḳyā ed. (Beirut: al-MaṭbaCa al-Kāthūlīkiyya, n.d.) 346. Radtke’s translation is based on his edition of Kitåb S•rat al-awliyå’ in Drei Schriften des Theosophen von Tirmidh.
Note that there are discrepancies between this and O. Yaḳyā’s edition.
15.
Tirmidhī, Kitåb khatm
al-awliyå 347. See also Radtke’s translation in Tirmidhī, The Concept of
Sainthood 113.
16.
Tirmidhī, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå 353. See also Tirmidhī, The Concept of Saint-
hood 119.
17.
Elsewhere, it appears
Tirmidhī holds that sainthood,
prophecy, and mission (risåla) have been established latently in individuals since before creation. Without
much
elaboration, Tirmidh• mentions the covenant (>aqd) God made of each type. Tirmidh•, The Concept of
Sainthood 119, 151.
18.
This dual nature of walåya saw its greatest elaboration in the Sh•>• doctrine of the Imåm. See below, our section entitled “Walåya and Sh•>ism.”
19.
Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm
al-awliyå 349. See also Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 115 .
20.
Note the lowly position he is assigning to the zuhhåd, whom Tirmidh• criticizes
elsewhere.
21.
Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm
al-awliyå 357–58. See also Tirmidh•, The Concept of
Sainthood 121–22. Y. Friedmann, “Finality of Prophethood in Sunn• Islåm” in Jeru- salem Studies in Arabic and Islam no.
7, 1986, 205, describes later discussions that move to deprive the mu˙addath of any intrinsic spiritual
authority.
22.
Radtke translates the
inferior designation as “the Friend of what is due unto God.” See The Concept of Sainthood 26.
23.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 93;
Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå 332.
24.
He who makes this initial step, the “saint of the truth of God,” is described as guarding over his body parts in an
effort to become morally upright. Through
this dis- cipline his lower self is calmed, and his body is controlled. Tirmidh•, The Concept of
Sainthood 44.
25.
H. Landolt, “Walaya” in
Encyclopedia of Religion 321. See
also P. Fenton’s “The Hierarchy of the Saints in Jewish and Islamic Mysticism”
in Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn >Arabi Society vol.
10, 1991. The concept of ‘abdål’ appears early in the second/eighth century. See J. van
Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und
3. Jahrhundert Hidschra (6 vols.) (Berlin-New York: Walter deGruyer, 1991–97) 2:89, and
R. Gramlich,
Die schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens (3
vols.) (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1965–1981) 2:162. J. Baldick notes the Jewish antecedent of the idea of the badal;
see his Imaginary Muslims: the
Uwaysi Sufis of Central Asia (London: Tauris, 1993) 31.
26.
I. Goldziher, Muslim Studies
(2 vols.) (London:
Allen and Unwin,
1962) 293.
27.
See Q. 2:51, 5:25, 7:142, 46:15. In the Old Testament, the number 40 usually
describes a period of time. J. Segal, “Numerals in the Old Testament” in Journal of Semitic Studies no.10, 1965.
10. For the various uses of 40 in the hadith literature see A.
J. Wensinck’s Concordance et Indices de la Tradition Musulmane (8 vols.) Leiden: Brill, 1943. 2:215–16.
28.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 111; Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå 346.
29.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 109; Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå 344.
30.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 96;
Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå 335.
31.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood, 130; Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå
367.
32.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 113; Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå 354.
33.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 102; Tirmidh•, Kitåb khatm al-awliyå 337.
34.
Tirmidh•, The Concept of Sainthood 110;
Tirmidh• , Kitåb khatm al-awliyå
345.
35.
Y. Friedmann,
“Finality of Prophethood in Sunn• Islam” 179. In hadith the
prophet Muḳammad also called himself “al->aq•b,” a term that is usually
understood as the last
prophet. See ibid. 182. On the concept of a ‘Seal of prophets,’ from an impor- tant pre-Islamic source, see G. Stroumsa, “‘Seal
of the Prophets’ The Nature
of a
Manichaean
Metaphor” in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7, 1986. The Arabic
text
of the New Testament in one instance mentions Jesus as having been sealed by God: (John 6:27) «aę÷ø vë χH akJH Hiˆ # . . .»
36.
G. Böwering,
The Mystical Vision 235.
37.
Böwering, The Mystical
Vision (with changes)
234.
38.
On this term see W. Chittick,
The Self-disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn
’Arabī’s Cosmology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998) 406 fn. 8.
39.
Böwering, The Mystical
Vision 258.
40.
On JaCfar al-?ādiq (d. 145/765) and the Muhammadan Light, see L. Massignon, Essai sur les origines du lexique technique
de la mystique musulmane (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste, 1954) 205. For a
wider study of the subject see U. Rubin, “Pre-existence and Light;
Aspects of the Concept of Nūr Muḳammad” in Israel Oriental
Studies no. 5, 1975.
41.
Böwering, The Mystical
Vision 232.
42.
One figure not treated
in our study, yet deserving of further attention, is the IsmāCīlī al-Mu’ayyad fī al-Dīn al-Shirāzī (d. 470/1077), who proposed a “Seal of [ShīCī] Imāms” and a “Universal Human”
the latter being
represented first as prophets and then
as Imāms. Noted in H. Landolt’s
review of Chodkiewicz, Le Sceau des saints
in Bulletin critique des annales islamologiques no. 4, 1987. 84.
43.
Al-Hujwīrī, The
Kashf al-MaИjūb: 210.
44.
Chodkiewicz notes that
neither do the entries for Tirmidhī in Sulamī (d. 412/1021) Ṭabaqāt
al-ṣūfiyya or Abū NuCaym al-I?fahānī (d. 430/1038) Ḥilyat
al- awliyā’ make any mention of the Seal of sainthood.
45.
Tafsīr Ibn ’Aịā’ in Trois oeuvres inédites de mystiques musulmans P. Nwyia ed. (Beirut: 1973)
164. For this passage see also R. Gramlich, Abū al-’Abbās ibn ’Aịā’: Sufi und Koranausleger (Stuttgart:
Steiner, 1995) 298.
46.
Abū Bakr al-Kalābādhī, The Doctrine of the Ṣūfīs A. J. Arberry
trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 61.
47.
Al-Qushayrī, al-Risāla al-Qushayriyya A. Maḳmūd ed. (Cairo: al-ShaCb, 1989)
436.
48.
On Rūzbihān see C. Ernst’s recent works, The Unveiling
of Secrets: Diary of a
Sufi Master (Chapel Hill:
Parvardigar, 1997), and Ruzbihan Baqli:
Mysticism and the Rhetoric of Sainthood in Perisan Sufism (Surrey: Curzon,
1996).
49.
M. Takeshita, Ibn ’Arabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man and
Its Place in the History of Islamic
Thought (Tokyo: Institute
for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1987) 153.
50.
M. Kister “The
Interpretation of Dreams: An Unknown Manuscript of Ibn Quṭayba’s CIbārāt al-ru’yā” Israel Oriental
Studies no. 4, 1974. 70.
51.
J. Baldick,
Mystical Isalm (New York:
New York University Press, 1989) 41. Radtke, “The Concept of Wilāya” 485.
52.
M. Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and
Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn ’Arabī L. Sherrard trans. (Cambridge: Islamic
Texts Society, 1993) 30.
53.
Massignon, Essai sur les origines
197 ff.
54.
Al-Hujwīrī, The Kashf al-MaИjūb 212. Also, al-Kharrāz was active in Baghdad at the same time Tirmidhī lived in Transoxiana.
It is thus unlikely that al-Kharrāz had read
Tirmidhī and was already
criticizing him.
55.
Nūruddīn Isfarāyinī,
Le Révélateur des Mystères H. Landolt ed. and trans. (Paris: Verdier, 1986) 119 fn. 187 points to some
of Tustarī’s ideas that might have
opened him up to such accusations.
56.
See the entry on the former
in the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam; on the latter see Massignon’s “Ḥulūl” in the Encyclopedia of Islam (second
ed.). See also the myste- rious Jahmiyya sect discussed in W.
Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic
Thought (Rockport MA: Oneworld, 1998) 143.
57.
Landolt, “Walāya” in Encyclopedia of Religion 319.
58.
H. Corbin,
Histoire de la philosophie islamique (Paris: Gallimard, 1986) 105.
59.
M. H. Tabāṭabā’ī, Shi’ite Islam trans. S. Nasr (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1975) 179–180, and “Ghadīr Khumm” in Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.). CAlī is understood
to have been appointed to the “general guardianship,” or walāya- i ’āmma. Shi’ite Islam 40. On the
traditions of CAlī inheriting Muḳammad’s
pre-existen- tial light, see U. Rubin, “Pre-existence and Light: Aspects
of the Concept of Nūr Muḳammad” in Israel Oriental Studies no.
5, 1975; particularly pp. 109–10.
60.
H. Corbin,
En Islam Iranien (4
vols.) (Paris: Gallimard, 1971) 1:274.
61.
See M. Momen, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985) ch. 8.
62.
Nasiroddin Tusi, La
convocation d’Alamut (Rawḍat al-taslīm) C. Jambet trans. (Éditions
UNESCO / Verdier, 1996) 295.
63.
Corbin, En Islam
iranien 3:179.
64.
Kitāb
naṣṣ al-nuṣūṣ fī sharИ al-fuṣūs H. Corbin and O. Yaḳia eds. (Teharan:
Bibliothèque Iranienne, 1975).
65.
Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique 458. See Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 49, 136–37, for
comments on Āmulī’s (and Corbin’s) interpretation.
66.
For an extensive bibliography see O. Yaḳia, Histoire et classification de l’oeu-
vre d’Ibn ’Arabī (2 vols.) (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1964).
67.
One edition,
from 1994, was printed in Beirut by Dār al-Fikr. The only critical edition of the text, begun by
Osman Yaḳia, remains unfinished:
Cairo: al-Hay’at al- Mi?riyyat al-Cāmma li al-Kitāb, 1972–.
68.
For a complete
biography see C. Addas Quest for the Red Sulfur: The Life of Ibn ’Arabī P. Kingsley
trans. (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993) and Ibn CArabī’, Sufis of Andalusia
(Rūḳ al-quds) R. Austin trans. (London:
Allen and Unwin, 1971). A survey
of the study of Ibn CArabī is J. Morris’s “Ibn CArabī and His Interpreters; Part I:
Recent French Translations” Journal of the American Oriental
Society vol. 106, no. 3, 1986;
“Ibn CArabī and His Interpreters; Part II : Influences and Interpretations” Journal
of
the American Oriental Society. vol. 106, no. 4, 1986; “Ibn CArabī and His Interpreters;
Part II (conclusion): Influences and Interpretations” Journal of the American Oriental Society vol.
107, no. 1, 1987.
69.
Creative Imagination in the Ṣūfism of Ibn ’Arabī R. Manheim trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
70.
El Islam
cristianizado, estudio del sufismo a través de las obras
de Abenarabi de Murcia (Madrid:
1931).
71.
The Mystical Philosophy of MuИyīd-Dīn Ibn al-’Arabī (Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press, 1939).
72.
A Comparative Study of the Key Philosophical Concepts in Taoism
and Sufism (Tokyo: Keio Univeristy, 1966); reprinted in 1983 by the University of California Press as Sufism and Taoism.
73.
Ibn
al->Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination: The Sufi Path of
Knowledge (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989) and The
Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al->Arabi’s Cosmology
(Albany: State University of New York Press,
1998). These books take a thematic approach to the essential aspects of Ibn CArabī’s thought, presenting substantial passages in
translation from the Fut¥˙åt.
74.
M. Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints. Important also is
his An Ocean without Shore: Ibn >Arab•, the Book, and the Law D. Streight trans. (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1993). Large parts of Ibn CArabī’s Fut¥˙åt are
translated in Les Illuminations de la
Mecque (Paris: Sinbad, 1988).
75.
On the issue of “wa˙dat al-wuj¥d” see the following: H. Landolt, “Simnānī on Waḳdat al-Wujūd” in Collected Papers on Islamic Philosophy and
Mysticism M. Mohaghegh ed. (Tehran: 1971) (In this concise presentation,
Landolt notes the impor- tant role in Ibn CArabī’s thought of Self-disclosure as the mediation between the “Third entity” or Nafas al-Raḳmān and God as Absolute Being. He also notes that it was
the later followers of Ibn CArabī who identified wuj¥d with the Nafas al-Raḳmān. See pages 100–04.) W. Chittick, “Sadr al-Dīn al-Qunawī on the Oneness of Being” in International Philosophical Quarterly
no. 21, 1981; M. Chodkiewicz, Aw˙ad al-D•n Balyån•: Epître sur l’unicité absolue (Paris:
1982); T. Izutsu, “An Analysis of Waḳdat al-Wujūd” in Creation and
the Timeless Order of Things (Ashland OR: White Cloud, 1994).
76.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 15.
77.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 103; Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without Shore
47.
78.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 75.
79.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
74, 80. Although
he does not elaborate on the
idea, Sahl
Tustarī pointed to the idea of
prophetic inheritance. He wrote, “There is no prophet who does not have someone
similar to himself
in this community, that is to say,
a wal• who
shares in his charisma.” Böwering,
The Mystical Vision 65.
It is also worth noting that Abū Madyan (d. 594/1198) conceived
of the mystic attaining certain
virtues thanks to certain prophets, for example, love from Job,
sincerity from Moses, etc. V. Cornell, The Way of Abu Madyan (Cambrige: Islamic
Texts Society, 1996) 86.
80.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 106.
81.
Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without Shore 48.
82.
Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without Shore 49.
83.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 95.
84.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 97.
85.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 93. The Qur’an describes
God lifting Idrīs up to a “sublime place”
(Q. 19:57); it also denies
the death of Jesus (Q. 4:157). Al-Khaďir is considered to have been the mysterious figure Moses
met (Q. 18:65) and who had been taught “from God’s own presence.”
86.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
93. Ibn CArabī, al-Fut¥˙åt al-Makkiyya
(Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1994) 3:9.
87.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 94. We shall return
to this ˙aq•qa mu˙am- madiyya, or
Muhammadan Reality, shortly.
88.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 126.
89.
Ibn >Arab•, The Bezels of Wisdom R. Austin trans. (New York: Paulist,
1980) 168 (with changes); Ibn >Arab•, Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam A. >Af•f• ed. (Beirut:
n.d.) 134. It is inter- esting to note that this continuing sanctity includes, according
to Ibn >Arab• elsewhere, the saints of the non-Muslim communities. See Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
78, 79.
90.
Ibn >Arab•, The Bezels of Wisdom 169; Ibn >Arab•, Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam
135. This passage
in particular was attacked by Ibn Taymiyya. See Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 51.
91.
In a recent study of Ibn >Arab•’s concept of walāya, Gerald Elmore sees a “log- ical absurdity” in the teaching that nubuwwa and risāla are cumulative and encompassed by walāya, and the claim
that walāya is superior
to nubuwwa only when both are found
in one person. He rightly
points out that it is a mistake
to compare walāya (as
a genus) to the species or
subspecies of nubuwwa and risāla. See his Islamic Sainthood in the Fullness of Time: Ibn ’Arabī’s
Book of the Fabulous Gryphon
(Leiden: Brill, 1998)
160 fn. 165. However, Elmore’s critiques of the logic of Ibn >Arab•’s doctrine seem mis-
placed in light of Ibn >Arab•’s general style
of writing and thinking. In other words,
we will not learn
much about Ibn >Arab•’s doctrine if we subject
it to a theological critique. Elmore is insisting on a
logical rigor that the concepts and language of walāya cannot support. This analysis leaves him utterly
disappointed with Ibn >Arab•’s concept of walāya:
“Thus, even as the very name, walāya,
is almost meaningless in its equivocal relativity, so the nature of “sainthood”
itself, if the whole truth be told, is hopelessly multivalent” (p. 130).
92.
An alternative theory, proposed by >Alå al-Dawla al-Simnån• (d. 717/1317),
who himself
had carefully read Ibn >Arab•, presented the walāya of the Prophet as the
organ of reception of God’s emantion, which transforms this emanation into a
general walāya for the sake of the community. This prophetic walāya also
dispenses the divine emanation to the saints. See Isfaråyin•, Le Révélateur des Mystères 120 fn. 188. It should also be noted that walāya as a continuing form of esoteric
prophecy is a central concept in Twelver Sh•>ism. See H. Corbin, En
Islam Iranien 1:248.
93.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 117.
94.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
129, 133–35. Addas,
Quest for the Red
Sulfur
200.
95.
Chodkiewicz argues against this >Alid reference. See his Seal of the Saints
68
fn. 29, where he notes that the more reliable ms, an autograph, of the FutuИāt does
not make this reference to >Al•. See also H.
Landolt’s comments on this matter in his “La ‘Double Échelle’ d’Ibn >Arab• chez Simnån•” in Le Voyage initiatique en terre d’Islam: Ascensions célestes et itinéraires spirituels A. Amir-Moezzi ed. (Louvain, Paris: Peeters, 1996) 262. We shall see, in our sixth chapter below, that the figure of >Al• was to play an important role in the Wafå’s elaboration of walāya.
96.
Ibn >Arab•, The Bezels of Wisdom 66–67; Ibn >Arab•, Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam 63. The original hadith
is from Bukhår•’s SaИīИ (Manåqib: 18).
97.
Ibn >Arab•, The Bezels of Wisdom
66; Ibn >Arab•, Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam 62.
98.
Ibn >Arab• goes on to state that as the essential reality
of the Seal of prophets has always existed, “In the same
way the Seal of Saints was a saint ‘when Adam
was between the water and the clay.’” The
Bezels of Wisdom 67.
99.
Ibn >Arab•, The Bezels of Wisdom
67; Ibn >Arab•, Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam 63.
100.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 125. (Page 107 notes specifically that one of the afrād
is CAlī ibn
Abī Ṭālib.)
101.
The critic Ibn Taymiyya
attcked the identification of the Ḥaqīqa Muḳam- madiyya with the qalam or the ’aql awwal. See M. Chodkiewicz, “Le procès posthume d’Ibn CArabī” in Islamic Mysticism Contested F. de Jong ed. (Leiden: Brill,
1999) 101.
102.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 69. See also
Chodkiewicz, “The Banner of Praise” in Foundations of the Spiritual Life according to Ibn ’Arabi: Praise S. Hirtenstein
ed. (Oxford: Muhyiddin
Ibn CArabi Society, 1997) 55, where al-Jīlī (d.
811/1408) takes the idea further, writing,
“Know that the Muhammadan Reality
is a name of the Divine
Ipseity.”
2. The Early Shådhiliyya and Sanctity
1.
See A. MacKeen, “The
Rise of Al-Shādhilī,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society vol. 91, 1971, 483 for a
discussion of possible birthdates.
2.
For the earliest record see Ibn al-?abbāgh, Durrat al-asrār wa tuИfat al-abrār (Qū?: before 1980),
ch. 1. This edition appears
to be incomplete when compared
to the Tunis edition of 1885 (Tunis: Al-MaṭbaCa al-Tunisiyya al-Rasmiyya). An
English trans- lation of this work is The Mystical Teachings of al-Shadhili E. Douglas trans. (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1993). One important teacher in Tunis was Abū
SaCīd al-Bājī (d. 629/1231), who
had been a student of Abū Madyan.
3.
Quịb is the “pole” or central figure
amongst mystics or in a hierarchy of
saints.
4.
See Sālim CAmmār, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (Cairo: Dār al-Ta’līf, 1952)
77–80, for
good notices on these two figures, including references to primary sources. For
a detailed study of Ibn Mashīsh see
Zakia Aouanat, Ibn Mashīsh, maître d’al-
Shādhilī (Casablanca: Najah El Jadida, 1998). We also have a brief
independent con- temporary source, which notes a young Shādhilī having visited
Cairo on his way to Mecca. See La Risāla
de Ṣafī al-Dīn Ibn Abī al-Manṣūr Ibn Zāfir: Biographies des maîtres spirituels connus par un cheikh égyptien
du VII/XIII siècle
D. Gril ed. and trans. (Cairo: Institut français
d’archéologie orientale, 1986) 177, and Arabic
text, 78.
5.
For more on this figure
see the introduction to V. Cornell, The Way of Abū Madyan (Cambridge: Isalmic
Texts Society, 1996).
6.
Ibn al-?abbāgh,
The Mystical Teachings of al-Shadhili 20–21.
7.
A. MacKeen,
“The Rise of Al-Shādhilī” 484.
8.
In Egypt the order
attracted many well-known figures, including Yāqūt al- CArshī (d. 707/1307) and Muḳammad al-Ḥanafī (d. 847/1443). On al-CArshī see ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā (2 vols.) (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl 1988) 2:20. For
al-Ḥanafī, see E. Geoffroy, Le
Soufisme en Égypte et en Syrie (Damascus: Institut français de Damas, 1995) 210. The urban
landscape of Alexandria is marked by the early
Shādhiliyya, most notably by mosques of Ibn CAṭā Allāh al-Iskandarī and Yāqūt al-CArshī, and the tomb/mosque
of al-Mursī. CAbd al-CAzīz Sālim, Tārīkh al-Iskandariyya wa Иaḍāratuhā fī al-’aṣr al-islāmī (Alexandria:
Mu’asasa Shabāb al-JāmiCa, 1982) 486 ff. Beyond hagiographical manuscripts, detailed sources for the early history of the Shādhiliyya in Tunis have to date eluded me.
9.
On this figure see S. Botros,
Abū al-’Abbās al-Mursī: A Study of Some Aspects of His Mystical Thought
(McGill University, M.A. thesis, 1976), and L. Massignon, La
Passion du Ḥusayn Ibn Manṣūr Ḥallāj (4 vols.) (Paris: Gallimard, 1975)
2:320–22.
10.
In his translation of Laịā’if al-minan, entitled La sagesse des maîtres soufis (Paris:
Bernard Grasset, 1988) 82, Eric Geoffroy reads the title of Ibn Nūḳ’s work in which he mentions al-Shādhilī, as al-WaИīd; while the edition of CAbd al-Ḥalīm Maḳmūd (Cairo: 1986),
reads al-Waṣīd (p. 87). At present
I have not been able to locate either title.
11.
Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh Iskandarī, Laịā’if al-minan 87
and La sagesse des maîtres soufis 82. The last reference would be to the short
entry on al-Shādhilī in ?afī al-Dīn’s Risāla.
12.
Risālat al-Shaykh
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub, Ta?awwuf Taymūr 180; film# 3750) (33 fols). In Denis Gril’s “Sources manuscrites de l’histoire du soufisme à Dār al-Kutub—un
premier bilan” Bulletin Critique des Annales Islamologiques 1994, he
notes: “Copy and samā’ of 943/1536,
read before the Shaykh Jamāl al-Dīn Muḳammad Ibn CAbd Allāh al-Tilimsānī al-Maghribī.” My photocopy of
this manuscript is poor, and the samā’
cannot be read. Another manuscript
source which is has not yet been explored is Abū al-?alāḳ CAlī Muḳsin al-Shādhilī, Ta’zīr al-anfās
bi manāqib Abī al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub, Tārīkh 388).
13.
(Tunis: al-MaṭābiC al-Muwaḳḳada, 1986) 61–137.
14.
(Cairo: 1998). I have not been able to consult his Usūl al-tarīqat al-Shādhiliyya (Dār al-kutub; ms. Majāmī no. 490).
For more on Aḳmad Zarrūq see A. Khushaim, Zarrūq
the Ṣūfī (Tripoli: 1976). On the influence of Ibn CArabī in the works
of Zarrūq see M. Chodkiewicz, “The Diffusion of Ibn CArabī’s Doctrine” in Journal of the MuИyid- din Ibn ’Arabī Society vol. 9,
1991, 39.
15.
(Cairo, 1974), edited
by A. al-Ḥasanī. This work
is a survey of teachings on various sufi matters.
It draws on the early Shādhiliyya and on ?adr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 672/1273), the greatest exponent of
Ibn CArabī’s teachings in Egypt.
16.
Al-YāfīCī, Mir’āt al-janān (Beirut: 1970) 138 ff.
17.
J.-C. Garcin, in his
“Histoire, opposition politiqe et piétisme traditionaliste dans le ‘Ḥusn al-muḳadara’ de ?uyūṭī” in Annales Islamologiques vol. 7, 1987,
83, puts Ibn CAyyād’s death around 1760.
18.
Compilation literature
continues to be produced. Some examples are Muḳammad Aḳmad Darnīqa, al-Tarīqa
al-Shādhiliyya wa a’lāmuhā
(Beirut: 1990), al- Akhmīmī, al-Qāmūs al-jadīd fī al-qaṣā’id wa al-anāshīd
li al-sāda al-Shādhiliyya (Cairo: 1392/1972), and Ḥasan Kūhīn al-Fāsī, Kitāb ịabaqāt
al-Shādhiliyya al-kubrā (Cairo: Maktaba al-Qāhira 1347/1928) (a.k.a.
Jāmi’ al-karāmāt al-’aliyya fī ịabaqāt al- sādat al-Shādhiliyya). I have not
consulted the last two titles, nor have I seen the fol- lowing study by Fārūq Aḳmad Mu?ṭafa: al-Binā’ al-ijtimā’ī
li al-ịarīqa al-Shādhiliyya fi Miṣr: Dirāsa fi al-anthrūbūlūjiyya al-ijtimā’iyya (al-Iskandariyya: al-Hai’a al-Mi?riyya li al-kitāb, 1980).
19.
al-Ḥikam
(Cairo: Maktaba al-Jindī, 1977).
Translated into English by V. Danner as Ibn
’Aịā’ Allāh: The Book of Wisdom (New
York: Paulist, 1978). See also Ḥikam Ibn ’Aịā’ Allāh:
sharИ al-Shaykh Zarrūq
(Cairo: al-ShaCb, 1985). An interesting
discovery has been made by W. Chittick,
which identifies the final pages of the “Prayer
of the Day of CArafa,” attributed to the third
ShīCī Imām, Ḥusayn ibn CAlī, as a copy of
the munājāt from
the Ḥikam. Although this addition has come to be accepted
as an inte- gral part of the prayer,
CAllāma Majlisī (d. cir. 1110/1698) had noted that “certain of the
’ulamā’ have believed that this
(last) folio was added to the text afterwards, and was composed by one of the Sufi shaykhs.” Chittick, “A Shadhili Presence
in ShCite Islam” in Sophia Perennis:
the Bulletin of the Imperial
Iranian Academy of Philosophy vol.
1, no. 1, 1975. 98.
20.
MiftāИ al-falāИ wa miṣbāИ al-arwāИ (Cairo: Mu?ṭafa al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1961). Translated
as The Key to Salvation by M. Koury
Danner (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1996).
It appears that in this work Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh has drawn on Fawā’iИ
al- jamāl of Najm al-dīn al-Kubrā (d. 617/1220). For the details
of this limited borrowing, see
F. Meier Die Fawā’iИ al-jamāl wa-fawātiИ
al-jalāl des Najm al-dīn al-Kubrā (Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1957) 249–50. This work has recently been translated by P.
Ballanfat as Les éclosions de la
beauté et les parfums de la majesté (Nîmes: Éditions de l’éclat, 2001). On al-Kubrā see also H. Corbin, The Man of Light
in Iranian Sufism
N. Pearson trans. (Boulder:
Shambala, 1978), ch. 4.
21.
(Cairo:
al-MaṭbaCa al-Mi?riyya, 1930). Maurice
Gloton has translated this work as Traité
sur le nom Allāh (Paris: Deux Océans, 1981).
22.
(Cairo: CĀlam al-fikr,
1998), recently translated by D. Penot
as De l’abandon de la volonté
propre (Lyon: Alif, 1997).
23.
See A. Taftāzānī, Ibn ’Aịā’ Allāh
al-Iskandarī wa taṣawwufuhu (Cairo: 1969),
P. Nwyia, Ibn ’Aịā’
Allāh et la naissance de la confrérie shādhilite (Beirut: Dār el- Mashreq, 1972), and V. Danner, Ibn ’Aịā’ Allāh: A Sufi of
Mamluk Egypt (Harvard University, PhD. thesis,
1970). Fritz Meier characterizes the order under the direction of Ibn CAṭā Allāh as “neo-classical,” in comparison to the practices of other Egyptian orders of the period. See “The Cleanest about Predestination: A Bit of Ibn Taymiyya” in Essays
on Islamic Piety and
Mysticism J. O’Kane trans. (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 318. Boaz Shoshan discusses
Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī’s
sermons—collected under the title Tāj
al-’arūs—in his Popular Culture in
Medieval Cairo (New York:
Cambridge Univerisity Press, 1993) 14–16.
24.
Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī, Laịā’if al-minan 127.
25.
Laịā’if al-minan 103. ÏhïZ ˛ė ,iZ2fr çi¬ nïfr |1fr zf7 pƒỉ |1fhƒ ˇ ,hufr » nZs h¬ p2i riœe
]i! pfr ˛7Vr ¿¬ ˛17 r,hiu¬ Gzhu¬ nZiė vhife!r )Bhż¬ hżf ˇ∑ :|f )hriė Ii!pfr ˛7Vr ¿¬ ¿r:|f vhife!r,ïż (In the Tirmidhī text this question
is followed by 149 others.
There seems to be no connection
between al-Shādhilī’s list of 15 miracles and Tirmidhī’s questions, in which there
is no mention of the quịb or
of any evidentiary miracles. The point here is simply
that both of these
masters had composed lists of questions to act as standards by which spiritual
claims were to be tested. Compare
this passage with Ibn al-?abbāgh, Durrat al-asrār
133.)
26.
Laịā’if
al-minan 96. Regarding the links between Ibn CArabī and Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh Iskandarī, it is interesting to note that they both composed
commentaries on the mystical poem Mā ladhdha
al-’aysh ... by
Abū
Madyan. The SharИ qaṣīda
“Mā ladhd- ha al-’aysh illā ṣuИubat al-fuqarā’ “(Cairo: al-MaṭbaCat al-CUthmāniyya, 1935) consists of twelve pages of commentary by Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh Iskandarī and is followed by a five- page “takhmīs” by Ibn CArabī. In the
latter composition Ibn CArabī adds three lines to each two-line verse from the original poem, thus producing a five-lined
verse, a takhmīs.
27.
Laịā’if
al-minan 171. This episode is
described in the Futuḳāt (Cairo: Bulaq, 1914).
28.
Laịā’if al-minan
89. Perhaps pronounced Abū al-CAlam. I have not been able
to identify this person.
29.
Laịā’if al-minan
103.
30.
P. Nwyia, Ibn ’Aịā’ Allāh et
la naissance de la confrérie shādhilite 25–26. Cf
M. Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
144.
31.
On
al-Qūnawī’s travels to Egypt, see G. Scattolin’s “Al-Fraghānī’s Commentary on
Ibn al-Fāriď’s Mystical Poem Al-Tā’iyyat
al-kubrā” in M.I.D.E.O. 21, 1993.
378 fn 23.
32.
For example, al-Suyūṭī, in his Ta’yid
al-Иaqīqa, as mentioned by Garcin, “Histoire, opposition politique et piétisme traditionaliste . . .” 83. We shall see that this concept is later embraced by Muḳammad Wafā’.
33.
For more on this figure see C. Mayeur,
al-Sayyid AИmad al-Badawī: un grand
saint de l’Islam égyptien (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie
orientale, 1994).
34.
J.-C. Garcin, “Histoire
et hagiographie de l’Égypte Musulmane à la fin de l’époque Mamelouke
et au début de l’époque
Ottomane” in Garcin,
Espaces, pouvoirs et idéologie de l’Égypte médiévale (London:
Variorum, 1987), 304–11.
35.
Al-Subkī, Shifā’ al-siqām fī ziyārat khayn al-anām (Beirut: 1978). His son, Tāj al-Dīn Subkī, wrote the well-known Ṭabaqāt al-shāfi’iyya al-kubrā (10 vols) (Cairo: al- Halabī, 1964).
36.
The line ran: al-Mursī > Yāqūt al-CArshī (d. 707/1307) >Shihāb al-Dīn ibn Maylaq (d. 749/1329 > Nā?ir al-Dīn Maylaq (d. 797/1395) >Muḳammad al-Ḥanafī (d.
847/1443) >Abū al-CAbbās al-Sarsī (d. 861/1456). A disciple of al-Sarsī, al-Battanūnī wrote al-Sirr al-ṣafī fī manāqib al-sulịān
al-Ḥanafī (2 vols.) (Cairo: Sharara al-Qabbānī, 1889).
37.
The first is FaraИ al-asmā’ bi rukhas al-samā’ (Tunis:
Dār al-CArabiyya al- Kitāb, 1985). The second work,
SilāИ al-Wafā’iyya (ms.) will be discussed in chapter 3 below. Abū al-Mawāhib also wrote Kitāb qawānīn Иikam al-ishrāq (Cairo: Maktabat al- Azhariyya, 1999) (more on this below).
It seems Abū al-Mawāhib was the most famous Shādhilī of his day,
his devotional poems to the Prophet having been adopted for the public
celebration of Muhammad’s birthday (mawlid al-nabī). See M. Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt:
Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhab al- Sha’rani (New Brunswick: Transactions Books, 1982) 183, 201. See also the bio-bibli-
ographical notice by H. CAbd al-Wahhāb, Kitāb al-umr (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1990)
517–20.
38.
I will be using the manuscript Kitāb ’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq (copied in ShaCbān 1002
A.H. / 1594 A.D.) Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no. 3019; 70 fols. Another copy exists in Cairo at Dār al-Kutub under Ta?awwuf Taymūr 180; film
3750 (copied in 943 A.H. / 1536). ShaCrānī reproduces about one-quarter of this work, with
changes, in his al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 1:188–201.
39.
Dā’ūd ibn Mākhilā (Bākhilā), al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya bi-sharИ Иizb al-
Shādhiliyya Muḳammad Ḥasan RabīC ed. (Cairo:
1935). The manuscript entitled Kitāb maИabbat al-awliyā’, (Tunis:
Bibliothèque Nationale; al-Maktaba al-CAbdaliyya ms. no. 18441; pp. 1–3), by the
same author, is simply the first part of al-Laịīfa
al-marḍiyya. According to the Fihris
makhịūịāt Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhiriyya (al-taṣawwuf) 1:180 (Damascus: 1978),
there exists a Risāla fī as’ila
wa ajwiba tata’allaqu bi al-isrā’ wa al-
mi’rāj wa nuzūl al-Ḥaqq ilā samā’al-dunya by Ibn Mākhilā, ms. no. 6595. I have not seen this last title; it is
not mentioned in any of the biographical literature on Ibn Bākhilā.
40.
ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 1:188. Al-Minūfī’s Jamharat al-awliyā’ (2 vols.) (Cairo:
al-Madanī 1967) 2:209 repeats
this story.
41.
Ibn Bākhilā, al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya preface by editor,
2–3. I have not been able
to
locate the source of this account. On his date of death, Suyūṭī gives 733/1332, Bughyat al-wu’āh (Cairo: 1384/1964) no.
1177, 1:562; while Ibn Ḥajar
al-’Asqalānī, in his al- Durar al-kāmina
(8 vols.) (Hyderabad: Majlis Dā'irat al-MaCārif, 1348–50/1929–31) no. 1692, 2:100 gives 715/1315. Brief biographical notices may be
found in the following works: Aḳmad Bābā, (2 vols.) (Tripoli: al-Jamhariyya al-CArabiyya al-Libiyya, 1989) Nayl al-ibtihāj 175; CAbd al-MunCim al-Ḥifnī, al-Mawsū’a
al-ṣūfiyya (Cairo: Dār al- Rashād, 1992) 36; al-Munāwī, Kawākib al durriyya (4 vols.) (Cairo:
1994) 2: 81. Muḳammad Abū al-Fayď al-Minūfī, Jamharat al-awliyā’ 2:209; and Muḳammad Makhlūf, Shajarat al-nūr
al-zakiyya fī ịabaqāt
al-Mālikiyya (Cairo: 1950) no. 704, 204.
42.
The fiqh summary, apparently lost, was probably of Kitāb talqīn fi al-fiqh al- mālikī
by CAbd al-Wahhāb (d. 423/1031). The grammarian CAbd al-Raḳmān ibn Ishaq al- Zajjājī (d. cir. 339/959)
wrote Kitāb al-ĪḍāИ fī ’ilal wa al-naИw (Cairo: Dār al-CUrūba, 1959).
43.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 53a. “When God wants to eliminate the cycle of the world, He
causes the Muḳammadan shadow (GΩ) to appear
and become a seal upon the cycle of
humanity, as he was a seal upon the cycle of prophecy.
When God wants to create the
hereafter, He causes the Muḳammadan image ()hz¬) to appear
and become the starting
point of the hereafter. ‘I was a prophet when
Adam was between water and clay.’ (On
this hadith see Sufi Path of Knowledge 408
fn. 8.) Unfortunately these Muḳammadan
figures are not described further in ’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq. It seems that this
“shadow” and “image” are aspects of the awaited Mahdi.
44.
A variant
on the tradition «]ƒ,hzl hƒ akJH y,hƒ väė hiJM akJ עэh¨ ¬ ṷM»Ibn Mājah, ṢaИīИ, Fitan 16.
See also W. Graham, Divine Word
and Prophetic Word in Early Islam (The
Hague: Mouton, 1977).
45.
On al-Bū?īrī (d.
694/1295) see Muḳammad Aḳmad Darnīqa, al-Tarīqa al- Shādhiliyya wa a’lāmuha (Beirut:
al-Mu’assasa al-JāmīCiyya, 1990) 161.
46.
‘Ḥizb al-baḳr” is included
in Ibn al-?abbāgh’s hagiographical work Durrat al-
asrār.
47.
For more on this important writer see Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.) s.v. “CIyād bin Mūsā”(d. 544 /
1149).
48.
See al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013)
I’jāz al-Qur’ān S. A. ?aqr ed. (Cairo:
1964) and
I. Boullata, “The Rhetorical Interpretation
of the Qur’ān: ICjāz and Related Topics” in Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur’an A. Rippin ed. (Oxford: Clarendon,
1988) 144.
49.
Ibn Bākhilā lists
the differences between
types of quotations and fixes on
iqtibās as the most accurate
literary term to describe the textual form of the Иizb.
50.
Commentaries on the aИzāb of al-Shādhliī include: Abū al-Hudā Muḳammad al-RifāCī (d. 728/1328), Qilādat al-naИr
fī sharИ Ḥizb al-baИr (Cairo: 1931): Aḳmad Zarrūq al-Burnusī (d. 899/1493), SharИ Иizb al-baИr (ms. no. 1909 in Catalog of Arabic mss. in the Garrett Collection of the Princeton
Library ed. R. Mach); CAbd al-Raḳman al-Fāsī (d. 1035/1626), SharИ
Иizb al-kabīr (Cairo: 1998); Muḳammad ibn CAbd al- Salām al-Bannānī (d.1163/1750), SharИ al-Иizb al-barr (Tunis, Bibliothèque Nationale; CAbdaliyya collection ms. no. 4755; 56 pp.), Abū al-Maḳāsin al-Qāwuqjī (d. 1304/1887),
Kitāb al-Badr al-munīr
’ala Ḥizb al-Shādhilī al-kabīr (Alexandria: al-Nāsiriyya, 1862). I
have yet to consult the anonymous work Al-Radd
’alā Abī al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī fī Иizbihi (entry no. 103 or 161 in Fihris al-Makhịūịāt al-Muṣawwara (Cairo: MaChad al- Makhṭūṭāt al-CArabiyya: al-Duwal al-CArabiyya) (amāna 1302). On the aИzāb in the Shādhiliyya see R. McGregor, “A Sufi Legacy
in Tunis: Prayer and the Shadhiliyya” in International
Journal of Middle East Studies May, 1997. More generally, see C. Padwick,
Muslim Devotions: A Study of Prayer-Manuals in Common Use (Oxford: One- world,
1996).
51.
M. Chodkiewicz, “La
sainteté et les saints en islam” 20. Of course Tirmidhī was not the only early mystical
thinker to put forward the idea of prophetic inheritance. Junayd (d. 297/909) is
quoted as saying, “God’s privileged friend (saint) . . . will be made inheritor
of the marvelous gifts of the prophets.” Abū al-NuCaym al-I?fahānī, Ḥilyat al-awliyā’ (10 vols.) (Beirut:
Dār al-Fikr,
1996) 10:265. See also Enseignement
spirituel R. Deladrière trans. (Paris: Sinbad, 1983) 44.
52.
A disciple
of Tirmidhī’s, Abū CAlī
al-Juzjānī, notes
that a walī is
“in oblivion (fanā) of himself, but subsisting (baqā’) in contemplation.” See H. Landolt, “Walāya” 321.
53.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 26a
54.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 41b
55.
al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya 84. In the previous chapter
we noted this idea in both Ibn
CArabī and Tirmidhī.
56.
Durrat al-asrār
220. The last sentence recalls
Q. 10:62.
57.
Laịā’if al-minan
259. On the “gates of truth” see Q. 17:80. For Ibn CArabī, the term barzakh—among
other meanings—may refer to the perfect human’s position between God and
creation. See Chittick, The
Self-Disclosure of God 249.
58.
See The Sufi Path of Knowledge 66,
76, 131, 294.
59.
For a substantial discussion of this return see Landolt’s
“La “Double Échelle” d’Ibn CArabī chez Simnānī”.
60.
The Reality,
al-Иaqq, in mystical writing
is often a reference to God.
61.
Laịā’if al-minan
56.
62.
Seal of the Saints 171.
63.
Tirmidhī, The Concept of Sainthood 93,
172. See also G. Gobillot, La pensée d’al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (Abū ’Abd Allāh
MuИammad ’ibn ’Alī,
m. 318/930). Ou: de la “Profondeur des choses” (Doctoral thesis: Lyon, Université Jean Moulin, 1989)
ch. 4. Ibn al-?abbāgh, Durrat al-asrār 132, notes that a
“philosopher” once said that gnosis comes in two ways: by the path of
generosity (jūd) and by the path of
struggle (badhl al-majhūd).
64.
Durrat al-asrār
131; The Mystical Teachings
of al-Shadhili 118.
65.
ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:13.
66.
Durrat al-asrār
139; The Mystical Teachings
of al-Shadhili 123.
It is interest- ing to note that the Indian thinker Aḳmad Sirhindī (d.
1033/1644) also used the cate- gories of “wilāyat-i
ṣughrā” and “wilāyat-i kubrā.”
Mujaddidī thought later added a
third level, that of “wilāyat-i ’ulyā.”
See A. Buehler, Sufi Heirs of the
Prophet: The Indian Naqshbandiyya and the Rise of the Mediating Shaykh
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998) 98, 122,
245.
67.
Al-Shādhilī says, hiik¨ h_¬ a_ik¨MhiJ h_¬ akė Ï¿__rH Hiˆí.__ë _¬ See Ibn CAbbād al-Rundī,
Al-Rasā’il al-ṣughrā
P. Nwyia ed. (Beirut: Dār al-Machreq, 1974) 123. It appars that
Najm al-D•n al-Råz• (d. 654/1256)
shared this view of the possibility of acquiring the lower
form of walāya. In his introduction to N¥r al-D•n Isfaråyin•’s Le Révélateur des mystères (Kāshif al-asrār) H. Landolt writes, “Selon Najm-Råz•, c’est par l’initiation au dhikr
(talqīn) que le germe
de la walāya du shaykh est
‘transplanté’ dans le coeur du novice
pour y porter fruit” (p. 53).
68.
Laịā’if al-minan
27.
69.
M. Chodkiewicz, “La sainteté et les saints en islam”
18.
70.
This definition appears to be based on al-Qushayr•’s definition given
in chap- ter 1.
71.
Laịā’if
al-minan 52. It seems this model of a dual walāya was taken up by Då’¥d Qayßar• (d. 751/1350) in the next generation of mystical thinkers.
See A. Matsumoto “Unity of Ontology and Epistemology in Qayßar•’s
Philosophy” in Con- sciousness and
Reality: Studies in Memory of Toshihiko Izutsu J. Åshtiyån• et al. eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2000) 383.
72.
Laịā’if
al-minan 56. Regarding the term ṣiddīq,
it should be noted that in Jewish mysticism the parallel term zaddiq carried much the same meaning as it does in
our example here. D. Matt trans. Zohar: the Book of Enlightenment (New
York: Paulist, 1983) 128,
129. See also G. Scholem, Major Trends in
Jewish Mysticism (New York:
Schocken, 1954) 344.
73.
Laịā’if
al-minan 57. Compare Junayd’s two kinds of gnosis (ma’rifa): one inspired directly by God and reserved for the elect,
and one achieved by consideration of the signs
of His power, available to the common
believer. Al-Kalåbådh•, al-Ta’arruf li-madhhab ahl al-taṣawwuf A.
Maḳm¥d ed.
(Cairo: 1960) 64. It is worth noting that elaboration on the levels
of walāya continued into the nineteenth century. Ibn >Ajiba (d. 1224/1809) identifies three levels of walāya: (1) General, which is attained through faith and
piety; (2) Elite, which is reached by those with knowledge “by” God; (3) Elect
of the Elite, which belongs to those of gnosis and direct vision of God. See J. Michon, Le
soufi maroccain AИmad
Ibn ’Ajiba (1746–1809) et son Mi’rāj
(Paris: Vrin, 1973)
204.
74.
It must be noted, however, that Ibn >Arab• at least once offers an interiorized
interpretation of the seal of saints. See G. Elmore,
Islamic Sainthood in the Fullness of Time, 291.
75.
The early Shådhiliyya’s didactic approach to mystical concepts may also
be seen in its treatment of the term substitute
(badal). We saw in the previous
chapter that the badal, in Ibn >Arab•’s cosmology, is a saintly figure in the invisible hierarchy. This is also the case for al-Shådhil•, although
he puts their
number at forty.
Laịā’if al-minan
89. For al-Shådhil•, however,
this term is also relevant
to the common believer. He tells
his followers that the first
level of badaliyya consists of the substituting of bad acts for
good. Laịā’if al-minan 122. He also
says that anyone who has recited a dhikr from
al- Kha∂ir will be recorded as
one of the abdāl. Laịā’if al-minan 121.
76.
An interesting alternative model is developed by Majd al-D•n al-Baghdåd• (d. 616/1219) and Najm al-D•n al-Råz• (d. 654/1256). They speak of the spiritual
connec- tion between the walāya of the shaykh and the walāya of
his disciple. See Le Révélateur
des mystères 51.
77.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 13b.
78.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 59a.
79.
al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya 89.
80.
See M. Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints chs. 2, 5, and chapter 1 in this volume.
81.
See Laịā’if al-minan
127, 97.
82.
Ibn CArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam A. CAfīfī ed. (Beirut: n.d.) 135–36. See also chap- ter 1 above.
83.
The Concept
of Sainthood 113.
84.
Laịā’if al-minan
79–80.
85.
The Mystical
Teachings of al-Shadhili 186; Durrat al-asrār 200.
86.
The Mystical
Teachings of al-Shadhili 187; Durrat al-asrār 201.
87.
Durrat
al-asrār 214. The Mystical
Teachings of al-Shadhili 187. The Kubrawī thinker, CAlā al-Dawla Simnānī (d. 737/1336), describes a general wilāya
of the Prophet, which is intended for the community, and a prophetic walāya, which reaches the hearts of the
saints. See Le Révélateur des mystères 119–20.
88.
Durrat al-asrār
215.
89.
The Mystical
Teachings of al-Shadhili 189; Durrat al-asrār 217.
90.
Laịā’if al-minan
39. In his Tāj al-’arūs 22,
Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī says, “The saints are many. Neither their number nor their aid [to humanity]
decreases. If their number
were to be reduced by one, then the light of prophecy would be reduced.”
91.
Laịā’if al-minan
25-26. (The 1986 printing has omitted the word manifesta-
tions (ma?āhir), which is on page 40 of the 1974 printing of the same edition.) We are
not told what exactly these lights of prophethood are. The permanence of both walāya
and nubuwwa here contrasts with Ibn CArabī’s emphasis, noted above
in chapter 1, that
walāya is eternal, while nubuwwa is finite and specific to a time
and place.
92.
Laịā’if al-minan
37.
93.
G. Elmore,
Islamic Sainthood in the Fullness of Time 131.
94.
On this thinker see Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.) s.v. “SaCd al-Dīn al-
Ḥammū’ī.”
95.
Le Révélateur des mystères 177–78. On the variants
of “The end of the saints
is the beginning point of the prophets,” see page 121.
96.
Durrat al-asrār
227.
97.
It seems
that these sincere
ones are in fact “saints,” but when the former are compared to saints, these saints
should be understood as common saints distinct from the elite. See Durrat al-asrār 222–28 and The Concept of Sainthood 109, 141, and La sagesse des maîtres soufis 231.
98.
The Mystical
Teachings of al-Shadhili 48; Durrat al-asrār 56.
99.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 13b.
100.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 47a. This passage
may have been corrupted by its copyist; but the point seems
clear that the prophets dispense
from the unseen
world through their realities, while the saints, here
below, draw from that unseen world by their tenuities.
101.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 44b.
102.
’Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq 44b. These “greatest servants”
(vifuJH ._ƒhZH) are not discussed
further
in the text.
103.
The idea that religious
truth is unitary is not new. Ibn Rushd (d. 595/1198) advanced the idea, in
philosophical terms, in his Faṣl al-maqāl.
See Arnaldez’s “Ibn Rushd” in Encyclopedia
of Islam (second ed.) 912, 913.
104.
al-Laịīfa
al-marḍiyya 44. Distinctions between the degrees of ’iṣma are numerous. The ShīCī source BiИār al-anwār argues that the Prophet’s breast was cut open
only to cleanse
it of doubt, not disbelief, since he had been a believer from before birth.
U. Rubin, “Pre-existence and Light: Aspects
of the N¥r Muḳammad” in Israel Oriental
Studies 5, 1975. 104. See also E. Tayn’s “>Ißma” in Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.).
105.
al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya 47.
106.
al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya 48, 52.
107.
al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya 46.
108.
al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya 75.
3. The Wafå’iyya in Time and Space
1.
For a historical survey see A. Laroui, The History
of the Maghreb: An Inter- pretive Essay (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1977).
2.
H. Halm,
Shiism J. Watson trans.
(Edinburgh: Edingburgh University Press, 1991) 174.
3.
In the next chapter we will discuss the writings of both Muḳammad Wafå’ and his son >Al•.
4.
The Nile needed to
reach a certain level before the irrigation dams could be cut and the
agricultural lands irrigated and fertilized properly. The cutting of the dam
every year was an important event, marked with celebrations. On this festival, the yawm wafā’ al-nīl, see B. Shoshan, Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo 72 and
H. Lutfi, “Coptic Festivals of the Nile” in The Mamluks
in Egyptian Politics and Society T. Phillip
and U. Haarmaan eds. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 269–73. For per-
spectve from an earlier period, see ch. 5, “The Urban River” in P. Sanders, Ritual, Politics, and the City in Fatimid
Cairo (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1994). See also the early nineteenth-century description in E.W. Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern
Egyptians (1833–1835) (London: East-West, 1981) 485–91. The Nile was essential to the well-being of the entire
population, but the plague also had a great impact. “The
pneumonic plague broke out at least nine times between 748/1347 and 864/1459–60. Along with the numerous fluctuations of the Nile, and the subsequent famines,
the plague halted population growth during the period.” A. Dols, The Black Death in the Middle East (Princeton University Press,
1977) 230.
5.
Ab¥ al-Sa>¥d died in 644/1246. See Sha>rån•, al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 1:162 and al-Suy¥t•, Ḥusn al-muИādara (Beirut: Dår al-Kutub
al->Ilmiyya, 1997) (2 vols.) 1:425, and Ibn Mulaqqin, Ṭabaqāt al-awliyā (Cairo: 1975) 406. His
tomb and mosque still stand, about 100m north of the Wafå’ complex in the
Qaråfa.
6.
Ibråh•m Das¥q•
(d. 687/1288) had been the student of Aḳmad al-Badaw• (d. 675/1276). Unfortunately the sources nowhere give the death
date of Muḳammad al- Najm.
7.
Located on the eastern
coast of Tunisia,
south of Mahdiyya.
8.
Al-Min¥f•, Jamharat al-awliyā’ 2:254. His daughters were Ḥusna, Raḳma, and Duḳå. See Muḳammad
Tawf•q al-Bakr• (d. 1932), Bayt al-Sādāt
al-Wafā’iyya (Cairo: n.p. 192?) 43.
9.
The most important
document on the lineage of the Wafå’s, along with accounts of other families
and tribes bearing
the name Wafå’, is Murta∂å
al-Ḥusayn• al- Zab•d• (d. 1205/1791)
Raf’ niqāb al-khafā ’an-man intahā ilā Wafā wa Abī al-Wafā (Dår
al-Kutub; Tår•kh Taym¥r
2323, film 8176) (27 fols copied in 1189/1775, by Aḳmad ibn
>Īså al-Khal•f• al-Shåfi>•). It is interesting to note that according to Sålim >Ammår, the “Western” branch
of the early Shådhiliyya traced Ab¥ al-Ḥasan al-Shådhil•’s lineage back to the Idr•sid, while the “Eastern,” or Egyptian, branch did not. See S. >Ammår, Ab¥ al- Ḥasan al-Shådhil• 30 ff. Ibn
al-Íabbågh, Durrat al-asrår wa tu˙fat
al-abrår (Q¥ß) 28.
10.
A. Laroui, The History of the Maghreb 109 ff, does
however see traces of a Shi>ite political sensibility.
11.
al-Bakr•, Bayt al-Sådåt
al-Wafå’iyya 58 ff.
12.
It is worth reminding
ourselves here that there is a distinction to be made between a “pro->Alid” sensiblity—particulary
among Sunni mystics—and “crypto- Sh•>ism.” This
“crypto-Sh•>ism” has too often been identified where there is little justi- fication. We should recognize the gray boundary
between esoteric Sh•>ism and Sunni sufism rather than insist upon the conspiracy
of a “crypto-Sh•>ism.” The Ahl
al-Bayt (family of the Prophet) have always been revered by Sunni Muslims. In
the Maghreb Shar•fan descent is attributed a certain charisma, while Cairo,
through its numerous shrines to the Ahl
al-Bayt, prides itself on its association with the Prophet’s family.
13.
Murta∂å al-Zab•d•, Raf> niqåb 3b.
14.
Al-Sakhåw•, Al-Ạaw’ al-låmi> (Beirut: n.p.,
n.d.) 2:84–85. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam 49 fn. 6.
15.
Murta∂å
al-Zab•d•, Raf> niqåb fols. 4a–13a. For hagiographical accounts
of Tåj al->Årif•n see Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqåị
al-kubrå 2:134, and the two manuscripts noted in entries no. 23 and 24 in
Gril’s “Sources manuscrites.”
16.
M. H. Burgoyne, Mamluk Jerusalem: An Architechtural Study (British School of
Archeology in Jerusalem, 1987) 456. Burgoyne’s historical account is
drawn from Muj•r al-D•n al->Ulaym•, al-Uns al-jal•l
bi-ta’r•kh al-Quds (Cairo: n.p. 1866).
17.
Burgoyne, Mamluk Jerusalem 456, also notes the existence of a Mamluk-period zåwiya in Jerusalem, called the “Red zåwiya,” which was associated with the Wafå’iyya sufi order. Unfortunately, the souces provide
few details on this institution.See al-
>Ulaym•, al-Uns al-jal•l 392, 526.
18.
Cf. F. De Jong,
Sufi Orders in Ottoman
and Post-Ottoman Egypt
(Istanbul: Isis Press,
2000) 105.
19.
See entry no. 19 in
Gril’s “Sources manuscrites,” and Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam 278. See also A. Baytar, Ḥilyat al-bashar f• ta<r•kh al-qarn al-thålith
>ashar (Damascus: 1961–63) (3 vols.) 1:97, 3:1553.
20.
The full name is Ab¥ al-Wafå’ Ibråh•m ibn Y¥suf al-Dimashq•. F. De Jong, “Les confréries
mystiques musulmanes au Machreq arabe” in Les ordres mystiques
dans l’Islam A. Popovic and G. Veinstein eds.
(Paris: EHESS, 1986) 213.
21.
Aḳmad ibn Fåris Ab¥ al-Laṭå’if, al-Mina˙ al-ilåhiyya fi manåqib al-sådåt al- wafå’iyya. (Dår al-Kutub; Tår•kh
1151, film 14193) (46 fols.) (GAL suppl. 2, 149) (The author was the servant
of >Ali Wafa. He is writing around 830/1426. Fol. 8a gives this
year as the date of his visit to Ahkm•m.)
This manuscript is also noted in Catalogue des Manuscrits Arabes; deuxième partie;
Manuscrits Musulmans by
G. Vajda et Y. Sauvan (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale,
1985) vol. 3, ms. no. 1200 and is probably identical to Kitåb al-minhaj al-ilåhiyya f• manåqib . . . al-wafå’iyya noted
in the Catlogue of Manu-
scripts in the Koprülü Library
(Istanbul: 1986) 1:382.
In the latter citation the author is given as Muḳammad ibn Ab• al-Wafå’.
22.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 15a.
23.
ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā II:314.
24.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 3a.
25.
Abū
al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ
al-ilāhiyya 21a. «ahiM, ÎhiM, aJ fihäė Dk¨
Îviß },ma
§k¨ aïv“mė»
One might wonder, though, how Abū al-Fatḳ could have
seen his grandfather dying when he was not to be born himself for at least fifteen years,
i.e. until 790/1388.
Perhaps
this story was infact related
by his father, Shihāb al-Dīn (d. 756/1355).
26.
ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā II:314.
27.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 5b.
28.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 6b.
29.
Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī, Laịā’if al-minan 92.
30.
al-Nabahānī, Jāmi’ al-karāmāt al-awliyā 2:358, and Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya
23b.
31.
al-Nabahānī, Jāmi’ al-karāmāt al-awliyā 2:358, and Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya
7b.
32.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 45b.
«...a÷ihiƒ Dė h¬H M a÷iHvƒ Dė h¬H Di¨ iøhi ]¨hsJH Òhië §JH M Hiˆ Di¬y _¬ §Jhuï akJ DJM $Z»
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 46a.
«uÏ.żlH ,ęåM hiJM!H L÷ø Dėþ Ï.ż¬ häi¨ Fsha :Ji §JH ,håH hęZ hiJM!H L÷ø hZ»
Ibn CArabī is the author of ’Anqā mughrib.
33.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 6b.
34.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 1b.
35.
See Qur’ān sura 96:1 and Aḳmad al-Wāḳidī al-Nīsābūrī, Asbāb al-nuzūl
(Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Thiqāfiyya, n.d.) 5.
36.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 1b.
«Jë mJH :Ji _¬ a˚hsJ Jiïhė»
Taking the Prophet’s tongue
is doubtless CAlī Wafā’s claim to having
been chosen to receive
mystical inspiration directly
from the Prophet
and to be a vehicle
for its dis- semination. I have not seen this claim made in any other hagiographies. We shall see in
chapter 6 below that CAlī Wafā’ calls CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib the “tongue” of the Prophet.
37.
Abū al-Laṭā’if, al-MinaИ al-ilāhiyya 2a.
38.
Ibn Ḥajar al-CAsqalānī, Inbā’ al-ghumr bi-anbā’ al-’umr (3 vols.) (Cairo: 1971) 2:308.
39.
Ibn Ḥajar al-CAsqalānī, Inbā’ al-ghumr 2:308.
40.
J. Katz, Dreams, Sufism, and Sainthood (Leiden:
University of Leiden Press, 1996) 127.
41.
al-Bakrī, Bayt al-Sādāt al-Wafā’iyya 58. Also, CAlī is told that the aИzāb and wa?īfa of the Wafā’iyya are superior to those of the Shādhiliyya. CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-
khazā’in al-’aliyya (Dār al-Kutub; Ta?awwuf 152) 92b. Nevertheless, CAlī
elsewhere dis-
tinguishes
himself by his inspired interpretation of al-Shādhilī’s Ḥizb al-nūr. See al- ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:31.
42.
al-Maqrīzī as quoted in al-Bakrī’s Bayt al-Sādāt al-Wafā’iyya 43. In Kitāb al- masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya 4a, however,
it is noted that CAlī visited his father’s
grave every morning and evening from 765/1363 until
his own death
in 804/1404. CAlī Wafā’ also appears in the hagiography of a rival
Shādhilī shaykh, Muḳammad al-Ḥanafī (d. 847/1443). There
an ecounter is described in which al-Ḥanafī’s spiritual superiority is confirmed. On the day that CAlī Wafā’ dies, al-Ḥanafī hears
a voice telling
him that the
office of
the pole (al-quịbāniyya) has been
transferred to him. A. al-Battanūnī, al-Sirr al-ṣafī fī manāqib Sayyidī MuИammad
al-Ḥanafī, quoted in Geoffroy, Le
soufisme en Égypte et en Syrie 280.
43.
Abū al-IsCād Yūsuf ibn Abī al-CAṭā’ CAbd al-Razzāq ibn Wafā’ al-Mālikī al- Mi?rī (d. 1051/1641) (son of Shams al-Dīn MuḳammadAbū al-Faďl ibn Wafā’ (khalīfa no.10) (d. 1008/1599). Dīwān Abī al-Is’ād
Ibn Wafā’ (Makhịūịāt Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhira
(al-taṣawwuf) (Damascus: 1980) 1:558, entry no.775, ms. no. 4676.
44.
We saw earlier that
even within his lifetime, al-Shādhilī’s followers were divided
between Tunis and Egypt. Leadership and the hagiographical tradition were to develop independently in each area.
45.
I have yet to find evidence
that the “Wafā’iyya” in Jerusalem, or elsewhere, is derived
from the teachings or the family of Muḳammad and CAlī
Wafā’. Nevertheless, we do find Muḳammad and CAlī
Wafā’ noted in spiritual geneologies. One example is noted by
Maḳmūd ibn CAfīf al-Dīn (d. nineteenth c.
?) in his al-Rūḍa al-Shādhiliyya (n.p.,
1887) 55, where he lists these two figures after Ibn Bākhilā and before one Yahia al-Qādirī. This is part of the silsila of Al-tarīqa al-Makkiyya al-Fāsiyya al-Madaniyya. Ibn CAfīf al-Dīn also wrote
Ma’āhid al-taИqīq fī radd al-munkirīn
’alā ahl al-ịarīq li al-Sāda al- Shādhiliyya
al-Wafā’iyya al-Fāsiyya (Cairo: MaṭbaCa Muḳammad CAlī Subayh,
1960).
46.
This list is compiled
from Murtaďā al-Zabīdī, Raf’ niqāb; al-Bakrī, Bayt al- Sādāt
al-Wafā’iyya; F. De Jong, Turuq and
Turuq-linked Institutions in Nineteenth Century Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1978); al-Jabartī ’Abd al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt, Al-Shawbarī al-ShāfiCī al-Tarjamat al-Wafā’iyya ms. (completed in 1070/1658)
in Leiden University, Or. 14.437.
Although our study does not take up the Wafā’ gene- ology in detail, it should be noted that the Murtaďā al-Zabīdī manuscript is a remarkable document on the subject.
The work not only supplies
lineages and names
but also notes many ijāzāt (certifications) given out by members of the family and to
whom; it notes the names of many who received the Wafā’iyya khirqa (cloak).
Perhaps the greatest service of this manuscript is its criticism of a number of
forged and confused salāsil (pedigrees)
in circulation.
47.
The figures
from the twelfth/eighteenth century onward often
have “al-Sādāt” appended
to their name. This is a reference to their descent from Imām CAlī. See Muḳammad Fatḳī Abū Bakr, Dhail kitāb murshid al-zuwwār
ilā qubūr al-abrār
(Cairo: n.p. 1994) 42.
48.
Ibn Ḥajar al-CAsqalānī, Inbā’ al-ghumr 2:498, al-Sakhāwī, al-Ạaw’ al-lāmi’ li- ahl al-qarn al-tāsi’ 10:90, and al-Suyūṭī, Kawkab al-Rūḍā (Cairo:
n.p., 2003) 111.
49.
Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ạaw’ al-lāmi’ 12:20. Also noted in CUmar Riďā Kuḳḳālā, A’lām
al-nisā’ (5 vols.)
(Beirut: 1977) (3rd. ed.) 1:262. Sultan Ashraf
Īnāl ruled
1453–1461, and built this ribāṭ for his wife
Zaynab in 860/1465. This monument, known as ribāị
zawjat Ṣultān Īnāl, and registered with the Egyptian Antiquities department as site 61, still stands today.
50.
M. al-Shawbarī al-ShāfiCī, al-Tarjamat
al-Wafā’iyya 5b, 6b. (My copy of this
ms. is missing the first
few pages; I have begun
pagination on the folio beginning,
]iss ]äi.Ƅ.
51.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabqāt al-kurbā 2:67. If “sons” is taken literally, they were the sons of either khalīfa no.
4, 5, or 6. However,
the term sons in
this Egyptian context
may also refer to the followers of a shaykh (alive or dead) in a general way, that is, as members
of a sufi order.
Regarding Ab¥ al-Mawåhib’s relationship to the Wafå’iyya, it should be noted
that he composed the Silå˙ al-Wafå’iyya bi thaghr al-Iskandariyya a.k.a. Risålat al-awliyå’ (India Office, London:
ms. no. 669 or ms. no. 416; 10 fols.)
(Sa>•d >Abd al- Fattåḳ’s edition of Kitåb al-azal, p. 211, notes the error in Kashf al-Ωun¥n attributing this text
to Ibn Fåris.) Ms. also found as Dår al-Kutub, tår•kh 1151. In this work Ab¥
al- Mawåhib identifies himself with the nisba “al-Wafå’•” (fol. 2a). In fact,
the work has nothing to do with the Wafå’iyya directly. It provides an
unoriginal discussion of the importance to the aspirant of having a spiritual guide.
It also gives
numerous hadith cita- tions in support of this idea but does not draw on the writings of Muḳammad and >Al• Wafå’ themselves. The last
folios of Silå˙ al-Wafå’iyya are
simply a long quotation from Ibn Båkhilå’s >Uy¥n al-˙aqå’iq.
52.
As quoted by al-Bakr•,
Bayt al-Sådåt al-Wafå’iyya 39–40.
53.
>Abd al-Ra˙mån al-Jabart•’s History of Egypt 273; >Ajå’ib al-åthår 4:195. For a portrait of Ab¥
al-Anwår see Description de l’Égypte,
état moderne: 1, pl. 39.
54.
Al-Bakr•, Bayt al-Sådåt al-Wafå’iyya 8, 9. From my investigations at the Wafå’ zåwiya in al-Qaråfa, it appears that the Wafå’/Sådåt family is no longer involved
in the Wafå’iyya order.
I was told that there
is no longer any dhikr ceremony at the zåwiya but that some of the festival days
are celebrated there, presumably run by the Bakr•s. We shall discuss these
festivals below.
55.
Although the family’s
center of activity became Cairo, there is evidence that early on a presence
was maintained in Akhm•m. See J.-C. Garcin,
Un centre musulman de
la Haute-Égypte médiévale: Q¥ṣ (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale, 1976, 316 fn. 4) 435.
56.
al-Bakr•, Bayt al-Sådåt al-Wafå’iyya 59.
57.
al-Sakhåw• notes that Zaynab, wife of Īnål “. . . built good ribåịs for the widows near the zåwiya of Ban• Wafå in the quarter
of >Abd al-Båsiṭ.” Ạaw’ al-låmi> 12:45, as quoted
by K. Johnson in “Royal Pilgrims: Mamluk Accounts of the Pilgrimage to Mecca”
in Studia Islmica no. 91, 2000, 115.
58.
>Abd al-Ra˙mån al-Jabart•’s History of Egypt 264. (Registered as monument no. 463) A view
of Birkat al-F•l and some of its dwellings is preserved in Description de l’Égypte, état moderne: 2, pl. E.
59.
Aḳmad Shaf•q,
Mudhakkiråt• f• nisf qarn (Cairo: 1934)
1:79. For an architech-
tural account of the remains of this house see B. Maury et al., “Manzil
al-Sadat” in Palais et maisons du Caire (XVIe-XVIIIe siècles) (Paris: Éditions
du centre national
de la recherche scientifique, 1983) 259–67.
60.
>Al• Båshå Mubårak, al-Khiịaị al-tawf•qiyya (14 vols) (Cairo: 1986). 5:315.
61.
These graves are
clearly marked. The most detailed descriptions are to be found in Muḳammad
Fatḳ• Ab¥ Bakr, Dhail kitåb murshid
al-zuwwår ilå qub¥r al-abrår
66 ff; al-Bakr•, Bayt al-Sådåt
al-Wafå’iyya 65. This monument is registered as Masjid
al-Sådåt, no. 608.
62.
In the midfourteenth/eighth century,
the traveler Ibn Battuta tells
us that elab- orate building in the cemetary was commonplace. “At Cairo too is the great cemetary
of al-Qaråfa, which is a place
of peculiar sanctity, and contains the graves of innumerable
scholars and pious believers. In the Qaråfa the people build beautiful
pavilions sur- rounded by walls, so that they look like houses.
They also build chambers and hire
Koran-readers,
who recite night and day in agreeable voices. Some of them build reli- gious houses and madrasas
beside the mausoleums and on Thursday
nights they go out
to spend the night there with their children and women-folk, and make a circuit
of the famous tombs.” Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and Africa 1325–1354 H. A. R. Gibb trans. (London: Routledge, 1929) 51. For
a study of some manuals used by visitors to these tombs see C. Taylor, In the Vicinity of the Righteous (Leiden:
Brill, 1998).
63.
’Abd
al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 261. This complex,
which includes a “Tekke,” has yet to be studied.
64.
For a detailed
description of the interior of the zāwiya,
see Su>åd Måhir, Masājid Miṣr wa awliyā’u
ha al-ṣalihūn (Cairo: Wizårat al-Awqåf, 1980) 69–86. Su>åd Måhir depends heavily on >Al• Mubårak, al-Khiịaị al-tawfiqiyya (Cairo: al-Hay’a al-
>åmma, 1986) 310 ff. Mubårak,
p. 319, also provides the waqf endowment for the
zāwiya-mosque.
65.
Al-Bakr•, Bayt al-Sādāt al-Wafā’iyya 67.
66.
L. Massignon, “La cité
des morts au Caire” Bulletin de
l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, no 57, 1958, 48.
67.
Tirmidh•, Sunan 39.
68.
J. Katz, Dreams, Sufism, and Sainthood 127. Of
interest also is that the jurist and sometime
mystic >Abd al-Raḳmån ibn >Umar al->Ar•sh• (d. 1193/1779)
composed a work entitled Sirr
al-kunā bi-ism al-Sayyid Abī al-Anwār ibn Wafā.
It is not clear this work, noted in ’Abd
al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 85, has survived.
69.
The modern chronicler Aḳmad Shaf•q mentions having attended the takniyya on 27 of Rama∂ån. He describes the ceremony, directed by Shaykh >Abd al-Khåliq (no. 22). Apparently, anyone
who wished to receive a name could present himself.
Both his usual and
his new names
were entered into a written
record, after the shaykh had called them out. Aḳmad Shaf•q’s father tells him that it is commonly believed that however often one were to return, the shaykh would always decide on the same kunya. Mudhakkirātī fī nisf
qarn 1:79-80.
70.
One source
equates this mī’ād with
a “mashhad,” or assembly. See al-Maqr•z•
as quoted in Ibn Taghr• Bird• al-Manhal al-Ṣāfī (Cairo: 1999) 8 vols.,
8:164.
71.
The large public
celebrations of mawlid al-nabī came
to be run by the Bakr• family. See De Jong, Turuq
and Turuq-linked Institutions 61 ff.
72.
On the vague meaning of
receiving a mantle at the end of the ninth/fifteenth century, see E. Sartain, Jalāl al-Dīn Suyūịī (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1975) 35.
73.
Al-Bakr•, Bayt al-Sādāt
al-Wafā’iyya 57. This initiation practice
involving the shadd and tāj, found among certain guilds, antedates the establishment of the
sufi orders. Massignon suspects
a Sh•>• origin
to certain elements
of the ritual. See Encyclo-
pedia of Islam (first ed.) s.v. “Shadd”.
74.
’Abd al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 263.
75.
’Abd
al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 272, 264. E. W. Lane,
in An Account of the Manners and Customs
of the Modern Egyptians (1833–1835) 422–28, describes this celebration,
known as “yawm ’Ashūra,” which ended
on the tenth of Muḳarram. Several waqf or
endowment deeds having
to do with Ab¥ al-Anwår’s activi- ties survive in the collection of the Ministry of Endowments in Cairo (Wizårat al-Awqåf).
76.
See P. Gran, The Islamic Roots of Capitalism: Egypt,
1760–1840 (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1998) 38, 40, 42,
119, 234 fn. 1.
77.
De Jong,
Turuq and Turuq-linked Institutions 13.
78.
De Jong, Turuq and
Turuq-linked Institutions 39, 76 , 77. De Jong concludes that “the most plausible explanation for the singular arrangement as it existed
in the case of al-Wafā’iyya, seems to be that it could
be obtained and maintained owing
to the pre- eminent rôle in Egyptian society—in many respects equal to
al-Bakrī’s—which was played by
the shaykh al-sajjāda al-Wafā’iyya”
(p. 77).
79.
’Abd
al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 429. De Jong’s Turuq and Turuq-linked Institutions 12, 220 notes
the succession of Abū al-Ḥādī to the niqāba but has the death date wrong.
80.
’Abd al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 526.
81.
’Abd
al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 269. On his varied
fortunes under the French occupation see p. 268.
82.
’Abd al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 194.
83.
De Jong, Turuq and Turuq-linked Institutions 121,
and ’Abd al-RaИmān al- Jabartī’s History
of Egypt 274.
84.
’Abd al-RaИmān al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 274.
85.
See Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.) s.v.
“Ibn Taymiyya.” More detailed studies of his polemics include M. Momen, Ibn Taymiyya’s Struggle against Popular Religion (Paris: 1976) and N. H. Olesen, Culte
des saints et pèlerinages chez Ibn Taimiyya (Paris: 1971).
86.
For more on this conflict, see V. Danner, Ibn ’Aịā’
Allāh: A Sufī of Mamluke Egypt, ch. 4 “The Confrontation between Ibn
CAṭā’ Allāh and Ibn
Taymiyya” and H. Laoust, Essai sur les doctrines sociales
et politiques de Takī al-Dīn
AИmad ibn Taimiya (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1939) 132 ff. Osman Yahia’s
Histoire et classification 1:133, lists a fatwa by Ibn CAṭā’ Allāh al-Iskandarī in defence of Ibn CArabī.
87.
Much later,
in the modern era, Ibn Taymiyya would become the inspiration for various Islamic religiopolitical
movements.
88.
The ninth/fifteenth century produced twice
as many full-length books attack- ing Ibn CArabī, than were produced
in the previous two centuries combined. A. Knysh, Ibn ’Arabī
in the Later Islamic Tradition
(Albany: State University of New York Press,
1999) 201.
89.
Knysh, Ibn ’Arabī
in the Later Islamic Tradition, writes, “Full-scale polemical refutations of Ibn CArabī’s teachings were produced, for the most part, by the radical and activist ‘ulama,
rather than by those who can be described as mainstream” (p. 222). This study also concludes that in Egypt the majority
who waded into these debates,
although not proponents of Akbarian thought, were opposed to the tone
and virulence of the attacks. These criticisms of Ibn CArabī “provoked a stream of polemical
responses that were written
chiefly by the ‘ulama of moderate views, not necessarily Ibn CArabī’s admirers” (p. 223).
90.
L. Fernandes, Evolution of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk
Egypt: The Khanaqa (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1988) 100. On the presence
of foreign sufi shaykhs in the pre- ceding century, see La Risāla de Ṣafī al-Dīn ibn Abī al-Manṣūr
Ibn Zāfir 20.
For a sur- vey of khānqāhs as
monunments see Cā?im Rizq,
Khānqāwāt al-ṣūfiyya fī Miṣr (2 vols.) (Cairo: Madbouli, 1997).
91.
This despite
the fact that CAlī explicitly disparages the khānqāhs as
places of spiritual limitation for sufis: (Lißmȧ˚í §k¨ Liäiiȧ÷J) ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāị al-kubrā
2:31.
92.
As we noted earlier,
the only substantial account is al-MinaИ
al-ilāhiyya. In accord with its venerative aims as a hagiography, this work does not concern
itself with such mundane
details as the teachers or the important books in the life of the future saint,
CAlī Wafā’.
93.
This observation is
also made by G. Delanoue, Moralistes et
politiques Musulmans dans l’Égypte du XIXème
siècle (4. vols.) (Cairo:
Institut Français d’Archéolo- gie Orientale, 1982) 3:258.
4. The Writings of the Wafå’s
1.
al-Sakhāwī wrote Al-Qawl al-munbī ’an tarjumat Ibn ’Arabī, which set the tone for most of the antisufi polemics
of the medieval and modern times. For further discus- sion of these polemics see M.
Chodkiewicz, “Le Procès posthume d’Ibn CArabī”.
2.
al-Sakhāwī, Al-Ạaw’ al-lāmi’
li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsi’
6:21 (no. 46):
«avJHM LЫ˚ HiZ M
эhr!H §JH §ȧȧlH эhï!hƒ ,äii a .uå» As Nicholson points out, in the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam Gibb and Kramers eds. (Leiden: Brill,
1991) 189, ittiИād is the mystical
union by which the creature is made one with the Creator, versus Иulūl, which is generally the doctrine
that the Creator becomes incarnate in the creature. Both concepts thus defined are considered heretical by most sufis but may be considered differently. “Sometimes the term ittiИād is employed like the ?ūfistic waИdat or tawИīd, in reference to the doctrine
that all things are non- existent in themselves, but derive their existence from God and, in this respect, are one
with God. According to CAlī b. Wafā’ (quoted by ShaCrānī in al-Yawāqīt
wa al-Jawāhir (2 vols) (Cairo: al-Halabī, 1959) 1:65.),
the meaning of ittiИād in the terminology of the
?ūfis is ‘the passing
away of that which is willed by the creature
in that which is willed
by God.’” [This passage
is found on 1:65 of the 1378/1959
edition of al-Yawāqīt.] See also Massignon/Anawati’s “Ḥulūl” in Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.).
3.
Inbā’ al-ghumr bi-anbā’ al-’umr 2:308. Ibn CIyās (d. 930/1524) and Ibn al- CImād al-Ḥanbalī (d. 1089/1678), along
with other later compilers, repeats al-CAsqalānī’s comments. See Ibn CIyās, Badā’i’ al-?uhūr fī waqā’i’ al-duhūr (Cairo/Wiesbaden, 1983)
6,
and Ibn al-CImād, Shadharāt
al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab (8 vols.) (Cairo: Maktaba al-Qudsa,
1932) 7:70. CAlī Wafā’ himself seems to be answering to these accu- sations in the following poetic line quoted
by al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) in his Ta’yīd al- Иaqīqa al-’aliyya wa tashyīd
al-ịarīqa al-Shādhiliyya (Cairo: n.p. 1974) 73: “They sus- pect me (§ƒ mizi)
of Иulūl and ittiИād. Yet my heart is empty
of all but tawИīd [profes-
sion of Divine Unity].”
4.
In Ibn ’Arabī in the Later Islamic Tradition 129, Knysh concludes that
“Ibn Ḥajar’s own assessment
of Ibn CArabī’s work is deliberately indecisive, betraying the typical
bewilderment of an exoteric scholar who is confronted with the Sufi legacy.” See also
Chodkiewicz’s remarks in “Le Procès posthume d’Ibn CArabī” 122, 123.
5.
ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:22–65. This entry was also the primary source for Massignon’s dozen footnote references to various elements
of the mystical thought of CAlī
Wafā’. See the index of La Passion du Ḥusayn Ibn Manṣūr Ḥallāj s.v. CAlī
Wafā’.
Sha>rån• also quotes
Al• Wafå’ in his al-Anwār
al-qudsiyya (Cairo: n.p. 1962) 95, 96,
118,
119, 120 and in his al-Ajwaba
al-marḍiyya ’an a’ima al-fuqaha wa al-ṣūfiyya >Abd al-Bår• Muḳammad Då’¥d ed. (Cairo: Maktaba Umm al-Qar•, 2002) 536, 530, 531.
6.
J.-C. Garcin, “Index
des Ṭabaqåt de Sha>rån•” in Annales
islamologiques 6, 1963, 40–43, and M. Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: 54–58. Sha>rån• also compiled epitomes of the work of Ibn >Arab•; al-Yawāqīt wa al-jawāhir fī bayān ’aqā’id al-akābir and al-Kibrīt
al-aИmar fi bayān
’ulūm al-Shaykh al-Akbar
(on the margin of al-Yawāqīt).
7.
Ḥåjj• Khal•fa, Kashf al-?unūn G. Flugel ed. (Reprinted from the 1842 ed. by New York: Johnson Reprint 1964) 5:39.
8.
E. Geoffroy, Djihād et contemplation (Paris: Devry, 1997) 93.
9.
Al-Sammån, Risālat al-futuИāt
al-ilāhiyya fī kayfiyya sulūk al-ịarīqa al- MuИammadiyya (Cairo: n.p.
1326/1908) 33.
10.
’Abd al-RaИmān
al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt 2:242. On Aḳmad al-Dard•r see
R. Chih’s
“Les débuts d’une ịarīqa . . .”
148–49 in Le saint et son milieu ou
comment lire les sources hagiographiques R. Chih and D. Gril eds. (Cairo:
Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2000).
11.
My thanks for this information to Humphrey Davies. The quotation is to be found on page 264 of Davies forthcoming edition of Hazz al-quИūf.
12.
J. Johansen, Sufism and Islamic Reform in Egypt (New York: Clarendon, 1996)
123.
13.
Al-Mawrid al-aṣfā
fī sharИ dīwān Sayyidī MuИammad
Wafā’ M. I. Sålim
(Cairo: n.p. 2000).
14.
Al->Asqalån•, in his Durar al-kāmina
(Hyderabad: 1929–31) 4:279 (no. 783), describes this poetry as being in the tradition
of Ibn al-Fåri∂ (d. 632/1235):
«...]iэh_ï!H _¬ a._i_i M ġ,hȧJH _ƒH Ri.Ƅ §k¨ vªhaë ∫_a˚í M» On Ibn al-Fåri∂ see the study by T. E. Homerin, From Arab Poet to Muslim Saint: Ibn
al-Farid, His Verse, and His Shrine (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997). A proper comparison of Wafå’• poetry
to that of Ibn al-Fårid remains to be done.
Claude Addas has recently pointed
to misattribution of the authorship of this poem in manuscript catalogs.
In her “L’oeuvre poétique d’Ibn Arab• et sa réception” Studia Islamica
no. 91, 2000, 28, she suggests the text attributed to Ibn >Arab• (listed twice in O. Yahia, Histoire et classification de l’oeu- vre d’Ibn ’Arabī, as numbers 211 and 566) is in fact by Muḳammad Wafå<. In personal correspondence she has confirmed
this. As we shall see, this is not the only instance where a Wafå< text is mistakenly attributed to Ibn >Arab•.
15.
This observation is made in light of the description of that style as presented
in
A. Alvarez,
“MuwashshaИ (pl. muwashshaИāt)” in The
Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature (2 vols.)
J. Meisami and P. Starken
eds. (London: Routledge, 1988), where it is noted, “It seems clear that as a
non-classical form, these (muwashshaИāt)
composi- tions—songs, we must remember—were deemed unworthy of inclusion in
tomes of lofty verse. Instead,
the vast majority
of these poems
. . . have come down to us in books
solely devoted to muwashshaИāt”
2:563. It is thus likely that not all the Wafå’ poetic works
have survived.
16.
This may also
be read, “I am the most amazing of the amazing.”
17.
Chapter 112 of the Qur’ån, verse 4 reads, “And there is nothing which is His like.”
18.
Dīwān
Sayyid ’Alī ibn Wafā’ (Microfilm of the Istanbul, Aya Sofia ms. no.
3922) 6b. (metre: kāmil)
/hƒ.żJH Ï.ií h˚í a÷f“∫ė * h˚í _ę¨ auię“ эm“mJH fi∫ß
/H.äȧJH .äėí :˚# Jiii * aƒ DïHэh¬ J˚∫ė эm“mJHfihë
/hękuJH M / KiĽH Ú,v¬ Dė * hikZ Fih[uJH M FiH.żJH Dkė
/häkakJH /KäuJH F[u÷ė * D÷ƒ.i Ô∫“ „K“!H},mßDė
The freedmen are of course
the mystics.
19.
Dīwān Sayyid
’Alī ibn Wafā’
13a (metre: kāmil)
hfï,M эm“mJH,÷ė ÎiJH
§äkï * hikΩ Dė D÷JH L÷ÿH]aä˚ h˚H hiø aJ hiuJH Fii D÷JH _iuJH * ¿Z .¬ M эm“mJH Faë h˚í Hi≥ė
20.
Dīwān Sayyid
’Alī ibn Wafā’ 164b (metre:
khafīf)
D˚h¬y $ˆ# עviJH Òh¬H M * :å .ii _¬ эm“mJH Faë h˚í D˚hulH эm“M aƒ§ˆhiï vë * aiz¬ ,ę“ h¬y D˚h¬y M
D˚hiƒ Dė afii .sJH vˆhå * DȧaZ _i¨ _¨ Ïh[rH §åKï ṷ D˚H.ï Ôэ,í _iżJH ]aä˚ * Dz¬H M :˚hi¨ _¨ m;JH ,.Ƅhė
The ’ayn—ghayn juxtaposition is a much earlier poetic
motif. See for example Rūzbi- hān Baqlī’s Kitāb al-ighāna in
Quatre traités inédits de Rūzbehān Baqlī
Shirāzī P. Ballanfat ed. (Tehran:
IFRI, 1998) 87, Arabic text.
Ibn al-Fāriď also
uses this motif,
see The Poem of the Way A. J.
Aberry trans. (London: Emery Walker, 1952) 51, 84. G. Scattolin will soon publish
a critical edition of Ibn al-Fārid’s Dīwān with the I.F.A.O. See also E. Homerin’s
translation, ’Umar Ibn al-Fāriḍ;
Sufi Verse, Saintly
Life (New York: Paulist Press, 2001) 213.
21.
These observations, I believe, apply
more or less to the founding and the sur- vival of all sufi orders.
22.
In the manuscript majmū’a of
the Maktaba Azhariyya (majāmīC: 1076; Zakī: 41313) the “Ḥizb al-azal”
(fol. 10a–10b) is followed by an account of the munājāt of Muḳammad Wafā’ (10b–12a). This collection of munājāt
should be considered a sepa- rate work.
23.
Muḳammad Wafā’, (Hadha) Иizb al-fatИ, (23 pp.) (Cairo:
MaṭbaCat al-Adab wa al-Mu’ayyad,
1901). A manuscript of this Иizb,
along with Wa?īfat al-fajr (5 fols.),
Wa?īfat
al-ṣubИ (2 fols.),
and Tawjīhāt li-Sīdī ’Alī Wafā’ (2
fols.) can be found attached to al-Tarjamat al-Wafā’iyya (Leiden University, Or. 14.437), compiled
by Muḳammad ibn Khalīfat al-Shawbarī al-ShāfiCī in 1070/1659. See also C. Brockelmann, Geschichte
der Arabischen Literatur (supplement) (3 vols.) (Leiden: Brill, 1937–42)
2:148, for notice of a commentary on a prayer attributed to Muḳammad Wafā’. In a
small book published recently, Muḳammad Sālim includes Ḥizb al-fath
and one Ṣalāt al-nabī
from Muḳammad Wafā. Included from CAlī are Ḥizb al-tawajjuhāt,
a du’a, and a Ṣalāt al- nabī. Of unclear
authorship are Wa?īfat al-fajr
and Wa?īfat al-subИ. Sālim mentions a book
of aИzāb, awrād,
and ṣalawāt having been published in Cairo in 1949 by Maḳmūd
Ḥasam al-CArūsī. At some point CAlī Yūsuf also published
some of the prayers of the Wafā’iyya. See al-NafИa al-Khatamiyya, M. Sālim ed; (Cairo: al-Shirka al-muttahida li
al-ṭibāCa, 1996) 57. Shaykhs Yūsuf and al-CArūsī were leaders of the post Wafā’ family Wafā’iyya. (The present study has
not taken up this period.)
24.
See SaCīd CAbd al-Fattāḳ’s introduction to his edition
of Muḳammad Wafā’s
Kitāb al-azal
(Beirut: Dār al-Mutanabbi, 1992) 16.
25.
Kawthar is a river
in paradise.
26.
Ibn Ḥajar al-CAsqalānī, Inbā’ al-ghumr bi-anbā’ al-’umr 2:308. Both al-CAsqalānī and al-Sakhāwī, al-Ạaw’ al-lāmi’ 6:21,
identify this as a work on fiqh.
27.
al-Bā’ith ’alā al-khalāṣ min sū’ al-?ann
bi al-khawā? British Library
Or.4275.
J. Berkey, Popular Preaching and Religious Authority in the Medieval Islamic Near East (Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2001)
105 fn. 56. Berkey (p. 32) supposes a related
work by CAbd al-Raḳīm al-CIrāqī entitled al-Bā’ith
’alā al-khalāṣ min Иawādith al-quṣṣāṣ
to be lost, but it can be found in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya under Ḥadīth
Taymūr 290. A modern writer,
Muḳammad Aḳmad Darnīqa,
attributes Bughya al-rā’id
(That desired by the seeker)
and a Qur’ānic commentary to CAlī. See his al-Ṭabaqāt al- Shādhiliyya wa a’lāmuhā 142.
I have not seen reference
to these works anywhere else.
28.
J. Berkey,
Popular Preaching 57, 74, 75.
29.
Ibn al-CImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab (8 vols) 8:71. (Damascus: Dar al-Mi?riyya, 1979).
30.
Ahmad al-Dā'ūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn (2 vols) (Cairo:
Maktaba al-Wahba, 1972) 1:434.
31.
For more on these
important figures see Chittick’s “The School of Ibn CArabī” in
History of Islamic Philosophy S. H.
Nasr and O. Leaman eds. (London: Routledge, 1996) and “The Five Divine Presences: From al-Qūnawī to al-Qaysarī” in The Muslim
World 72, 1982. Also useful is C. Addas’s Quest for the Red Sulfur.
32.
Muḳammad Wafā’,
Kitāb al-azal 53.
«.$iS ! M Lkuï ! D÷JH ÔHiJH ]äiäs mˆ M sRkalH Lß!H mˆ miJH M»
33.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb al-azal 54;
and Azhar ms 105b.
§ȧ÷˚H Ƅ.aJH §ȧ÷˚H §÷¬ M
.fiKä÷ßH Kė .аэm“m˚ !ṷ /DaJ
эm“M !
M .эm“mJH
M ,ȧiJhƒ
fiKä÷ß!H .iżJH ]äiäs M» ÔHiJH §Jṷ ,miЫJH M mafJH u@.a÷i ! .yþ @.a÷ï !í Hiˆ §kuė .iżJH Ò¿k÷_si :JiZ hȧií .ˆhzJH M . .ii Kė ƄM.alH
§k¨ fihäi ! :Ji $Z .]ȧëhi÷lH M s]kihę÷lH M s]ȧJhżlH M s}эhȧ÷lH M s}.ihż÷lH FïH.lH ,ię“ :JiZ M .miJH Dˆ M s]äkalH
«.]fï.¬ $;˚ Riki h¬ Fszƒ h;¬%H M sэm“mJH FïH.¬ §k¨ fihäi háṷ .miJH
34.
Muḳammad Wafā’,
Kitāb al-azal 50.
§iu¬ M .]Z.÷a¬ ]ȧa a˚í ,¬ ÔhȧaJH ]k¨ M shiƒ ]ȧaJH Òhië ]za usicþ Dė d.aƒ ÔHiJH §k¨ }эhiy эm“mJH M]» s.e;÷i ! M §ie÷i ! asȧ˚ Dė vsHM [a˚í ,¬ ]uƒh÷lHL;zƒ ! эm“mJH Rªhäs g¬ hˆэH.ä˚H §k¨ ]äiäs $;ƒ a¬hië :ÚH.÷a%H
«.mˆ !ṷ эm“ml эm“M ! M
35.
Muḳammad Wafā’,
Kitāb al-azal 80.
.imaï aï,ma _iiuï] .,ma÷JH M },maJhƒ aïmë Dė $ahs /Då$Z .Lkui LJ h¬ Lk¨ M s m;i ÒJ h¬ mZ aƒ h¬ A.uJH»
«.aiė _ªh;JH a“mú ”m¬ M s .zfJhZ aJ a÷kiH¿¬$iz÷siė .usicþ mˆ aiė aƒ _ªh;Jhė [.aJhuȧ˚H Dė aïmäƒ ,ëHM akuė .а,maï
36.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān (Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya) ms. 23797 b; microfilm no. 27723, and (al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya) majāmīC: 1076; Zakī: 41313. (This majmū’a consists of twelve titles from CAlī and Muḳammad Wafā’.
The catalog, Fihris al- kutub al-mawjūda bi al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya ilā 1366/1947 (Cairo: 1948) 3:636, claims this majmū’a
was copied in 749/1348; however, my photocopy of the first page, listing the
titles, gives no date. The date of 749 is unlikely anyway,
since CAlī Wafā’ was not born until
759. Two
other copies of Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān have
been preserved: Staatsbibliothek Zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, no. 3248, We.1674.
102 fols., and see Fihris makhịūịāt Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhiriyya (al-taṣawwuf) (Damascus:
1980). 1:224. ms. no. 1312. I am preparing a critical edition of this text. The
work seems to have been mistakenly attributed to Ibn CArabī; see O. Yahia,
Histoire et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn CArabī, number 663.
37.
Q. 27:83 mentions God gathering together
from each nation,
on Judgment day, those who have rejected His Signs.
38.
Cf. “You (God) have caused the night to run into the day, and the day into the
night” (Q. 3:27).
39.
Q. 30:60
runs, “Do not be made unsure by those who are unsure (in faith).”
« miëmi ! _iiJH :fȧż÷si ! M...»
40.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān
Dār al-Kutub;
1b. (al-Maktaba al- Azhariyya; 129a)
âlhƒ âlH $ę;¬ M * âsJhƒ âsJH Dsh¬ akJ vęrH
_¬¿JH Dė _¬¿JH $øv¬ M * _kuJH Dė .sJH .iz¬ M L;rhƒ L;rH ¿÷i¬ M * L¬!H Dė L¬!H .åhs M L[¨H M hifJH Dė Ï.¨hė * ,hfå!H
Dė ,HM,!H fi¿˚
Lk;ï ! M RƄh˚ J;ß hęė * ,hȧi!H Dė Òhiƒ!H ”¿¬ M
[L÷;ƒ ! .y] Lk;ï ! M Tż÷s¬ _ifï hęė * ,hfa!H Dė hs¬!H ¿JMH M
L;ƒ!H M ,.ø!H Raiė a ,Hm˚!H Dė ,H.ß!H L÷Z M
41.
“Withness” or ma’iyya refers to God being constantly
with creation. See Q. 57:4, “God is with you wherever you are.” According
to Ibn CArabī, “He is with things, but the things are not with Him,
since “withness” follows from knowledge: He knows us, so He is with us. We do not know Him, so we are not with
Him.” The Sufi Path of Knowledge 88.
42.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub; 2b, 3a.
fimarH ,muå h“.JH ... ,“,!H ,hi÷øH7,mJH ... fiy!H @,HmƄ vi¨ ,ȧiJH m;ß 7maÿH ... ]iulH Ôh¬hä¬ .øH эhї!H»
]ßH.ȧJH ... @.ȧJH §ė ,ęĽH эmiå ]ę;rH ... ]ęs.JH Qz¬ _¬ }vˆha¬ Ƅhsf˚!H .fihęĽH _iuƒ .ziJH }m÷ȧJH ...
.aę;zƒ §å $Z §ė RrH эmiå ]ė.ulH
... §å $Z §ė RrH zȧs Lizu÷JH .}эhiaJH _¬ FiżJH ”H.ż÷ßH
43.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 30a. and 6b, 7a. We shall
return to these terms in chapter 5, in the section dealing with Muḳammad Wafā’s cos- mology.
44.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir
al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 22b, 23a,
23b.
45.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 49a.
46.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 50b.
47.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya 154a.
,Hm˚H aiė JkS M afkë afJH Fkä˚H aƒ, aiJH ˇ.uï _ęė @vaJH uread Òvëþ ÒväJH ,ȧ m¬ M RrH }H.¬ FkäJH _Ƅhƒ»
«...aäs
48.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 154b. We shall see below that CAlī
Wafā’ takes this idea one step further. For notice of treatments of this hadith, and precedents to the idea, see R. Gramlich, Die Schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens 2:27,
fn. 100. Also interesting are al-Mursī’s comments on this hadith.
See La Sagesse des maîtres soufis 55.
49.
See also O. Yahia, Histoire et classification de l'oeuvre d'Ibn ’Arabī, number S19. S0. The text is appended to Ibn CArabī's
Kitāb al-kunh (Cairo: M. A. ?abīḳ,
1967).
51.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān min anfās al-RaИmān (Dār
al-Kutub; Ta?awwuf 154; film no. 7032;
71 fols.) 9a–9b.
«.ai¬ ÚK¬ M :i¬ :i.ė _¬ :żiå ...» and al- Maktaba al-Azhariyya; majāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313. One copy is in Staatsbibliothek Zu Berlin—Preussischer
Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung: Die Handschriften-verzeichisse
der Königlichen Bibliothek zu
Berlin W. Ahlwardt (Berlin: 1891) Neunter Band / Dritter Band p. 79, ms. no. 3000; Pm.9. S.93–126.
This catalog proposes
Ibn CArabī as the pos-
sible author. A fourth copy is in Damascus: Fihris makhịūịāt
Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhiriyya (al-taṣawwuf) (Damascus) 3:64, entry no. 2101, ms. no. 5388. I am preparing a critical
edition of this work.
52.
See the discussions Nafā’is al-’irfān min anfās al-RaИmān (al-Maktabat
al- Azhariyya) fols. 72a, 76a, 76b, 81b, 95a, and elsewhere.
53.
Note the Throne again
as the symbol of God’s
existential creative power.
54.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān min anfās al-RaИmān (al-Maktabat
al- Azhariyya) 75a; and Dār al-Kutub 22b.
M :JiZ §iė.¨ _ęė Rrhƒ _ƄhfJH M Rkÿhƒ .ˆhzJH M hs˚!hƒ .ø!H M _ęs.Jhƒ fiM!H h˚H
ÔhiĽH $Z _¬ vsHmJH fihë» hivęa M aJM! .øH ! hiJyH .iai §÷su aiƄhƒ Dė .эþ a.ˆhΩ Ôэv¨H M aJMHDė a.øH Ô.as :Ji $Z Dė DJ Räï
«.aiƄhfJ .ˆhΩ ! In the ShīCī conception of Ḥaqīqa Muḳammadiyya, there exists both a divine dimension (jiha lāhūt) and a human
dimension (jiha khalqiyya nāsūt). See En Islam Iranien
1:100. Muḳammad Wafā’s treatment
here recalls that of al-Ḥallāj writing “I call to You . . . no, it
is You Who calls me to Yourself. How could I say ‘it is You’—if
You had not said to me ‘it is I’?” L. Massignon, The Passion of al-Ḥallāj 3:42,
43.
See also al-Ḥallāj’s Dīwān:
FëheJH aïmˆ!
hiß .ß * aïmßh˚ .iΩH _¬ hzfß Ï,haJH M $Z‡H },ma Dė * H.ˆhΩ aäkø Hvƒ Li
Los à Celui
dont l’Humanité a manifesté (aux Anges) le mystère de la gloire de Sa Divinité
radieuse! Et qui, depuis, s’est montré à sa créature (humaine), ouvertement sous la forme
de quelqu’un ‘qui mange et qui boit’.
“Le Dīwān d’Al-Ḥallāj: Essai de recon- struction, édition et traduction” Journal asiatique 1931; 41.
55.
Kitāb al-ma’ārīj (al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya; majāmīC
1076; Zakī: 41313;
19 fols.). To this point in time, my research indicates this is the only copy extant of this work.
56.
See “The MiCraj of Bistami”
in Early Islamic Mysticism
M. Sells ed. and trans. (New York: Paulist, 1996)
and J. Morris, “The Spiritual Ascension: Ibn CArabī and the Mi’rāj See
now the articles
collected in Le Voyage
initiatique en terre
d’Islam: ascen- sions
célestes et itinéraires spirituels A. Amir-Moezzi ed. (Louvain, Paris:
Peeters, 1996). It is interesting to note that al-Shādhilī is described as a
“master of isrā’ and mi’rāj.” See La Risāla de Ṣafī al-Dīn ibn Abī al-Manṣūr Ibn Zāfir 177.
57.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb al-ma’ārīj 157b.
58.
Muḳammad Wafā’, al-Ṣuwar al-nūrāniyya fī al-’ulūm
al-sarayāniyya (al- Maktabat al-Azhariyya; majāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313) 183b.
Another copy is in Staatsbibliothek Zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz,
Orientabteilung ms. no. 3333; Pm.9. S.198–232, without the author identified.
59.
Muḳammad Wafā’,
al-Ṣuwar al-nūrāniyya 183b.
«.Îэm“mJH ÚH.÷å!H ]ȧa _i¨ Dė }эhiå ÔHi ]ivƒH },ma ... Îэm“mJH ÚH.÷å!H ]ȧa /H,M _¬ Fii ÔHi ]iJyH },ma»
60.
Compare note 27 above, where existence
is the shared/common attribute of all
beings qua beings.
61.
Muḳammad Wafā’ al-Ṣuwar al-nūrāniyya 188b, 189a.
Rkuï fimks _iƒ.ȧ §k¨ mˆ M Riäz÷JH L;zƒ ,iza M aiė.zJH $iżï
эhsȧƒ vßhė mˆ M Ta;JH FïH.¬ fiMH fimkrH},ma» fimaƒ fimkulH Òv¨ ]äiäs M
uu?þWiż÷JH M Ti;Jhƒ :A¬hiJH §k¨
Mþ] ]kuJH
Rkuï mˆ
M ,Mvälhƒ
},väJH M Òmkulhƒ LkuJhZ a˚!] ġ.uJhƒ .ˆmĽH эhїhZ ! Rku÷lhƒ Rku÷lH ]ƄhsH @H.ż÷ß! эhїH @ku÷JH fimkr fihäi M ... [hiiJyH Fii §ė ]kuJH
DȧiJ
avsM aik¨ fihäi §k[÷JH fimks M [akku¬ ! M aZM,v¬ .ii ]iJy!H RihärH M akkulH u?þ ]ZM,vlH ]iĽH _¬ aƒ Òmäi
«.ai¨ väuilH ¿keJhƒ hlH ]ƄhshZ aäka¬ ]ƄhsH aiˆ M aiulH L;s ,ė, M aimieJH yh[¬
62.
Muḳammad Wafā’, MiftāИ al-sūr min ’ain al-khabar (al-Maktabat
al- Azhariyya; majāmīC 1076;
Zakī: 41313;
fols. 196b–206) 199a.
This manuscript appears to be a unicum.
63.
Muḳammad Wafā’, MiftāИ al-sūr min ’ain al-khabar 201b–202b.
64.
Muḳammad Wafā’, MiftāИ al-sūr min ’ain al-khabar 196b.
65.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb ta’ṣīl al-’azmān wa tafṣīl al-’akwān (al-Maktaba al-
Azhariyya; majāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313;
fols. 12–71). Also in Staatsbibliothek Zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung; ms. no. 3003; Pm.9. S.1–75, with- out the author identified.
66.
The Night of Power, or laylat al-qaḍar, is a night during the month of Ramadan in which the fate of individuals is decided for the comming
year. It is a common image
in mystical discussions of the Divine decree.
67.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb ta’ṣīl al-’azmān
wa tafṣīl al-’akwān 13b, 14a.
68.
Muḳammad Wafā’, al-Maqāmāt
al-saniyya li al-sāda
al-ṣūfiyya (al-Maktaba
al-Azhariyya; majāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313]
(fols. 1–9) 9b. Also in
Staatsbibliothek Zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung; ms. no.
3004; Pm.9. S. 85–93, as Tarjamat al-maqāmāt al-mi’a with an introduction not present in the Azhariyya ms. See also O. Yahia, Histoire et Classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn ’Arabī, number 417.
uread vїHþ vї h¬ эm“M ,¬ _iu÷i vsHM §ė LJhuJH FïH.¬ эhїH a÷äiäs M ]ik;Jhƒ @.ȧJH dMäß M ]iulH §ȧ˚ ,ęĽH»
«.ai¨ .fżi ! M .fżi ! עiJH fiy!H _iuƒ vƒ!H ]iM, a÷ihi M ... aƒ aiė
69.
Muḳammad Wafā’, al-Maqāmāt al-saniyya 9b.
M ÏmkäJH avz[i ! §iu¬ a÷äiäs M §ˆhi÷i ! эv¨ §ė эvu÷ï ! }.eZ §ė ¿ię÷ï ! }vsM §ė Lsäiï ! ]äiäs mˆ vism÷JH
«.......................................... ii $Z
§ȧ˚ a÷ihi M fimäJhƒ },hfuJH
]iKƒ
akami ! M fimäuJH a,maï !
70.
Muḳammad Wafā’, al-Maqāmāt al-saniyya 6a.
,izaJH @MiJH Fsha aƒ FƄhżi Ïhaø a÷äiäs M viiå mˆ M ,ęsJH §äJH Fkë $;J RrH .Ƅhø aiäki DsM mˆ ÒhiJ!H»
«.Ïi;JH ake¬ §k¨ ym[i ! עiJH ÒK;Jhƒ Lk;÷i hsJ a÷ihi M
71.
On this term Chittick
notes, “Ibn CArabī employs it to describe the subtle forms or
relationships which tie together different levels of existence.” See The Sufi Path of Knowledge 406 fn. 6. A raqīqa may also be understood as the
initial form of the divine Emanation. According to al-Simnānī’s
cosmology, the subtle substances (laịā’if),
which first saw existence in the Realm of Divinity (lāhūt), descend to the Realm of Jabarūt, where they represent the Attributes of omnipotence, and are known as the ten rare
substances (raqā’iq). These ten in turn descend to the realm of
Malakūt and represent
the divine Acts. From this level differentiation continues with descent
as the one hundred particulars (daqā’iq)
into the Human Realm (nāsūt). See J.
Elias, The Throne Carrier of God: The Life and Thought
of ’Alā ad-Dawlah
as-Simnānī (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1993) 72. This understanding of rare substances
(or Tenuities) and the subtle substances (or Graces) seems to be in line with
what Muḳammad Wafā’ is saying here, although he does not seem to have developed a full
theory of
emanation using this terminology, in the way his contemporary al-Simnānī did. A fuller comparison of these two
thinkers, however, would likely produce inter- esting results.
72.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Fuṣūl
al-Иaqā’iq—wa
huwa risāla li al-Sayyid MuИammad Wafā’
(al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya; majāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313; fols. 216–221) 219a. aï,ma ,ma _¬ vsHM $Z Ôэhėhė ,ęĽH _iuƒ LkuJH },ma §ė aømȧilH .¬!H ,M, §ė a÷iJyH ,H.ßhƒ §k[÷lH hzfß»
«.aii¨ .iƒvï aȧiakJhƒ M vsHaik¨ ,kai !
ÎiJH afii §ė aэm“M Òhië aäië.Jhfė aiiJH aäië, M ai˚hƒ, aȧiaJ This short work has
recently been published as Kitāb fuṣūl
al-Иaqā’iq li-Sayyidī MuИammad Wafā’ Ibrahīm Muḳammad Sālim ed. (Cairo: n.p. 1999). See also O. Yahia, Histoire
et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn ’Arabī, number 148.
73.
Muḳammad Wafā’,Kitāb al-’urūsh (Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf 3715, Ta?awwuf 3593, Ta?awwuf ṬalCat 1562). Another copy, attributed
to CAlī Wafā’ in the computerized
catalogue but not on its title page (which lists the author as Muḳammad Wafā’ al-Khalwatī!), is al-’Urūsh,
(Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya; Ta?awwuf 204; film
no. 32555; 75 fols.). These are not different texts. Al-Ziriklī, Al-A’lām: Qāmūs tarājim li-ashhar al-rijāl
wa al-nisā’ (Beirut: Dār al-CIlm li al-Malāyīn, 1990)
(9th ed.) 5:7 and 7:37, lists
the same title
under both authors.
See also O. Yahia, Histoire et clas-
sification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn ’Arabī, number 803.
74.
Ms. in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf 3593; film no. 33396; 115 fols. See also O. Yahia, Histoire et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn ’Arabī, number 815.
75.
Kitāb al-wāridāt (al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya; MajāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313) 206b. A second
collection, entitled simply
Wāridāt with no mention
of the author, is found
in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung
no. 3494. This work is shorter than
the Azhar piece and quotes different passages.
76.
CAlī
Wafā’, Kitāb al-wāridāt 211a.
77.
CAlī
Wafā’, Waṣāyā Sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale; ms. no. 1359). There
is also another copy in Dār al-Kutub.
78.
CAlī
Wafā’, Waṣāyā Sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ 7a.
ai¬ fih[_¬ $;J M fihä¬ ai¬ Òhä¬ $;J M vˆhaJH M эmialH mˆ M vsHM $;ƒ эm“mlH uread vsHmJHþ v“HmJH эm“mJH mˆ» a¬më hskƒ !H fimß, _¬ hikß,H h¬ M hi˚H¿i¬ M hiki;ƒ !H hik¬hui ! M hi˚hskƒ !H ]fï.¬ $Z FƄhżi ! Li;rH M fih“,
«]i#H LiJ _ifiJ
79.
CAlī
Wafā’, Waṣāyā Sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ 3b.
80.
CAlī
Wafā’, Waṣāyā Sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ 104b.
81.
CAlī
Wafā’, Waṣāyā Sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ 3a.
Då $Z Ôv“M akJH Ôv“M H M akJH Ôv“M :÷äiäs Ôv“M H M :÷äiäs Ôv“M RäzlH usicþ Úэh÷ßH Ôv“M H...»
«.эh÷ß!H Hiˆ v“M Dė !H эH.¬ :J ,ikė
82.
CAlī
Wafā’, Waṣāyā Sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ 3b. For the sources of this hadith see W. Graham, Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early
Islam 130.
aïviå H M Rkø J˚hė häkø aïviå H ע.ï Hih¬ .z˚H M Jiå h¬ viåhė hiik¨ Úэh÷ßH viaï D÷JH },maJH §k¨ J˚H»
«... Dƒ Îvf¨ _Ω vi¨ h˚H RrH fihë Rs J˚hė häs
83.
CAlī Wafā’, Kitāb al-masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya (Dār al-Kutub
al-Mi?riyya; Ta?awwuf 166; film no. 34913). (I have copies of only the
first eighty-three folios.)
84.
CAlī
Wafā’, Kitāb al-masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya 2a.
85.
CAlī
Wafā’, Kitāb al-masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya 7a.
«fih“, fih[¬ $;J M fihä¬ Òhä¬ $;J M ע.ï Hih¬ .z˚hė afszƒ Òhä¬ $Z Dė Òh;shƒ _iu÷i :ęZhs mˆ háH :iJH M :i¬ $;JH»
The last phrase
is used on numerous occasions.
86.
CAlī Wafā’, Kitåb al-masåmi> al-rabbåniyya 2b.
«. h;¬!H }.іũэ Dė ]iƒmƒ.JH a“M mˆ v¬hzlH M $іhȧȧJH u?þ vf¬ mˆ ÎiJH Li;rH ,M.JH»
87.
CAlī Wafā’, Kitåb al-masåmi> al-rabbåniyya 2b.
«.a˚h;¬hƒ aiJH vå.lH עэhiJH aiJM M aif˚ M aJmß, M aэm“Mƒ RrH Ï.JH aJ!H Miė Li;rH ,M.Jhƒ DiJ!H aэm“M aiė .iΩ _¬»
88.
CAlī Wafā’, Kitåb al-masåmi> al-rabbåniyya 3a.
_i¨ !H mˆ h¬ mˆ _¬ ˇ.uïH RrH :ƒ, Jė.¨ väė F“HmJH DiJ!H aэm“M Eis _¬ ÚHvˆ Òh¬H M Úэh÷ßH Jė.¨ HiH»
«...:˚mZ _¨ fihaȧ˚!H ]fï.¬ Dė :J _iuï DiJ!HÚэm“M
89.
CAlī
Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya (Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya; Ta?awwuf 152;
film no. 33564; 104 fols.) 44b and 49a.
90.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 42a.
91.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 22b.
hˆэm“M Dė J÷fi aƒ .іväï FïH.¬ RkÿH M aïHэm“m¬ M aïhȧa Dˆ asȧiJ ai¬ Òh;shƒ _iu÷¬ vsHM ÔHi эm“M ]kaȧirhė»
_¬ }H.ë §k¨ ,väƒ ahiäkø /Då $Z h˚H RrH fihë hęZ [Òväï h¬ .¬!H ]äiäs M] hiƒ ]kaȧilH Ú,HvlH Dė ÔhääzlH Ômfi
«.$Z Ò! Òȧƒ H.ë The meaning of the
verse changes by reading one of the vowels as u rather than as a. These vowels have been authoritatively fixed over
time—with few differences in meaning between the accepted readings—but
here CAlī Wafā’ is presenting a novel reading.
92.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 3b.
93.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 60a.
Di¬ J˚H ÎH Di¬ J˚H a¨.ȧJ $a!H fimë Diu¬ Hiˆ M Dk“H _¬ :÷äkø M :k“H _¬ /Då $Z Jäkø a эm“ M ]äiäs H...»
«.]ęzuJH M mkuJH _iuƒ ]¬ .;lH }vsmJH viå ]ęk;JH aiˆ Räs _¬ M Hэmiå :i¬ h˚H M ÎH Hэm“M Various ShīCī hadiths report
Muḳammad saying,
“CAlī, You are from me and I am from you.” See A Concordance of the Be˙år al-anwår Alī-Reza Barazesh ed. (30 vols.) (Tehran: Ministry of Culture,
1994) 20:14474.
94.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 30b.
95.
CAlī
Wafā’, Ḥikam >Al• Wafå’ (Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya; al-Makhṭūṭāt al- Zakiyya 567; film no.
56282; 133 fols.)
96.
Alī Wafā’, Al-Daraja
al->aliyya f• ma>år•j al-anbiyå’ (Dār al-Kutub al- Mi?riyya; B 23127; film no. 25257; 35 fols.) Copied in
1190/1776.
5. Sanctity and Muḥammad Wafā’
1.
W. Chittick, “?adr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī on the
Oneness of Being” in Interna- tional
Philosophical Quarterly vol. 21, no. 2, 1981. This phrase was coined by a
con- temporary of Ibn CArabī, Ibn SabCīn, although with a somewhat
different meaning; one which
admits no significant existential distinction between
creation and the Creator. A. Taftazani and O. Leaman,
“Ibn SabCīn” in History of Islamic Philosophy S. H. Nasr and
O. Leaman eds. (London: Routledge, 2001) 347.
2.
From Ibn CArabī’, Risålat al-anwår. M. Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
149.
3.
W. Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God 53.
4.
CAlā al-Dawla al-Simnānī (d. 736/1336)
proposed an alternative doctrine, cen- tering on divine Act rather than on static existence. See
Landolt, “Simnānī on Waḳdat al-Wujūd” 106–09
and his “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kāshānī und Simnānī über wa˙dat al-wuj¥d” in Der Islam no. 50, 1973.
5.
Muḳammad Wafā’, as
presented in CAlī Wafā’, Kitåb al-masåmi> al-rab- båniyya 3b.
]aizlH ÔhȧaJH ˇmam¬mˆEis g¬ aJ!H mˆ M ÔHэm“mlH ,ię“ эm“M mˆ Eis g¬ aizlH mˆ ÔHiJH эm“mJH»
«akJH aęßH ]ię;rH Ôhäku÷Jhƒ Elsewhere these “connections” are described as a thing’s
esoteric name, linking it to Divine necessary being. It serves as a link, for
the people of “spiritual tasting,” to the Eternal. See Muḳammad Wafā’ Kitāb
al-azal 53.
6.
Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God 91. As an
aside, we may note that this version of “oneness” is upheld in later mystical
writings associated with the Wafā’iyya. Aḳmad al-Dardīr (d. 1201/1787) in a commentary on one of Muḳammad Wafā’s aИzāb states clearly that anyone
who “says that the world
is essential with God’s essence
is an unbeliever.” Mishkāt al-asrār (al-Maktaba
al-Azhariyya, 16289; majāmīC 412; fols. 1–11) 9b.
7.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub, 43b. In the previous chap- ter, in our discussion of al-Suwwār al-nūrāniyya we saw the same imagery
being used to make much the
same point.
8.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb
al-azal 51.
]i˚ !miiJH ]äiärH mˆ :эHvu÷ß!H M .]fï.lH Dė fimfäJH эHvu÷ßH L;s Fszƒ h;¬%H FïH.¬ Dė §k[÷i mˆ háṷ M ...»
(sic) ]i˚!miiJhƒ }эhlH /Diï
Dˆ :7H.÷ø!H ]äiäs
M ·7Hvƒ%H !
DiJ%H7H.÷ø%H g¬ Dˆ M · h;¬%H ÔHiƒ
]ęªhäJH
«.]äƒhalH L;zƒ F“HmJH DkS Òhië fimfë mˆ аэHvu÷ßH ]äiäs M ... 7Hvƒ%H Dˆ },maJH M .},maJH fimfäJ
9.
It should be pointed
out that this “prime matter” is a kind of preexistential entity and should not be confused
with manifest creation,
which is the result of creation
via tajallī. See W. Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God 89.
This creation scheme
is sim- ilar to that of Ibn CArabī, which also describes things
coming into existence according to their preparedness. Chittck, The Sufi Path of Knowledge
91–92. Ibn Sīnā (d. 428/1037) also uses an emanative system of
creation, but for him ibdā’ refers to
that creation which is not subject to form. L. Gardet, La pensée religieuse d’Avicenne (Paris: Vrin, 1951) 63. He also distinguishes between
formal (ṣūrī) and material
(hayūlānī) creation. A.-M. Goichon, Lexique de la language philosophique d’Ibn
Sīnā (Paris: Desclé de Brouwer, 1938) 414, and S. H. Nasr, An Introduction of Islamic Cosmological Doc-
trines (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993) 219. Yet Ibn Sīnā holds
essentially the same position as Muḳammad Wafā’ on this point.
“Ibn Sīnā recognizes
that the manifestation or epiphany accessible to any being . . . will depend on
that being’s capacity. So the manifestation is not identical
with the Absolute
Good, but is a
true (not “real”) expression of Him, as perfect as the limitations of each being allow.”
L. Goodman, Avicenna (London: Routledge, 1992) 33 fn. 33.
10.
In his definition of taИqīq (verification), al-Qāshānī says that “the verifier is neither veiled by al-Ḥaqq from creation, nor by creation from al-Ḥaqq.” A Glossary of
Technical Terms entry no. 485.
11.
The Dār al-Kutub
ms., 28b, has fiK_i֧H (beginning or opening) here, which
would seem to be a copiest’s mistake.
By this “wearing
down” the mystic’s
carnal soul may be controlled so that his spirit (rūИ) can rise upward.
L. Massignon, The Passion
of al-Ḥallāj 3:347.
12.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 142b.
}.ȧżlH M Rkÿ hƒ RrH ]iażï
.ȧ;JH ! @.ė hęiiiƒ M [(?)
Dëm÷JH.y /Dë.÷JH .Ú] M
.÷sJH g¬ Himøh¬ .ȧ;JH M }.ȧżlH» a˚m;J ! M .iH vfukJ §äfi ! H mˆ M ÔHMiJH ,hȧż÷ßH mˆ M ÚKi÷ßH FïH.¬ 5Ki §k¨ ,hȧż÷ß!H M Rrhƒ RkÿH
]iażï fihuėH ,hȧż÷ßH mˆ M ,h÷÷ßH EJheJH M aJ ,mȧż¬ a˚H ,muå .ȧż÷sękJ H mˆ M ÔhȧaJH ,hȧż÷ßH Mˆ M @H.ż÷ßH D˚heJH .fø
«...asȧiƒ ! aƒ.ƒ hiå!H Dė a˚mZ mˆ M
13.
That is, to know of a Self-disclosure, rather than to know or simply see a Self- disclosure.
14.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb
al-azal 38–39.
]iˆhlH fimazƒ ! Dk[÷Jhƒ Kę÷a¬ ÒmkulH aiė .iziė .Ôhfi%H 7hi÷¬H/H,M g¬ Òmkulhƒ LkuJH DkS ˇha;˚H }ũ.¬ :ÚH,э%H» L;zƒ sfihelH Hiˆ §k¨ fihäiė .aƒ mˆ h¬ §k¨ aiė aJhe¬ .iziė ]kƒhälH vi¨ aik[÷J $ƒhë $z¬ aJ M !ṷ Òmku¬ g¬ hęė ... hiikS fimfäJ }vu÷s¬ sÚH,э%H Dė ]fï.¬ hiJ M !ṷ ]fªhi ]äiäs g¬ hęė sHiˆ §kuė ·«g;x 5эhs» :Dk[÷JH Hiˆ
«.giiu÷Jhƒ
15.
This recalls
Ibn CArabī’s claim that Self-disclosure takes
form according to the
disposition of the recipient: «.aJ §k[÷lH эHvu÷ßH },maƒ !ṷ Hvƒí m;i ! ... Dk[÷JH M» Fuṣūṣ al- Иikam 61.
16.
The First, or Primary,
Intellect in traditional Neoplatonic philosophical cos- mology is the first thing the Divine thought
when It cosidered Itself. The resulting First Intellect is the primary creative
principle.
17.
The Universal Soul is located
below the First
Intellect, from which
it receives the creative
emanation.
18.
Compare
this to Ibn CArabī’s position that the servant
sees God in the form of his own (predisposed) belief. Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam 121: «.avä÷u¬ },ma Dė aũ.ė avf¨ giƒ M aiiƒ Ïh[rH ,ė, Li»
19.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 100a.
aiękuJH ]Ƅhs !H },ma a“M g¬ Dk[÷JH ,a.ȧƒ 7.÷øH Dˆhi÷i ! hé aizlH LkuJH },ma ,ȧmJ aiïHvJH }эH,!H Ji“mï hl»
§iJ!H 7Hvƒ!hƒ hikƒHmë Dė LkuJH },ma Ja¨hė Ôhamaż¬ Ôhi[ƒ ÔH¿ię÷¬ am“M g¬ ÔhiƄhsH ÔH.iml ÔhikZ $ƒHmë
§ė a¨m˚ „hżåH ÔH.e;ï M asȧ˚ },ma ,ȧM KZ M עms M ÒэhZ Ôhi¬H hßmȧ˚ M hƒũ !mä¨ am“mJH (read: aiˆ) Hiˆ g¬ aßvs M .afJH $ä¨ ,maï ai¨ Riȧi hx :Ji .ii DJH asl M aęå M aëMi ,imiï M akaH ,i.ȧï Dė ÔhfiJhZ asi“
]ƄhsH KZ h;ė hßmȧ˚ M !mä¨ aik;JH ,ȧiJH §ė 7vƒH aiJM!H aiƒ!H §ė fiM!H $äuJH H ]ikelH ġ.ė Dk¨ fimäiė Hiˆ Liė Hihė
]ahÿH hiï,ma J˚hZ hiï.ęi Ôy.ƒH M hi÷ë,M M hiiai J“.øH HiH ÔhfiJH ]fzZ asi“ M a¨m˚ ]ƄhsH M asȧ˚ §ė hikZ hii¬
,ȧ˚ M $äuƒ hęihë hii¬ $Z hZ ]u¬hĽH }.[sJH }.ęi Òэũ miƒ J˚hZ H hękė hiJ ]ihżJH afï.lH
Dˆ M hiï.ęi gi¨ §ė hiJ FJ }.[å $Z M ]¨vf¬ M ]¨.÷ż¬ DiJ!H Dk[÷JH g¨ J˚hZ D÷JH Ôhi¬!H M hƒ!H M a¨mi÷lH am“mJH g¬ a“M }.ęi Dˆ M LJhuJH §J¨ L;zi $ä¨ $;ė Hэv¬ vȧii ! M Hэv¨ §ˆhi÷i ! am“M §ė aï,maƒ LJhuJH $azė hiï.[å $aH hiï.ęi Lk¨ vë $Z @hė!H
M ÚKė!H .ihß Dė :JiZ M hiïH,maï ˇK÷øH §k¨ $ziJH M $klH am“mZ ... aiė $as h¬ },maƒ ÎiJH a“mJH mˆ Hiˆ M fimaȧ¬ $aė $Z M fima!H ,¬h“ Dë
aaizlH }.[aJH }.ęi FJ mˆ $¬h;JH $äuJH M azifsï M aïKa
«aiz¬ °å $;ƒ a˚H !H fihë hęZ M ,haƒ!H Ú,vi mˆ M ,haƒ!H aZ,vï !
20.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 33b.
21.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 50b.
22.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 38b. See also 50b.
.ii fiy!H Dė .iΩ h¬ M
as;¨ aiė gaƒ M vf¨ .ii vƒ!H Dė .iΩ hęė ,;uJH M vƒ!H Dė .iΩ mˆ fiy!H Dė gaƒ ÎiJH»
« iΩ Eis g¬ gaƒ gaƒ Eis g¬ .iΩhęė
fiM!H $;å ga˚ ÎiJH M Ï,
23.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 27a–27b.
24.
Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God 276.
25.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 41b.
26.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 48a.
M $eę÷Jhƒ h¬H $uȧJhƒ h¬H M Dk[÷Jhƒ h¬H giuƒ !H HvƒH .izi ! RkalH FiżJH hė aii¨ Då $Z M °å $Z Fii akJH»
Dė g¬ Lkui ! $ë aii¨ Dė Då $Z Fii עH, Ú,vlH ,rH (.aƒ.y) .z˚ D˚vkJH LkuJH ,m˚ @.s D÷¬ M FiZ.÷Jhƒ h¬H
gi¨ gęs.JH M gęs.JH häƒ M hs˚!H hiė hė.uJH Dė M gęs.JH .i.ß hs˚!H M akJH !H FiżJH ġ,!H M ÔHmisJH
«............................................................................................ Då $Z Fii
The term ’ayn may signal a number of different
meanings, including “eye,” “entity,” “essence,” “source,” or “identical with.”
27.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 154a.
28.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 98b.
29.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 22a.
30.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb al-masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya Dār al-Kutub 2b.
«unclear ... afszƒ Òhä¬ $Z Dė :iJH M :i¬ :¬mku¬ !H :J Ta;ii !» Al -Fārābī echoes this idea (which
doubtless had earlier
Greek roots) when he says,
“In the intellect, the observing thing
and the things
observed are one.”
G. Anawati, Études
de philosophie musulmane
(Paris: Vrin, 1974) 187.
« .}vsHM Dˆ hiiJṷ ,mzilH / hiåŹH M .ΩhiJH °aJH $äuJH Dė ṷ fimä˚ M»
31.
CAlī
Wafā’, Kitāb al-masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya Dār al-Kutub 50a.
M аэmial vˆhaJH ]fz¬ m;ï $ię;÷JH M fihę;JH
э miå ,vë §k¨ M aääs h¬ ]äiäs RäzlH M aėM.u¬ gi¨ ˇ,huJH» M H.iH M hii¨ aƒ Räï h¬ L;zƒ Räz÷lH ,miΩ m;i Räz÷JH ,vë §k¨ M aƒmfzé FzlH Räï m;i ]fzlH @va ,vë §k¨
... mˆ
mˆ hé mˆ mˆ M aiz¬ °å $;ƒ a˚H Lik¨ °å $;ƒ akJH The last phrase
appears also in the writings
of CAlī Wafā’. See his Kitāb al-waṣāyā fols. 48a and 104b. Ibn Sīnā used “mˆ mˆ” to denote the identity of two things. See A.-M. Goi- chon, Lexique de la lanque philosophique d’Ibn
Sina 411.
32.
In all the Wafā’iyya writings there is no explicit mention of Aritotle or the Arab philosophers (e.g., Al-Fārābī, d. 339/950,
Ibn Sīnā, d. 429/1037) who used this cosmol-
ogy, which saw the divine emanation take form as a series of spheres
or intellects. For a
concise description of this cosmolgy
see P. Heath, Allegory and Philosophy in Avicenna (Ibn
Sīnā) (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992) 37.
33.
Ibn CArabī, IṣịilāИat al-ṣūfiyya, 243 The text appended to Jurjānī’s al-Ta’rīfāt
(Cairo: al-Ḥalabī, 1938) describes Jabarūt: “According to Abū Ṭālib, it is the world of Might []___ęz¨], according to most it is the median world.”
This “most” would
include Ibn CArabī. In this
model jabarūt functioned as a barzakh—and the Imaginal realm— between mulk (the apparent world) and malakūt (the unseen world of meanings).
See Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God 259–60, and The Sufi Path of Knowledge 282. Abū al-Ḥāmid al-Ghazzālī (d. 505/1111) held this view also. See Encyclopedia of Islam sec- ond ed. s.v. “CĀlam,” and F. Jabre, Essai sur le lexique de Ghazali (Beirut: Publications de l’Université Libanaise, 1985) 46, 256, 257.
34.
Al-Qāshānī, A
Glossary of Techinical Terms entries 284, 285, 286.
35.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 78a.
...M $“H FïH.¬ M §k¨ Ôhȧa M §is¬ /hęßH g¬ Dk[÷Jhƒ Ïm“mJH Fii giu÷i aiė M },väJH LJh¨ ¿iZ g¬ .¬!H ,M,» g¬ aiė h¬ giu÷i aƒ M ]ę;rH LJh¨ ¿iZ g¬ RkÿH,M, M ...LkäJH M ,mkJH M §ß.;JH M Å.uJhƒ K¨ !H KlH Ôhi;k¬ ÔH,af¬ M Ôh¨męs¬ g¬ hiiė
h¬ M а.ø!H M
hi˚vkJ
M Ôm;klH M :klH hęˆ
M ...]i˚hęsĽH ,maJH M
ai˚hsM.JH ,hfå!H
«Ôhßmsz¬ M
36.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 150a.
37.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 76b.
38.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb
al-azal 74.
39.
“Two bows’-length” is an allusion
either to Gabriel
communicating revelation to the prophet Muḳammad (Q. 53:9)
or as is more likely
in this context,
Muḳammad’s direct
encounter with God.
40.
That is, the divine
Spirit, after it has been separated, at the event of creation, from the One, or
the spirit as separate from matter.
41.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 95a, 95b. D˚hsȧiJH LJhuJH mˆ M :klH
EJheJH M D˚hsM.JH LJhuJH mˆ M Ôm;klH D˚heJH
M DiJ!H
LJhuJH mˆ M ÔM.fĽH fiM!H»
LJh¨ mˆ M Ôm;klH D˚heJH LJhuJH M gißmë Ïhë hZ ÎiJH aiė $ahrH M aiiJ!H LJh¨ mˆ M ÔM.fĽhƒ fiM!H Î,maJH
EJheJH M :fkë §k¨
gi¬!H ,M.JH
aƒ fi¿˚
FkäJH g¨
fi¿i÷lH §;klH DsmJhƒ эhȧ÷slH mˆ
M aiki.fĽH
aiė $ahrH
M ,M.JH
aizlH LsĽH §ė ymZ.¬ :klH LJh¨ ...,JhaJH .¬!hƒ hĽH gi.äJH aiė $ahrH M ÔHvJ m÷lH M hZ,!H LJh¨ mˆ M :klH g¬ §aiulH $äuJH M HmirH M ÔhfiJH M vulH hii¨ vJm÷lH HmiJH M ÏH.÷JH M ,hiJH M /hlH Dˆ M aihsfJH ,ƒ,!H Òhs“!hƒ M aJhuȧJH
}mäJH M ,ȧiJH
M $äuJH
auƒ,!H
.ˆHmĽhƒ aizlH mˆ M @,hȧlH ,M.JH
Dė ymZ.¬ Ôm;klH LJh¨ M hs˚!H Wżå
¿ię÷lH RkalH эm“mJH ]ƄhsH Dė Òmië ÔM.fĽH LJh¨ M §ß.;JH M Å.uJH M LkäJH M ,mkJH (?) Lii¨ эm“mlH .¬!H ,M,
«...Dk[÷JH M ,miJH
M Lß!H M ]ȧaJhƒ fi¿i÷l aizlH a“mJH
M RrH эm“mJH M }hirH M LkuJH ]uƒ,!H Rihärhƒ
42.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 81b.
43.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 143b.
44.
This term seems to be an innovation of Muḳammad Wafā’s. On the philosoph-
ical term mushtarak, see A.-M.
Goichon, Lexique de la langue
philosophique d’Ibn Sīna 70 and Ibn Sīnā, Livre des directives et remarques A.-M. Goichon trans. 317 fn. 5.
45.
That is, the “common
sense” synthesizes and organizes the data from the five senses.
46.
The clear horizon (Q. 81:23) recalls
Gabriel’s revelation to Muḳammad, while the
Lote-tree is the sidrat al-muntahā (Q.
53:14), which is the limit of the Prophet’s ascension towards God.
47.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb
al-azal 60.
M .Ú.÷alH ,rH M s,ęÿH .¨halH :Dˆ M Òhsëí ]÷ß §Jṷ Lsäii D;klH M .Dïm;k¬ M D;k¬ §Jṷ Lsäii g;ęlhė» Ú.÷alH ,rhė .Ú.÷alH
$äuJH M
s]i.;ȧJH M s}.ZHiJH M s]zėhrH
M s]kiż÷lH
M s]ęˆm÷lH
:Òhsëí]÷ß §Jṷ Lsäii Dïm;klH
Ú.÷alH ,rH M s,ęÿH .¨halH í :Lk¨H M .ÔM.fĽH M
Ôm;klH giƒ ¿y.ƒ Ú.÷slH $äuJH M .Ôm;klH M :klH giƒ ¿y.ƒ Òhiƒṷ ,hȧiṷ M hiƒ ,Hm˚í (Li˚#) :Òhi∫ƒ (Hmęß M) .ġ,#H M ÔHmęsJH giiė ]kJH Rkø D÷JH ]÷sJH Òhi#H (Lˆ)
,h÷ȧ¬ : .afJH .,h÷ȧlH mˆ vkälH M .Q,!H M ÔHmęsJH viJhä¬ (Lˆ M) .Fii ˇha;˚H M (here as per Azhar 105b)
.,ękJH :JiZ M ...@MiJH M ... LaJH M .hˆ,m˚ M sÔh¨męslH gªH¿ø ,h÷ȧ¬ ,ęsJH M .hi˚hiƒ M shˆ,m˚ M sÔhiª.lH gªH¿ø hˆ,ma $ahs §i÷i¬ M shiiªH¿ø fihiÿH M .hi˚hi¨í ]fii fihs Dė hizėhs M shˆ.ȧhs M shiu¬h“ Ú.÷alH ,rH M
,Hm˚#H aiˆ M .]i;klH ,Hm˚#H aiˆ /Hy≥ƒ ]iïm;klH ,Hm˚#H :JiZ M .§i÷ilH },vß M sgiflH Rė#H mˆ Hiˆ M .}э.[l ]i˚hsM.JH akJH giƒ vë M .]äΩhiJH }mäJH Dˆ M sLkäJH g¨ ]ȧhȧlH ,makJ ]kƒhäJH afïH.¬ ,¬Hm“M .,mkJH эHvu÷ßH Rªhäs .a¨ Dii!H
«./Då $Z fihe¬ ]÷ï ÎiJH sÅ.uJH
mˆ M saƒ, ˇ.¨ väė asȧ˚ ˇ.¨ gęė .]i¬э#H ]i˚hs˚%H
]żsiJH Dė :Ji hiƒ
48.
This is Ibn Sīnā’s position, distinct
from that of al-Fārābī. See R. Walzer, “Al- Fārābī’s Theory of Prophecy and Divination” in his Greek into Arabic: Essays on Islamic
Philosophy (Oxford: Bruno Cassier, 1963) 216–18.
49.
These “comprehensions” equate with the concept of the ‘laịā’if ’ (subtle sub- stances) of earler sufi thought. These
substances—as spiritual rather
than physical fac- ulties—function as organs linking
the human and divine worlds. Details of the definitions of these substances vary; see H. Landolt, “Stages
of God-cognition and the
Praise of Folly according to Najm-i Rāzī (d. 1256)” in Sufi no. 47, 2000; Le Révélateur des mystères 56 ff.; “Two Types
of Mystical Thought
in Muslim Iran”
in Muslim World no. 68, 1978, 196; and Elias,
The Throne Carrier of God 157–60. The laịā’if may also be found in the model of creative
divine emanation; see ibid. 72–75.
50.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān
al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya 72a, 72b.
51.
A.-M. Goichon, Lexique 230. The polished soul (sirr) looking at the Majesty of holiness (janāb al-qudus) is similar. See Ibn Sīnā, Al-Ishārāt wa al-tanbihāt S.
Dunya ed. (4 vols.) (Cairo: Dār al-MaCārif, n.d.) 4:92.
52.
It is probably no coincidence that the earlier discussion of the “rational faculty”
and its position as the highest
human point was to be found in his most “philosophical”
text, the Kitāb al-azal. This said, an interesting remark by L.
Goodman—pointing out that Ibn Sīnā’s Active
Intellect effectively does away with the idea of fanā’
(extinction
into the divine)—is relevant
to Muḳammad Wafā’. The latter after all does not explore
fanå’ to the extent one might expect
from a sufi thinker. This should be
understood as yet more evidence
of the Wafā’s following Ibn CArabī’s philosophical sufism,
leaving aside what we may call “psychological sufism,” and its concern
with mystical states. Goodman, Avicenna 19.
53.
In
the Nafå’is al->irfån text, Gabriel is replaced by Jabarūt.
54.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha>å’ir al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 154a, 154b, and Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 76b.
55.
The “teaching-shaykh” develops the theoretical principles of sufism,
while the “guiding-shaykh”
serves as a director of spiritual discipline.
56.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha>å’ir al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 129b–30a. We noted some of these
definitions earlier.
57.
A popular
hadith among sufi writers is one attributed to the Prophet:
“Assume the character traits of God!” See Sufi Path of Knowledge 286–88.
58.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya, 87a.
M Liė,hu¬ Dė LiJhę¨H J“,v˚H mė,huJH M LiJHmsH Dė Li¬mk¨ J“,v˚H aiėmaJH M LiJhę¨H Dė Li¬mk¨ J“,v˚H эhˆ¿JH» M Hmäkżï h¬ Dė Hmääï h¬ HMv“M aiėmaJH M Hmkę¨ hęiė Hmęk¨ h¬ HMv“M эhˆ¿Jhė Liäihäs Dė LiJHmsH J“,v˚H määzlH
«.Hmääï hęiė Hmäkżï h¬ HMv“M määzlH M Hmė.¨ hęiė Hmkę¨ h¬ HMv“M mė,huJH
59.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 84a, 84b.
aƒmka¬ §JH ]ėhȧlH @Kø!hƒ
Rkż÷lH mˆ §ėmaJH aƒ Räï
h¬ Hmi¨ RäzlH
M ]ėM.u¬
Ôhȧa ÔhikS
}H.¬ ˇ,huJH
a“M»
«.Kä¨ M }эh¨ $iz÷slH giȧiäiJH 7hę÷“H эm“M ,¬ !H $azi ! aJhęZ gi¨ ,ęĽH M ,ivä÷Jhƒ
60.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån Dār al-Kutub 8a. Cf. Nafå’is al->irfån al- Maktabat al-Azhariyya 100a.
61.
A popular sufi saying,
quoted by al-Qushayrī from Basṭāmī, runs, “He
who has no shaykh his master
is Satan.” See al-Qushayrī, Das Sendschreiben al-Qushayr•s über das Sufitum R.
Gramlich trans. (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1989) 538.
62.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 99a, 99b.
.ażiå ˇ.¨ väė asȧ˚ ˇ.¨ g¬» «.DJMH aƒ haiaJhė DJm¬ aJ ,iJ g¬ M DJm¬ aJ ,iJ (sic) эh÷ßH aJ ,iJ g¬»
«.aƒ, väė väė afkë v[i LJ g¬ M afkë v[i LJ ażiå v[i LJ g¬ :,ȧ˚
63.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha>å’ir al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 139b.
:ääs M aJhäƒ :ęk¨ g¬ :żiå M J;ß Eis Úv“MH M v“M HiH ÚväėH M Ra˚ HiH :fii M J;ß HiH :uęßH g¬ :żiå»
«... aJhę;ƒ :äz¬ M aJHM¿ƒ :÷fiH M aJhzƒ
64.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya, 100a.
«...ai¬ .aii M aiė gėvi עiJH a.fë afJhë M aэh÷ßH Jiƒ vi.,H Fkë»
65.
The Iranian mystic CAyn al-Quďāt al-Hamadānī (d. 525/1131) noted that aspi- rant is to contemplate God in the mirror of the spirit
of his teacher. In turn,
the teacher will contemplate
himself in the mirror of his disciple, as God contemplates Himself through the mirror of creation. See Landolt, “Two Types of Mystical Thought
in Mus- lim Iran,” 197, and F.
Jahanbakhsh, “The Pir-Murīd
Relationship in the Thought of CAyn al-Quďāt al-Hamadānī” in Consciousness and Reality: Studies in Memory
of Toshihiko Izutsu J. Āshtiyānī et al. eds.
(Leiden: Brill, 2000) 132.
66.
CAlī Wafā’, al-Masåmi> al-rabbåniyya 3a.
67.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 100a.
«.aэh÷ßH ]i˚hęs, Hm÷ß! Å.¨ vi.lH Fkë» The same verb is used in the Qur’an
for God’s sitting
on the Throne. See 7:54,
20:5 or 57:4.
68.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya, 100a.
«RihärH g¬ avˆhå hę¨ @эhаЈH a˚hskƒ .fżiė LsĽH LЈH m¨ g¨ avi.S vuƒ эh÷ß!H aëH.i RƄh˚ .fi¬ @эhаЈH vi.lH»
69.
In the previous “gem.” we are told that the “eloquent
speaker (nātiq) is he who
speaks by the tongue of his follower
after his divesting (or purification).” Therefore, it is the “eloquent
pulpit” who “informs
. . . of what he has witnessed of the realities” and not the shaykh himself. This makes all the more sense when
read in light of CAlī’s implied
claim to be the continuation of his father’s sanctity.
70.
See Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 68–70, for more detail and sources.
71.
In our discussion of cosmology above,
we saw that Muḳammad Wafā’ attrib- uted
this function to the Spirit of the divine Command.
72.
Al-Qāshānī, A Glossary of Technical Terms entry 124.
73.
ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā
2:22. I have not been able to locate this within
Muḳammad Wafā’s own writings. As an aside, it should not surprise us
that a poet should have a vision in which possible existence is to the
Necessary Divine as a metaphor is to truth.
J˚í /§å :ke¬ ,iЈ M Ú.ii §iusi ! a˚≥_ë Îvi¨ :Ј ,Hvä¬! M ,Hvä¬ /§å $Z vi¨ :Ј „mаżlH
hiií RrH DЈ fihë»
«yh[lH Dė ÒMvu¬ ]äiärH Dė эm“m¬ h˚í M
Úyh[¬
/Då $Z M D÷äiäs gi¨
This “measure”
recalls Q. 13:8, “Everything is before Him in its measure.” /Då $Z M»
«,Hv äé avi¨ Also of note here is the hadith qudsī “My earth and My heaven embrace Me
not, but the heart
of My believing servant does embrace Me.” (See Sufi Path of Knowl- edge 396 fn. 20 for sources of
this hadith.)
74.
See Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
70–71, and the study by M. Takeshita, Ibn ’Arabī’s Theory of the
Perfect Man (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of
Asia and Africa, 1987).
75.
Al-Qāshānī, A Glossary of Technical Terms entry 429.
76.
Al-Qāshānī, A Glossary of Technical Terms entry 277.
77.
Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God 289.
78.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 73b.
RƒhsЈH M ÔM.fĽH LЈh¨ §ė K¨!H $elH mˆ M §isrH hęß!H RėH §ė Lz¨!H LizuЈH Lß!H mˆ ÔHiЈH Ôhȧa ˇmam¬» M RkÿH LЈh¨ §ė ,ȧHmЈH RrH M Ôm;klH LЈh¨ Dė ,väЈH ,M, mˆ M .¬!H LЈh¨ Dė aizlH ,M.ЈH M Ômfˆ.ЈH LЈh¨ Dë ÒmiäЈH
«akZ .¬!H ,“.i aiЈH m;ЈH LЈh¨ §ė ,mаЈH ġhiė $¬h;ЈH hs˚!H A more typical sufi use of fyḍ, would be in the form fayḍ, which describes the effusion
from the Godhead. See, for example, Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge 162.
79.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints
71, observes that the function
of the Muḳam- madan Reality
is in effect accomplished by the figure
of the pole. It should
be remem- bered here that
these various figures—and even their representatives—are largely
indistinguishable from the Muḳammadan
Reality.
80.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 5b.
81.
On the various sources
for this hadith
see Sufi Path of Knowledge 396
fn. 18.
82.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 25a.
Diƒ Ïmkë $Z M .iĽH M .sЈH ,Hv¬ aik¨ M .¬!H M RkÿH aƒ Òhë ÎiЈH Ò.Z!H aïHi ai“M M Lz¨!H akЈH LßH mˆ FaäЈH Fkë»
«............ ]äïH.ЈH M ]äïhȧЈH a¬KëH M ]ëэhаЈH aïhękZ M ]äƄhiЈH a÷isЈH Liė vsHM FkäZ auƒhaH g¬ giufaH giƒ Òэũ
83.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 25b.
,iė.ЈH /hęßH §k¨ gęiilH mˆ §Јhuï akЈH LßH H hęZ fiM¿iЈH hęßH §k¨ gęiilH mˆ M $“ M ¿¨ akЈH LßH g¬ fivƒ FaäЈH» gi¨ Mˆ §Јhuï aªhęßH g¬ LßH $Z hęßH giusï M ]usï FaäkЈ :ЈiZ hęßH giusï M ]usï §Јhuï akЈ H hęZ M §k¨!H
«akЈhƒ !H }më ! M fims Kė a.;˚H g¬ M akЈH }.ȧs ˇ.¨ aė.¨ gęė aïhȧa M aªhęßH §kS M aïHi asM M aiƄhƒ .ˆhΩ M afii
84.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 147a.
85.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Kitāb
al-azal 167.
§Jm÷i hęZ asȧiƒ aiJM
.¬H §Jm÷i
עvJH mˆ :DJmJhė .„maÿhƒ
.iƒv÷JH M s.afJH F“mï ÔHiJhƒ
]amaż¬ ]JhȧZ :]i!mJH» a“m÷ï aiJH M s,haƒ!H aZ,vï ! עiJH sÔHiJH a“M mˆ „mażlH §JmJH :7.ė .}.ihżlH Qiuf÷Z ! sai¬ mˆ a˚! sasȧ˚ .¬H
«ÔhihżJH ,ię“ Räz÷ï avi¨ M sÔhiĽH $Z g¬ am“mJH
86.
See Bukhārī’s SaИīИ Riqāq 38.
87.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 96a.
88.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān Dār al-kutub 17b, and al-Maktaba al- Azhariyya 73a.
ua.øH .yþ avsH Dė avsHM gaƒ M avƒH Dë fiy!H ”,v˚H DękuJH эm“mJH aiJH §sMH M gißmë Ïhë §JH aƒ ע.ßH hękė»
«...vki LJ vęaJH akJH vsH akJH mˆ $ë ע.f;JH
]i!mJH hsJ §kï M vs!hƒ uvsHmJH g¨ .yþ vsHmJhƒ эhs!H Jkż÷åH M Elsewhere in the Nafā’is (75a)
we read, “The One said, From every side I am the first by Raḳmān (the Merciful) and the last by Insān (humanity), and the Apparent
(?āhir) in creation and the Interior
(bāịin) in truth.
So he who knows Me thus, and realizes Me in
all this, his last is gathered into his first and his apparent is counted among
his interior until he becomes eternal (azaliyyan), without an end to his
first, and is everlasting (ṣamadiyyan), without an apparent to his
interior.”
89.
I understand this
“tongue” to belong to the Prophet since the verb talā (to recite), as used in the Qur’an, refers to the act of individuals relating God’s signs
and not the act of revelation itself.
90.
The Maktaba Azhariyya ms reads: ]iƒmkß ]äiäs (?).
91.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān Dār al-Kutub 17b, and al-Maktaba al- Azhariyya 73a.
92.
Hadith qudsī not
found in the traditional collections.
93.
This seems to be a variant
of «L;J Ô.ȧi väė ... L÷•å h¬ Hmkę¨H» Bukhārī, SaИīИ
Maghāzī 9.
94.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya 80a.
]iȧi.uï Òmk¨ §JM!H H hiiiƒ @.ȧJH M aiiivJH ÒmkuJH Dė ]ifaë M ]i˚vkJH ÒmkuJH Dė ]ifaë gięsë §k¨ ]ifaäJH H Lk¨H» Dė §JM!H ! ,;uJhƒ ai˚vkJH Dė M ]Jhß.JH Li }mfiJH Li ]i!mJH FïH.¬ a_eki §JH Lsäii vsHM $Z M ]iȧik;ï ע.ø!H M MH mˆ JiZ a÷ffs Hihė ÔHiJhƒ h¬H akJH a!mï g¬ DJmJH ai˚vkJH Dė M aiˆHm˚ M a.¬HMhƒ ufihelhƒ .эþ akJH §Jmï g¬ Ôh˚hivJH Liiiƒ ,ęĽH M :J
,mȧż¬ Jiß h¬ $uėH fihuė!hƒ MH aƒ
.afi ÎvJH a.aƒ M aƒ ,ęsi ÎvJH auęß JiZ a÷ffsH Hihė ÔhȧaJhƒ Lik¨ akJH M ]i,hsJH ]imiJH ,¬ ]JKĽH ]“,vƒ ]i˚hsM.JH @hę¨H Dė ]i,hß ]iiivJH ]Jhß.JH M ]i˚vkJH }mfiJH Ú,vi ! fihęZ
«]i.ȧÿH M ]ißmlH giƒ @.ȧJH Lk¨ ÔhaÿH Hiˆ Liė HiH M ,MvaJH ÔHiƒ
95.
We shall discuss the
typology of these figures in the next chapter, in the sec- tion “On Walāya and Nubuwwa.”
96.
Al-Qāshānī, A Glossary of Technical Terms entry 55 (cf. 56) defines al-Jalāl as:
Dˆ h¬ §k¨ vsH hˆH.i ! a˚hzfß aïHi hė aïHi mˆ ˇ.ui hęZ a÷imˆ M a÷äiäzƒ aė.u˚ H aï¿uƒ hi¨ §Jhuï RrH Ïh[÷sH
«mˆ !H aik¨
97.
It should be remembered
here that Ibn CArabī saw all forms of sanctity as derived from nubuwwa ’āmma. See the last section of
chapter 1 above.
98.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 75b.
a“,э @mė }mfiJH M aïhȧ.¬ 7hfïH M aiˆHm˚ M a.¬HMH fihe÷¬hƒ akJH §Jm÷i ! vfuJH Riėmï hˆ.ˆhΩ gƄhƒ M .ˆhΩ hiJ ]i!mJH» aƒ akJH viH h¬ M Ôm;klH ]ȧåh;¬ M ÔhfiżlH §k¨ 7KƄ!H M hf˚!H g¬ hif˚!H akJH Waø hé :Ji @mė ]Jhß.JH M ]i!mJH
M }.ˆhfJH ÔH¿[ulH M §Jhuï akJH §JH u}m¨vJH .эþ עm¨vJH §k¨ }mäJH M ]ę;rhƒ эHv¬!H M ,väJH ,M, fi¿iï g¬ $ß.JH M aªhęßH mi;¬ g¬ aik¨ aukƄH M aïHiƒ avf¨ aƒ akJH §Jmï hé
miė ]iƄhfJH ]i!mJH h¬hė :Ji .ii §JH }.ˆhzJH Ô!!vJH Dˆ ]i!mJH aiˆ M mˆ !H mˆ ! M mˆ ! miė aƒ ahäƒH M ai¨ ahiėH M ai¬ aiøhė aïhikS ,vë .ihzs §ė a.ȧsH M aïhȧa
§˚эH MHgißmë Ïhë Òhä¬ §ė hiƒ hZ M §i÷ilH },vß vi¨ $i.f“ aë,hė hl Lkß M aik¨ akJH §ka vęz¬ hiiJH §ë.ï D÷JH
},väJH LJh¨ §ė ]Jhß.JH M }mfiJH M ]i!mJH
M aïmf˚ Òhä¬ Mэ ]Jhß.JH M a÷i!M Òhä¬ Mэ a“mJH
Hvˆ g¬ }mfiJH
J˚hZ
M
« h;¬!hƒ D˚heJH M эm“mJhƒ fiM!H Fiï.÷JH Hiiƒ L;rH Hiˆ §k¨
99.
On this idea of the
inversion of the two orders, according to Ḥaydar Āmulī, see H. Corbin, En
Islam Iranien I:260ff.
100.
This Renewer of
religion (mujaddid al-d•n) is not
mentioned in the Qur’an but does have a basis in hadith (see Abū Dā’ūd, Sunan 4/156). Landau-Tasseron, “The ‘Cyclical Reform’: A Study of the Mujaddid tradition,” Studia
Islamica 70, 1989 tells us that “Discussion of tajd•d is mainly conducted in personal not in conceptual terms.
(Our) conclusion is that tajd•d was
not a central concept in the evolution of medieval Islamic thought; it was
rather an honorific title bestowed on individuals over the ages, and the
conceptual aspect was secondary, involving mainly the qualifications of the
candidates” (p. 84). However, Muḳammad Wafā’s late contemporary, the historian Ibn Khaldūn, tells that speculation on the Mahdi was common in his
time. “Most of our contemporary Sufis refer to the (expected) appearance of a
man who will renew the Muslim law and the ordinances of the truth.
They assume that his appearance will take place at some time near our own period.”
Ibn Khaldūn, The Muqaddima: An Introduc-
tion to History F. Rosenthal trans. (3 vols.) (New York: Bollingen, 1958) 2:195. Lan- dau-Tasseron also concludes that the rise of the hadith of the Renewer
was historicallly tied to defence of the teachings
al-ShāfiCī (pp. 97 ff). See also Y. Friedmann, Prophecy
Continuous (University of California Press,
1989) ch. 4. It is also interesting to note that the Maghrebi, al-Jazūlī (d.
869/1465), would associate the mujaddid and
the Mahdi. See V. Cornell, Realm of the
Saint 184.
101.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafå’is al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 92b, 93a.
102.
Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Malāḳim 1.
103.
A hadith
popular in sufi texts. See The Sufi Path of Knowledge
396, fn. 20.
104.
A reference to Sūrat al-Fātiḳa, the first verse of the Qur’an, perhaps called the “Seven oft-repeated” because it is
used in prayers. Reference to the Fātiḳa, some- times called the “mother of the Book,”
may be a metonymic reference to the Qur’an. In 15:87 we read, “We have given you the Seven oft-repeated and the great Qur’an” (LizuJH ũ.äJH M D˚helH g¬ h_ufß Úhiiïũ vë M). Qur’anic commentators, for example Tafs•r al-Jalålain, gloss the Seven
as the Fātiḳa. The traditionist al-Bukhārī understands the mathån• as the Qur’an itself; thus sab>an min al-mathån• means seven verses out of the Qur’an, and wa
al-Qur’ån al->aΩ•m refers to
the rest of the Qur’ān. For more on this see
U. Rubin, “Exegesis and Hadith:
The Case of the Seven Mathānī” in Approaches
to the Qur’ån G. Hawtig
ed. (London: Routledge, 1993).
105.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Sha>å’ir al->irfån al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya
135b, 136a. hZ hé M a˚HMH hi¨H M a˚h¬y ¿hiåH Lˆ! miė .../Då $Z hii¨ @hȧ M ]ė.ulhƒ ]äiärH afkë ,ßM ÎiJH g¬mlH mˆ Hiˆ M» עvˆ Ò!¨H uread: TJHþ hȧJH mufß a˚h¬y §ė Lii¬ vsHM $;J hZ u]ufß .yþ ]iß ]ih¬ $Z ,H, §J¨ ,mizJH Hiˆ
«...,m˚M ]ękΩ g¬ Ïh[s TJH mufß akJ H §ielH ,fsJH .ß Liȧi hiˆ g¬ M Hv÷ë!H ,Hm˚H @,ha¬M On the sources
for the last hadith see the discussion in Le Révélateur des mystères 111 fn. 176. See also Isfarāyinī’s discussion, ibid. 130 ff, according to which all veils, whether they be of divine or
human origin (base or noble), must be passed through along the mystic path.
106.
The eight
throne-bearing angels and the “day of Assembly”
are to be found in Qur’anic
descriptions of the Day of Judgment (e.g., 69:17).
107.
The Muslim
community.
108.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 71a,71b.
LkuJH M }hirH Dˆ M ÔHiJH Ôhȧa ÔhikS .ˆhz¬ Lˆ _iiJH D˚helH ]ufsJH _¬ Ke¬
ahJH Ï.ȧ ]ufsJH Òhi!H J˚hZ hl M» ÔhȧaJH ˇmam¬ M hęß!H §ęs¬ ÔHiJH DkS .iz¬ M LizuJH H.äJH Li ÒK;JH M .afJH M ,ęsJH M }эH,!H M },väJH M M Jie˚H Li hˆ.¬H hęß $Z Dė §sMH M ai MhęsJH .¬HM!H ,fsJH §JH JJ ¿i÷ė Jie˚H M aiå.uJH ]kęrH ai˚hęeJH JJ¿iï Li Òmi mˆM Lkß M aik¨ akJH §ka vęz¬ Dė Ô.i¸ Li §si¨ M hęikß M эMHэ M §ßm¬ M LiˆH.ƒH M ,m˚ M Òэũ Dė JJ¿iï
]ih¬ $Z ,H, §k¨
akJH Eufi
]¬vä÷lH ]isJH L;s §k¨ aivęs!H ]klH
M ai¬!H
]¬!H Dė
Jie˚H Le hˆ.¬H Òhz˚ M hiuę“
vrH M ,JhaJH .ˆhfJH ,miJH M ,¬hĽH _¬heJH .izi aiháhęeJH §JH §÷s ai˚hfaäJH ]äiäs aiˆM Liiiэ ]¬!H aiiJ эv[i K“, aivęzlH ]ivęs!H ]klH M ai¬!H
]¬!H _¬ D˚hulH M hi¨!H Dė hiäihäs Òhz˚ L¸h˚ M D˚helH ,fsJH Lïhø ,˚hlH ,¬hĽH 7mę[¬ Òmi :Ji эmz“ ! M aiė Fi, ! ÎiJH ,ęĽH Òmi mˆ M Lis.JH _ęs.JH akJH Lsƒ §ęslH LizuJH H.äJH mˆ
«эMia¬ Òmi :Ji M ,hiJH aJ
109.
This “great” revelation
is probably more than simply the scripture of the Qur’an. It seems to represent here the first extension into
creation. This presentation recalls the ShīCī concept of the Imāms as the Qur’ān nāịiq. Amir-Moezzi, The Divine
Guide in Early Shi’ism 167, fn.198.
110.
This ensemble
of seven prophets
is apparently not that found sequentially in the
seven levels of heaven by the Prophet
in his ascension. There the list is the follow- ing: Adam, Jesus, Joseph, Idrīs, Aaron, Moses,
and Abraham (in the seventh heaven).
Bukhārī, SaИīИ,
Salāt, 1. In the final section
of the next chapter we will discuss
this dis- crepancy in more
detail.
111.
This phrase,
known as the basmala, has served in numerous mystical
specu- lations among sufi thinkers. For example, Ibn CArabī contrasts its first letter Ï (identify-
ing it with the Unitary Divine Principle) with the last word of the Qur’an, nās (which sybolizes Universal
Manifestation) See M. Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without Shore: 67.
Muḳammad Wafā’s contemporary, Ḥaydar Āmulī, in his
commentary on Ibn CArabī’s Fuṣūṣ, proposes
the basmala as a structure for both the interior and exterior worlds.
See Corbin, En Islam Iranien 4:177.
112.
In the next chapter
we shall see that CAlī Wafā’, living
at the turn of the ninth
century, claims to be this Renewer. Ibn CArabī himself,
significantly, had made the claim in his Kitāb al-isrā’: “I am the Qur’ān and the Seven oft-repeated.” Addas, Quest for the Red Sulfur 116.
113.
Cf. (Q.6:67): “For every tiding there is an abode (or time), and you shall know of it.” « mękuï ˇmß M .ä÷s¬
hf˚ $;J» The word tidings may refer
to stories of the prophets (e.g., 26:69, 28:3) or to God’s tidings from the Unseen world (eg., 3:44, 12:102).
114.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktabat al-Azhariyya 82b.
M ... ,m˚ aƒ hf˚H h¬ .ä÷s¬ LiˆH.ƒH M Òэũ uaƒ hf˚H h¬ .ä÷s¬ ,miė ai¨ hf˚H .yþ M aƒ hf˚H h¬ _iuï Eis hf˚ $Z .ä÷s¬» ÎvęzlH hf˚!H ÔH.ä÷s¬ Lˆ _iiJH .ë $Z ,H, §k¨ mimuflH fih“.JH :JiZ M ,ęĽH .ä÷s¬ Lkß M aik¨ akJH §ka vęz¬
«Lis.JH _ęs.JH akJH Lsƒ §ęs¬ M LizuJH hfiJH .ä÷s¬ ,ęĽH ,¬h“ _i¨ M .auJH L÷ø _¬heJH _¬¿JH Fsha M
The last
phrase, “In the Name of God . . .” begins the Qur’an and most suras. Its use in
our passage may be taken as a reference to all revelation.
115.
Al-Qāshānī understands the Prophet, as the Иaqīqa MuИammadiyya, to unite within himself
the qualities of the seven great prophets.
See P. Lory, Les commentaires
esotériques du Coran d’après ’Abd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī (Paris: Les Deux
Océans, 1980) 140.
116.
This model of cycles
and their final fulfillment are not unlike that of the early IsmāCīlīs, who
waited for the Naịiq (speaker) or Qā’im / Mahdī. See F. Daftary,
The Ismā’īlīs, Their History and Doctrines (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990) 140.
6.
Sanctity according to >Al• Wafå’
1.
See his Talbīs Iblīs (Beirut: Maktabat al->Aßriyya, 1999).
2.
H. Laoust, Essai sur les doctrines sociales et
politiques de Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymīya. On some of the Egyptian responses to
Ibn Taymiyya see E. Geoffroy, Le Soufisme
en Égypte et en Syrie 446–50.
3.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:45 from >Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā Sayyidī ’Alī
Wafā’ (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale; ms no. 1359) 26a.
«. . . ÒvuJH !Havuƒ ,iJ iH mˆ !H Hvf¬ hiJ ,iJ M a÷ȧa эm“m¬ $Z M эm“m¬ $Z ÔHi miė» The entry in al-Ṭabaqāt
al-kubrā on >Al• Wafå’ is made
up of quotations taken largely from the Waṣāyā and MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya. The passages
are often shortened, and many have been arranged
thematically. It appears, however, that not everything Sha>rån• quotes is from these
two works. (The Waṣāyā manuscript available to me was copied in 984/1576, that is, well after Sha>rån•’s death. Perhaps the earlier Waṣāyā copy Sha>rån• used was larger.)
4.
>Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 26b, 27a. (Partially quoted
by Sha>rån• 2:45.) This ontology is similar
in form to Muḳammad Wafå’s discussion of tajallī and isti’dād, as we saw in
the
previous chapter. A structural
comparison with Ibn >Arab•’s a’yān thābita (immutable entities)
remains to be done.
5.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:45. The term Absolute Oneness
is used by Ibn
al-Khaṭ•b (d. 776/1374) and Ibn Khald¥n (d. 808/1406), representing the school
of thought that sees God’s existence
as the only reality. This school is distinguished from that of the aṣИāb al-tajallī
, who recognize the reality of Self-disclosure in addition to that of God. The issue at hand is what significance is to be attributed to the various
differen- tiations of the divine One. The first position would give none, while the second sees value in recognizing the destinctions the One makes
within itself (e.g.,
the Self-disclosures). For a discussion
of this issue see H. Landolt, “Le Paradoxe de la “Face de Dieu”: ‘Azîz-e
Nasafî (VIIe/XIIIe siècle)
et le “Monisme Ésotérique” de l’Islam” in Studia Iranica vol. 25/2 1996, 165.
6.
“This is deficient with respect to the positions of the verifiers. In this [passage], the Shaykh
is as one deprived of the demonstrations witnessed from his own utterances in [other] passages of his Waṣāyā; but God knows best.” Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt
al- kubrā 2:45.
,ȧHm¬ Dė a¬KZ ]fi .äƒ viå h¬ ,hiΩṷ §k¨ ÏmkżlhZ hiiė ¿iaJH h;ė giääzlH FïH.l .ziJhƒ ,aä˚ ]fï.¬ §ˆ M»
«Lk¨í akJH M hihamJH aiˆ g¬
7.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya (Dår al-Kutub; Taßawwuf 152; film 33564) 45a.
°å $Z °å $Z ÔHi mˆ M °å $Z ]äiäs miė },ma M §iu¬ a“Hm¬hƒ .zfJH mˆ hęiė ]ƄhshZ aiz¬ °å $;ƒ a˚H»
«a÷ȧa M aii¨
8.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:29.
9.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:51.
§k¨ avfuiė hęˆ M aƒ .ȧzi },hï M ]ȧåh;¬ g¨ avfuiė
häs aƒ .ȧzi },hï g;J RrH !ṷ FJhƄ $Z Fkai LJ fimäi hZ M»
«akJH !ṷ ]äiärH §ė
vƒh¨ vf¨
hęė Ïh[s
10.
>Al• Wafå’, Kitāb al-Masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya (Dår al-Kutub; Taßawwuf 166) 50a,
repeated in Waṣāyā 104b.
11.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:43.
«fihę;JH !ṷ эm“mJH §ė viai LJ ,m¬#hƒ LªhäJH mˆ ,ßMväJH í viå g¬»
From the Waṣāyā 13b,
a similar passage:
«!hęZ !H .¬!H:Ji viaï LJ .¬hƒ LihäJH mˆ ÒH.Z!H M fiKĽH Mi ,väJH H Ôvˆhå HiH»
12.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 98a, 98b.
M aMhęßH M aïhȧa $;Jhė эM“m¬ $;ƒ giu÷lH ÔHiJH эm“mJH mˆ . . . aii¨ §iuęƒ aэm“M J˚H M :ïHi §iuęƒ Úэm“M mˆ»
«afszƒ Òhä¬ $Z Dė a¬Hmë $ę;i M эm“MJHÒhz˚ ,kai ]iiJ!H a÷fï.¬ L;zƒ
13.Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 23b. «:iJH M :ƒM ai¬ $;Jhė Úэm“M mˆ $;JH эm“M hZ HiH»
14.
Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 101a.
},h÷ė ÔhȧaJH M D˚hulH (sic) ,ę“Hiˆ
§k¨ ,ë M a÷i˚hęs.ƒ :˚hęs, M a÷iiJhƒ :iJH M a÷iƒmƒ.ƒ :ƒ, mˆ Úэm“M» D÷JH ]ieirH g¬ ]ï,hï M Úэm“M hii¬ aH.ï M J˚H hˆH.ï
D÷JH ]ieirH g¬ :ZH,эH Dė hiȧuƒ MHFïH.lH aiˆ L;zƒ :J .izi M .iΩ TiZ M .iΩ Eis эm“mJH :J .izi ! (*) iHÚэm“M !H ]äiärH Dė mˆ h¬ M Ú.ii эm“M hii¬ aH.ï M Ú.ii hˆH.ï a˚HEis g¬ aZH,эhƒ :JiJ Ú,vlH Úэm“M a˚hƒ !H ai¬ °å ! M :Ji Ú,vï ! J˚H M Úэm“M mˆ Eis g¬ !H .iΩ hęié
«aiz¬ °å $;ƒ a˚H !H Hiˆ ˇKø °å Li h¬ Ú,vlH Úэm“M
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:56 quotes this passage, but only after (*).
15.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 13b reads:
«Úэm“M g¬ !H Úэmiå §ė h¬ M Úэmiå §JH !H эm“M g¬ hęė»
16.
Ibn
Sab>•n (d. 669/1270) and his disciple >Af•f al-D•n Tilimsån• (d. 690/1291) both knew Ibn >Arab•’s disciple Sa∂r al-D•n al-Q¥nåw•. Tilimsån• had met Ibn >Arab• in Damascus and had for a time been a disciple of al-Q¥nåw•. See C. Addas, Quest for the
Red Sulphur 257–58.
17.
This is a variant of the hadith Tirmidh•, SaИīИ, Imåm, 18.
18.
Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 2b, 3a.
$ȧ ahaøH g¬ M עv÷ˆH ,miJH :Ji aƒhaH gęė a,m˚ g¬ h.iik¨ Å, Li ]ękΩ §ė Òh_s“!H Rkø akJH H EivrHDė h“» hiik¨ ÅMå,lH ,miJH M LiifJH Lˆ mJH hi÷i˚h¬.“ Eis g¬ hi˚haė ÒhiiH M Òhi˚HFïH.¬ hi˚H ]ękΩ Òhs“!H mZ §iu¬ hiïHэHvu÷ßH §k¨ ]åmå.lH
,HM,!Haiˆ §k¨ Òhs“!H M Lis.JH gęs.JH эm“mJH §kS g¬ Li;rH LikuJH RƄhiJH ,M.J mˆ g¬ .i LJ gęZ ,M.sJH v[i LJ M ¿i÷fi Lkė aƒhä˚ !Ha“mJH :Ji g¬ .i LJ gęė .ęëH ¿if¬ a“M §k¨ .fiH эmßH ÏhäiZ
«эmaälH }vˆha¬ vi¨ ,M.sJhƒ ¿i÷ƒH ,m÷sJH TaZ g¬ M ,mZilH ,m˚ эmiaJ akJH .Zii Lkė Li¬hs“H !H akJH hiJMH
19.
Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 20b. «afszƒ Òhä¬ $Z Dė §ęslH gi¨ Lß!H»
20.
Ibn >Arab• used “Qur’ån” and “Furqån” (both names for scripture) to explain the at once uniting
and differentiating function
of God’s word. See Chittick, Sufi Path of
Knowledge 363.
21.
Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 21b.
aii¨ ũ.äJH M ÒK;JH mˆ M Lk;÷lH miė ]i‡H Ïh÷;ƒ Lˆ hii“ vë M fihë hęZ ]iuęsJH }.iHvJH Dė Lk;÷lH gi¨ ÒK;JH . . .» M ũ.äJH fi¿iï hë.ȧJH M hë.ȧJH fi¿iï Â.älh_ė DsrH aii¨ aH.äï .ięȧƒ ai¨ .fulH Â.älH M DJhiÿH aii¨ hë.ȧJH M DkäuJH
«ÒK;Jhƒ ai¨ .fulH aikS
$ę[¬ ]ikiaȧ÷JH aïhiiuï
$;JH M
Lk;÷lH gi¨ ÒK;JH M ÒK;JH fi¿iï ũ.äJH
22.Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 35a. «@Hy.JH ÔhikS @y.JH ÏhfßH M @KÿH ÔhikS RkÿH Ïhfßhë»
23.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 22b.
24.
At the beginning of this chapter we saw >Al• Wafå’ using the related term taqdīr
(ordaining) to convey much the same point being made here.
25.
This seems to be a
version of another hadith, popular among sufi thinkers, which many hadith scholars
have considered a forgery. See Chittick, Sufi Path of Knowl- edge 391 n. 16.
26.
An
interpretation traditionally ascribed to the Prophet’s companion Ibn >Abbås. See Chittick, Sufi Path of
Knowledge 150.
27.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:55.
,hi‡H fihzƒ ˇ.¨í hZ g¬ $;ė . . . a,hiũ .ˆ÷z¬ Dė aïhȧa M aªhęßí $iaȧ÷ƒ RrH ˇ.u÷J !ṷ RkÿH}.ªHэ Jääs h¬ fimäi»
,vë §k¨ .ˆhzlH :kï Rªhäzƒ
ˇ.¨í hZ ˇmamlH
§ęslH .ˆhzé ˇ.¨í hZ g¬ $Z M ÔhȧaJH M /hęß#H.ˆhzé ˇ.¨í hZ
«·}.ˆhzJH Rªhärhƒ a÷ė .u¬
28.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:32.
29.
Muḳammad Wafā’ himself is this elite.
See the quotation
at the start of the sec-
tion “The Muḳammadan Reality and the
Pole” in the previous chapter.
30.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:23.
31.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 85b.
32.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:44.
33.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 21a, 21b.
]äiäzƒ ! ]iZH,э!H ]ię;rH
hiïhiˆh¬ эMvzƒ }.ihż÷¬ ÔHэm“mlH M
aïHэm“m¬ §JH ]fsiJhƒ .ieZ ÔHiJhƒ
vsHM эm“mJH»
Ôh.iˆhlH эMvs §JH Ô.z˚ §÷_¬ M Hvsm_¬ JiZ a_iJH aïHэm“m_¬ ._¬H Ôээ, M эm“mJH ]_ä_i_äs §JH Ô.z˚ §÷ęė hˆэm“M g¬ aƒ $ęui
H]ę;rH §ȧ÷äï hé }.iHэ $Z §ë Jęk¨ §÷¬ M Hэvu¬ JiZ (read hiiJH) a_iJH hˆэm“M ._¬H Ôээ, M ]_i_ę;rH
«Hэvs¬ Hviß K¬hZ JiZ hiJ :äiäï ,¬ }.iHvJH :kï Dë gi.ziJH Ôhiȧ÷ä¬ The figure of the Perfect Sayyid will be discussed in more detail at the end of this chap- ter, in the section “The Seal and
the Renewer of Religion.”
34.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:33.
35.
This insight
is also described in Ibn CArabī’s FutūИāt as the “Possessor of the
Two Eyes.” See Chittick, Sufi Path of
Knowledge 361–63.
36.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:33.
See al-Qushayrī, Das Sendschreiben al-Qushayrīs über das Sufitum 538.
37.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:33.
38.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2I:33.
«aJHmëí §˚hu¬ Lˆm÷ƒ ]äƒhalH väė aJhuėí §ė aȧJhø g¬M aė,hu¬ g¬ aJ .føí hęiė aäƒhƄ aJhuėí Dė aih÷ßí RėHM g¬»
39.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:33. «... aih÷ßí ]i˚hęs, /Hm÷ß! Å.¨ @эhaJH
vi.lH» We saw a similar statement
from Muḳammad Wafā’ in the previous chapter
in the sec- tion “The Teaching Shaykh and Beyond.”
40.
CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāyā 39a.
§JH @maJH M FkaJH ]ë.s M v“mJH]¨mJ vS LJ §÷¬ iięk÷JH ,ȧ˚ Hi;ˆ $ęrH Òv¨ Dė Ffß Ls.JH э.ƒ HhfƄ!Hfihë» h˚høэ!H ,fäJH aiė .imi ! э,hfJ эmëmJH $e¬ hȧiH m;i M a.¬H },ma hiik¨ aэh÷ßH ,ȧiė g¬ hiiė vJm÷i LJ эmaälH
«... Rmå ]ë.s .iżƒ ÒmäJhiiƒ ]køHvJH ,mȧikJ ]kahrHÔh˚m¨.JH M ÎMh¨vJhZ
41.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 104a.
«Úih÷ßhƒ :÷ė.u¬ ,vë §k¨ :÷äiäzƒ :÷ė.u¬»
42.
CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāyā 3a.
,ikė /Då $Z Ôv“M akJH Ôv“M H M akJH Ôv“M :÷äiäs Ôv“M H M :÷äiäs Ôv“M RäzlH Úэh÷ßH Ôv“M H...»
«эh÷ß!H Hiˆ v“M Dė !H
эH.lH $Z
43.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:49, and CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāya 54b.
h¬ vi.lH í êf÷ė ... aih÷ßí g¨ Jȧ÷ki ! í M aih÷ßí .¬í vi¨ Täi í vi.lH §kuė avi.l ]iƒ.ƒ.JH .ß .iz¬ ih÷ߏH» Eis g¬ ai“M akJH hZ hęii÷fï.¬ giƒ }.ihżlH L;s aäß M aih÷ßí ]äiäzƒ Räï Hiṷ §÷s aih÷ßí !ṷ aiJṷ a“m÷i
a“M aJ
«...vi.lH :Ji aƒ Räï עiJH ih÷ß#H :Ji a“ M
44.
A sign of the Last Day is a blast on this Trumpet, (Q. 69:13). The famous al- Ḥallāj said, “By
God! it is the breath of the uncreated Spirit that breathes into my skin a
thought, the very one that Isrāfīl will blow into the Trumpet.” L. Massignon, The Passion
of al-Ḥallāj 1:285. Massignon then adds the following quote from Ibn Bākhilā: “When the
Trumpet sounds, the sincere mystic will say, I heard it a long time ago!”
45.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:32.
asKa },ma עí, aih÷ßí g¨ aï,iafJ
TaZ Hih_ė
]i!MJH M ,KȧJH $ˆí Ôhęsƒ
a÷iMƄ §kz÷ï í vi,lH/עэhf¬ fiM∫_ė ...» aęęˆM ]iJHm÷lHa÷zsK¬ ÔhZ,ƒ g¬ vę÷siė §JMJH ,JhaJH mˆ aih÷ßí íRaiiė aih÷ßí },ma /hȧa §ė a÷i!M M
]ihiuJH $iėH.ßṷ ¿ȧii §÷s ,˚∫.÷lH ээmï aiJṷ ээm÷iė ]ȧi.aJH a.ƄHmø [M ]ȧiilH aïHm¨эih÷ß#H g¬afka¬ fiH¿i ! M ]iJhuJH ÏhaJH Lizuï aęzuiė HmZ #H ]¬yí :Jh¬ M h¬¿JH Òэũ aih÷ßí viai Úhiiė D¬э‡H ,aiaż÷JH
,M, afkë },ma ,ma Dė hivęz¬ Hviß aih÷ßí viai Úhiiė ]ivęzlH ,M.JH g¬ aaø
h¬ fihę“ g¨ ]i¬э‡Haï,ma Ïh[s .ȧsi í §Jṷ ÏhilH aiƒ# giƒh¬v¨ .iaiė vˆhaJH ,ßM ,vë §k¨ via¬ $Z §ė §k[÷i vsHmJH !ṷ ע.i Kė aih÷ßí §Jṷ .ziiė ... Hvf¨ aJ m;i M
«...Riäï a.øũ M Rivaï aaßMí M Riėmï a.¬í fiM∫ė эmiå }.ȧs §ė Hmz¬ M эm“M עvi
46.
Ab¥ Madyan, “Uns al-waḳ•d” no. 161 in The Way of Abū Madyan 147.
,h˚í M aëH.Ƅ≥ƒ :ƒэí M aëKø∫.ƒ :ƒiˆ g¬ ¿iaJH ·Lizu÷JH M ÒH.÷s!hƒ Ú.ß M Livä÷Jhƒ :ïHi aJ Ôviå g¬ ¿iaJH»
«a,m˚ ,hiũ Fiż¬ Dė :zȧs M a,mȧs Dė :Ję“ g¬ ¿iaJH ·aëH.åhƒ :iƄhƒ
47.
>Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 12b.
häƒha¬ asȧ˚ g¬ }ũ.lH Dė .ΩhiJH aH.i h¬ ]J¿ié aih÷ßH gZ ,amażlH vi.lH ]äiäs»
48.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:32.
49.
>Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 3b.
«Rs J˚hė häs aïviå H M Rkø J˚hė häkø aïviå H ... hiik¨ Úih÷ßH viaï D÷JH },maJH §k¨ J˚H»
50.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:32.
«... aï.i.ß },ma §k¨
hˆviå
aï.iafƒ hiiė .z˚ Hiṷ @эhaJH vi.lH .ß }ũ.¬
RƄhiJH
ih÷ß#H },ma»
51.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:60.
52.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:60.
Ô.izė DJ Kˆí :÷ií, :÷ffsí Hi≥.ė :fsí §÷s §Jṷ Ï.äï @эha vi.¬ $;J fimäi giflH Rrhƒ RƄh˚ ih÷ßí $Z fihs hsJ»
«aJ vu÷s¬ J˚í hé :iė Apparently sincere aspirants were not very
common. In 804/1401>Al• Wafå’ wrote, “To date I have not found an aspirant who
approaches the reality of his truth in me (Îvi¨ a___ä___s
]__ä___i___ä___s) by supererogation so that I love him. If I found him, I would
ful- fill him in his truth,
then (I would
say) “I love you” and I would
be him (mˆ Ji;ė). How my aspirant
would excell in conformity (to me) and perfection!” (MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 11a, 11b and al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:60) This passage
echoes the hadith in which the servant
draws near to God by acts of supererogation until God loves him and becomes his hearing, sight etc. (Bukhår•, ṢaИīИ, Riqåq 38).
53.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 11a.
h¬ @эhaJH vi.lH hiiHhiė h;¬H эm“M ]iękuJH a÷äiär DkuȧJH fihelH M Dƒm“M эm“M DkuȧJH hiJhel ]iękuJH ]äiärH» hiė !H M häs
fi¿ï LJ hęZ JiZ aƒ Jääï hė iflH Rrhƒ RƄhiJH Úih÷ßH vi¨ !H Rs
aƒ J˚H ÎiJH F“HmJH Úэm“M
«häkø fiH¿ï ! J˚H
54.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:55, and >Al• Wafå’, Waṣāyā 95b.
$;JH Dė эm“mJH M vi.lH §Jṷ ]fsiJhƒ vi.lH эm“M ]äiäs ih÷ß#H M aih÷ßí §Jṷ
]fsiJhƒ aih÷ßí mi¨ g¬ gi¨ vi.lH ṷ» M Hэmiå giė.u÷lH Ú,Hv¬ §ė avi .é ih÷ß#H Räz÷i M Hэm“M fihę;JH §˚hu¬ §ė aih÷ß∫ƒ vi.lH Räz÷i :JiJ M aiz¬ vsHM
«Dk¨ hi :i¬ h˚í M Di¬ J˚í» $¬h;JH avi.l $¬h;JH visJH fihë Li g¬ A similar
passage, using “servants” and “masters”, is MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 8a, 8b. It ends with the following: “Just
as the servant is from his master
in existence, like- wise the master is from his servant
in witnessing. “You are from me, and I am from you.” On this hadith see above, ch. 4, note 88. Ibn Måja, Sunan (Cairo: 1972) vol.1, båb 2, p. 44,
no.119 runs, “I am from >Al• and >Al• is from me.” (This passage is also cited in Sha>rån• 2:60.)
55.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 2a, 2b.
Liivi.¬ ,Hm˚H Rihäs giэh÷s!H ,Hm˚H M Liiih÷ßH ,Hm˚H Rihë, givi.lH ,Hm˚H M a˚hisHM aïhëMH M aïh¨hß Dˆ Ò.i $Z Rihë,» hikƒhë fimfë M $¬h;JH ,väJH Dˆ ]i,vfJH ]iJhę;JH ]äië.Jhė av“M Fszƒ Lii¬ $Z ,vë M givi.lH ,HvëH Dˆ Rihë.JH aiˆ M
«.aэh÷ßH !H $¬h;JH vi.lH §ė ,iJ :JiZ ... ,väJH ]kiJ
56.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:30. The term perfecting saint is not unusu- al. Simnån• describes the perfecting (mukammil) saint as superior
to the simply kāmil. Isfaråyin•, Le Révélateur des mystères 119
fn. 188. Al-Qåshån• puts the level of perfec-
tion (takmīl) above that of walāya. Al-Qåshån•, A Glossary of
Technical Terms s.v. “safar” (p.
87, Arabic text).
57.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:59. The hadith is from Bukhår•, ṢaИīИ, Jihåd 16.
58.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 105b. See also al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt
al-kubrā 2:57. Elsewhere
we are told, “The doctors
of Law are the sources
of authority (]iƒ.ƒ.JH @,h_a¬) for the inhabitants of Hell, the
sufis are the sources of authority for the doc- tors of Law, the People of esoteric tasting
(dhawq) are the sources
for the sufis,
and the highest are Speakers
of verification.” MafātīИ al-khazā’in
al-’aliyya 25b.
59.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 26a.
60.
This is the name most often given to the mysterious figure Moses and his ser- vant
meet in the desert (Q. 18:60–82). Kha∂ir, who has received “knowlege from God’s Presence,”
agrees to guide Moses on condition that he not challenge what he sees Kha∂ir do. The
prophet agrees, but after he sees Kha∂ir commit
what appear to be violent or inappropriate deeds, he loses his patience. The guide then explains the hidden reasons
he had been commanded by God to act in such shocking ways. The story is popular
among sufi thinkers because it affirms esoteric knowledge. It will be seen below that this story is central to >Al• Wafå’s teaching
on relationship between
sanctity and prophecy.
61.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 28b, 29a.
Kė aƒmfz¬ }эH,! FzlH }эH,ṷ ]äƒha¬ hiuƒHmï g¬ M Lizu÷JH M ]fzlH :Ji Ri.Ƅ M a¨mf÷é Räz÷i H ,ƒh÷JH fihęZ ! ...»
! H 7mf÷lH ]ę;s §ȧ÷äï väė H.Zi ai¬ aJ 5vzi LJ hę¨ a¨mf÷¬ fihß HiH ,ƒh÷JH hė hȧiH M $uė ! M fimäƒ aäfsi
}эmlH hȧa aik¨ ,v;÷ė ,ƒh÷JH H,mi g¬ g¬.i Kė af[i LJ H M ]ę;rH ]ȧJhżé ,.ȧJH $as aƒh“H hė :Ji g¨ ,ƒh÷JH Fi[i
«a¨mf÷¬ g¬ ]kamJH Ri.Ƅ ai¨ ,aäï M
62.
Speaking of this relationship, the poet R¥m• (d. 672/1273) says, “As for the boy whose throat was cut by Kha∂ir, the vulgar do not comprehend the mystery thereof.”
«Rkø Òh_¨
vƒh_i˚ ,э H.˚ũ ._ß * Rks vi._fƒ ._ȧ_ø AZ H,._si ũ» The Mathnawī of Jalālu’ddīn Rūmī R. A. Nicholson ed. and trans. (London: Luzac, 1926) I:16 (Persian text) and 2:16 (translation).
63.
>Al•
Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 2b. (A longer passage containing
these lines was mentioned above.)
64.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:37.
65.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:26.
66.
Al-Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:25.
aik¨ .ȧÿH ]iamaø g¬ ]i!mJH .zƒ M aïmf˚ g¬ ]Jhß.JH .zƒ giƒ ah÷ȧJ ,ę[iJ ah÷ȧƒ .ȧÿH ÒKsJH aik¨ §ßm¬ §äJ héṷ»
,ęaJH L;s ,¬ L[iJH L;zZ a÷ui.å a¬¿kï ÎiJH fimß.JH L;s ,¬ DJmJH L;s H :Ji §ė .sJH M ÒKsJH
In >Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 51a, the passage runs differently:
H :Ji Dė .sJH M a.ȧø ]iamaø g¬ ]Jhß, .zƒ M aïmf˚ g¬ ]Jhß.JH .zƒ giƒ ah÷ȧJ ,ęziJ ah÷ȧƒ .ȧÿH §ßm¬ §äJ háṷ»
«,ęaJH L;s ,¬ L[iJH L;zZ a÷ui.å a¬¿kï
ÎiJH fimß.JH L;s ,¬ DJmJH
L;s “Moses met al-Kha∂ir with his
attendant, in order to unite for this attendant the sea of mission from his prophethood, and the sea of a mission from the particular quality of his al-Kha∂ir. The secret in
this is that the rule that obtains between a saint and a messen- ger, which is
necessarily linked to his (the latter’s) sharia, is like the rule that obtains
between a star and the sun.” According to this reading,
and assuming there is no mistake
in this manuscript, the use of “mission” here should be understood in its wider
sense, beyond the “mission” of the law-bearing rasūl.
67.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 51a, 51b.
hęZ :Ji M ,ęaJH L;s Dė hikZ Òm[iJH Òh;sH J“,v˚H ,ęaJH
Ô.iΩ Hih_ė aę;zƒ
FZ mZ $Z .iΩ ,ęaJH Jƒhi HiH» DJH vi÷[¬ $Z ,“, WiJH Ïhi HiH M WiJH L;s L;rH hZ M a÷ï hikZ ÔHэhi÷“!H Òh;sH J“,v˚H v“M HiH
WiJH H H M aïhfi! Jfi a÷fiH H ÒKsJH aik¨ aę;s Dė ”,vi¬ Lkß M aik¨ §ka akJH
fimß, }his Dė vi÷[¬ L;s H hę;ė aę;s
«Dȧ÷˚H ahȧ˚
Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:25, adds to the end of this passage, «fimß, ,¬ §JM L;s
:JvZ» “So the rule of a saint is in accord
with a messenger.” (This addition, or something like
it, is required by syntax.)
68.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 51b.
Ïh[[ƒ a÷Jhß, ,ęå Ô,Hmï M aïhėM J˚э hękė aę;s Dė L;rH gi“,vi¬
§ß m¬ }his Dė $iH.ßH Diƒ hiJMH hZ» gZy Dė ,iz÷ß ]i!mJH $ˆH Òh;“H H Lk¨ .ȧÿH aƒ vaë ÎiJH ah÷ė Mˆ ]ȧikÿH :Ji hZ M avuƒ
aȧkż÷iß ÎiJH a÷ȧikø
«a÷ėKø g¬y Dė .iΩ HiH LiJ a÷k¬hu¬ m;i TiZ aH,hė §÷ȧJH :Ji Elsewhere this point is put succinctly as follows: “The quality of the saint is the inward
dimension of prophecy.” «}mfiJH gƄhƒ §JmJH L;s» >Al• Wafå’, Kitāb al-masāmi’ al-rab- bāniyya 79a.
69.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 51b.
a.;˚H Lˆ .¬H g¬ /§å ,h;ƒH 7.aJH §ȧ÷ëH H M hiƄhƒ hiJMKJ Lksi H aękuė ... ]i!MJH M ]Jhß.JH ע.¬H giƒ aJ ,ę“ M»
«Li¬hä¬ Dė ,iJ g¬ Li¬h;shƒ afa÷i ! DZ ÒKu÷ß!H ]is §k¨ H.ˆhΩ
70.
Idr•s and Jesus are also located in the heavenly spheres. For references and dis- cussion see M.
Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints 93.
On the wider issue of the develop- ment and understanding of the story of
al-Kha∂ir, see Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.) s.v.
“al-Kha∂ir,” >Ammår’s Abū al-Ḥasan
al-Shāhdilī 1:208 ff and Geoffroy, Le
soufisme en Éypte 423–26.
71 >Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 54a. Ilyås and Gabriel are associated with jalāl; Kha∂ir and Michael are associated with jamāl. See also Sha>rån•, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:26.
72.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 54b.
73.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 92b.
«asȧ˚ }më g¬ asr .ˆhzė aïmf˚ ,M, $eú mˆ $i.f“ },ma Df˚
$;J hęZ a÷i!M ,M, $eú mˆ .ȧø DJM $;J ...» In the school of Ibn >Arab•, >Abd al-Razzåq al-Qåshån• described the Kha∂ir-Moses rela- tionship in much the same way. In his SharИ fuṣūṣ al-Иikam (third ed.) (Cairo: al-Ḥalab•, 1987) 315–16, he says, “al-Kha∂ir is the esoteric form of the Name of God. His station
is that of the spirit.
To him are sanctity, the unseen, and the secrets
of destiny . . . As for Moses, he is the exoteric form of the
Name of God. His station is that of the heart.
To him are the sciences of mission, prophecy and law.” On this issue >Al• Wafå’ belongs much more in the Akbarian camp than among the Shådhilites. Ibn >Aṭå’ Allåh considers erroneous the opinion that “for each time (zaman) there is a Kha∂ir, and one man attains the spiritual level of the Kha∂iriyya in each time.” Laịā’if
al-minan 98.
74.
Q. 33:72 reads, “We [God] offered
the Trust to the heavens,
the earth and the
mountains, but they refused to bear it, being afraid.
Yet, humanity bore it.” The details
of this trust are left to the imagination, but it would
be reasonable to assume, as does the Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, that this trust is a contract between
God and humanity, setting out the terms of transgression/punishment and piety/reward (cf. 33:73). Ibn >Arab• ties the abil- ity to bear the Trust to humanity’s essential abilities. “God created Adam upon His own
Form . . . Through the strength of the Form he was able to carry the offered
Trust.” Chittick, The Sufi Path of
Knowledge 276.
75.
>Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 17b.
,hiH g¬ a˚H aƒ $eú עiJH a.ˆhΩ g¨ .f¨ :Jikė }эhіsJH ,M, g¬ ]imßmlH ]˚h¬!H Dė gaƒ h¬ $eú mˆ .ȧÿH H Lk¨H»
«...]iviuJH ]¬s.JH M D˚vkJH DuęĽH DïHiJH .sJH эhf¨ g¬ vf¨ a˚H M ah÷ė M §ßm¬
76.
>Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 17b.
§k¨ Hvï,h_ė himß H.aƒ Li.l akß,H עiJH asM.ƒ $eú hęZ ah÷ė M §ßml .ȧÿH Hiiƒ §k[÷lH vіęrH DiżJH RrH fihäė»
«...h˚эhf¨ g¬ Hvf¨ Hv“mė himß H.aƒ D˚hęeĽH (read: hęiszƒ) hiszƒ ahZ,эH §÷s aіė hiJ $eú ÎiJH akeę÷ƒ hęˆ,hiH
On the Spirit appearing to Mary, in human form, to announce
the arrival of Jesus, see
Q. 19:17.
77.
>Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 17b.
78.
Elsewhere the shift,
from Kha∂ir as nonresponsible
actor to the authoritative divine Spirit, is echoed by an innovative reading of “I did not do it of my own accord” (Q. 18:82). We are told: “Kha∂ir said, ‘That which I did of my own accord.’ The må here is a relative
pronoun, and thus it was by his own will because those
actions were by the
quality of the spirit of saintly inspiration.” >Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 52b.
«Î!mJH ÒhiJ!H ,M, Òh;sH g¬ J˚hZ fihuė!H :kï ! a˚hå a.¬H M ]Jmam¬ hiˆ hˆh¬ M Î.¬H g¨ a÷kuė h¬ .ȧÿH fihë» This is significant in
that it is describing in shorthand the authority for Kha∂ir’s acts. In the above discussion Kha∂ir’s authority is, as we shall see, the Spirit of divine Self-
disclosure. In this exegesis that authority is called simply “saintly inspiration,” accord- ingly named by its function
and not in light of its essence,
which is elsewhere
described as the Spirit of Dominion. Cf. Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 18b: Ahl
al-Qur’ån (the “unifiers”) read it as a relative pronoun;
and the ahl al-furqån (the “separators”) read it as a particle
of negation.
79.
>Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 18a, 18b.
,ih_ëmJH :kï aJ fiMh_ė ]˚h¬!H ]f˚.¬ §ė mˆ iH }эhіsJH L;s g¬ H.fa aіk¨ ,a÷sï LJ h¬ $iMh÷ƒ ahfJ aiіƒ M aiіƒ fiHy hękė» aJmäƒ Î.sJH ahfø g¬ aJ .iΩ §÷s h˚э,H M hiіażė fimäi Li Jë.ø M Ôэ,H aJmäƒ ,ëH.fJH }эhіsJH a“M g¨ Ta;i fiHy ! M akuė h¬ $u“ Dė aJ ,! iH a.føH Li Î.¬H g¨ a÷kuė h¬ M :ƒ, g¬ ]ęs, hęˆ¿iZ h“.ż÷si M hęˆvåH hżkfi H:ƒ, эH,hė
«H.fa $f[kJ §k[ï iH aіk¨ ,a÷sï ! h¬ $iMhï mˆ vialH Hiˆ H H.i“ a.іi .¬H g¨ ! a.¬H g¨ H,эha
80.
For Moses
and the Self-disclosure on the mountain see Q. 7:143.
81.
>Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 18b. The last line of Qur’an quota- tion is in response to Mary’s
protest that she cannot have a child since no man has yet touched her.
hZ M ... fimß, h˚H háH akeú L;zƒ fihë M himß H.aƒ Li.l ]imsіuJH ]˚h¬!H Dė ]iƄhfJH
}эhіsJH ,M, $eú Hi;ˆ M»
«êˆ §k¨ mˆ :ƒ, $hë :JiZ aJMäƒ M;lH a“M Ïh[s hii¨ TaZ hl hіȧä¬ H.¬H
82.
For sources
of this hadith see Isfaråyin•, Le Révélateur des mystères 191
fn. 2.
83.
>Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 42b.
M TuȧJH M }mäJH Dė a,miƄ ,vë §k¨ a÷ëM Dė Lˆ,miΩ m;i M aihęßH vuƒ hęßH .ˆhz¬ JëM Fsha $Z ,¬
Hi;ˆ M» a,miΩ hZ M Òm[÷JhZ DƒhzaH fimäƒ Îv¬zlH RrH ,håH vë M HMmë Tuȧ hękZ M Lˆ,miΩ Tuȧ mˆ a,miΩ Îmë hękZ hіJM!H Lïhø g¬y Dė M ,vfJH ,¬ hˆ,miΩ au¬ Lˆ,miΩ g;J FZHm;JH эvuƒ aMhė.¨ M aMhfä˚ h;ė .ęäJH ,mizZ iі¬mi
«...,sęaJH ,¬ FZHm;JH ,mizZ au¬
Lˆ,mizė ,ęaJhZ a.¬H ,miΩ g;J hіJM
hikZ
]i¬y!H hіJMH эvuƒ m;i
84.
The last line of the
quoted passage implies that this “sun” will be someone other than the Seal.
However, in light
of other discussions of the Apocalypse (taken up below),
this “sun” should probably be understood to be the Seal himself.
85.
>Al• Wafå’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 41b.
«... hęiƒ ]ahÿH hęifïH.¬ Eіs g¬ hęiJ $ƒhä¬ Kė hіJM!H Lïhø M hіf˚!H Lïhø h¬H M» 86 This is in contrast to the Sh•>• doctrine of taqiyya (dissimulation) and the idea of
hatred for the enemies of the Imams, which sees no break in the series of unbelieving
opponents.
On these concepts see Amir-Moezzi, Divine
Guide 26, 88, 128, and al- Tabaṭabā’ī, Shi>ite Islam 223 ff. On opponents in the Sufi milieu, see CAyn al-Quďāt al- Ḥamadānī, Tamh•dåt (Tehran:
University of Tehran, 1962) 187, and H. Landolt, “Le Paradoxe de la “Face de
Dieu”: ‘Azîz-e Nasafî (VIIe/XIIIe siècle) et le “Monisme Ésotérique” 186.
87.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 98a.
Dˆ!!H Úэm“M hai H :fkë §k¨ L÷żi akJH hai H g;ęlH auięsJ F“HmJH aęik;ƒ ÎvęzlH aäƄh˚ Dė êflH RrH fihë»
}.iHэ Dė aë.ė hë ]ięis, Dė hif˚!H L÷żƒ LihäJH :fkë §k¨ auę“ ]i˚hęs.ƒ עm÷slH hiJM!H L÷ø L;zƒ hiiu÷¬ .izi
«Df˚ Fkë §k¨ DJM $Z Euƒ
88.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 98a.
g¬ $Ω Dė a˚Mė.ui Eis g¬ LiJ .izi
ÎH akJH Liiïhi H !H hii¨ akJH a˚H mė.ui Eis g¬ akJH §JH ÎH M.zii $ˆ» Dˆ ];iKlH M [(?)akˆH g¬ g¬ mlH ÒKsJH fimfäƒ ]JmfälH] aïh˚hiƒ ][zƒ LihäJH DiJ!H L÷ÿH Fsha a˚mZ Dˆ ÒhężJH
«DƄh__s!H Îh__ėmJH L÷ÿH Hvˆ Dė
,m_¬!H
,“.ï akJH §JH (?) §i_÷˚H
ÎH ._¬!H Dȧë
M ]ięi;rH ]i˚hƒ.JH
a¬h;sH
,ma
Note the title,
the “encompassing Wafā’ī Seal.”
89.
Hadith from Tirmidhī’s Sa˙•˙, Manāqib, 20.
90.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 9b.
91.
Hadith from al-Nisā’ī, Sunan, Iḳbās, 4.
92.
This tradition
is preserved in the ShīCī hadith collection Bi˙år al-anwår
(106 vols) (Beirut: 1983) compiled by Muḳammad Bāqir
al-Majlisī (d. 1699 or 1700). The
exact wording seems to be a conflation of two similar hadiths:
«Dk¨ Mí h˚í !ṷ Di¨ Îэµi ! a˚í !ṷ !» and «Di¬ $“, Mí hƒí !ṷ Di¨ Ykfi !» 35:275. For the numerous instances and versions of this hadith see A Concordance of the Be˙år al-anwår 4:2746, 2747.
93.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 11b.
vi aiˆ fihë M ]í.;JH aviƒ Hmȧ .JH ]uiƒ hęe¨ g¨ ,ihƒ M .afJH .ę¨ M ,ęsJH ]J¿ié §i¬ .;ƒ mƒH עvęzlH .fÿH Dė h“» fihė :Jikė RƄhiJhƒ FïH.lH ,aøH hskJH M a˚hsJ Dkuė Dk¨ M h˚H !H Di¨ Yfki ! fihë M viJH ]J¿ié ai¬ hęeuė hęe¨
«ÏihZ !H Îvuƒ hiJmäi ! aik¨ @эhaJH ÎvęzlHRzkJ §iui .fZ!H RivaJH h˚H Dk¨ The last
statement from CAlī is also found in Bi˙år
al-anwår, in a number of versions, most of which appear in a context illustrating CAlī’s precedence in Islam over Abū Bakr. See Bi˙år al-anwår 38:268, 239, 254. For
references to a number of variations see A
Concordance of the Be˙år al-anwår 16:11844, 11845. We saw earlier, in ch. 3 CAlī Wafā’ claiming himself to be the “tongue” of the
Prophet.
94.
At the same time, it must be noted that CAlī Wafā’ states clearly that Abū Bakr is to be considered as one of the elite of the Muslim community. CAlī
Wafā’, Waṣåyå 11b.
95.
In the Qur’anic story
of Jesus (4:157,
158), his crucifixion is denied: “They did not kill or crucify him; it only appeared to them so . . . Rather,
God raised him up to Himself. God is Powerful and Wise.”
96.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqåt al-kubrå 2:43.
·ÒKsJH aik¨ §si¨ fi¿ii hęZ fi¿iiß M ÒKsJH aik¨ §si¨ ,ė, hęZ ,ė, ai¨ akJH §ȧ, FJhƄ Dƒí gƒ Dk¨ ṷ fimäi hZ M»
§k¨ hsMJ ]iiȧsJH g¬ §äƒí ÒKsJH aik¨ hsm˚ ṷ fimäi
a÷uęsė ai¨ akJH §ȧ, ,aHmÿH Dk¨ עviß fihë :Jiƒ M :Jkë Dƒí gƒ §k¨ ,ė, §÷s },väJH ]˚hia §ė hΩmȧz¬ fi¿i Òkė /hęsJH §Jṷ aik¨ ,ė.i }i¨ akJH §ȧ, FJhƄ Dƒí gƒ Dk¨ LßH
«:Jiƒ Lk¨í akJhė FJhƄ CAlī al-Khawwās was ShaCrānī’s teacher; see
F. Meier, “The Priority of Faith and Thinking Well of Others over a Concern for
Truth among Muslims” in his Essays on
Islamic Piety and Mysticism.
97.
We saw in chapter 1 above that Ḥaydar Āmulī, from a ShīCī perspective, iden- tified this final Seal as CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib; this against Ibn
CArabī’s identification of Jesus, from a generally Sunnī perspective.
98.
CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāyā 12a. «hęiJhe¬H Dk¨ M §si¨ g¬ .z÷ï D÷JH ]u“.JH Dˆ :kï M...»
99.
The only explanation
that comes to mind for this term is the “appearing” of the Holy Spirit to Mary:
“We sent to her Our Spirit, and he appeared before her (fa- tamaththala la-hā) as a man in all respects” (Q. 19:17).
100.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 88b, 89a.
g¨ ! hiJMH hiiäi ÎiJH L;rH mˆ Riäz÷JH M .fø MH .aiJ RėHmlH L;rH Dė $ęu÷si h¬ .eZH M L;rHm mˆ Riva÷JH» Lïhø fihë háH Ezƒ ! M }эh¨ @,hø §JH ”hi÷sH .ii g¬ .ę¨ M .;ƒ DƒH híhZ ÔhiiˆvJH ! M ÔhßmszlH Dė .a˚ fihę¨H Dė h¬ M ÔHmęsJH §ė h¬ aJ §JHuï RrH fimë .ę¨ ,ęß M aƒ .ëhė :JHiƒ giäiJH v“mė akJH fimß, D˚H .;ƒ Dƒ!
giifiJH Riva÷JH ! (read §¬hiJ!H) DJ!H Riäz÷JH Rivaï miė
aƒ .ëhė hiiäi :Ji v“mė Î.eJH Jï hZ M hęiiiƒ h¬ M ,ȧ,!H 7hfï! !H hiJM!H g¬ vsH 7hfï! m;i ! Hi;ˆ M giifiJH Lïhø ]ahÿ !H hif˚!H
7hfïH g¬ vs! g;i LJ Hiˆ M DJ!v÷ß!H hif˚!H ÏhzaH M Riäz÷kJ hif˚!H Lïhø Ïhzahė ]ahø Fhë
§k¨ a÷ahø M hif˚!H Lïhø Fkë
§k¨ a˚! hiJM!H Lïhø Dk¨ hi ]ihęufß M giusï M ]sęø Òh¨ Dė DJ $ië M ... Riäz÷kJ hiJM!H Lïhø ÏhzaH M Riva÷kJ LikZ gi¬M÷żlH
«Lk¨H M §J¨H akJH M Riäz÷kJ J˚H :ƒhzaH M Riva÷kJ LikZ hiJM!H ÏhzaH For another
brief discussion of Rivaï and Riäï see fol. 101b. See also Wensinck, Con- cordance 3:276 regarding taṣdīq.
101.
This phrase is the classical theological and philosophical definition of mira- cle. Although not mentioned by name, the kind
of miracle being alluded to here is the mu’jiza, which
is theologically distinguished from a saint’s
miracle (karāma), as proof of the authenticity of a prophet or
messenger. See L. Gadet and M.-M. Anawati, Introduction
à la théologie musulmane (second ed.) (Paris: Vrin, 1970) 186, 359.
102.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 93a.
Dė mˆ ,iJ M a÷¬h¬H §¬m¬h¬ M a÷;kx эmi“ g¬ hiJM!H ,ię“ M DJihaJhė Lz¨!H L÷ÿH Fsha h˚эh÷ßH ]äiärH Dė M» g¬ KZ H hę;ė aJhęZ 5,HM M giifiJH Lïhø .ß a˚! .iHMvJH .ihß Dė aik¨ L;zi ! M L;zi h˚эh÷ßH ! L;s Îi }.¬y
«... Òm¬h¬ M ,ƒhï Liúhÿ hiJM!H g¬ $Z :JHiZ ... Òm¬h¬ M ,ƒhï Liúhÿ hif˚!H ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:31, infers from the phrase “Master of the Greatest Seal” a doctrine of a Seal for every age.
103.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 42a.
fihuȧJH $äuJH hęß hi˚H ]ȧßKȧJH fimäï D÷JH .ęäJH hęß DJM!H hęsJH Dė Òэũ v“M a˚H ÎvęzlH ע.ß!H Eivs Dė h“» g¬ Ò¿uJH DJMH g¬ (read: HvsHM) vsHM hęß $Z Dė v“M a˚H .Zi M эhsȧJH M M;JH LJh¨ Dė ]iэhlH ,MaJH ,ȧhiė M §ßm¬ M LiˆH.ƒH M Òэũ v“M a˚H .Ziė §si¨ M hęikß M эMHэ M §ßm¬ M LiˆH.ƒH M ,m˚ M Òэũ Lˆ M ]ufsJH $ß.JH M,hˆ hęiksJ M Tßmi эMHvJ .Z i M aivi giƒ Dï!H akiȧZ a˚! ,miJ ,i,эH .Ziė LiiKȧZ hęßH M Li˚hi¨hƒ §si¨
«Li˚Hv“M TaZ :Ji H !H HiZ h;¬ Dė h˚Kė Ôv“M aJmäƒ ,håH
104.
Muḳammad Wafā’, Nafā’is al-’irfān al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 71a. The order of prophets
as found in the tradition
of the Prophet’s Ascension runs: Adam (in the first heaven), Jesus, Joseph, Idrīs, Aaron, Moses, and Abraham (in the seventh heaven). Bukhārī, SaИīИ Salāt 1. More generally on the subject,
see the articles
in Le voyage ini- tiatique en terre d’islam. The
sequence of prophets used by the Wafā’s in fact follows closely that adopted by al-Simnānī (d.
737/1336). There, as part of his theory of the Seven Subtle Organs (laịīfa, pl. laịā’if), seven prophets are identified, one associated at each
level with a color and a laịīfa. In ascending order,
they are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Muḳammad. See H. Corbin, The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism
124. Corbin, En Islam Iranien 3:278; and Elias, The Throne Carrier of God ch.
5.
105.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 42a, 42b.
106.
Elias, The Throne Carrier of God 72, notes that “Aṭlas” is associated with the first sphere
or God’s Footstool; yet in our passage here it is at the level of the Throne.
107.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 43a.
h¬ $;ƒ h[ė Dß.;JH :kė FZ m;lH g¬heJH :kȧJH g¨ }эhȧ÷slH ÔHэHvu÷ß!H Fßh˚ hé ÔHmfiJH L÷ø Dė vęz¬ h“ M»
,kƄ!H ,ßh÷JH :kȧJH g¨ }эhȧ÷slH ÔHэHvu÷ß!H Fßhii hé hiJM!H L÷ø Dė h“ hęZ a÷iahø }эhiу M a¬väï g¬ aƒ h“
(sic) :JHikė ÔhZ.z÷lH ÚKėH Òh;sH Fßh˚ hé HmïH :iJMH M JƒHmeJH :kė L;r Jßhi¬ L;zƒ DïH a˚! M A.uJH :kė
«... a÷ui.å akfäï LJ M ¿siJ LiuiH.å Jkfë
Another passage, making
much the same point, is found on fol. 89b of the Waṣåyå.
108.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 43b.
Riäz÷JH /§af¬ Ôhi!mJH ,ïhė ÔHmfiJH Lïhø vęz¬ h[ė g¬heJH :kȧJH L;s gƄhƒ ÒуK¬ ,ßh÷JH :kȧJH L;s hZ hl M»
«]i¬у!H .ihß hif˚hZ a÷¬H hęk¨ h;ė hikZ ]¬vä÷lH }i¬у!H aik¨ Ôm÷s h¬ §k¨ Îm÷z¬ a˚h¬у hZ M JƒheJH The last sentence is a
paraphrase of a popular hadith not found in the major hadith collections.
109.
This was the last
pilgrimage taken up by the Prophet. During his return to Medina, stopping at
Ghadīr Khumm, Muḳammad proclaimed, “For whomsoever I am lord, then CAlī is also lord.”
This hadith is central to the ShīCī understanding of religious
authority. See Wensinck, Concordance 8:316, 8:325, 4:281; Momen, Shi>•
Islam 15; and
W. Madelung,
The Succession to Mu˙ammad
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 253. CAlī
Wafā’ mentions this event
elsewhere, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 6a, as will be discussed below.
110.
CAlī Wafā’, Mafåt•˙ al-khazå’in al->aliyya 43b.
$;J H LiėH Liiiэ (givJH HiiJ in margin) ]¬!H aiiJ эv[i HvsHM ]iß ]ih¬ $Z ,H, §k¨ akJH Eufi fihë vë M» Li˚H M Ò¿uJH DJMH HуMH Dė Ïhaë!H H (sic) :JHiƒ Lk¨ M
a˚h_¬у $ˆH эHvu÷ß! Fßhi¬ L;zƒ fi¿i÷i Faë Òh¨ ]ih¬ Òmi aiiiJ ,Hv÷ßH vë ÒmiJH h¬¿JH H 7HэmJH ][s Òmi Dė aJ¿ii Òэũ (read: HуMH) HуM Dė LiJMH H §J¨ af˚ M Li÷i,M g¬hi §JH ]ih¬ vuƒ Hi;ˆ M ... ,m˚
Fkë §k¨ (?) ii¬mi g¬ ]i˚heJH ]ihlH Fsha §JH ,håH M ,ȧ,!H M ÔHmęsJH akJH Rk“
Lz¨!H RƄhiJH fi¿iï M ,ƒhsJH g¬¿JH Faë DJihaJH gsrH mƒH ih÷ß!H hZ M ... hiJM!H Lïhø ÎvęzlH FaäJH m;i ]ih¬
«g¬heJH g¬¿JH Dė Ôhi!mJH L÷żƒ ÎhėmJH In “The ‘Cyclical Reform’: A Study
of the Mujaddid Tradition,” Landau-Tasseron notes that the end of the eighth century in Egypt was ripe with eschatological speculation, but contrary to the Wafā’s, the Renewer
tradition was not part of these speculations. On the contrary, it had no direct association with millenial or centenary dramas—here or in any earlier period (p. 81). It is
interesting that at least one writer, Zayn al-Dīn al-CIrāqī
(d.
806/1404), had even argued that the Renewer, whose mission it was to halt the moral and
religious decline
of his age, would in fact delay the advent of Dajjāl and the Mahdī (p. 80). 111.Usually the Renewers at the turn of each century are not
called “poles.” Al- Shādhilī is cited here as one pole/Renewer, but much debate had been
taking place in this period over the identities of the Renewers. A typical list, though never unanimously
agreed upon, was, up to the ninth century: (1) CUmar II (d. 101/719); (2) al-ShāfiCī (d.
204/820); (3) al-AshCarī (d. 324/935);
(4) al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013)
or al-Isfarā’inī (d. 406/1015); (5) al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111); (6) Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210); (7) Ibn
Daqīq al-CĪd (d.
702/1302); (8) Zayn al-Dīn al-CIrāqī (d. 806/1404); (9) al-Suyūṭī (d.
911/1505) or Qāďī Zakariyā (d. 925/1519). Landau-Tasseron, “The ‘Cyclical Reform’: A Study of the Mujaddid Tradition” 84. It is important to note that here these Renewer/poles are the inheritors of
certain prophets. This is structurally similar to the ShīCī doctrine, which holds that the prophets
Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, Jesus, and
Muḳammad each had an
esoteric representative: Seth, Shem, Isaac, Aaron, Simon Peter, and CAlī, respectively. See H. Halm, Shiism 168.
112.
CAlī Wafā’ would not be the only person to have claimed the
honorific “Renewer.” Landau-Tasseron, “The ‘Cyclical Reform’: A Study of the Mujaddid Tradition” 86, 87 notes that both al-Suyūṭī and al-Ghazālī, without waiting for history to decide, bestowed the title upon themselves. The idea of a
“sufi-Renewer” apparently caught on; Maḳmūd Abū al-CIlyān al-Shādhilī (d. 1326/1908) was known as “mujaddid al-ịasawwuf.” J. Johansen, Sufism and Islamic Reform in Egypt 54.
113.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 5b.
Fkë §k¨ §JM $Z akJH Eufi EivrH Dė h“ M FaäJH mˆ $“.JH Hiiė ... ]iß aihZ $Z ,H, §k¨ akJH Eufi a˚H h“ M»
Lïhø Fkë §k¨ Liúhø Lii¬hi M hiJM!H Ïhaëhė Lii¬hi Liúhø vęz¬ M ]ufß Lˆ M hif˚!H
ÏhaëH
Ò¿uJH mJMH M
Df˚
«giifiJH In his Waṣāyā (fol. 95a) CAlī Wafā’ tells us that
the greatest seal is upon the Muḳam- madan
heart.
114.
Although CAlī Wafā’ uses “pole” to designate an individual, on at least
one occasion he uses it in a much wider sense. In Waṣāyā 13a, he describes the “Pole of poles” as the Universal
Efficient, which is present in all forms of creation as poles.
$;J $ƒ Faë Ôhiih;JH M
Ôhi˚hęeĽH $;J M Faë ,ȧH.¨!H g¬ 7m˚
$;J M Faë Òhä¬ $;J M Faë fihs $;kė ...» M aZ,Hv¬ M as,Hm“ M afkäJ aƒ ,ahÿH a˚mZ LJHm¨ Faë RƄh˚ $Z M Faë Tia g¬ ]ȧihƄ $;J M $ƒ Faë Tia
«·Dk;JH fihuȧJH mˆ vsHM JëM $Z Dė Ïhaë!H Faë M ... asȧ˚
115.
This is an allusion
to the Farewell pilgrimage described
earlier.
116.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 6a, 6b.
aïhėM $fë mˆ M h¬¿JH ,Hv÷ßH Òmi g¬ hi÷iHvƒ ]÷ß aihlH avˆ M h¬mi m÷ß M ]ihęeki Ïhss g¬ ]iß ]ih¬ Lii¬ $;J M» M ,sï ]÷ß .ø!H ,iƒ, ,ƒH, ]uęĽH }.;ƒ Dė ˇ.s!H aiˆ ]ƒh÷Z gis ‡H gz˚ M .iåH 5Keƒ Lkß M aik¨ akJH §ka
.izi aiė hiïh¬K¨ M
]¨hsJH ÔhiH .ë mˆ M ,ßh÷JH $øэ g¬heJH g¬¿JH Hvˆ §ȧä˚H HiH ...
}.[iJH g¬ ]ªhęufß M giusï g¬ @эkaJH Lˆv¨M h¬ ,hiJH §ïhi M
hiƒ.ż¬ g¬ ,ęaJH ,kaï M
Li.¬ gƒH §si¨ .izi M fih“vJH
”.żi M
Òh÷JH ,mizJH עvilH
§ïhi M ,MvJH Hiˆ Dȧä÷i aƒ M Li.¬ gƒH §si¨ .ë ]i˚heJH M עvęzlH .ë §JM!H ]ihlH h÷ih¬ :Ji E;ú M M.aii Eis
«... ,m¬H aiė Räz÷i viv“ ,Mэ Elsewhere CAlī Wafā’ notes that the sun will rise in the west only as an unveiling of the Seal of
sainthood. See his Kitāb al-masāmi’
al-rabbāniyya 44a.
117.
On the various understandings
of the Mahdī, the return of Jesus,
and the Dajjāl see the relevant
articles in Encyclopedia of Islam (second ed.) and s.v. “MiCrāj”.
118.
Alī Wafā’, Kitāb al-masāmi’ al-rabbāniyya 62b.
119.
For a discussion of the far more elaborate
(and not tajdīd-based) time cycles
in IsmāCīlism, see H. Corbin, Temps cyclique et gnose ismaélienne (Paris:
Berg International, 1982) ch. 2. Also,
CAlī Wafā’s earlier
use of the “great completing speak- er” recalls the IsmāCīlī idea of the prophecy of each cycle (dawr)
containing that of the
earlier cycles. See, for example, Abū YaCqūb al-Sijistānī, Kashf al-MaИjūb (Paris: 1949) 69–70,
76–77.
120.
Usually, the “CĪd prayer” occurs just before sunrise on CĪd al-Fiṭr (1 Shawwāl), and CĪd al-Aďḳā (10 Dhū al-Ḥijja).
Historical sources note this major earthquake occurred on Thursday 23 Dhū al-Ḥijja. M. Taher, Corpus des textes arabes relatifs aux tremblements de terre et autres catastrophes naturelles de la conquête arabe
au XII H.
/ XVIII J.C. Doctoral thesis,
Paris 1, 1979, pp. 176–88.
121.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 49b.
! ]ivs!H ]i!mJH }.iHэ L÷żƒ fi¿i÷lH ÎvęzlH Îvs!H эm“mJH Ï, ]ękZ hˆK¨H M hˆ.fZH M Ôhęk;JH Lz¨H H Lk¨hė»
EJhi ,ięÿH Òmi .zß Dė hi˚hiZ hisM ÎvJmlH ,ȧmJhƒ ġ,!H §JH JisMH hl D÷JH ]imėmJH ]ęk;JH Dˆ M hˆhiu¬ Hiˆ hęZ ÒmiJH :Ji Dė
viuJH }Ka JëM $e¬ vi¨ hikZ ġ,!H JJ¿J¿ï ]ivęzlH }.[iJH g¬ ]ihęufß M giiiH Òh¨ ][rH Îi TaiZ hiku“ M []u¬hĽH (?) }ihżJH ]i!H ÔHi] }.aflH $¬h;JH visJH hˆhęsi D÷JH },msJH Dė (sic) :JHiƒ RrH hf˚H
«...h,¬hę÷ƒ },msJH hiJH¿Jy ġ,!H JJ¿Jy HiH fihäė ÎmfiJH JifJH ]ifkƒ asȧ˚ $e¬ hęZ H.äJH
122.
Our hagiographical and historical sources do not provide us with Muḳammad Wafā’s birthdate.
123.
We saw earlier, near the end of the section “The Teacher and Oneness” anoth- er use of “Perfect
Sayyid” referring to the Prophet.
However, this term is not fixed, since in
MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 21b,
the reader is told that he may become the Perfect
Sayyid if he sees past the various existences to the single reality of
existence. Perfect Sayyid was also mentioned in the first section of this chapter,
where CAlī Wafā’ attrib- utes it to he who can see both the Oneness
of Reality and the plurality of creation at the
same time. These Perfect Sayyids would be perfect imitations of the Prophet.
124.
Ibn CArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam 63, Chodkiewicz, Seal of Saints 128.
This is an elaboration of the hadith report in which the Prophet
describes himself as the last brick
in the wall of prophethood; see Bukhārī, SaИīИ, Manāqib 18.
125.
CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāyā 95b.
:kï LizuJH ũ.äJH ,mß M D˚helH ,fsJH эv¨ ,mizJH Hiˆ ÒHm¨H }v¬ M h“ HiH akJH $“H mˆ ,vë!H ,mizJH Hiˆ g¬¿ė» hé :Ji vuƒ akJH Dïhi Li Òh¨ ]ihúhęi M M.a¨ M ]iKi Òhú vi¨ ]ihęufß M giiiH Òh¨ Òhú g¬ h¬h¨ M.a¨ M }vsHM ]ih¬
«·Lik¨ ,ßHM akJH M hai
126.
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:52, quoted from Waṣāyā 75b.
g¬ ,HM,#H .aiJ Úh˚.÷øH h˚ṷ §k¨ hi aï,ma h¬ ]ªhęufß M giusï ,sï Òh¨ h¬hiJṷ JęiJí fimäi ai¨ akJH §ȧ, hZ M»
«... ,ę÷ßhė Úh˚.¬í Hi≥ė hˆэhs“í эhrṷ
127.
The Hidden Imām is also referred to as “?āḳib al-Amr”
(Lord of Command), “al-Qā’im” (He who will arise), “al-Imām al-Munta?ar” (the
Awaited Imām), and “Baqiyyat Allāh” (Remnant of God). See M. Moojan, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam
165. CAzīz al-Nasafī attributed to his teacher, SaCd al-Dīn al-Hamū’ī (d. 649/1252), a theory limiting the number of saints to
twelve, the last being the ?āḳib al-Zamān. Landolt, “Le Paradoxe de la “Face de Dieu”: ‘Azîz-e
Nasafî (VIIe/XIIIe siècle) et le “Monisme Ésotérique” de l’Islam” 169; and CAzīzoddīn Nasafī, Le livre de l’Homme
Parfait I. de Gastines trans. (Paris: Fayard, 1984) 261. Al-Qāshānī calls the Mahdi “ṣāИib
al-wilāya.” See Lory, Les commentaires esotériques du Coran
d’après ’Abd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī 142.
128.
See H. Halm, Shiism 38,
and A. Sachedina, Islamic Messianism: The Idea of the Mahdi in Twelver Shi’ism (Abany:
State University of New York Press, 1981).
129.
CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāyā 24b.
«·FïH.lH Dëhƒ Hiˆ §k¨ ,ë M ,hsrH asM, !H ,maJH ġhiė ! M h¬¿JH Fsha $ä¨ !H fiM!H $äuJH h¬»
130.
CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāyā 48a.
131.
CAlī Wafā’, Waṣāyā 5b.
«Li aэm“M hiƒ .iΩ ]iũ .fZH aэm“męė aiė ע.f;JH akJH ]iũ mˆ h¬y $Z Fsha»
Al-ShaCrānī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 2:42, quotes this passage.
132.
See the example of ṢāИib al-waqt at the beginning
of the section “The Seal of Sainthood” above. In the writings
of Ibn CArabī it functions as an equivalent to the pole. See
SuCād al-Ḥakīm, al-Mu’jam al-Ṣūfī (Beirut:
Dandara, 1981) 279–81.
133.
CAlī
Wafā’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 50b, 51a.
g¬ M h˚H }.iaƒ §k¨ akJH §JH Hm¨эH Dkifß aiˆ $ë a÷ëM Fsha mˆ ,Mэ $Z Dė akJH §JH ]i¨HvJH ]äsärH H Lk¨H ...»
«·aȧiė M aэHv¬hƒ !H aiJH LiJ $ifß ! hé Lii¨ aaha÷øH M a˚hiƒ M aȧaZ Dė Liïhė maZ M Liïh˚hiƒ a÷¬K¨ M DiufïH
134.
That is, the latter
makes evident (?āhir) what was hidden
(bāịin) in the ear- lier, so the succession of “masters” over
historical time is part of the divine process of Self-differentiation through Self-disclosure.
135.
>Al• Wafå’, MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya 61b–62b.
]äiäs $;JH ! akfë ÎiJH JëmJH Fsha gƄhƒ a.ˆhΩ JëM $Z Fsha H .izi hiˆ g¬ M a.øH $i¿iï aJMH $iMhï m;iė» JëM $Z Dė giu÷i êflH Rrhė ... JëmJH :Ji ÔHэHvu÷ßH
Ô!hęZ a¬hz˚ Dė ÎiJH §iulhƒ JëM $Z Dė Ô.iΩ }vsHM
«... JëmJH :Ji Ô!hęZ aiė hé fi¿i÷¬ giuï Compare our earlier comments
on ṣāИib al-zaman. Also, in the Waṣāyā 55b we are told that each spirit (rūИ) is the esoteric dimension of the
previous spirit.
Bibliography
Works of the Wafå’s
Ibn Wafā’, Abū al-IsCād Dīwān Abī al-Is’ād
ms in Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhira (Damascus)
ms no. 4676
Wafā’, CAlī al-Bā’ith ’alā
al-khalāṣ min sū’ al-?ann bi al-khawā? British Library Or.4275
(likely authorship)
Wafā’, CAlī al-Daraja al-’aliyya fī ma’ārīj al-anbiyā’ ms in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, B 23127
Wafā’, CAlī Ḥikam ’Alī Wafā’ ms in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, al-Makhṭūṭāt al-Zakiyya, 567
Wafā’, CAlī Ḥizb al-fatИ
ms in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no. 3888
Wafā’, CAlī Kitāb Dīwān Sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ ms in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussis- cher
Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no. 7880, no. 7881; and in the Hellmut Ritter
collection at Uppsala University, MF no. 15:4011; and in Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhira (Damascus) ms no. 4882
Wafā’, Muḳammad Kitāb al-wāridāt ms in al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313. The Wāridāt ms
in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no.
3494 is a separate and shorter collection.
Wafā’, CAlī Libās al-futuwwa ms in al-Maktaba
al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076; Zakī: 41313
Wafā’, CAlī MafātīИ al-khazā’in al-’aliyya ms in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf 152; and MajāmīC 2, treatise no. 16
Wafā’, CAlī Majmū’ wāridāt
’Alī Ibn Wafā’
ms in Dār al-Kutub
al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf 3593
Wafā’, CAlī al-Masāmi’
al-rabbāniyya ms in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf Ḥalīm 174; also found as Kitāb al-masāmi’ Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf 3593
Wafā’, CAlī Waṣāyā sayyidī ’Alī Wafā’ ms
in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 1359; and in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya,
MajāmīC no 21
Wafā’, CAli Ḥasan Abū al-Iqbāl Ibn al-Quṭb (nineteenth century?). Hadhihi risāla Sha- jarat al-irshad Egypt: MaṭbaCat al-Suḳuf wa al-Masāḳīf, 1304/1886
Wafā’, Muḳammad
Dīwān Sīdī MuИammad Wafā’ ms in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no. 8084, no. 8085. (Copies also
exist in Cairo, Paris,
Leyden, and Princeton) Published with commentary as al-Mawrid al-aṣfā fī sharИ dīwān
Sayyidī MuИammad Wafā’
M. I. Sālim,
Cairo: n.p. 2000
Wafā’, Muḳammad Fuṣūl al-Иaqā’iq—wa huwa risāla li-l-Sayyid MuИammad Wafā’ ms in al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313. Published as Fuṣūl al-Иaqā’iq li Sayyidī MuИammad
Wafā’ M. I. Sālim ed., Cairo: n.p., 1999
Wafā’,
Muḳammad Hizb al-azal al-sharīf ms in
al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313
Wafā’, Muḳammad
Ḥizb al-fatИ Cairo: MaṭbaCat al-Adab wa al-Mu’ayyad, 1318/1901 Wafā’, Muḳammad Ḥizb al-sādāt
fī jamī’ al-’ādāt
ms in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya,
Ta?awwuf 1546, Ta?awwuf 2096
Wafā’, Muḳammad
Ḥizb al-sādāt ms in al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) Ḥalīm 34334 Wafā’, Muḳammad Ḥizb al-thanā in Muḳammad Fatḳī Abū al-Bakr, Dhail kitāb mur-
shid al-zuwwār
ilā qubūr al-abrār
Cairo: 1994
Wafā’, Muḳammad
Kitāb al-azal SaCīd CAbd al-Fattāḳ ed. Beirut: Dār al-Mutanabbī,
1992. Ms in al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313
Wafā’,
Muḳammad Kitāb al-’urūsh ms in Dār
al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf 3715, Ta?awwuf
3593, Ta?awwuf ṬalCat 1562. Another
copy, attributed to CAlī Wafā’ in the computerized catalog, is al-’Urūsh, Ta?awwuf 204
Wafā’, Muḳammad
al-Ma’ārīj ms in al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC
1076, Zakī: 41313
Wafā’,
Muḳammad al-Maqāmāt al-saniyya li-l-sāda
al-ṣūfiyya wa hiya risāla li-l- sayyid MuИammad Wafā’ ms in al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313; also as Tarjamat al-maqāmāt al-mi’a
in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no. 3004
Wafā’,
Muḳammad MiftāИ al-sūr min ’ayn
al-khabar/khubr ms in al-Maktaba al- Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī:
41313; and Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf
204
Wafā’,
Muḳammad Munājāt ms in al-Maktaba
al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313
Wafā’,
Muḳammad Nafā’is al-’irfān min anfās
al-RaИmān ms in al-Maktaba al- Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313;
and Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf 154; and Staatsbibliothek zu
Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Ori- entabteilung no. 3000; and Dār al-Kutub
al-Zāhiriyya (Damascus) no. 5388. A short version is appended to Ibn CArabī's
Kitāb al-Kunh Cairo: M. A. ?abīḳ,
1967.
Wafā’,
Muḳammad Sha’ā’ir al-’irfān ms in Dār
al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, no. 23797 b. (microfilm 27723); and al-Maktaba
al-Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313;
and Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no.
3248; and Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhiriyya (Damascus) no. 1312
Wafā’, Muḳammad al-Ṣuwar
al-nūrāniyya fī al-’ulūm al-Sarayāniyya ms in al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya
(Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313
Wafā’, Muḳammad Ta’ṣīl al-’azmān wa tafṣīl al-’akwān
ms in al-Maktaba al- Azhariyya (Cairo) MajāmīC 1076, Zakī: 41313
Wafā’, Muḳammad Wa?īfat al-fajr andWa?īfat al-ṣubИ (Attached to ms al-Tarjama
al- Wafā’iyya, Leiden
University, Or. 14.437)
Sources and Studies in Arabic
CAbd al-Wahhāb, H. Kitāb al-umr Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1990
Abū Bakr, M. Dhail kitāb murshid al-zuwwār ilā qubūr al-abrār
Cairo: n.p. 1994
Abū al-Laṭā’if, A. al-MinaИ
al-ilāhiyya fi manāqib al-sādāt al-Wafā’iyya Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Tārīkh 1151; and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 1200
Abū al-Mawāhib, I. FaraИ al-asmā’ bi rukhaṣ al-samā’
Tunis: Dār al-CArabiyya li al-
Kitāb, 1985
Abū al-Mawāhib, I. Kitāb al-tajalliyāt ms in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer
Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung no. 3097
Abū al-Mawāhib, I. Kitāb qawānīn Иikam al-Ishrāq Cairo: Maktabat al-Azhariyya li al- Turāth, 1999
Abū al-Mawāhib, I. Risāla fī
al-taṣawwuf ms in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussis- cher Kulturbesitz,
Orientabteilung no. 3030
Abū al-Mawāhib, I. SilāИ al-Wafā’iyya bi thaghr al-Iskandariyya a.k.a. Risālat al-
awliyā’ ms in London, Library of the India Office, no. 669, no. 416
CAfīfī, A. al-Malāmatiyya wa al-Ṣūfiyya wa al-Futuwwa Cairo: al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1945 al-Akhmīmī, al-Qāmūs al-jadīd
fī al-qaṣā’id wa al-anāshīd li al-sāda al-Shādhiliyya
Cairo: n.p. 1972
CAmmār, S. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī Cairo: Dār al-Ta’līf, 1951
Āmulī, H. Kitāb naṣṣ
al-nuṣūṣ fī sharИ al-fuṣūs H. Corbin and O. Yaḳia eds. Tehran:
Bibliothèque Iranienne, 1975
Āmulī, H. Tafsīr al-muИīị al-a’?am Tehran, Wizarat al-Thaqafa, 1995
Anonymous, Hādhā kitāb al-muntaqā min kalām ahl taqā li
al-shaykh Abī Ḥasan al- Shādhilī ms in Staatsbibliothek zu
Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientab- teilung no. 3009
Anonymous, Imāịa niqāb al-rayb ’an wujūh rijāl al-ghayb
ms in Dār al-Kutub al- Mi?riyya MajāmīC 18
Anonymous, Risāla fī nasab al-sādāt al-ashrāf
al-Wafā’iyya ms in Dār al-Kutub
al- Mi?riyya, Tārīkh ṭalCat, 1819
Anonymous, Risālat al-Shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī ms
in Dār al-Kutub al- Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf Taymūr 180
Anonymous, Wa?īfa al-Shādhiliyya al-Mashīshiyya, wa al-Qasidah al-rayah al-Shar-
ishiyya Alexandria: MaṭbaCa Jurjī Gharzuzī, 1905
Anonymous,
ed. Majmū’at awrād saniyya li al-Sādāt
al-Shādhiliyya Damascus: al- MaṭbaCa al-Hifniyya,
1883
An?ārī, Z. Ḥaqiqat al-taṣawwuf al-Islāmī, yahwa kitabayn: al-FutuИāt al-ilāhiyya fi naf arwāИ al-dhawāt al-insāniyya Cairo:
Maktabat al-Adab, 1992
al-CAsqalānī, I. al-Durar
al-kāmina 8 vols. Hyderabad: MaṭbaCa Majlis Dā’irat al- MaCārif, 1929–31
al-CAsqalānī, I. Inbā’ al-ghumr
bi-anbā’ al-’umr 3 vols. Ḥasan al-Ḥabashī ed. Cairo:
1971
CAṭṭār, Farīd al-Dīn Tadhkirat al-awliyā Tehran: 1977
Bābā, A. Nayl
al-ibtihāj bi-taịrīz al-Dībāj 2 vols. Tripoi:
al-Jamahiriyya al-CArabiyya al-Libiyya, 1989
al-Badawī, CA. Tā’rīkh al-taṣawwuf
al-islāmī min al-bidaya Иatā nihāyat al-qarn al- thānī Beirut: Dār al-Qalam, 1978
al-Baghdādī, I. Hadiyyat al-’ārifīn Beirut: 1982
al-Baghdādī, I. ĪḍāИ al-maknūn fī dhayl ’alā kashf al-zunūn 2 vols. Beirut: 1982 Bakrī, M. Kitāb arājīz al-Arab Cairo: n.p., 1927
Bakrī, M. Kitāb bayt al-Ṣādāt al-Wafā’iyya Cairo: n.p., (before
1908) Bakrī, M. Kitāb bayt al-Ṣiddīq Cairo: MaṭbaCat al-Mu’ayyid,
1905 Bakrī, M. Kitāb al-ta’līm wa al-irshād Cairo:
n.p., n.d.
Bakur, A. Hadhihi hiya al-Shādhiliyya Aleppo: Maktabat al-Na?r, 1953
Bannānī, F. Kitāb ithāf ahl
al-’ināyah al-rabbāniyya fi ittiИād
ịuruq ahl Allāh Cairo: al-
MaṭbaCa al-Amira al-Sharifiyya, 1906
al-Bāqillānī, I’jāz al-Qur’ān S. A. ?aqr ed. Cairo: Dār al-MaCārif, 1964
Baqlī, R. Kitāb al-ighāna
in Quatre traités inédits
de Rūzbehān Baqlī Shirāzī P. Ballan-
fat, ed. Tehran: IFRI, 1998
Baqlī, R. Sayr al-arwāИ,
Kitāb al-ighāna, Lawāmi’ al-tawhīd, Masālik
al-tawhīd in Quatre traités inédits
de Rūzbehān Baqlī Shirāzī P. Ballanfat ed. Tehran: IFRI, 1998
Barazesh, A. ed. A Concordance of the BeИār al-anwār 30 vols. Tehran: Ministry of Cul- ture, 1994
Battanūnī, A. al-Sirr al-ṣafī fī manāqib al-Sulịān al-Ḥanafi Quịb al-Ghawth Shams al- Dīn Sayyid
MuИammad al-Taymī al-Bakrī al-Shādhilī al-Ṣiddīqī Cairo: Sālim Aḳmad Shararat
al-Qabbānī, 1888
Baytar, A. Ḥilyat al-bashar fī ta’rīkh al-qarn
al-thālith al-’ashar 3 vols. Damascus: 1961-63,
al-Bidlīsī, CA. Zwei Mystische
Schriften des ’Ammār al-Bidlīsī E. Badeen ed. Beirut: Franz Steiner,
1999
Bū Dhinah, M. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī Tunis: Dār al-Turkī li al-Nashr, 1989 al-Bukhārī, M. ṢaИīИ al-Bukhārī 8 vols. Beirut:
Dār al-Fikr,
1994
al-Dardīr, A. Mishkāt
al-asrār ’alā qawl al-’ārif Sayyid MuИammad Wafā’ ms in al- Maktaba al-Azhariyya (Cairo) 16289 (majāmīC 412) fols. 1–11 (Published in Cairo, 1912?)
Darnīqa, M. al-Ṭarīqa al-Shādhiliyya wa a’lāmuhā Beirut: al-Mu’assasa al-JāmīCiyya, 1990
al-Fāsī, A. SharИ Иizb al-kabīr Cairo: n.p., 1998
al-Fāsī, Ḥ. Kitāb ịabaqāt al-Shādhiliyya al-kubrā Cairo: Maktabat
al-Qāhira, 1928 (or
Jāmi’ al-karāmāt al-’aliyya
fī ịabaqāt
al-sādat al-Shādhiliyya)
Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-?unūn G. Flügel ed. Reprinted from the 1842 ed., by New York:
Johnson Reprint, 1964
al-Ḥakīm, S. al-Mu’jam al-ṣūfī
Beirut: Dandara, 1981
al-Ḥamadānī, CA. Tamhīdāt Tehran: University of
Tehran, 1962
Hamza, M. Qarāfa al-Qāhira
Ph.D. thesis; Faculty
of Arts, University of Cairo, 1986
Ḥifnī, A. al-Mawsū’a al-ṣufiyya
Cairo: Dār al-Rashād, 1992
Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, Kitāb al-awliyā’ in
Majmū’a Rasā’il Cairo: 1935 Ibn CAfīf al-Dīn, M. al-Rūḍa al-Shādhiliyya n.p. 1887
Ibn CArabī, M. Fuṣūṣ al-Иikam A. CAfīfī ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-CArabī, 1946. Trans- lated as The Bezels of Wisdom R. Austin
trans. New York: Paulist Press, 1980
Ibn CArabī, M. al-FutūИāt al-Makkiyya 8 vols. M. Maṭrajī ed. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1994 and 14 vols. CU. Yaḳyia ed. Cairo: al-Hay’a
al-Mi?riyya al-CĀmma li al-Kitāb, 1972-1992.
A partial translation is Les Illuminations de la Mecque M.
Chodkiewica et al trans. Paris: Sinbad, 1988
Ibn CArabī, Iṣịilāhāt al-ṣufiyya (appended to al-Jurjānī's Ta’rīfāt)
Ibn CAṭā’, “Tafsīr Ibn CAṭā’” in Trois oeuvres inédites de mystiques musulmans P. Nwyia ed. Beirut:
1973
Ibn CAyyad, A. al-Akhbār al-’aliyya wa al-asrār al-Shādhiliyya Cairo (?) : Ḥasan Agha
al-Jawharī, 1862
Ibn CAyyad, A. al-Mafākhir al-’aliyya fī ma’āthir al-Shādhiliyya Tunis: al-MaṭābiC al- Muwaḳḳada, 1986
Ibn Bākhilā, D. Kitāb maИabbat al-awliyā’ Tunis: Bibliothèque Nationale; al-Makataba al-CAbdaliyya ms no. 18441 (This is the first part of Laịīfa marḍiyya)
Ibn Bākhilā, D. al-Laịīfa al-marḍiyya bi-sharИ
Иizb al-Shādhiliyya M. Ḥ. RabīC ed.
Cairo: 1935
Ibn Bākhilā, D. SharИ “Ḥizb al-baИr” li Dā’ūd al-Bākhī ms
in Tunis, Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 655
Ibn Bākhilā, D. Uyūn al-Иaqā’iq ms
in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Ta?awwuf Taymūr 180; and Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer
Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung ms no. 3019
Ibn al-CImād, A. Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab 8 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-
Qudsī, 1931
Ibn CIyās, M. Badā’i’ al-?uhūr fī waqā’i’ al-duhūr Cairo/Wiesbaden, 1983 Ibn Jawzī, A. Talbīs Iblīs Beirut: al-Maktaba al-CA?riyya, 1999
Ibn
Mughayzil, CA. al-Kawākib
al-zāhira fī ijtimā’ al-awliyā’ yaq?atan
bi sayyid al- dunyā wa al-ākhira Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya B
37649, and Ta?awwuf 1585
Ibn Mulaqqin, Ṭabaqāt al-awliyā’ Cairo: Maktbat al-Khānajī, 1975
Ibn al-?abbāgh, M. Durrat al-asrār wa tuИfat al-abrār A. CAṭā’ ed. Cairo: MaṭbaCat al- SaCāda, 1987; also Qū?: n.p. 1980 (?); also Tunis: al-MaṭbaCa al-Tunisiyya al-Ras- miyya, 1885
Ibn Sīnā, A. al-Ishārāt wa al-tanbihāt 4 vols. S. Dunya ed. Cairo: Dār al-MaCārif, n.d. Translated
by A. Goichon as Livre des directives
et remarques trans. Paris: Vrin, 1951
Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal
al-ṣāfī (8 vols) Cairo: 1999
Idwī, Ḥ. al-Nafahāt al-Shādhiliyya fi sharИ al-Burdah
al-Busīriyya Cairo (?): 1879
al-CIlmī, M. al-Maqdisī (d. 1038 a.h.) Jawāb lughz al-shaykh MuИammad Wafā’ Alexan- dria: Abū CAbbās al-Mursī Collection, no. 203/ ḳadīth.
al-I?fahānī, A. Ḥilyat al-awliyā’ 10 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1996
Isfarāyinī, N. Le Révélateur
des mystères (Kāshif al-asrār) H. Landolt trans. and ed.
Paris: Verdier, 1986
al-Iskandarī, I. al-Ḥikam Cairo: Maktabat al-Jindī, 1977
al-Iskandarī, I. Laịā’if al-minan A. Maḳmūd ed. Cairo: MaṭbūCāt al-ShaCb, 1986.
Translated as La sagesse des maîtres soufis E. Geoffroy trans. Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1998
al-Iskandarī, I. MiftāИ al-falāИ wa miṣbāИ
al-arwāИ Cairo: Mu?ṭafa al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1961 Translated as The Key to Salvation M.A. Koury Danner trans. Cambridge:
Islamic Texts Society, 1996
al-Iskandarī, I. al-Qaṣd al-mujarrad fī ma’rifat al-Ism
al-Mufarrad Cairo: al-MaṭbaCa al-Mi?riyya, 1930; and recently in Cairo by Dār al-JawāmiC al-Kalim, n.d. Maurice Gloton has translated this work as Traité sur le nom Allāh Paris: Deux Océans, 1981
al-Iskandarī, I. SharИ qaṣīda
“Mā ladhdha al-’aysh
illā ṣuИubat al-fuqarā’“ Cairo: al-
MaṭbaCat al-CUthmāniyya, 1935
al-Iskandarī, I. Tāj al-’arūs Cairo: Dār JawāmiC al-Kalim, n.d.
al-Iskandarī, I. al-Tanwīr fī isqāị al-tadbīr Cairo: CĀlam al-fikr, 1998.
Translated by D.
Penot as De l’abandon de la volonté
propre Lyon: Alif, 1997
al-Jurjānī, A. Ta’rīfāt Cairo:
al-Ḥalabī, 1938
al-Kalābādhī, A. al-Ta’arruf li-madhhab ahl al-taṣawwuf A. Maḳmūd ed. Cairo: 1960. Translated as The Doctrine of the Ṣūfīs A.J. Arberry
trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989
al-Kasrāwī, A. “Al-ṭuruq al-?ūfiyya bi-?fāqs; mawāriduhā al-iqti?ādiyya wa maClamuhā al-athariyya khilāl al-qarnayn al-thāmin wa al-tāsiC Cashr mīlādī” Shahāda al-Kafā’ fī al-baИth Kulliyyat al-Ādāb Tūnis 1980
al-Kharrāz, A. Kitāb al-kashf
wa al-bayān Baghdad: 1967
Khulsi, U. Kitāb al-sa’āda
al-adabiyya fi qaṣā’id
wa-anāshīd al-sādat al-Shādhiliyya
Alexandria: Aḳmad Ḥusayn, 1925 (?)
Kubrā, N. Die Fawā’iИ
al-jamāl wa fawātiИ
al-jalāl F. Meier
ed. Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1957. Translated as Les éclosions de la beauté
et les parfums de la majesté
P. Ballanfat trans. Nîmes: Éditions
de l’éclat, 2001
Kuḳḳālā, CU. A’lām al-nisā’ 5 vols.
Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risāla, 1977 Kuḳḳālā, CU. Mu’jam al-mu’allifīn Beirut: Dār Iḳyā’ al-Turāth al-CArabī, 1988
Madkūr, CA. al-Walāya ’inda MuИy al-Dīn Ibn ’Arabī Cairo University: doctoral thesis, 1980.
al-Maḳallī, Jalāl al-Dīn, and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī Tafsīr
al-Jalālayn Beirut: Dār al- MaCrifa, n.d.
Māhir, S. Masājid Miṣr wa awliyā’u-ha al-ṣalihūn Cairo: Wizārat al-awqāf, 1980 Maḳmūd, CA.
al-’ārif bi-Allāh Abū al-’Abbās
al-Mursī Cairo: Dār al-ShaCb, 1969 Maḳmūd, CA. al-Madrasa al-Shādhiliyya al-Иadītha wa Imāmuhā Abū al-Ḥasan al-
Shādhilī Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Ḥadītha, 1967
Maḳmūd, CA. al-Quịb al-Shahīd Sīdī ’Abd al-Salām Ibn
Bashīsh Cairo: Dār al-ShaCb, 1976 Makhlūf, M. Shajarat al-nūr
al-zakiyya fī ịabaqāt al-Mālikiyya Cairo: n.p. 1950
al-Majlisī, M. BiИār al-anwār 106 vols. Beirut: 1983
al-Makkī, A. Qūt al-qulūb Cairo: MaṭbaCa al-Anwār al-Muḳammadiyya, 1975
al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya, Fihris al-Kutub
al-mawjūda bi al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya ilā
1366/1947 7 vols. Cairo: MaṭbaC al-Azhar, 1948
al-Māliḳ, R. Fihris makhịūịāt Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhiriyya 3 vols. Damascus:
MajmaC al- Lugha al-CArabiyya bi Dimashq,
1978
al-Maqr•z•, T. al-Mawā’i? wa al-i’tibār bi dhikr al-khiịaị wa al-āthār 2 vols.
Bulaq: 1853
al-Maysåw•, >A. “Zawåyå al-wasṭ al-gharb• wa dawruhå al-ijtimå>i” in Majalla al-Иaya
al-thiqāfiyya T¥nis 7th
year, no. 21 May, 1982
al-Min¥f•, Jamharat al-awliyā’ wa a’lām ahl al-taṣawwuf 2 vols.
al-Ḥalab• ed. Cairo: al-Maṭba>a al-Madan•, 1967
Mubårak, >A. al-Khiịaị al-tawfiqiyya al-jadīda li-Miṣr wa al-Qāhira 14 vols. Cairo:
al- Hay’a al->Åmma, 1986
Mubårak, Z. al-Taṣawwuf
al-islāmī fī al-adab
wa al-akhlāq 2 vols. Cairo: Dår al-Kitåb al->Arab•, 1954
al-Munåw•, M. al-Kawākib
al-durriyya 4 vols. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya li al- Turåth, 1994
Mußṭafå, F. al-Binā’ al-ijtimā’ī
li al-ịarīqa al-Shādhiliyya fi Miṣr: dirāsa fi al-anthrūbū- lūjiyya al-ijtimā’iyya Alexandria: al-Hai’a al-Mißriyya li al-kitåb, 1980
al-Nabahån•, Y. Jāmi’ karāmāt al-awliyā’ 2 vols. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-Thiqåfiyya, 1991 Najå, M. Kashf al-asrār li-tanwīr al-afkār Beirut:
n.p. 1978
al-Namnam, Ḥ. Rasā’il al-Shaykh
’Alī Yūsuf wa Ṣafiyya al-Sādāt
Cairo: Merit li al-
Nashr wa al-Ma>l¥måt, 2001
al-Qåshån•, >A. Kitāb iṣịilāИāt al-ṣūfiyya (A glossary
of sufi techincal terms) N. Safwat ed. and trans. London: Octagon,
1991
al-Qåshån•, >A. SharИ fuṣūṣ al-Иikam 3rd ed., Cairo: al-Ḥalab•, 1987
al-Qawuqj•, A. Kitāb al-badr al-munīr
’alā Ḥizb al-Shādhilā al-kabīr Alexandria: al-
Maṭba>a al-Nåßriyya, 1861
al-Qushayr•, A. al-Risālat al-Qurshayriyya A. Maḳm¥d ed. Cairo: al-Sha>b, 1989
al-Qushayr•, Das Sendschreiben al-Qushayrīs über das Sufitum
R. Gramlich trans.
Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1989
Råd•, S. Qānūn tarīqa
al-Sāda al-Hāmidiyya al-Shādhiliyya Beirut: n.p. 1960
al-Råhim, M. Abū al-Ḥasan
al-Shādhilī al-walī: sīratuhu,
maqāmuhu wa zuwwāruhu
Tunis: Maktaba al->Aj•l• bi-Zaghwån,
1987 al-Rashåd, R. Majmū’a
qaṣā’id Aleppo: 1972
al-Rifå>• , A. Qilādat al-naИr fī sharИ Ḥizb al-baИr Cairo: n.p., 1931 Rizq, >Å. Khānqāwāt al-ṣūfiyya fī Miṣr 2 vols. Cairo: Madbouli, 1997
R¥m•, J. The Mathnawī
of Jalālu'ddīn Rūmī R. A. Nicholson ed. and trans. London:
Luzac, 1926
al-Rund•, I. al-Rasā’il al-ṣughrā P. Nwyia ed.
Beirut: Dår al-Mashriq, 1974
Íaf• al-D•n, La Risāla de Ṣafī al-Dīn Ibn Abī al-Manṣūr
Ibn Zāfir: Biographies des maîtres spirituels connus par un cheikh égyptien
du VII/XIII siècle D. Gril ed. and trans. Cairo: I.F.A.O., 1986
al-Sakhåw•,
M. al-Ạaw’ al-lāmi’ li-ahl al-qarn
al-tāsi’ 12 vols. Cario: Maktabat al- Quds•, 1934
Sålim, >A. Tārīkh
al-Iskandariyya wa Иaḍāratuhā fī al-’aṣr al-islāmī Alexandria: Mu’asasa
Shabåb al-Jåmi>a, 1982
Sålim, M. Fakk al-ịalāsim min ’urūsh al-insāniyya li Sayyidī MuИammad
Wafā’ Cairo: n.p., n.p.
Sålim, M.,
ed. al-NafИa al-khatmiyya fī tarjama wa
’ulūm wa awrād al-Sādat al- Wafā’iyya Cairo: n.p. 1996
al-Sammān, CA. Risālat al-futuИāt al-ilāhiyya fī kayfiyya sulūk al-tarīqa al-MuИam- madiyya Cairo: n.p.,
1326/1908
al-Sarrāj, A. Kitāb al-luma’ fī al-tasawwuf Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Ḥadītha, 1960
al-Shādhilī, Abū al-?alāḳ CAlī Muḳsin Ta’zīr al-anfās
bi manāqib Abī al-Ḥasan al-
Shādhilī ms in Dār al-Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Tārīkh 388
al-Shafei, H. Fuṣūl fī al-taṣawwuf Cairo: Dār al-Thiqāfa li al-Nashr wa al-TawzīC, 1996 Shafīq, A. Mudhakkirātī fī niṣf qarn 3 vols. Cairo:
MaṭbaCa Mi?r, 1934
al-ShaCrānī, CA. al-Ajwaba al-marḍiyya ’an a’ima
al-fuqaha wa al-ṣūfiyya CAbd al-Bārī Muḳammad Dā’ūd ed. Cairo: Maktaba Umm al-Qarī, 2002
al-ShaCrānī, CA. al-Anwār al-qudsiyya Cairo: n.p. 1962
al-ShaCrānī, CA. Durar al-ghawāṣ ’alā fatāwā Sayyidī
’Alī al-Khawwāṣ Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-CIlmiyya, 1999
al-ShaCrānī, CA. al-Kibrīt al-aИmar fi bayān ’ulūm al-Shaykh al-Akbar (on the margin of
al-Yawāqīt)
al-ShaCrānī, CA. al-Tabaqāt al-kubrā 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1988
al-ShaCrānī, CA. al-Yawāqīt wa al-jawāhir fī bayān ’aqā’id
al-akābir 2 vols. Cairo: al-
Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1959
al-Shawbarī al-ShāfiCī, M. al-Tarjama al-Wafā’iyya ms
in Leiden University, Or. 14.437 al-Sijistānī, A. Kashf
al-MaИjūb Tehran: Institut Franco-iranien, 1949
al-Subkī, Taqī al-Dīn Shifā’ al-siqām fī ziyārat khayr al-anām Beirut: 1978
al-Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn Ṭabaqāt al-shāfi’iyya al-kubrā
10 vols. M. al-Tanāhī ed. Cairo: al-
Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1964
al-Suhrawardī, A.’Awārif al-ma’ārif Cairo: Maktabat al-Qāhira, n.d. al-Sulamī, Ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfiyya Aleppo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Nafīs, 1986 al-Suyūṭī, J. Bughyat al-wu’āh
Cairo: al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1964
al-Suyūṭī, J. Ḥusn al-muИādara fī akhbār Miṣr wa al-Qāhira
2 vols. K. al-Man?ūr ed.
Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-CIlmiyya, 1997
al-Suyūṭī, J. Kawkab al-Rūḍa M. Shashtawi ed. Cairo: Dār al-āfāq al-Carabiyya, 2002
al-Suyūṭī, J. Ta’yīd al-Иaqīqa al-’aliyya wa tashyīd al-tarīqa
al-Shādhiliyya A. al-
Ḥasanī ed. Cairo: n.p.
1974
al-Taftazānī, A. Ibn’Aịā’ Allah al-Sikandarī wa taṣawwufuhu Cairo: al-Maktaba al-
Anjlu al-Mi?riyya, 1969
al-Taftazānī, A. “al-Turuq al-?ūfiyya fī Mi?r” in Majalla Kulliyyat al-Ādāb
(Cairo) 25, 1963
al-Tahānawī, M. Kashshāf iṣịilāИāt al-funūn 4 vols. Cairo: al-Mu’assasa al-Mi?riyya al-
CĀmma, 1963
al-Tarābulusī, M. SharИ risāla ’Abd al-Salām
b. Mashīsh ms in
Tunis, Bibliothèque Nationale,
al-Maktaba al-CAbdaliyya, no. 775
al-Tirmidhī, Ḥ. Kitāb khatm al-awliyā’ O. Yaḳia ed. Beirut: al-MaṭbaCa al-Kāthūlikiyya, n.d.
al-Tirmidhī, Ḥ. Riyāḍat al-nafs I.
Shams al-Dīn ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-CIlmiyya, 2002 Tumī (or Tulmī), M. Ṭabaqāt
al-Shādhiliyya al-kubrā Beirut: Dar al-Jīl, 1996
al-CUlaymī, M. al-Uns al-jalīl bi-ta’rīkh
al-Quds Cairo: n.p. 1866
al-Uq?urā’ī al-Shādhilī, SharИ al-Uqṣurā’ī ’alā kalima Sayyidī MuИammad Wafā’ ms in al-Maktaba
al-Azhariyya (Cairo) 4464 (72)
Wafa’ī, Maḳmūd ibn CAfīf al-Dīn Ma’āhid al-talqīq fī radd al-munkirīn ’alā ahl al-ịarīq li al-Sādat al-Shādhiliyya
al-Wafā’iyya al-Fāsiyya Cairo: MaṭbaCa Muḳammad CAlī Subayh, 1960
al-Wāḳidī al-Naysābūrī, A. Asbāb
al-nuzūl Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Thiqāfiyya, n.d. al-YāfiCi, CA. Mir’āt al-janān 4 vols. Beirut: 1970
al-Zabīdī, M. Raf’ niqāb al-khafā ’an-man intahā ilā Wafā wa Abī al-Wafā ms in Dār al-
Kutub al-Mi?riyya, Tārīkh Taymūr 2323
al-Zajjājī, CA. Kitāb al-ĪḍāИ fī al-’ilal wa al-naИw Cairo: Dār al-CUrūba, 1959
Zakhūra, I. Mir’āt al-’Asr fī ta’rīkh wa rusūm akābir rijāl Miṣr 3 vols. Cairo: MaṭbaCa
CUmūmiyya, 1897
Zarrūq, A. Ḥikam Ibn ’Aịā’ Allāh;
sharИ al-Shaykh Zarrūq
Cairo: al-ShaCb, 1985 Ziedan,
Y., ed. Fihris makhịūịāt al-jāmi’a al-Iskandariyya Cairo: MaChad al-Makhṭūṭāt
al-CArabiyya, 1995
Ziedan, Y,. ed. Fihris makhịūịāt Abī al-’Abbās al-Mursī Alexandria: al-Hay’a al-CĀmma li Maktabat
al-Iskandariyya, 1997
Ziedan, Y, ed. Fihris makhịūịāt rifā’a rafi’ al-Tanịāwī Cairo: MaChad al-Makhṭūṭāt al-
CArabiyya, 1996
Ziedan, Y. Shu’arā’ al-sūfiyya
al-majhūliyya Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1996
al-Ziriklī, K. al-A’lām: Qāmūs
tarājim li-ashhar al-rijāl
wa al-nisā’ 8
vols, Beirut: Dār al-CIlm li al-Malāyīn, 1990 (9th
ed.)
Studies Not in Arabic
Abdel Kader, A. The Life, Personality, and Writings of al-Junayd London: Luzac, 1962 Abū Madyan, The Way of Abū Madyan V. Cornell ed. and
trans. Cambridge: Islamic
Texts Society, 1996
Abū al-Mawāhib, Illumination in Islamic Mysticism (Qwānīn Иikam al-ishrāq) E. Jurjī trans.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938
Addas, C. “L’oeuvre poétique d’Ibn ‘Arabī et sa réception” Studia Islamica no. 91, 2003 Addas, C. Quest for the Red Sulfur: The Life of Ibn ‘Arabī P. Kingsley trans. Cam-
bridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993
CAffīfī, A. The Mystical Philosophy of MuИyīd-Dīn Ibn al-’Arabī Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1939
Ahlwardt, W. Die Handschriften-verzeichisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin
Berlin: 1891
Alvarez, A. “MuwashshaИ (pl.
muwashshaИāt)” in The Encyclopedia of Arabic Litera- ture (2 vols.) J. Meisami and
P. Starken eds. London: Routledge, 1988
Alvi, S. “The Mujaddid
and Tajdīd Traditions in the Indian
Subcontinent” in Journal of Turkish Studies 18, 1994.
Aminrezavi, M. Suhrawardi and the School
of Illumination Surrey: Curzon, 1997
Amir-Moezzi, M. A. The Divine Guide in Early Shi’ism D. Streight trans. Albany: State Universsity of New York Press, 1994
Amri-Moezzi, A., ed. Le voyage
initiatique en terre
d’islam: ascensions célestes
et itinéraires spirituels Paris: Peeters, 1996
Anawati, G. Études de philosophie musulmane, Paris: Vrin, 1974 Arnaldez, R. “Ibn Rushd”
in Encyclopedia of Islam
(second edition)
Aouanat, Z. Ibn Mashīsh,
maître d’al-Shādhilī Casablanca: Najah El Jadida,
1998
Asin Palacios, M. “Characteres generales de la Escuela
Shadhil•
y su metodo
espiritual”
Al-Andalus 1, 1954
Asin Palacios, M. El Islam
cristianizado, estudio del sufismo a través de las obras de Abenarabi de Murcia
Madrid: 1931
Badaw•, >A.
La transmission de la philosophie greque au monde arabe (2nd ed.) Paris:
Vrin, 1987
Baldick, J. Imaginary Muslims: The Uwaysi Sufis of Central Asia London: Tauris, 1993. Baldick, J. Mystical Islam New York: New York University Press, 1989
Bannerth, E. “La Rifå>iyya en Égypte” Mélanges de l’Institut Dominicain d’Études Ori- entales 10, 1970
Berkey, J. Popular Preaching and Religious Authority in the Medieval Islamic Near
East Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001
Botros, S. Abū al-’Abbās
al-Mursī: A Study of Some Aspects of His Mystical Thought
McGill University, M.A. thesis, 1976
Boullata, I. “The Rhetorical Interpretation of the Qur’ån: I>jåz and Related Topics”
in Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur’an A. Rippin ed. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1988
Böwering, G. The Mystical Vision of Existence
in Classical Islam: The Qur’anic Hermeneutics of the Sufi Sahl at-Tustari
(d. 283/896) Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980 Brockelmann, C. Geschichte
der Arabischen Litteratur 3 vols. Leiden:
Brill, 1937–42,
and spplement vols. 1943–49
Brown, P. The Cult of the Saints Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1981
Buehler, A. Sufi Heirs of the Prophet: The Indian
Naqshbandiyya and the Rise of the Mediating Shaykh Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press, 1998
Burgoyne, M. H. Mamluk Jerusalem: An Architechtural Study British School
of Arche- ology in Jerusalem,
1987
Chabbi, J. “Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements ascétiques et
mystiques au Khurasan” in Studia Islamica
46, 1977
Chatelier (Le), A. Les confréries
musulmanes du Hedjaz Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1887 Chih, R. “Les débuts d’une ịarīqa...” in Le saint et son milieu ou comment lire les sources
hagiographiques R. Chih and D. Gril eds. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie ori-
entale, 2000
Chih, R. Le soufisme au quotidien: Confréries d’Égypte au XXè siècle Paris: Sinbad, 2000 Chittick, W. “The Five Divine Presences: From al-Q¥naw• to al-Qaysar•” in The Mus-
lim World 72, 1982
Chittick, W. Ibn ’Arabī’s
Metaphysics of Imagination: The Sufi Path of Knowledge
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989
Chittick, W. “Íadr al-D•n al-Q¥naw• on the Oneness of Being” in International Philo- sophical Quarterly 21/2
Chittick, W. “The School of Ibn >Arab•” in History
of Islamic Philosophy S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman eds. London: Routledge, 1996
Chittick, W. The Self-disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn ’Arabī’s
Cosmology Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1998
Chittick, W. “A Shadhili
Presence in Sh>ite Islam” in Sophia Perennis: The Bulletin of the Imperial Iranian Academy of
Philosophy 1/1, 1975
Chittick, W. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn ’Arabī’s Metaphysics of Imagination
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989
Chodkiewicz, M. AwИad al-Dīn Balyānī: Epître sur l’unicité absolue Paris: Deux
Océans, 1982
Chodkiewicz, M. “The Banner
of Praise” in Foundations
of the Spiritual Life According to Ibn ’Arabi: Praise S. Hirtenstein ed. Oxford: Muhyiddin
Ibn >Arabi Society, 1997 Chodkiewicz, M. “The Diffusion
of Ibn >Arab•’s Doctrine” in Journal of the MuИyiddin
Ibn ’Arabī Society 9, 1991
Chodkiewicz, M. “Ibn >Arab•, la lettre
et la loi” in Actes du colloque: Mystique, culture et société Paris: 1983
Chodkiewicz,
M. An Ocean without Shore: Ibn ’Arabi,
the Book, and the Law D. Streight trans.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993
Chodkiewicz, M. “Le Procès posthume d’Ibn >Arab•” in Islamic Mysticism Contested F. deJong and B. Radtke eds. Leiden: Brill, 1999
Chodkiewicz,
M. “La sainteté et les saints en islam” in Le
Culte des saints dans le monde musulman H. Chambert-Loir and Cl. Guilliot
eds. Paris: École Français d’Extrème Orient, 1995
Chodkiewicz, M. “La sainteté
féminine dans l’hagiographie islamique” in Saints orien- taux D. Aigle ed. Paris:
DeBoccard, 1995
Chodkiewicz,
M. Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine
of Ibn
’Arabī L. Sherrard trans.
Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993
Commission des sciences et arts
d’Égypte. Description de l’Égypte 24
vols. text, 11 vols. plates, 3 vols. atlas, 1809–29
Corbin, H. Creative Imagination in the Sufism
of Ibn ’Arabi R. Manheim
trans. Prince- ton: Princeton
University Press, 1969
Corbin, H. En Islam Iranien 4
vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1971
Corbin, H. Histoire de la philosophie islamique Paris: Gallimard, 1986
Corbin, H. The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism N.
Pearson trans. Boulder: Shambala, 1978 Corbin, H. Temps cyclique et gnose ismaélienne Paris:
Berg International, 1982 Cornell, V. Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism
Austin: Uni-
versity of Texas Press, 1998
Cornell, V. The Way of Abū Madyan Cambridge: Isalmic Texts
Society, 1996
Daftary, F. The Ismā’īlīs, Their History and Doctrines Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1990
Danner, V. Ibn ’Aịā’ Allāh: The Book of Wisdom New York: Paulist, 1978
Danner, V. Ibn ’Aịā’
Allāh: A Sufi of Mamluk Egypt PhD. thesis, Harvard University, 1970
Danner, V. “The Shådhiliyya and North African Sufism”
in Islamic Spirituality: Mani- festations S. H. Nasr ed. New
York: Crossroads, 1991
De Jong, F.
“Les confréries mystiques musulmanes au Machreq arabe” in Les ordres mystiques dans l’Islam A.
Popovic and G. Veinstein eds. Paris:
École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1986
De Jong,
F. “On Peter Gran, Islamic Roots
of Capitalism: Egypt,
1760–1840 A review article with author’s reply”
International Journal
of Middle East Studies 14,
1982
De Jong, F. Sufi Orders in Ottoman and post-Ottoman Egypt
Istanbul: Isis Press,
2000 De Jong, F. Turuq and
Turuq-linked Institutions in Nineteenth Century Egypt Leiden:
Brill, 1978
Delanoue, G. Moralistes et politiques Musulmans dans l’Égypte du XIXème siècle 4
vols. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1982
Dermenghem, E. Le Culte des saints
Paris: Gallimard, 1954
Dols,
A. The Black Death in the Middle
East Princeton University Press, 1977 Dozy, R. Supplément
aux dictionaires arabes
2 vols. (3rd ed.) Leiden:
Brill 1967
Elboudrari, H. “Entre
le symbolique et l’historique: Khadir im-mémorial” in Studia Islam- ica 76, 1992
Elias, J. The Throne Carrier
of
God: The Life and Thought
of ’Alā ad-Dawlah
as-Simnānī
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993
Elmore, G. Islamic
Sainthood in the Fullness of Time:
Ibn ’Arabī’s Book of the Fabu- lous Gryphon Leiden: Brill, 1998
Ernst, C. Ruzbihan Baqli; Mysticism and the Rhetoric
of Sainthood in Perisan Sufism
Surrey: Curzon, 1996
Ernst, C. The Shambala
Guide to Sufism
Boston: Shambala, 1997
Ernst, C. The Unveiling of Secrets: Diary of a Sufi
Master Chapel Hill: Parvardigar Press, 1997
Ernst, C. Words of Ecstacy
in Sufism Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985 Fakhry, M. A History of Islamic Philosophy
New York: Columbia University Press, 1983 Fernandes, L. Evolution
of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk Egypt: The Khanaqa Berlin:
Schwarz, 1988
Friedmann, Y. “The Finality
of Prophethood in Sunnī Islām” Jerusalem
Studies in Ara- bic and Islam no. 7, 1987
Friedmann, Y. Prophecy
Continuous Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1989 Garcin, J.-C. Un centre musulman
de la Haute-Égypte médiévale: Qūṣ Cairo: Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1976
Garcin,
J.-C. “Histoire, opposition politiqe et piétisme traditionaliste dans le ‘Ḥusn al- muḳadara’ de ?uyūṭī” Annales Islamologiques 7, 1987
Garcin,
J.-C. “Histoire et hagiographie de l’Égypte Musulmane à la fin de l’époque
Mamelouke et au début de l’époque Ottomane” in Garcin, Espaces, pouvoirs et idéologie de l’Égypte médiévale London:
Variorum, 1987
Garcin, J.-C. “Index des Ṭabaqāt de ShaCrānī” in Annales Islamologiques 6,
1963 Gardet, L. La pensée
religieuse d’Avicenne Paris: Vrin, 1951
Gardet, L.,
and M.-M. Anawati Introduction à la
théologie musulmane (2nd. ed’n) Paris: Vrin, 1970
Gardet, L., and M.-M.
Anawati Mystique musulmane Paris: Vrin, 1968 Geoffroy,
E. Djihād et contemplation Paris:
Devry, 1997
Geoffroy, E. “L’élection divine
de Muḳammad et CAlī Wafā’ (VIIIe/XIVe s.) ou com- ment la branche wafā’ī s’est
détachée de l’arbre
shādhilī” in Le saint et son milieu ou
comment lire les sources hagiographiques R. Chih and D. Gril eds. Cairo:
Insti- tut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2000
Geoffroy, E. Le
Soufisme en Égypte et en Syrie Damascus: Institut français de Damas, 1995
Gibb, H. A. R. and J. Kramers, eds. Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam Leiden: Brill, 1991
Gilsenan, M. Saint and Sufi in Modern Egypt: An Essay in the Sociology of Religion
Oxford: Clarendon, 1973
Gobillot, G. La pensée d’al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (Abū ’Abd Allāh MuИammad
’ibn ’Alī, m. 318/930).
Ou: de la “Profondeur des choses” Doctoral thesis, Lyon, Université Jean Moulin, 1989
Goichon, A.-M. Lexique de la langue philosophique d’Ibn Sīna Paris: Desclé de Brouwer, 1938
Goiten,
S. Studies in Islamic
History and Institutions Leiden: Brill, 1968 Goldziher, I. Muslim Studies (2 vols.) London:
Allen and Unwin, 1962 Goodman, L. Avicenna
London: Routledge, 1992
Graham, W. Divine
Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam
The Hague: Mouton, 1977
Gramlich, R. Die Gaben
der Erkenntnisse des ’Umar as-Suhrawardī (’Awārif al-
ma’ārif) Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1978
Gramlich, R. Die schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens 3
vols. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1965–1981
Gramlich, R. Das Sendschreiben al-Qushayris über das Sufitum Wiesbaden: Steiner,
1989 Gramlich, R. Die Wunder der Freunde Gottes Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1986
Gramlich, R. Abū al-’Abbās
ibn ’Aịā': Sufi und Koranausleger Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995 Gran, P. The Islamic Roots of Capitalism: Egypt, 1760–1840 Cairo: American univer-
sity in Cairo Press, 1998
Gril, D. “Le kitāb al-inbāh ’alā ịarīq Allāh de CAbdallāh Badr al-Ḥabashī: un témoignage de l’enseignement spirituel de Muḳyī-l-dīn Ibn CArabī” in Annales Islamologiques 15, 1979
Gril, D. “Le miracle en Islam, critère de la sainteté?” in Saints orientaux D. Aigle ed.
Paris: DeBoccard, 1995
Gril, D. “Le saint
fondateur” in Les voies
d’Allah: Les ordres
mystiques dans le monde
musulman des origines à aujourd’hui A.
Popovic and G. Veinstein eds Paris: Fayard, 1996.
Gril, D.
“Sources manuscrites de l’histoire du soufisme à Dār al-Kutub; un premier bilan” Bulletin Critique des Annales Islamologiques 1994
Halm, H. Shiism J. Watson trans. Edinburgh:
Edinbugh University Press, 1991 Haneberg, K. “Ali Abulhasan Schadeli”
in Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlandischen
Gesellschaft 1853
Heath, P. Allegory and
Philosophy in Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1992
Hitti, P. et al. Descrtiptive Catalog of the Garrett Collection of Arabic Manuscripts in the Princeton
University Library Princeton: 1938
Hoffman-Ladd, V. “Devotion
to the Prophet and His Family in Egyptian Sufism” in
International Journal
of Middle East Studies 4, 1992
Homerin, E. From Arab Poet to Muslim Saint:
Ibn al-Farid, His Verse, and His Shrine
Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1997
al-Hujwīrī, The Kashf al-MaИjūb: The Oldest Persian Treatise on Ṣufiism R. A. Nicholson trans. London: Luzac,
1936
Ibn CArabī’s Sufis of Andalusia
(Rūḳ al-quds) R.W. J. Austin trans. London:
Allen and Unwin, 1971
Ibn Battuta, The Travels
of Ibn Battuta H. Gibb trans. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1958
Ibn al-Fāriď, Ibn al-Fāriḍ; Sufi Verse, Saintly
Life E. Homerin
trans. New York:
Paulist Press, 2001
Ibn Khaldūn, The Muqaddima: An Introduction to History F. Rosenthal trans. 3 vols.
New York: Bollingen, 1958
Ibn al-Sabbāgh, The Mystical Teachings of al-Shādhilī
(Durrat al-asrār) E. Douglas trans. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1993
Ibn Sina, Livre des directives
et
remarques A.
Goichon trans. Paris: Vrin, 1951
Izutsu, T. The Concept of
Reality and Existence Tokyo: Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic
Studies, 1971
Izutsu, T. Creation and the Timeless
Order of Things
Ashland OR: White Cloud Press, 1994
Izutsu, T. Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts
Berkeley: University of California Press,
1983
al-Jabartī, ’Abd al-RaИmān
al-Jabartī’s History of Egypt (’Ajā’ib al-Āthār) T. Phillip and M. Perlmann
eds. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994
Jabre, F. Essai sur le lexique de Ghazali Beirut: Université Libannaise, 1985
Jahanbakhsh F. “The Pir-Murīd Relationship in the Thought
of CAyn al-Quďāt al-
Hamadānī” in Consciousness and Reality: Studies in Memory of
Toshihiko Izutsu
J. Āshtiyānī et al. eds. Leiden: Brill,
2000
Johansen, J. Sufism and Islamic Reform
in Egypt New
York: Clarendon, 1996
Johnson, K. “Royal
Pilgrims: Mamluk Accounts
of the Pilgrimage to Mecca”
in Studia Islamica no. 91, 2000
al-Junayd Enseignement spirituel R. Deladrière trans. Paris: Sinbad, 1983
Karramustafa, A. God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle
Period, 1200–1550 Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1994
Katz, J. Dreams, Sufism,
and Sainthood Leiden: University of Leiden Press, 1996 Kazimirski, A. Dictionaire Arabe-Français 2 vols. Paris: G.-P.
Maisonneuve, 1960 Kieckhefer, R. and George
Bond, eds., Sainthood: Its Manifestations
in World Religions
Berkeley: University of California Press,
1988
Khushaim, A. Zarrūq the Ṣūfī Tripoli: Libyan Arabic Republic, 1976
Kister, M. “The Interpretation of Dreams.
An Unknown Manuscript of Ibn Quṭayba’s
CIbārāt al-ru’yā” Israel Oriental Studies 4, 1974
Knysh, A. Ibn
’Arabī in the Later Islamic Tradition Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1999
Landau-Tasseron, E. “The ‘Cyclical Reform’: A Study of the Mujaddid tradition,” Studia Islamica 70, 1989
Landolt, H. “CAzīz-i Nasafī and the
Essence-Existence Debate” in Consciousness
and Reality: Studies in Memory of Toshihiko Izutsu J. Āshtiyānī et al. eds. Leiden: Brill, 2000
Landolt, H. “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kāshānī und Simnānī über
waИdat al-wujūd” in Der
Islam 50, 1973
Landolt, H. “La “Double
Échelle” d’Ibn CArabī chez Simnānī” in Le Voyage initiatique en terre d’Islam: Ascensions célestes et itinéraires
spirituels A. Amir-Moezzi ed. Louvain, Paris: Peeters,
1996
Landolt, H. “Le Paradoxe
de la “Face de Dieu”: ‘Azîz-e Nasafî (VIIe/XIIIe siècle)
et le “Monisme Ésotérique” de
l’Islam” in Studia Iranica 25/2, 1996
Landolt, H. “Simnānī on Waḳdat al-Wujūd” in Collected Papers
on Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism M. Mohaghegh
ed. Tehran: 1971
Landolt, H. “Stages of God-cognition and the Praise
of Folly according to Najm-i Rāzī (d. 1256)” in Sufi 47, 2000
Lane, E. An Account of the Manners and Customs of the
Modern Egyptians (1833– 1835) London: East-West, 1981
Lane, E. An Arabic-English Lexicon 4 vols.
Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1863 Laoust,
H. Essai sur les doctrines sociales
et politiques de Tak• al-D•n
A˙mad ibn
Taimiya Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1939
Laroui, A. The History of the Maghreb:
An Interpretive Essay Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1977
Little, D. “The Nature of Khånqåhs, Ribåts, and Zåwiyas under the Mamlūks” in Islamic Studies Presented to Charles J. Adams W. Hallaq
and D. Little eds., New York: Brill, 1991
Lory, P. Les Commentaires esotériques du Coran d’après >Abd al-Razzåq
al-Qåshån•
Paris: Les Deux Océans, 1980
Lory, P. “Le
Mi>råj d’Abū Yazīd Bisṭāmī” in Le Voyage initiatique en terre d’islam:
Ascensions célestes et itinéraires spirituels A. Amir-Moezzi ed. Louvain, Paris:
Peeters, 1996
Lory, P. “al-Shādhilī” and “al-Shādhiliyya” in Encyclopedia
of Islam (2nd
ed.)
Lutfi, H.
“Coptic Festivals of the Nile: Aberrations of the Past?” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society
T. Phillip and U. Haarmaan eds. New York:
Cam- bridge University Press, 1989
MacKeen, A. “The Early History
of Sufism in the Maghrib
Prior to Al-Shādhilī” in
Journal of the American
Oriental Society 91, 1971
MacKeen, A. “The Rise of Al-Shādhilī,” in Journal of the American Oriental
Society
91, 1971
Madelung, W.
Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran Albany: Bibliotheca
Persica, 1988 Madelung, W. The Succession to Mu˙ammad Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997
Massignon, L. La Cité des morts au Caire
Cairo: Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orien- tale,
1958
Massignon, L. Cours d’histoire des termes philosophiques arabes Z. el-Khoudeiry
ed.
Cairo: Insitut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale, 1983
Massignon, L. “Le Dīwān d’Al-Ḥallāj: Essai de reconstruction, édition et traduction”
Journal asiatique 1931
Massignon, L. Essai sur les origines
du lexique technique
de la mystique musulmane
Paris: Librairie Orientaliste, 1954
Massignon, L. “Ḥulūl” in the Encyclopedia of Islam (second
edition)
Massignon, L. La Passion du Ḥusayn Ibn Manṣūr Ḥallāj
4 vols. Paris:
Gallimard, 1975. Translated as The Passion of al-Ḥallāj 3
vols. H. Mason
trans. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press, 1982
Matsumoto, A. “Unity of Ontology and Epistemology in Qayßar•’s Philosophy” in Con- sciousness
and Reality: Studies in Memory of Toshihiko
Izutsu J. Åshtiyån• et al. eds.
Leiden: Brill, 2000
Matt, D.
trans. Zohar; the Book of Enlightenment New
York: Paulist Press, 1983 Maury, B. et al. Palais et maisons du Caire (XVIe-XVIIIe siècles) Paris: Éditions
du
Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, 1983
Mayeur, C. Al-Sayyid AИmad al-Badawī: Un grand saint de
l’Islam égyptien Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1994
McGregor, R. “The Concept
of Sainthood according to Ibn Båkhilå: A Shådhil• shaykh of the 8th/14th Century” in Le saint et son milieu ou comment lire les
sources hagiographiques R. Chih and D. Gril eds. Cairo: Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale, 2000
McGregor, R.
and A. Sabra eds. Le développement du soufisme en Égypte à
l’époque mamluke, forthcoming from Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale du Caire
McGregor, R.
“A Sufi Legacy in Tunis: Prayer and
the Shådhiliyya” in International Journal of Middle East Studies
May 1997
Meier, F. Essays on Islamic Piety and Mysticism J.
O’Kane trans. Leiden: Brill, 1999 Meier, F. Die Fawā’iИ al-jamāl wa-fawātiИ
al-jalāl des Najm al-dīn al-Kubrā Wies-
baden: 1957
Meier, F. “The Mystic Path”
in The World of Islam: Faith,
People, Culture B.
Lewis ed.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1970
Meisami, J., and P. Starken
eds. The Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature London: Rout-
ledge, 1988
Melchert, C. “The Transition
from Asceticism to Mysticism in the
Middle Ninth Cen- tury c.e.” in Studia
Islamica 83, 1999
Michon, J. Le soufi maroccain AИmad Ibn ’Ajiba (1746–1809) et son Mi’rāj Paris: Vrin, 1973
Memon, M. Ibn Taymiyya’s
Struggle against Popular
Religion Paris: 1976
Momen, M. An Introduction to Shi’i Islam New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985 Morewedge, P., ed. Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought
Albany: State University of new
York Press, 1992
Morris, J. “Ibn >Arab• and his Interpreters; Part I: Recent French Translations” Journal of the American
Oriental Society vol. 106, no. 3, 1986
Morris, J. “Ibn >Arab•
and his Interpreters; Part II : Influences and Interpretations” Jour- nal of the American Oriental Society. vol. 106,
no. 4, 1986
Morris, J. “Ibn >Arab•
and his Interpreters; Part II (conclusion): Influences and Interpre- tations” Journal of the American Oriental Society vol.
107, no. 1, 1987
Morris, J. “Ibn ‘Arabî’s ‘Esotericism’: The Problem of Spiritual Authority” Studia Islam-
ica 71, 1990
Morris, J. “The Spiritual
Ascension: Ibn >Arab• and the Mi>råj” pt. no. 1 Journal of the American Oriental Society 107.4; 1987, and pt. no. 2 Journal of the American Ori- ental Society 108.1; 1988
Nasaf•, >A. Le Livre de l’Homme Parfait I. de Gastines trans. Paris: Fayard,
1984
Nasr, S. H. An Introduction of Islamic Cosmological Doctrines Albany: State Univer- sity of New
York Press, 1993
Nwyia, P. Exegèse coranique et langage
mystique Beirut: Dār al-Machriq, 1970
Nwyia,
P. Ibn ’Abbād de Ronda (1333–1390), lettres de direction
spirituelle (Al-Rasā’il
al-ṣughrā) Beirut: Dār
al-Mashriq, 1961
Nwyia, P. Ibn ’Aịā’ Allāh et la naissance de la confrérie shādhilite Beirut: Dār el- Mashriq,
1972
O’Fahey, S. Enigmatic
Saint: AИmad ibn Idrīs and the Idrīsī Tradition Evanston: Illi- nois
University Press, 1990
Olesen, N. Culte des saints et pèlerinages chez Ibn Taimiyya
Paris: 1971
Ormsby, E. Theodicy in
Islamic Thought Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984 Padwick, C. Muslim Devotions: A Study of Prayer-Manuals
in Common Use Oxford:
Oneworld, 1996
Paul, J. “Au Début du genre hagiographique dans le Khorasan” in Saints orientaux D. Aigle ed. Paris:
DeBoccard, 1995
Petry, C. The Civilian
Elite of Cairo in the Latter Middle Ages New York: Princeton University
Press, 1981
Popovic, A., and G. Veinstein, eds. Les Ordres mystiques dans l’islam: Cheminements et situation acutelle Paris:
Éditions de l’E.H.E.S.S, 1986
Popovic, A., and G. Veinstein,
eds. Les Voies d’Allah: Les ordres mystiques dans le monde musulman des origines
à aujourd’hui Paris: Fayard,
1996
Radtke, B. Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmdhī. Ein islamischer Theosoph
des 3./9. Jahrhunderts
Freiburg: Schwartz, 1980
Rubin, U. “Exegesis and Ḥadīth: The Case of the Seven
Mathānī” in Approaches
to the Qur’ān G. Hawtig
ed. London: Routledge, 1993
Rubin, U. “Pre-existence and Light: Aspects
of the Nūr Muḳammad” in Israel Oriental Studies 5, 1975
Sachedina, A. Islamic
Messianism: The Idea of the Mahdi in Twelver Shi’ism Abany: State University of New York Press, 1981
?afī al-Dīn ibn Abī al-Man?ūr. Ibn Zāfir, La Risāla de Ṣafī al-Dīn ibn Abī al-Manṣūr. Ibn Zāfir:
Biographies des maîtres spirituels connus par un cheikh égyptien du VIIè/XIIIè siècle D. Gril ed. and trans. Cairo: Institut Français
d’Archéologie Ori- entale,
1986
Sanders, P. “The Urban River” in Ritual, Politics, and the City in Fatimid Cairo Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994
Sartain, E. Jalāl al-Dīn
Suyūịī New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975
Sauvaget, J. Introduction to the History of the Muslim East: A Bibliographical Guide
Berkeley: University of California Press,
1965
Scattolin, G. “Al-Faghānī’s Commentary on Ibn al-Fāriď’s Mystical
Poem Al-Tā’iyyat al-Kubrā’ in
Mélanges de l’Institut Dominicain
d’Études Orientales 21, 1993 Schimmel, A.
Mystical Dimensions of Islam Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolia
Press, 1975
Scholem, G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism New York: Schocken, 1954
Segal,
J. “Numerals in the Old Testament” in Journal of Semitic
Studies no.10, 1965 Sells, M. Early Islamic Mysticism New York: Paulist, 1996
Sezgin, F. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums 11 vols. Frankfurt am Main:
Institut für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften, 1967–1995
al-Shaibi, K. M. Sufism and Shi’ism
Surrey: LAAM, 1991
Sharma, A. ed. Women Saints in World
Religions Albany: SUNY, 2000
Shoshan, B. Popular Culture
in Medieval Cairo New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993
Stewart, D. “Popular Shiism
in Medieval Egypt:
Vestiges of Islamic
Sectarian Polemics in
Egyptian Arabic” Studia Islamica 84, 1996.
Stroumsa, G. “Seal
of the Prophets: The Nature
of a Manichaean Metaphor” Jerusalem
Studies in Arabic and Islam 7, 1986
al-Sulami, Early Sufi
Women (Dhikr al-niswa) R. Cornell
ed. and trans (Louisville:
Fons Vitae, 1999)
al-Sulamī, A. Sulamī: La lucidité implacable R.
Deladrière trans. Paris: Arléa, 1991
Sviri, S. “Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and the Malāmatī Movement in Early ?ufism” in Classi-
cal Persian
Ṣufism L. Lewisohn
ed. London: Khaniqahi
Nimatullahi Publications 1993
Tabāṭabā’ī, M. Shi’ite Islam S.
H. Nasr trans. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1975
Taftazani, A., and O. Leaman, “Ibn SabCīn” in History of Islamic Philosophy S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman eds. London:
Routledge, 2001
Taher, M. Corpus des textes arabes
relatifs aux tremblements de terre et autres catas- trophes naturelles de la conquête
arabe au XII H. / XVIII J.C. Doctoral thesis, Paris I, 1979
Takeshita,
M. Ibn ’Arabī’s Theory of the Perfect Man
and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa, 1987
Taylor, C. In the Vicinity of the
Righteous Leiden: Brill, 1998 Tayn, E. “CI?ma” in Encyclopedia
of Islam (second edition) Trimingham, J. The Sufi Orders in Islam Oxford: Clarendon, 1971
Tusi, N. La convocation
d’Alamut (Rawḍat al-taslīm) C. Jambet trans. Paris: Éditions UNESCO /
Verdier, 1996
Vajda, G. Catalogue des Manuscrits Arabes; deuxième partie; Manuscrits Musulmans
Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1985
van Ess, J. Die Gedankenwelt des Ḥāriị al-MuИāsibī Bonn: Selbstverlag des orientalis-
chen Seminars des Universität Bonn 1959
van Ess, J. “Sufism and Its Opponents: Reflections on Topoi, Tribulations,
and Trans- formations” in Islamic Mysticism Contested
F. deJong and B. Radtke eds. Leiden:
Brill, 1999
van Ess, J. Theologie
und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra 6 vols.
Berlin, New York: Walter deGruyer, 1991–97
Walzer, R. “Al-Fārābī’s Theory of Prophecy and Divination” in his Greek into Arabic:
Essays on Islamic Philosophy Oxford: Bruno Cassier, 1963
Watt, W. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought Rockport MA: Oneworld, 1998 Waugh, E. The Munshidīn of
Egypt Columbia: South Carolina Press, 1989
Wehr, H. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic J. Cowan ed. Beirut: Librairie
du Liban, 1980
Wensinck, A., and J. Mensing Concordance et Indices de la Tradition
Musulmane 8 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1943
Williams, C. Islamic Monuments
in Cairo: A Practical Guide Cairo: American
Univer- sity in Cairo Press, 1993
Winter, M. Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha’rani New
Brunswick: Transactions Books, 1982
Witkam, J. Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts Leiden: Brill 1989
Wolfson, H. The Philosophy of the Kalåm Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1976 Yahia, O. Histoire
et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn
>Arab• 2 vols. Damascus: Institut
Français de Damas, 1964
Y¥suf >Al•, >A. trans. The Holy
Qur’ån
Brentwood, MA: Amana,
1989
Zarcone, T. “L’hagiographie dans le monde turc” in Saints orientaux D.
Aigle ed. Paris: DeBoccard, 1995
Index to the Qur’an
2:136 15
2:115 55
2:165 97
2:210 143
2:248 166
2:259 133
2:260 86
3:27 191
4:76 6
5:3 20
5:56 125
6:68 133
7:52 124
7:54 200
7:143 211
7:158 146
8:72 6
9:26 166
9:40 166
10:62 6
11:103 116
11:123 114
12:80 129
12:108 154
17:1 111
17:14 103
17:55 15
18:44 5
18:60-82 209
18:66 141
18:67-68 134
18:70 134
18:77 135
18:78 135, 140
18:79 140
18:80 140
18:81 140
18:82 135, 211, 140
19:17 213
19:19 140
19:21 141
20:5 200
20:6 146
24:35 2
24:40 103
25:31 142
26:193-194 99, 111
27:12 21
27:65 96
27:83 191
28:24 135
28:68 96
30:60 191
32:8 26
240 Index to the Qur’an
33:40 16
33:72 210
38:67 117
41:54 94
42:7 116
42:24 143
45:18-19 152
53:10 111
53:13-18 3
54:49 86
56:10-11 6
56:88-89 6
57:3 126, 82
57:4 191, 200
67:5 17
69:13 207
73:1-3 163
73:20 163
93 (entire s¥ra) 54
99:1-6 151
112 (entire s¥ra) 73
112:1-4 111
Index
This index does not include the terms Allāh, Muḳammad Wafā’, CAlī Wafā’, Wafā’iyya, Cairo, or
Egypt.
CAbd al-Bāsiṭ 57, 58
CAbd al-Ḥamīd, sultan 59
CAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Bakrī 57 CAbd al-Wahhāb 176n.41
Abraham 13, 86, 115, 116, 148, 213n.104
Abū CAlī al-Juzjānī 177n.52 Abū al-Anwār 57, 58, 60, 61
Abū al-CAshā’ir, Abū al-SaCūd ibn 50
Abū Bakr 53, 60, 144, 146, 212n.94
Abū Bakr al-Wafā’ī 52
Abū al-Faďl al-Majdhūb 56, 57 Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī 30 Abū al-Laṭā’if 52, 54
Abū al-Madad ibn Aḳmad 72 Abū Madyan 28, 130, 174n.26 Abū al-Mawāhib ibn Zaghdān 57
Abū al-Siyādāt Yaḳya ibn Wafā 56, 59Abū al-Wafā’ 52
Abū al-Wafā’, Tāj al-Cārifīn 52
Abū al-Wafā’, Tāj al-Dīn Muḳammad 52 Abzārī 53
Adam 13, 26, 38, 86, 93, 96, 115, 117,
129, 130, 148, 149
Addas, C. 188n.14
CAffīfī, A. 21
Ahl al-bayt 51, 181n.12 Aḳmad CAbd al-Khāliq 57 Aḳmad Abū al-Iqbāl 61 Aḳmad al-Dardīr 72 Aḳmad Sirhindī 177n.66 Aḳmad Zarrūq 29
Akhmīm 50, 58, 62 CAllāma Majlisī 174n.19 Aleppo 52
Alexandria 28, 33, 49, 50, 61, 172n.8
CAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib 19, 20, 25, 52, 53, 60,
143, 144, 145, 149, 160, 169n.59
CAlī al-Khawwā? 144, 145
CAlī al-Riďā 51
CAmmār, S. 30
āmulī, Ḥaydar 20
CAnqā mughrib 54
Arslān, shaykh 72
asceticism (zuhd) 10, 12
Asin Palacios 21
CAṭṭār 60
Awsaṭ, Muḳammad 50
CAyn al-Quďāt al-Hamadānī 200n.65
CAzīz al-Nasafī 216n.127
CAzrā’il 53
badal 13, 16, 22, 35, 41, 42, 108, 109
Badawī, Aḳmad 31
Badr al-Dīn Muḳammad 52 Baghdad
10
Bahjat al-irshād 75 BāCith Calā al-khalās 75 Bakriyya 60
bāqā’ (subsisitng) 36, 37
Bāqillānī 34
baraka 11
barzakh 36, 37, 43, 100, 101, 107, 198n.33
Basṭāmī 3, 6, 42, 80
bāṭin 14, 97, 113
Birkat al-Fīl 58
Bukhārī 18
Bū?īrī 34
calamus / pen 26, 97, 100
Chittick, W. 21
Chodkiewicz, M. 6, 21, 35
common intellect 79, 100, 101
common sense 79, 100, 101
Corbin, H. 21
Damascus 21, 52, 61
Dārānī 19
darkness, Muḳammadan 34
Dasūqī 50, 53
David 115, 142, 148
dhikr (remembrance) 5, 30, 55, 81, 104, 184n.54
dīwān 13, 16, 21, 23
Dīwān Muḳammad Wafā’ 72, 73
duCa (supplication)
5, 28, 32, 34, 74 Durrat al-asrār wa tuḳfat al-abrār 28, 29,
37, 41
Elijah 22, 23
Elmore, G. 19, 42, 171n.91
Eve 93
fanā’ (extinction) 36, 37, 82, 104
fard 22, 108
Fez 49
Fu?ūl al-ḳaqā’iq 82
Fu?ū? al-ḳikam 20,
21
Futūḳāt al-Makkiyya 21
Gabriel 3, 13, 53, 78, 100, 102, 138
Garcin, J.-Cl. 31 Geoffroy,
E. 173n.10
Ghadīr Khumm 20, 214n.109
ghawth 13, 108
ghayb (occultation / unseen) 20, 36, 39,
44
Ghazālī 2, 18, 214n.111
Ghumāra 28
Goldziher, I. 13
hadīth (God’s
speech) 10, 11, 12
Ḥallāj 19
Ḥamdūn al-Qa??ār 10
Ḥammū’ī, SaCd al-Dīn 43, 216n.127
Ḥarām 52
Ḥasan al-Ba?rī 3, 6, 20
Ḥashwiyya 19
Ḥawārī 19
Ḥijāz 49, 52
Ḥikam CAṭā’iyya 30, 86 himma (spiritual aspiration) 16
Himyarī, Ibn Abī al-Qāsim 28 Ḥizb al-azal 75
Ḥizb al-baḳr 32, 34, 35, 44, 45
Ḥizb al-fardāniyya 75
Ḥizb al-fatḳ 55, 75
Ḥizb al-sādāt 75
Hujwīrī, al-Jullābī 17, 19
Ḥulūliyya 19
Ḥusayn ibn CAlī 51, 61, 173n.19
Ḥusnā’ 57
Ibn Abī al-Dunyā 9
Ibn Abī al-Man?ūr, Íafī al-Dīn 29
Ibn CArabī 3, 6, 7, 11, 16, 20, 22, 23, 25,
30, 31, 35 - 40, 42, 46, 47, 61, 72, 75,
80, 89 - 91, 96, 106, 107, 108, 109,
110, 112, 114, 117, 147, 149, 152, 157,
159, 170n.75, 171n.91
Ibn CAṭā’ 17 Ibn CAyyād 29
Ibn Båkhilå 7, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 61, 72,
74, 158, 159
Ibn Daq•q al->Īd 214n.111
Ibn al-Fåri∂ 188n.14, 189n.20
Ibn Hajar al->Asqalån•
55, 57, 71, 75, 176n.41
Ibn Hanbal 18
Ibn al->Imåd 75
Ibn al-Jawz• 120 Ibn Khald¥n 205n.5
Ibn Mash•sh 28, 51,
53
Ibn al-Nu>aym 29
Ibn Nuh, >Abd al-Ghaffår 29 Ibn al-Íabbågh 29, 37
Ibn Sab>•n 123, 161
Ibn S•nå 5, 101, 102, 161, 196n.9, 199n.52
Ibn Taymiyya 32, 61, 120, 171n.90,
172n.101
Ibn Zaghdån, Ab¥ al-Mawåhib 32, 175n.37, 184n.51
Idr•s 22, 23, 86, 213n.104
Idr•s ibn >Abd Allah 49, 51
i>jåz (inimitability) 34
ijtihåd (individual judgement) 23
ilhåm 10, 12, 44, 82, 141, 152
Imåm Shåfi>• 2
Imåm (Sh•>•) 19, 51, 153, 168n.42,
Īnål, sultan 57, 58, 183n.49
>Inåniyya 60
Indian Ocean 34
Intellect, Active 5, 85, 101,
102
Intellect, First 5, 26, 73, 79, 93, 94, 98,
102, 107, 153
Iran 62
Iraq 4, 21, 28, 52, 62, 120
>Iråq•, Zayn al-D•n 214n.110, 214n.111 Isfaråyin•, N¥r al-D•n 43, 214n.111 Iskandar•, Ibn >Aṭå’ Allåh 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 46, 50, 51, 52,
53, 58, 61, 158, 174n.23,
174n.26,
210n.73
>ißma 45, 46
Ismå>•l al-Khashshåb 60
Ismå>•l• 5, 19
Isråf•l 13, 53, 78, 100, 207n.44
Izutsu, T. 21
Jabart• 58, 59, 81
jabar¥t 78, 79, 83, 98, 99, 101, 108, 114
Ja>far al-Íådiq 3, 4, 20, 51
Jåmi> Jawdar• 33
Jand• 75
Jaqmaq, sultan 57
Jerusalem 3, 52
Jesus 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 86, 89, 114,
115, 116, 117, 140, 145, 147, 148, 150,
151, 160, 168n.35,
213n.104
J•lån•, >Abd al-Qådir 5, 52 J•l• 172n.102
Jinn 100, 102
Junayd 4, 38, 51, 177n.51,
178n.73
Kalåbådh• 18
kalåm (God’s speech) 10 karamåt 30, 35, 41
Karråm, Muḳammad ibn 4, 10
Kashf al-asrår al-azaliyya 72
Kawthar al-mutra> 75
Kha∂ir 2, 22, 23, 112, 120, 134, 135, 136,
138, 139, 140, 141, 146, 155, 160,
209n.60, 209n.66, 210n.73
khalwa 5, 55
khånqåh 4, 5, 62
Kharråz 9, 19
Khuråsån 4, 10 Kieckhefer, R. 165n.26
Kihåriyya 33
Kimiyå-i sa>ådat 18
Kitåb al-azal 72, 76, 77, 90, 99, 110
Kitåb al-kashf wa al-bayån 19 Kitåb khatm
al-awliyå’ 9, 30
Kitåb al-ma>år•j 79
Kitåb al-masåmi> al-rabbåniyya 84, 85, 152
Kitåb al-sha>å’ir 50
Kitåb al-ta>arruf 17 Kitåb ta’ß•l al-azmån 81 Kitåb al->ur¥s 50
Kitåb al->ur¥sh 83
Kitåb al-wåridåt 83
K¥fa 4
Landau-Tasseron, E. 151 Landolt, H. 170n.75
Laṭā’if al-minan
29, 30, 32, 38
Laṭīfa marďiyya 29, 32, 34, 35, 44, 46
lawḳ (tablet) 15, 97,
100
Levant 49
Libās al-futuwwa 83
light, Muḳammadan 17, 34, 72, 168n.40
light, universal 44
Lote-tree 3, 101
Madrasa Shādhiliyya ḳadītha 30 Mafākhir al-Caliyya fī ma’āthir al-Shād-
hiliyya 29
Mafātīḳ al-khazā’in al-Caliyya 85 Maghreb 21, 28, 49
maḳall 45
maḳfūz
(protected) 18 Maḳmūd, CAbd al-Ḥalīm 29 majdhūb 11, 15, 40, 134
malakūt 78, 79, 81, 83, 96, 98, 99,
100,
101, 108, 114
Malāmatiyya 4, 10, 13, 22 Malik, Anas ibn 18 maqālāt 12
Maqāmāt al-saniyya li al-sāda al-?ūfiyya 82, 103
maqām 45, 47, 80,
113
Maqrīzī 55
maCrifa (gnosis) 17, 44, 78, 82, 121, 130,
141, 178n.73
MaCrūf al-Karkhī 51
Mary 139, 141
masjid
Badr al-Dīn al-Jamālī 33 MasCūd, CAbd Allāh ibn 13 maC?ūm
(infallible) 18
mawlid 58, 59, 60, 61, 62
Mecca 3
Michael 13, 53, 78, 100, 138
Miftāḳ al-falāḳ 30
Miftāḳ al-sūr min Cayn al-khabar 81 miCrāj (ascension) 3, 80, 85, 86, 147,
148
Mir’āt al-janān 29
mishkāt (niche) 25
mīthāq (covenant) 15
Moses 2, 13, 21, 45, 86, 112, 115, 116,
134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146,
148, 160, 209n.60, 209n.66,
213n.104
Muḳammad, Prophet 1, 3, 14, 15, 17,
18,
20, 23, 24, 25, 41, 47, 53, 54, 74, 80,
86, 107, 111, 114, 116, 117, 135, 149,
152, 158
Muḳammad Bāqir, 51
Muḳammad al-Dawākhilī 61 Muḳammad al-Ḥanafī 175n.36, 182n.42 Muḳammad
al-Najm 49, 50, 51, 57 Muḳammad Pasha
al-CIzzatī 58 Muḳāsbī 3
muCjuza 41, 113
mulk 78, 79, 81, 83, 98, 99, 100, 114
Munawī 29
Muqaṭṭam 1
murāqaba 5
Murcia 21
murīd 17, 32
Mursī , Abū al-CAbbās 28, 30, 32, 33, 37,
51, 172n.8
Mūsā al-Kāzim 51
Nābulusī 72
Nafā’is al-Cirfān 78, 79, 108, 111
Nafīsa 60
nafs 5
Najm al-Dīn al-Kubrā 174n.20 Najm al-Dīn al-Rāzī 178n.67 naqīb al-ashrāf 60, 61, 62
Nā?ir Muḳammad 62
Na?? al-nu?ū? 20
Necessary Being 5
Neoplatonism 5, 73, 85
Nile 34, 52, 57
Nishapur 10
Noah 13, 86, 115, 116, 144, 148, 149
Nwyia, P. 31
Palestine 52
Parable of the Niche of Light 2 perfect human (insān kāmil) 73, 107
Pharaoh 142
prophets / prophecy
11, 18, 19, 23, 24,
26, 40, 41, 43, 47, 89, 90, 112, 113,
117, 128, 132, 133, 137, 147, 149, 150,
155, 158, 159, 166n.17, 171n.91
prophets, seal of 14, 15, 16, 35, 40, 116,
117, 143, 146, 147, 149
Qāďī CAbd al-Wahhāb 33 Qāďī CIyād 34
Qādiriyya 5
Qarāfa cemetery
1, 54, 58, 184n.54, 184n.62,
Qa?d mujarrad 30
Qāshānī 75, 98, 107
Qasṭalānī 29
Qawā’id al-ta?awwuf 29
Qay?arī 75
Qūnawī, 31, 75, 76
Qur’an 2, 34, 35, 36, 45, 46, 80, 115, 116,
124, 133, 152, 159
Qūs 62
Qushayrī 18
quṭb (pole)
13, 22, 26, 28, 31, 35, 42,
106, 108, 109, 112, 149,
150
Rajab 22
raqīqa 44, 83
Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn 214n.111
reality, Muḳammadan 17, 20, 23, 26, 41,
42, 73, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114,
144, 159, 172n.102,
192n.54
ribāt 4, 5
ribāṭ zawjat Īnāl 58 RifāCī 5
RifāCiyya 5
risāla (mission) 18, 24, 111, 112, 113,
114, 128, 137, 166n.17,
171n.91
Risāla Qushayriyya 18
Risālat al-Shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shād- hilī 29
Rūďa 50, 51, 55, 58
rūḳ 10, 12
Rūmī, Jalāl al-Dīn 5 Rundī, Ibn CAbbād 38 Rūzbihān Baqlī 18
sabīl al-Wafā’iyya 58
saint (walī) 6, 12, 37, 38, 40, 110, 128,
133, 141, 152
sainthood, general 23, 24, 26, 38, 117,
160
sainthood, Muḳammadan 23, 24, 26, 54,
89, 114, 151, 161
saints, seal of 7, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 35,
40, 47, 54, 89, 111, 112, 114, 115, 134,
141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148,
150,
151, 153, 155, 158, 160, 161
Sakhāwī 57, 71, 120
sakīna 11, 12
?alāḳ al-Dīn 1
Sammān , CAbd al-Karīm 72 Sarī al-Saqaṭī 51
Sarrāj 19
Satan 103, 105
sayyid
14, 151, 152 Sceau des saints 21
seven oft-repeated 115, 116, 152
Seville 21
Sfax 50
ShaCā’ir al-Cirfān 77, 91, 96, 97, 104
Shādhilī 5, 11, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37,
38, 39, 45, 49, 50, 51, 74, 149, 158, 160
Shādhilī, Maḳmūd Abū al-CIlyān 215:112 Shādhiliyya 5, 6, 16, 27, 30, 32, 35, 37,
39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 51, 72, 89, 109,
110, 111, 117, 119, 133, 135, 159,
172n.8
ShāfiCī 60, 214n.111
shafāCa (intercession)
15
Shams al-Dīn Muḳammad Abū al-Ishrāq 56, 59
ShaCrānī 57, 71, 120, 144, 145
Sharḳ qa?īda “Mā ladhdha al-Caysh illā
?uḳubat al-fuqarā’” 174n.26 ShīCa / ShīCī 6, 19, 51, 61, 143
Shihāb al-Dīn Aḳmad Abu al-Imdād 56, 59, 60
Shirbinī, Yūsuf 72
siďďīq 13, 14, 16, 41, 42, 43, 144, 178n.72
Silāḳ al-Wafā’iyya
184n.51 Simnānī, CAlā al-Dawla 171n.92,
213n.104
spirit 23, 26, 53, 85, 98, 108, 129, 139,
140, 155, 160, 217n.135
Subkī, Taqī al-Dīn 32 Suhāj 50
Suhurwardī, CAbd al-Qāhir 5 Suhurwardī al-Maqtūl 3
?uwar al-nūrāniyya 80
Suyūṭī 29, 72, 176n.41,
214n.111
Syria 52, 62
Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā 72, 120
Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn 75
tafsīr 2, 75
Ṭahṭāwī 60
Tā’iyya al-kubrā (Muḳammad Wafā’) 73 Tāj 59
Tāj al-Carūs 174n.23 Tāj al-Dīn al-Cādilī 33
tajallī (self-disclosure) 21, 34, 39, 44, 46,
80, 81, 90 - 93, 96, 97, 100, 104, 109,
115, 119, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130,
131, 139, 140, 141, 154, 155, 157, 159,
161, 170n.75
tajdīd (renewal of religion) 7, 35, 90,
110,
115, 117, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 159,
160, 203n.100, 214n.110
takhmīs 174n.26
Tanwīr fī isqāṭ al-tadbīr 30
ṭarīqa 5
Ta’yīd al-ḳaqīqa al-Caliyya 29, 72
Tirmidhī, al-Ḥakīm 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 30, 37, 38,
47, 89, 109, 114, 147, 158, 166n.13,
167n.17
Tirmidhī, Abū CĪsā 18 Tunis 28, 49
Tūsī, Na?īr al-Dīn 20 Tustarī, Sahl 6, 16, 17
CUmar 53, 60, 144, 146
CUmar ibn Idrīs 33
CUmar Makram al-Asyūṭī 60
unicity / union 14, 71, 78, 81, 104, 187n.2
CUthmān 53, 144
CUyūn al-ḳaqā’iq 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39
Uzbekistan 10
Wafā’, CAbd al-Khāliq 185n.69 Wafā’, Abū al-CAbbās Aḳmad 51 Wafā’, Abū al-Fatḳ Muḳammad 152 Wafā’, Abū al-Qāsim 51
Wafā’, Abū al-Tāhir 51 Wafā’, Abū al-Tayyib 51
Wafā’, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḳmad 50, 55, 56,
152
waḳy 10, 44, 82,
111
Wāridāt CAlī ibn Wafā’ 84 Wa?āyā CAlī
Wafā’ 84, 120, 145 Wāsiṭī, Abū al-Fatḳ 28
wirātha / wārith 21
YāfiCī 29
Yaḳya ibn Wafā’ 55
Yāqūt al-CArshī 33, 172n.8, 175n. 36 Yasīn, Abū al-CIlm 30
Yemen
62
Young, K. 165n.26 Yusuf Efendī 60
Zabīdī, Murtaďā 183n.46
Zaghwān 28
Zajjājī 33, 176n.41
Zawāwī 55, 59
zāwiya 4, 5, 50, 52, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 184n.54
ZaylaCī, Muḳammad 50
Zayn al-ābidīn 51
Zaynab 60