Sanctity and Mysticism in Medieval Egypt The Wafå< Sufi Order and

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

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

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 Ï‡H 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_i÷ßH (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÷ßŹH» 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,

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

Zubayr ibn al-CAwwām 60

İsmail Hakkı Hayyam