Leer — Islamic Mysticism Contested — Anónimo

YYIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics EDITED BY DE JONG 5c BEHIND RADIKS ***** ISLAMIC HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION STUDIES AND TEXTS EDITED BY ULRICH HAARMANN AND WADAD KADI VOLUME 29 ^6 8 ^ ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics EDITED BY FREDERICK DE JONG & BERND RADTKE V s U 8 V BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON ■ KOLN 1999 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Islamic mysticism contested : thirteen centuries of controversies and polemics / edited by Frederick He Jong & Bemd Radtke. p. cm. — (Islamic history and civilization. Studies and texts, ISSN 0929-2403 ; v. 29} Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004113002 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Sufism—Controversial literature. 2. Islam—Controversial literature. 3. Sufism History. I. Jong, F. He. II. Radtke, Bemd. III. Series. BIM89.36.l8f> 1999 297.4*09—dc21 99-11737 CIP Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahmc Islamic mysticism contested / edited by F. dejong and B. Radtke. - Leiden ; Boston ; Kdln : Brill. 1999 (Islamic history and civilization ; Vnl. 29) ISBN 90-04-11300-2 ISSN 0929-2403 ISBN 90 04 11300 2 © Copyright 1999 by Koninkhjkt Drill M T. Leiden, The Netherlands AH rights reserved. No part of this publication may he reproduced, translated . stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Drill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive. Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.V Acknowledgements.IX A Note on Transliteration.X Preface.XI FREDERICK DE JONG & BERND RADTKE: Introduction .1 JOSEF VAN ESS: Sufism and its Opponents. Reflections on Topoi, Tribulations, and Transformations .22 I. Perimeters and Constants.45 1. GERHARD BOWERING: Early Sufism between Persecution and Heresy .45 2. FLORIAN SOBIEROJ: The MiUtazila and Sufism .68 3. MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ: Le procts posthume d’lbn ‘Arabi .93 4. WILFERD MADELUNG: Zaydi Attitudes to Sufism .124 5. ESTHER PESKES: The Wahhabiyya and Sufism in the Eighteenth Century .145 6. BERND RADTKE: Kritik am Neo-Sufism .162 II. Al-Andalus, North Africa, and the Middle East.174 I. MARIBEL FIERRO: Opposition to Sufism in al-Andalus ... 174 2. VINCENT J. CORNELL: Faqlh Versus Faqir in Marinid Morocco: Epistemological Dimensions of a Polemic ....207 3. TH. EMIL HOMERIN: Sufis and their Detractors in Mamluk Egypt. A Survey of Protagonists and Institutional Settings .225 VI ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED 4. KAMEL FILALI: Quelques modalites d'opposition entre marabouts mystiques et elites du pouvoir, en Algerie a Tepoque ottomane . 5. R. SEAN O’FAHEY: Sufism in Suspense: The Sudanese Mahdi and the Sufis . 6. PIERRE-JEAN LUIZARD: Les confreries soufies en Iraq aux dix-neuvitme et vingtieme siecles face au chiisme duodecimal et au wahhabisme .283 7. FREDERICK DE JONG: Opposition to Sufism in Twentieth- Century Egypt (1900-1970). A Preliminary Survey .310 III Africa. 324 1. OUSMANE KANE: La polemique contre le soufisme et les ordres soufis en Afrique de VOuest post-coloniale .324 2. ROMAN LOIMEIER: Political Dimensions of the Relationship between Sufi Brotherhoods and Islamic Reform Movements in Senegal .341 3. MUHAMMAD S. UMAR: Sufism and its Opponents in Nigeria: The Doctrinal and Intellectual Aspects .357 4. JACOBUS A. NAUDfi: A Historical Survey of Opposition to Sufism in South Africa .386 IV The Indian Subcontinent. 1. CARL W. ERNST: Persecution and Circumspection in Shattari Sufism .416 2. BRUCE B. LAWRENCE: Veiled Opposition to Sufis in Muslim South Asia: Dynastic Manipulation of Mystical Brotherhoods by the Great Mughal . 436 TABLE OF CONTENTS VII 3. MARC GABORIEAU: Critizing the Sufis: The Debate in Early-Nineieenth-Century India .452 4. ARTHUR F. BUEHLER: Charismatic Versus Scriptual Authority: Naqshbandi Response to Deniers of Mediational Sufism in British India .468 V Central Asia and China.492 1. DEVIN DEWEESE: Khojagdni Origins and the Critique of Sufism: The Rhetoric of Communal Uniqueness in the Manaqib of Khoja c Ali c Azizan Rdmilani .492 2. JO-ANN GROSS: The Polemic of “Official" and “Unofficial" Islam: Sufism in Soviet Central Asia .520 3. MASAMI HAMADA: Le Sufisme et “ses opposants” au Turkistan oriental .541 4. JONATHAN N. LIPMAN: Sufism in the Chinese Courts: Islam and Qing Law in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries .553 5. LEILA CHERIF-CHEBBI: L'Yihewani, une machine de guerre contre le soufisme en Chine? .576 VI Anatolia, Iran, and the Balkan.603 1. AHMET YA§AR OCAK: Oppositions au soufisme dans I’Empire ottoman aux quinzieme et seizieme siecles .603 2. NASROLLAH POURJAVADY: Opposition to Sufism in Twelver Shiism .614 3. MANGOL BAYAT: Anti-Sufism in Qajar Iran .624 4. NATHALIE CLAYER ET ALEXANDRE POPOVIC: Us courants anti-confreriques dans le Sud-Est europeen a vm ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED Vepoque post-ottomane (1918-1990). Les cas de la Yougoslavie el de VAlbanie .639 VII The Malay-Indonesian World.665 1. AZYUMARDI AZRA: Opposition to Sufism in the East Indies in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries .665 2. KAREL STEENBRINK: Opposition to Islamic Mysticism in Nineteenth-Century Indonesia .687 3. MARTIN VAN BRUINESSEN: Controversies and Polemics Involving the Sufi Orders in Twentieth-Century Indonesia . 7 ^ 4. WERNER KRAUS: Sufis und ihre Widersacher in Kelantan/Malaysia. Die Polemik gegen die Ahmadiyya zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts .729 Postscript. 757 List of Contributors. 7 6* Indices. 765 1. Personal Names. 7 65 2. Place Names.. 795 3. Concepts. 803 4. General. 812 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The international Symposium on “Sufism and its Opponents” was held in Utrecht, the Netherlands, from May I through 6, 1995. Utrecht University served as the host of the Symposium, and its Faculty of Arts and Department of Oriental Languages and Cultures were the main sponsors. In addition, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Foundation for Philosophy and Theology (The Hague), the M.Th. Houtsma Foundation (Utrecht), and Reijnhout Vastgoed Management/Rotam Vastgoed b.v. contributed substantially towards the expenses of the Symposium. We wish to acknowledge the support received from all these institutions. Among the many people who helped realise the project were Mir jam Coelen, Hcnrieke Crielaard, Com6 Hanssen, Nico Landman, and Angela Post. They generously donated their time during the Sym¬ posium and contributed to the organisation. Nico Landman gracious¬ ly assumed the role of general assistant to the conveners at a very critical time. He also contributed to solving conversion problems of texts submitted on disk in the early stages of the editing of the pa¬ pers. We thank them all for their commitment. Thanks are also due to Roman Loimaicr, for checking and providing a number of biblio¬ graphical references, to Kenan Furat, who prepared part of the index, to John O’Kanc and Frederique-Jeanne Besson for their invaluable editorial assistance, and to Bruce Lawrence who inspired the choice for the title of this volume. Finally, we wish to thank Ulrich Haarmann, the general editor of the series “Islamic History and Civilization”, for accepting this volume for publication in this series. A NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION Transliteration of Arabic, Persian, Ottoman and Modern Turkish follows the system of the International Journal of Middle East Studies. An attempt has been made by the editors to arrive at con¬ sistency for the transliteration of Chinese, Haussa, Malay, Russian, and Urdu. For other languages, transliterations used are in ac¬ cordance with the recommendations of each individual author. Ara¬ bic terms, such as fatwa and ulama, which have found their way as loan-words into most Western languages, have been rendered with¬ out diacritics in their by now accepted transcriptions. PREFACE The present volume originates in the international symposium on “Sufism and its Opponents" which was convened by Frederick De Jong and Bcrnd Radtke at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, in early May 1995. The idea to organise a symposium with this parti¬ cular focus was born in a discussion on research priorities in the Field of the history of Islamic mysticism which De Jong had with Avram Udovitch and Frank Stewart in Princeton over a decade ago. Al¬ though some initial thought was given to issues pertaining to the or¬ ganisation of such a symposium at Princeton, no concrete plans ma¬ terialised. Several years later, when De Jong was visiting the Uni¬ versity of Bergen in Norway, in another discussion on the state of the art in the study of Islamic mysticism, in this case with Sdan O'Fahey and his colleagues, the idea to organise a symposium on Sufism and its opponents came up again. It was developed to the stage of a fund¬ ing proposal for such a meeting to be held at Bergen. However, the funding request was turned down, and plans were shelved until 1994 when Bernd Radtke joined the Department of Oriental Languages and Cultures in Utrecht University. We formulated a proposal for a scholarly meeting at Utrecht with a distinct focus on inncr-Islamic polemics concerning Sufis and Sufism wherever and whenever found, and we secured the necessary funding allowing us to proceed. The Symposium was conceived as one in an ongoing series of in¬ ternational scholarly meetings on Islamic mysticism and the Sufi or¬ ders. which started in Paris in 1982. Later meetings were held in Sevres (on the Naqshbandiyya) in 1985, in Strasbourg (on the Bektashiyya and related groups) in 1986, in Istanbul (on the Melami and Bayrami traditions) in 1987, in Belgrade (on Sufi orders in the Balkans) in 1989, and in Bamberg (on the Mevleviyye) in 1991. These meetings resulted in a number of publications, such as Les ordres mystiques dans l'Islam. Cheminements et situation actuelle (eds. A. Popovic & G. Veinslein; Paris 1986), Naqshbandis. Cheminements el situation actuelle d'un ordre mystique musulman (eds. M. Gaborieau, A. Popovic & T. Zarcone; Istanbul 1990), Bektachiyya. Etudes sur l’ordre mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach ( eds. M. Gaborieau, A. Popovic, T. Zarcone; Istanbul 1995), Meldmis-Bayrdmis. faades sur trois mouvements mystiques musulmans (eds. N. Clayer, A. Popovic, T. XII ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED Zarcone; Istanbul 1998), and a special issue of Osmanh Araftmnalari (volume xiv, Istanbul 1994) containing the papers pre sented at the conference on the Mevleviyye. These meetings were always immensely stimulating and inspirin e and credit should go to Alexandre Popovic and Marc Gabortcau who initiated these meetings in Paris in 1982 and were involved directly or indirectly, in the organisation of most of the gatherings thereafter, including the one in Utrecht. At Utrecht forty-three papers were pre¬ sented and discussed by the participants and a small audience. The symposium was concluded by Annemane Schtmmel with an elegant summation. Thirty-three of these presentations in an edited and oc¬ casionally substantially revised version make up the present volume Which also includes the edited text of the key-note speech by Josef van Ess, delivered during the opening session of the sympostum Devin DeWeese would have participated in the symposium but was prevented form doing so. However, he was with us in spirit and the paper he had intended for presentation is included here. For the participants, the symposium at Utrecht was a highly re¬ warding meeting of intense, stimulating, and often exiting intel¬ lectual interaction, with good personal chemistry sjistatned by a variety of memorable culinary diversions. We hope the contents of this volume will be equally rewarding to the reader. The Editors Utrecht. November 1998 INTRODUCTION FREDERICK DE JONG & BERND RADTKE Criticism of and opposition to mystical conceptions of Islam and their adherents have been and still are crucial forces shaping and co¬ inciding with socio-political configurations in the world of Islam while constituting an integral part of an ongoing debate inside the Is¬ lamic tradition. Yet, the virtual absence of comparative studies of regional and historical variations in the polemics between Sufis and those adhering to non-mystical conceptions of Islam is perhaps strik¬ ing, as is the absence of more comprehensive studies concerning these polemics,' their historical and cultural determinants and their wider implications. 2 The relevance of such studies for our under¬ standing of Islamic history is obvious. It should be equally obvious that the aim to arrive at a compre¬ hensive view of the polemics in their socio-historical contexts requi¬ res a collective effort such as the present one, in view of the scope of the field, geographically, historically and, by implication, the number of languages involved. 3 Less obvious to the outsider may be the relevance of such an endeavour for our understanding of certain dimensions of present-day fundamentalist Islam and the manner in which anti-Sufi fundamentalist orientations translate themselves into concrete action, such as the destruction of tombs of saints in Lahj in the wake of the Yemeni civil war of 1984, and the killing of Nisar ' Studies standing in the Islamic tradition anc discussing the major issues covered in the polemics between Sufis and their opponents, ax. perhaps inevitably, partisan. Recent examples are Mustafa Hilmi, al-Tasawwuf wa’l-itlijah al-salafi fi'I-'asr al-hadith (Alexandria 1982); c Abd al-Lalif Muhammad al- c Abd. al-Ta?amvuffi’l-Islam wa-ahamm al-i c lira<lat al- warida ‘alayhi (Cairo 1987); and Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Jalaynid. Min qadayd al-tafawwuf fi daw’ al-kitab wa’l-sunna (Riyadh 1989). 2 Elisabeth Sirriych. Sufis and Anti-Sufis: The defense, rethinking and rejection of Sufism in the modem world (Richmond. UK 1998) was still in the press at the lime of writing this introduction. 3 The recently published collection of papers. David Westerland & Eva Evers Rosandcr (cds.). African Islam and Islam in Africa. Encounters between Sufis and Islamists (London 1997) contains a number of contributions which concern Sufism and its Opponents; they sup¬ plement and complete some of the papers published in the present book. 2 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED Ahmad, a Naqshbandi and the chief Muslim cleric of southern Kashmir in June 1994. The generosity he displayed towards Hindus, in line with the Kashmiri Sufi tradition of liberality and acceptance of other faiths,** is said to have been the principal reason for his being killed by members of the separatist movement of fundamentalist ori¬ entation, the Hizb al-mujahidin. In both cases opposition to Sufism assumed forms of physical violence. This, one encounters throughout history. Sufis never had to search for their opponents. Opposition to Sufism goes back to the early formative period of Is-^ lam, with discussions concerning the sunna-based nature of zuhd and sayyaha and the necessary conjunction between zuhd and piety Ac¬ cording to a present-day Muslim scholar, Muhammad Sayyid al- Jalaynid, the earliest ascetics were retreating from the world in peni¬ tence following the events at Karbala, and in response to Umayyad policies. In their zuhd they followed the example of Hasan al-Ba?n who is said to have practised zuhd in imitation of the Imam All. Ibn Taymiyya, whose name figures prominently in the following pa¬ pers, refers in his Risalat al-suftyya wa'l-fuqara 9 to transmissions mentioning that al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110/728) used the term Sufi.* Ibn Taymiyya also mentions that the earliest Sufi hospices (duwayra siifiyya) were built by adherents of Hasan’s student c Abd al-Wahid b. Zayd in Basra. 7 The prevalent view, however, is that it is only since the fourth/tenth century that mystics have been generally called Sufi 8 The question of who was the first to construct a khdnaqah is still unanswered 9 Yet, if the labels of Sufi and Sufism have no cur¬ rency in the early period, the mystical conceptions of Islam emerging in this period enjoy continuity, either in their original or in a rework¬ ed form, in later periods. Thus, the early notion of mahabba — rooted in the all-comprising knowledge that one is loved by God without reason or cause — growing from ma'rifa , and eventually re¬ sulting in unity and identity of lover and beloved, was later tied to 4 On Sufism in Kashmir, and its changing fortunes in the pre-modern penod. see Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi. A History of Sufism in India (Delhi 1978 and 1983) i. 69-72; u. 289-3 . 349-351. See also Ishaq Khan, ‘Islam in Kashmir: A Historical Analysis of its Distinctive Fea¬ tures’. in Christian W. Troll (cd.). Islam in India (Delhi 1985) 86-97. 5 al-Jalaynid 18-20. lidited with notes by Muhammad Rashid Rida ( Cairo 1928) 2. Ibid. 3-4. Cf. the contribution by Bcrad Radtke, p. 163. , Cf. Fritz Meier. Abu Sald-i Abi /-ffavr (Leiden 1976) 302 f; Josef van Ess. Thrologie and Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhunder, Hidschra. Eine Geschichte des rehgidsen Denkens im friihen Islam, i-vi (Berlin-New York 1991-1997) ii. 102 ff. INTRODUCTION 3 the idea of fana 3 (first by Abu Sa c id al-Kharraz). The claims by the early Sufis to reciprocal love between God and themselves as divine¬ ly chosen people were held in conjunction with the notion of tawba. Theories of tawba were central in the discussions in classical Sufism, as pointed out by Gerhard Bowering. Within Sufi circles the notion distinguished the proponents of a gnostic and mystically inspired spirituality from those characterised by a deeply ascetic and traditio¬ nal religiosity. The moment of tawba was conceived as the moment of radical re-orientation to God and lhe beginning of a direct access to Him. Mystics who adhered to this notion of tawba held that their spiritual level was equal to the spiritual level of the prophets. Like¬ wise, they were convinced that God continued to communicate di¬ rectly with these mystical elect after the time of the Prophet. Their self-conception of being a divinely chosen elite alienated society and resulted in conflict with the ordinary believers and the learned alike. One issue was the claim to intense reciprocal love ( e ishq) between God and the mystic. The earliest legal persecution of Sufis, in the se¬ cond half of the third/ninth century in Baghdad, initiated by Ghulam Khalil against AbOT-Hasan al-Nuri and his circle, may be the out¬ come of differences over the concept of c ishq. Yet, as observed by Josef van Ess in his introductory essay, we do not really know what actual accusations were brought against the defendants. Other issues in early Sufism were the precise nature of visionary experiences, and theological concepts such as Sahl al-Tustari’s idea of nur Muhammad , i.e. of primal Man and prototypical mystic. Sahl’s spiritual heritage may have marked the Salimiyya, who, as Bowering points out, were attacked through polemical distortion. At¬ tacks on Sufi Koranic commentary, by Hanbalis in particular, were rooted in the rejection of the esoterical method (ta : wil) employed. Hanbali dominance among these critics should not be taken as a confirmation of presumed Hanbali enmity towards Sufism. As van Ess points out, this is a present-day stereotype: in the Middle Ages Hanbali attitudes were differentiated. During the formative period of Islam, when Sunnism and the Mu c tazila had not yet developed their mutually exclusive concept¬ ions, a combined interest in Mu c tazili theology and asceticism was not uncommon, and Mu c tazill and Sufi orientations could be adhered to by one and the same person. Later, when the Mu c tazila and Sun¬ nism had become dogmatically irreconcilable and politically op¬ posed, Mu c tazilis criticised Sufis as Sunni Muslims and as Sufis. One of the most well-known early Sufis, Dhu’l-Nun al-Misri was imprisoned in Baghdad during the mihna for refusing to accept 4 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED Mu c tazili teaching concerning the createdness of the Koran. Yet, Sufis did not show any noteworthy opposition to the Mu c tazill- backed regime in Baghdad, and a Sufi like Bishr al-Hafi was criti¬ cised for remaining aloof when one of the most famous victims of the mihna , Ahmad b. Hanbal, was imprisoned. Rivalries between two schools of the Mu c tazila, the Ikhshldiyya and the Bahshamiyya, explain why the Sufis of fourth/tenth-century Shiraz were protected by members of the Mu c tazill elite against persecution by others. One of these Sufis was Ibn Khafif, who was ridiculed by Muhassin al- Tanukhi in his Nishwdr al-muhadara t which is used by Florian So- bieroj as a major source for his contribution. The Ikhshldiyya school of the Mu c tazila did not deny the possibility of saintly miracles ( karamdt ). Yet, the majority of the Mu c tazila rejected this notion and accepted only mu c jizdt , i.e. miracles confirming prophethood. They looked upon the claims that Sufis arc able to perform karamdt and are distinguished by God in this manner, as endangering the position of the Prophet. By implication the sharia was thought to be threa¬ tened and even in danger of being rendered irrelevant. To prevent this from happening miraculous behaviour by Sufis was rejected, and was presented by al-Tanukhi as magic which ultimately stems from Satan. Rejection of the Sufi notion of karamdt is consistent with MuTazili rationalism which by logical extension also rejects ilhdm and wajd : knowledge of God is obtained by reasoning and inference, and not through any form of inspiration. In different contexts, such as the persecution of the followers of Ibn Masarra in al-Andalus in the Umayyad period, sainthood and ka- rdmat were key features in the debate that took place around the above-mentioned issues in the second half of the fourth/tenth centu¬ ry. In al-Andalus, saints were probably seen by those in power as constituting a danger to their authority. This danger was compoun¬ ded by Masarri teachings about man’s potential for prophecy by means of the speculative process. As Maribel Fierro argues, perse¬ cution of the Sufis was part of a particular political and social con¬ stellation, and was not so much opposition to Sufism as such. Equally, the actions taken against Ibn Barrajan and Ibn al- c Arif in the Almoravid period, eventually by the ruler himself, seem to have aimed at removing the threat to authority they constituted because of the number of their adherents. Sufism was assimilated by the ulama in the Almoravid, and in the subsequent Almohad periods, and in al- Andalus it was well-established in the sixth/ twelfth century. Even the insurrection of the Sufi Ibn QasI, who rejected reason and fiqfi, and who taught that prophecy should be periodically revitalised by INTRODUCTION 5 means of sanctity, did not result in opposition to Sufism as such. Yet, it resulted in increased sensitivity to ‘political Sufis’ and in measures directed at neutralising such potential threat to religious and worldly authority, without Sufism itself being contested. In the Nasrid era, when Nasrid territory was covered with a network of zdwiyas and ribats, and when Sufi orders had become part of the social fabric, opposition and scholarly debate focused primarily on practice and less on doctrine. Opposition to Sufi practice was inspired by fear that Sufi rituals might eventually replace those prescribed by the sharia. Debate concerning doctrine would seem to have the loci and nature of religious authority as a focus. This bears out incongruous views among the ulama on this matter and demonstrates the absence of any clear dichotomy between fiqaha : and Sufis. Such a dichotomy was more noticeable in Marinid Morocco, where, at the same time, a considerable number of Sufis could be found among the ulama. Here the conflict between ulama and Sufis involved polemics directed against institutionalised Sufism, in¬ formed by Ibn Taymiyya's teachings, and with rural, ribdt -based Sufism as its prime target. Vincent Cornell's analysis of the conflict reveals its development from a problem of communication to a con¬ test for power, and he identifies the differences in epistemological perspectives accounting for this development. Since the jurists could mobilise the power of the Marinid state to secure their position as arbiters of c ilm and c amal y they could secure their authority when¬ ever challenged by the Sufis. Their approach to knowledge and its validation were, in a sense, consolidalcd by the state. This provided them with a stable, rational, and well-ordered universe. Further to the East, in territories under Ziyanid rule, developments which further analysis may identify as similar to those resulting in the opposition between Sufis and jurists in the Marinid state, entailed the persecution of Sufi teachers and violent action against Sufism in its maraboutic and non-maraboutic manifestations. Sufi leaders were perceived as competitors for power by a Ziyanid dynastic-ulama al¬ liance. Ziyanid persecution of mystics eventually weakened their dy¬ nastic authority and prepared the way for the establishment of Otto¬ man rule in Algeria, and for what Kamel Filali calls “la coalition turco-maraboutique” of the Beylerbey period. Later Ottoman rule in Algeria was marked by continuous competition for power and au¬ thority, reminiscent of developments in the Ziyanid period, between the Ottoman bey, the judges and ulama on the one hand, and the marabouts and their followers on the other. Possibly in response to Ottoman rule, maraboutic tribes multiplied in this period, and cha- 6 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED rismatic marabouts were major leaders of anti-Ottoman rebellions. At the same time, genuine and co-opted pro-Ottoman marabouts ad¬ ded to the complexity of the historical developments. From the mid¬ seventeenth century, fuqaha 3 opposition against esoterism became pronounced and aimed at neutralising the maraboutic threat to their power. This development allowed the Ottomans to exploit the deepening rift between the two categories of religious leaders in or¬ der to retain their rule and secure their authority. Real repression of the khwan started in the eighteenth century, and in the second half of this century in particular, when, according to Filali, mysticism spread in conjunction with economic hardship. This is a period of expansion and consolidation for some of the major maghribian Sufi orders, the Tijaniyya, Rahmaniyya, and Darqawiyya, in Ottoman Al- 8 In the Eastern Arab lands, the Zangid and Ayyubid dynasties ai¬ med at the ideological and institutional strengthening of Sunni Islam. The establishment of khartaqahs and madrasas , which they suppor¬ ted served to assure the transmission of correct ritual and belief. In Mamluk society in particular, the spread and development of the khdnaqdhs was quite unique and spectacular in Islamic history. These were the abodes of “funded Sufis", who held daily liturgical gatherings ( hudiir ), and prayed on behalf of others. Thus, in Mamluk society from the thirteenth century, the term Sufi could designate a legitimate professional occupation within the religious establish¬ ment. Such Sufis by profession, were approved of by Ibn Taymiyya, whereas Taj al-Din al-Subki, another famous scholar of the Mamluk period, was highly critical of the khanaqah population. One of the Mu c tazili theologians who upheld the possibility of kardmdt was Abu’l-Husayn al-Basrl. whose doctrine was espoused by the Zaydi Imam Yahya b. Hamza (1328-1349). The Imam Yahya wrote against al-Ghazzall’s views on sama\ yet was well-disposed towards Sufism and had his own shaykh in asceticism. This shaykh, C A1I b. c Abd Allah b. Abi’l-Khayr, was also the shaykh of Ibrahim b. Ahmad al-Kayna c i (d. 1391), who founded Sufi communities all over the Yemen. He found favour with the Imam al-Nasir Salah al- Din since he supported the Zaydi Imamate against the Sunni Rasu- lids. The positive attitude of Zaydi Imams towards Sufism is already encountered among the early Imams who cited the sayings of the early Sufis and praised them. Thus, as was the case in the early Mu c tazila, a positive attitude towards Sufi ascetic piety also pre¬ vailed in early Zaydi Islam. Systematic persecution of Sufis was in¬ itiated by Imam al-Mutawakkil Sharaf al-Din (1506-1558). At the INTRODUCTION 7 root of this was, as Wilferd Modelling implies, a conflict over autho¬ rity in religion. Anti-Sufi polemics reached their apex under Imam al-Mansur al-Qasim (1598-1620), the founder of the Qasimi ima¬ mate. This explains why the Sufis in the Yemen welcomed the Ot¬ toman invasion, and why they were courted by Ottoman governors. In reaction to this alliance al-Mansur wrote a treatise in which he identified the Isma c iliyya (Batiniyya) with Sufiyya, and quotes fat- was of Caspian Zaydi Imams against the Batiniyya as if applicable against Sufism. The pattern set by al-Mansur continued down to the twentieth century: Sufi orders were persecuted, tombs were de¬ stroyed and shaykhs were imprisoned. Ibn al- c Arabi’s Fusus al- liikam, which was especially singled out for criticism by al-Mansur, was burned under later Imams of the Qasimi dynasty. The struggle against the teaching of Ibn al- c ArabI, who was judged favourably by his contemporaries, was initiated by Ibn Taymiyya in the thirteenth century. In a number of tracts, he criticised the theses of wahdat al-wujud, wahdat al-adyar, , non-eternity of punishment, and the complex of teachings concerning haqiqa muhammadiyya and khatm al-walaya. The criticism advanced by this scholar has been either directly quoted or used in a recycled form by the critics of Ibn c Arabi and his followers till today, and most notably by those who stand in the Wahhabi or Salafi traditions. In the Ottoman world, the orthodoxy of al-Shaykh al-Akbar was affirmed in a fatwa issued by Kamal Pasha Zadeh (d. 1534), and the Akbari heritage obtained im¬ perial protection. Criticism of Ibn al- c Arabi continued, but met with strong and unambiguous defenders. An inventory of anti-Akbari po¬ lemics through the centuries is contained in al-Sakhawfs al-Qawl al - munbi , a text which is only available in manuscript form, and is discussed in Michel Chodkiewicz's contribution. The case of one of Ibn al- c Arabi’s critics, Ibrahim al-Biqa c i, which is mentioned in this contribution, receives more detailed coverage from Emil Homerin, Al-BiqaTs condemnation of Ibn al-'Arabl, Ibn al-Farid and their followers as heretics generated a dispute in late Mamluk Cairo which was resolved through intervention by Sultan Qa’itbay himself. The outcome was the exoneration of the followers and supporters of Ibn al- c Arabi and Ibn al-Farid of charges of heresy and infidelity, a shake-up of the religious hierarchy, and the public disgrace and forced exile of al-Biqa c i. Anti-Akbari polemics recorded by al- Sakhawl resounded in Egypt in 1979, when the distribution of the Futuhai al-makkiyya was briefly halted in the course of a sequence of events which included exchanges between critics and defenders of Akbari thought within the Egyptian Parliament. 8 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED INTRODUCTION 9 The author of the Futuhdt was declared an unbeliever by Muhammad b. c Abd al-Wahiiab, whose teaching shaped the ideolo¬ gical core and political radicalism of some of the major movements and organisations in Islam since the late eighteenth century. In her exploration of Ibn c Abd al-Wahhab’s teaching, Esther Pesk.es shows how this teaching completely excludes Sufism and its institutions. The logical incompatibility of Wahhabism and Sufism is inherent to Wahhabi dogma concerning confirmation of tawhid al-rububiyya by means of the fulfilment of tawhid al-uluhiyya. Fulfilment implied proper worship and proper deeds, and comprised the categorical re¬ jection of saints, shrines, and concomitant venerational practices. Fulfillment also comprised the obligation to combat those who did not fulfil tawhid al-uluhiyya themselves. These were unbelievers by implication. When the Wahhabis obtained control over much of the Arabian Peninsula, their fulfilment of tawhid al-uluhiyya implied the destruction of shrines, tombs, graveyards, books, and the rejection of the madhahib and their institutions. They made the existence of Sufi orders in the Peninsula almost impossible by imposing a conception of Islam which completely excludes Sufism and its institutions as un-Islamic. The Wahhabi movement constitutes one of the major challenges Sufism has faced since the rise of that movement in the late eighteenth century. The followers of Wahhabism and those in¬ spired by Wahhabi thought are among the major opponents of Sufism from the movement’s inception till today. Similar to the spread of Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula were some of the effects of the rise of the Mahdist movement in the Su¬ dan: the Sufi orders and the madhahib and their institutions ceased to exist. In the case of the Mahdist movement, the doctrinal justification for the abolition of the brotherhoods was inherent to Muhammad Ahmad’s claim to be the Mahdi. Since the awaited Mahdi had manifested himself and the end of time was near, all believers should leave their Sufi orders, which had now become null and void, and turn to him. Unlike the spread of Wahhabism, the spread of the Mahdist movement entailed no doctrinally motivated destruction of graveyards, shrines and zawiyas. Following the British reconquest of the Sudan in 1898, the majority of Sudanese Muslims ended what Sean O’Fahey calls their “suspended" Sufi identity, and reverted to their former Sufi allegiances. A new flowering of the brotherhoods followed in the early twentieth century, and Sufi orders and Sudanese party politics became interconnected in a unique way in the period thereafter. 10 One of the Sudanese Sufi orders which developed into a major political force was the Mirghaniyya or Khatmiyya. Its founder Muhammad c Uthman al-MIrghani was a disciple of Ahmad b. Idris (d. 1253/1837), who is at the origin of some of the major develop¬ ments of Sufi thought and practice in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Ahmad b. Idris was tolerated in Wahhabi Mecca in the period 1803-1813. Naqshbandiyya groups, with a membership of immigrants from the Central Asian khanates, never ceased to funct¬ ion in Mecca and Medina. Also a branch of the Shadhiliyya Darqawiyya, known as al-Fasiyya, retained control over a zawiya in Mecca. Recent data, moreover, suggest an increase in activity of Sufi orders and their shaykhs or representatives on Saudi territory. 11 Such instances indicate fluctuations in Wahhabi rigidity, which may re¬ flect an inner-Wahhabi development, as suggested by Esther Peskes, or should perhaps be understood in conjunction with factors pertain¬ ing to political expediency. In the case of Ahmad b. Idris, this scholar and the Wahhabis had common ground in their stress on Koran and sunna as ultimate sources of knowledge, and their re¬ jection of the authority of the madhahib. However, with regard to other questions there were important differences between them, as Bernd Radtke shows. For the Wahhabis the only valid approach to the Koran and the sunna as sacred sources was that of the learned written tradition. Ibn Idris, on the other hand, availed himself of the tariqa muhammadiyya by means of which the mystic could have a direct encounter with the Prophet in a waking state (yaqzatan ). Ac¬ cording to Ibn Idris and the Sufis of his day and age, it was possible to communicate with the Prophet as a still living person even if he were in a different state than during his lifetime — which was an outright absurdity to the Wahhabis. The emphasis placed on the pos¬ sibility of the tariqa muhammadiyya represents one of the chief characteristics of more recent Sufism. Thanks to their ongoing direct access and association with the Prophet, advanced Sufis could claim to be quasi-infallible authorities in deriving legal judgements be¬ cause they were capable of obtaining solutions to all legal questions 10 For a summary of developments in the posi-Mahdist period and for references, see e.g. Nicole Grandin. 'Lcs tuniq au Soudan, dans la Come de l'Afrique et en Afrique orientale’, in A. Popovic and G. Veinstein (eds.), Les ordres mystiques dans 1‘islam. Cheminements et si¬ tuation act net le (Paris 1986) 180-182. 11 See Frederick Dc Jong. ‘Les confr&ies mystiques musulmanes au Machreq arabe: centres de gravite, signes de declin et de renaissance’, in Popovic and Veinstein. op. cit. 233. 10 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED from the Prophet himself and were no longer dependent on the use of fallible human reason. Litanies or texts produced by neo-Sufis such as c Abd al- c Aziz al-Dabbagh, Ahmad al-Tijani, Muhammad c Uthman al-Mirghani, Muhammad b. C AH al-Sanusi, and Ahmad b. Idris were presented as directly received from the Prophet or from al- Khadir. These origins justified the position that the recitation of these texts was instrumental in obtaining salvation. They also made the texts direct competitors with the Koran. Neo-Sufism was and is contested by adherents of a variety of conceptions of Islam, includ¬ ing mystical conceptions and Wahhabism. One of the most widespread Sufi orders in West Africa, the Tijaniyya, named after Ahmad al-Tijani, is a neo-Sufi order par ex¬ cellence. TijanI doctrines, which receive attention in the papers by Muhammad Umar and Ousmane Kane , entailed protracted polemics between Tijanis themselves, between adherents of the Tijaniyya and the Qadiriyya, and attacks by Wahhabi oriented groups or by refor¬ mists of Salafi persuasion. Wahhabi and Salafi conceptions of Islam did not meet with much response in West Africa till after the Second World War. In the francophone region, the oldest Islamic organisa¬ tion of Salafi orientation (the Union Culturelle Musulmane ), and hence critical of the Sufi brotherhoods by definition, did not manifest itself until the nineteen-fifties. Its founder and principal ideologue, the Senegalese Cheikh Tour6, considered belief in the miraculous powers of the marabouts to be shirk, and held the Sufi orders to be bid c a. According to him, the orders were a plague on Islam in Africa and constituted one of the major reasons for division among Mus¬ lims. Cheikh Toure’s organisation was co-opted into the political system in Senegal with the aim of creating a political counterweight against the all-powerful marabouts. When the State had completely encapsulated, or “domesticated”, to use Ousmane Kane’s term, the Union leadership, Cheikh Toure founded another reformist Islamic organisation. This organisation, the Jama c at c ibad al-rahman , has anti-secularism as its major ideological concern. The Jama c a tried to obtain support of marabouts in its struggle against the secular state. This, as is pointed out by Roman Loimeier, explains why the Jamd c at abstains from attacking Sufi brotherhoods and marabouts in general, but is highly critical of marabouts who co-operate with the secular state. In francophone and anglophone West Africa accusations of col¬ lusion with colonialism were and still are part of the polemical dis¬ course. In the former regions, however, the reformists accuse the Sufi orders of collaboration with the French authorities, whereas in INTRODUCTION 11 the Nigerian context the adherents of Sufism accused their opponents of being in collusion with colonialism. Since 1972 Wahhabi teaching has spread by a variety of means, and the Sufi/anti-Sufi divide has become more pronounced. In conjunction with expounding on the Wahhabi tenet that Sufism is incompatible with tawhld al-uluhiyya , specific criticism implies that Sufi orders and the cult of saints con¬ stitute bid c a since these are posterior to the Prophet. Critics maintain that Sufi shaykhs arc charletans and exploit the ignorant masses, and that the rituals practised by the Sufi orders are un-Islamic. These points of criticism arise repeatedly in Islamic reformist discourse in West Africa and elsewhere. In the Indian Subcontinent, the breakaway by modernists and neo- fundamcntalists from the Sufi traditions which constituted an integral part of Indo-Muslim culture, started in the second half of the nineteenth century. The focus of the debate and the pre-eminent tar¬ get of reformist anti-Sufi movements in this period and after were the shrine cults and the veneration accorded to deceased masters. In the Sultanate period, ecstatic experience in conjunction with sama l \ listening to Sufi music and poetry, was the prime target of ulama criticism of Sufism. In the Mughal period, enmity to Sufism came first and foremost from the court and concerned claims to spiritual authority by Sufi shaykhs which detracted from the authority of the Emperor. Such a schcmatization, as Bruce Lawrence points out, docs not do justice to the complex reality: no neat “binary relationship of intrinsic hostility or irreconcilable enmity between Sufis and non- Sufis” existed in South Asia. His case-study of Sufism in Mughal India at the time of Akbar identifies this Emperor’s links with Salim Chishti and the Chishtiyya as primarily a strategic move, instrumen¬ tal in enhancing and consolidating his imperial legitimacy. Oppo¬ sition to other Sufi orders is veiled but detectable in contemporary hagiographical and historiographical literature. This veiled oppostion is explained as the concomitant of the preference for a Chishti saint over others, and in conjunction with the conflict inherent in the com¬ petition between and for spiritual and political power, i.e. the conflict between the saint and the king. This, of course, does not mean that persecution of Sufis for their teaching or beliefs did nor occur in Mughal India. The contribution by Carl Ernst , concerning Muhammad Ghawth Gwaliyarl, is a case in point. This Shattari shaykh wrote a detailed account of his ascension ( mi c rdj ), similar to the account of Abu Yazld al-Bastami. This implied his claim to have direct access to God and resulted in a life of persecution and exile. His disciples and descendants seem to have censored this episode 12 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED from Shattari history and became more sharia-oriented, possibly as a result of intense persecution. The major and perhaps most explicit critics of Sufism and its insti¬ tutions in the Subcontinent were the adherents of what came to be known as the Ahl-i hadith movement. The disputes between Sufism and this movement involved differences over mediation, spiritual hierarchy, and personal charismatic authority; these reveal two in¬ compatible forms of Islamic religiosity. The Ahl-i hadith were la¬ belled “Wahhabi” by their opponents. Wahhabi influence on the first scholar in India who formulated views characteristic of the Ahl-i hadith, Muhammad Ismail al-Shahid, is contested by Marc Gabo- ricau , who postulates instead a direct link with Ibn Taymiyya, and suggests the additional influence of the Yemeni Sunni scholar Muhammad b. c Ali al-Shawkani (d. 1834). The relevance of Ismail al-Shahld’s normative positions in the debate concerning Sufism in the very recent past, is borne out in Arthur Buehlcr's contribution where he discusses a tract by Muhammad Hasan Jan (d. 1946). The tract, which is representative of the polemics between Sufis and their opponents during the British colonial period, is a defence of Sufism largely written against Ismail al-Shahid. He was the main disciple of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi, whose reform movement, known as Tariqa-i Muhammadiyya, was inspired by the Naqshbandiyya Mu- jaddidiyya. The movement, which was very similar to a Sufi order, stressed a distinct identity by avoiding and criticising practices of other Sufis which they considered contrary to Islam. As the most radical heirs of the Tariqa-i Muhammadiyya, the Ahl-i hadith con¬ fronted the two other major revivalist/reform groups in British India: the Barelwis and the Deobandis. Central to the teaching of the for¬ mer of these two groups is the stress on nur-i muhammadi in con¬ junction with the belief that the Prophet Muhammad is always pre¬ sent and looking after the world (hadir wa-nazir ), that he could be called upon whenever needed. The Deobandis rejected such neo-Sufi views; they also considered many religious practices characteristic of Indian Sufism and condoned by the Barelwis, to be incompatible with the sunna of the Prophet. A central issue in the polemics be¬ tween the two groups concerned the role of the spiritual mentor, which, in the case of the Barelwi was tied to the intercession of Muhammad, whereas the Deobandis were shaykh-focused while re¬ jecting the notion of the Prophet’s intercession. In modern times Deobandi ideas spread in South Africa through Muslims from this country who studied at Deobandi schools in India. Likewise, the Barelwi movement is represented in South Africa, and INTRODUCTION *•> both groups defend their positions, and are in conflict over Sufism and Sufi religious practices. As described by Jacobus Naude , the conflict over Sufism has escalated over recent years from verbal to physical aggression. The Tabligh movement, which was explicitly associated with Wahhabism, has also been drawn into the fray. The attacks on Sufism by the Tabligh movement have provoked a revival of conscious commitment to Sufism. When the struggle against apartheid intensified, Sufi Islam became associated with the anti- apartheid struggle. Conversely, the South-African ulama and the Tabligh movement came under criticism for not speaking out against racist policies, and for being implicated with the regime. Thus, con¬ flict concerning Sufism in South Africa became part of a conflict with bigger political overtones, which has not yet been resolved. The Tariqa-i Muhammadiyya of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi is some¬ what reminiscent of KhojaganI Sufi communities in Central Asia in the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries: in both cases criti¬ cism of Sufis was not a rejection of Sufism as such, but criticism of institutionalised Sufism as part of a quest for distinct communal identity. KhojaganI critique, as discussed by Devin DeWeese on the basis of a text by Khoja C A1I c Azizan Ramltani, essentially consisted of dissociation from established Sufism by adopting the rhetoric of those who denounced Sufism in general. This dissociation eventually led to the rise of the Naqshbandiyya which was to become one of the major Sufi orders in Asia. Anti-Sufi literature is rare in Central Asia from the fourteenth century until the era of Russian rule. In the Soviet period such litera¬ ture reflects anti-religious propaganda which represents Sufis as fa¬ natics and a menace to society. More significantly, however, Sufism came to signify “the persistence of non-Soviet culture and the re¬ actionary, primitive remnants of a backward tradition”. Sufism was looked upon as antithetical to the Soviet State; it was labelled as “unofficial” Islam and opposed by implication. The dualistic concept of “official" (Soviet Islam) and “unofficial” or “parallel” Islam (Sufism) is, as pointed out by Jo-Atw Gross , a political construct. It is reflected in Soviet historiography of Sufism and is then found in Western scholarship which is essentially based on Soviet sources. No opposition to Sufism as such is noted by Masami Hamada for East Turkestan. Yet, in nineteenth-century sources particular Sufi leaders are criticised for their behaviour. A case in point is Musa Sayrani’s account in which he criticises “politicised Sufism”, i.e. Sufis such as Habib Allah who assumed political authority and participated in the 1864 revolt against the Qing regime, which had 14 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED conquered East Turkestan in the eighteen-sixties. Following the “li¬ beration” of East Turkestan by the Chinese communists, anti-reli¬ gious policies and a campaign aiming at the elimination of Islamic institutions profoundly affected Sufism. Later, during the Cultural Revolution, many shrines were destroyed and many Sufis were killed. Since 1982, however, shrines have been restored and Sufism has come out in the open, reflecting official support for regional forms of Islam as a front against the perceived threat of Islamic fun¬ damentalist movements which are anti-Sufi by dint of their Wahhabi-inspired theological orientation. Opposition to Sufism in China under the Qing dynasty is reflected in a number of court cases analysed by Jonathan Lipmati in con¬ junction with Qing legal culture. These cases illustrate competition between a propagator of the Afaqiyya branch of the Naqshbandiyya (Khafiyya) and the non-Sufi leader of an established mosque com¬ munity, between the Khafiyya (also known as “Old Teaching”) and the Jahriyya (also known as “New Teaching”) of the Naqshbandiyya. The lawsuits, which demonstrate the involvement of the state, were based on the claim that the activities of the defendant fell under the criminal categories of heterodoxy and deluding the people with su¬ perstition. Conflict between adherents of Old and New Teaching not only entailed litigation but physical violence as well. The Jahriyya was looked upon as “New Teaching”, and as subversive, and by im¬ plication as a disrupter of social order. Thus, the Qing authorities sought to suppress this form of the Naqshbandiyya. The involvement of the army finally resulted in a complex constellation of events and in an array of conflicts which are collectively known as the “great Muslim rebellion” of Northwest China. A reformist movement of Wahhabi inspiration, known as the Yi- hewani, arose in this part of China at the end of the nineteenth cen¬ tury. The movement, which is discussed by Leila Cherif-Chebbi , was almost eradicated by Sufi orders supported by certain local authori¬ ties and military chiefs at the end of the second decade of the twen¬ tieth century. In the nineteen-thirties, however, local Muslim warlords supported the Yihewani movement in its struggle against the brotherhoods, and it eventually spread throughout China. During the initial period of communist rule till 1956, the new regime seems to have supported the local Muslim elites for the sake of maintaining social peace. In the roughly two decades after 1958, when the com¬ munist state sought to eradicate religious activities, several leaders of Sufi orders were tried and executed. Similarly, Yihewani leaders lost their lives in this period. Since 1979, however, the new policy of the INTRODUCTION 15 communist regime towards religion has allowed the movement to re¬ constitute itself with vigour and to draw support from the regime. At present, the Yihewani, who promote a negative image of Sufism, es¬ sentially control the religious administration in the country. The heads of the Sufi orders do not seem to play a role of any signifi¬ cance in this administration and are disappearing from official Chi¬ nese Islam. Yihewani teaching derived much from Birgivi Mehmed Efendi's al-Tariqa al-muhamtnadiyya. This text, which was written in the sixteenth century, became known in China at the end of the nine¬ teenth century. Its author, who was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, was at the origin of the Qadizadcli movement, which is qualified by Ahmet Ya§ar Ocak as “le seul mouvement antisoufi au vrai sens du mot dans l’histoire ottomane”. Sufi orders could spread in Ottoman lands virtually unopposed by either political powers or the ulama, till the first quarter of the fifteenth century when the Empire was shaken by the revolt of Bedr el-Din. An exception to this pattern was the persecution of Qalandars at the end of the fifteenth century. During the sixteenth century certain ulama were truly anti-Sufi, as were some agents of the State. They held the Sufis responsible for all social and religious disorders in Ottoman society, whereas the Sufis for their part blamed the State. Disorders and social unrest allowed for the spread of the Malami and Hamzavi movements. Both these Sufi movements had a messianic orientation and attracted the attention of the authorities because of anti-government attitudes. Malamls and Hamzavis were opposed, not only by ulama and state authorities, but also by Sufis belonging to other orders who condemned them as heretics and atheists. Opposition to Sufism in Imam! Shiism goes back to the ninth cen¬ tury and has much to do with the fact that Sufis were Sunnis. Anti- Sufi discourse produced in Shia Islam uses arguments borrowed from anti-Sufi Sunni texts next to sayings of the Imams critical of Sufism. An author whose critical views of Sufism obtained norma¬ tive status in Imam! Shiism is Jamal al-Dln al-Murtada al-Razi. His views are discussed by Nasrollah Pourjavady , who observes that Shii hostility of Sufism continues unabated till the mid-thirteenth century. Thereafter a gradual change sets in, notably with Haydar-i Arnuli’s incorporation of elements of Ibn al- c Arabi’s teaching into Shiism. In the period after Amuli the Shii ulama are devided into those who follow al-Razi in his criticism of Sufism, and those who, like Amuli, accept much of Akbarian teaching. At times, opponents 16 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED of c irfan and of the Sufi brotherhoods gained the upper hand with dire consequences for the adherents of Sufism. In this connection, Pierre-Jean Luizard points to the second half of the seventeenth century when Sufism was suppressed, along with falsafa and Sun¬ nism, and the Sufi orders in Iran were destroyed. The person re¬ sponsible for this state of affairs was Muhammad Baqir MajlisI, who was shaykh ul-islam of Isfahan and the most powerful scholar of his era. Later, in the second half of the eighteenth century, when the Usulis had vindicated the Akhbaris, the Usull ulama engaged in per¬ secuting Sufis to the point of extinction. The modem form of Shiism, which was codified by Murtada Ansari (1799-1864), the first marji c al-taqlid , makes imitation of a living mujtahid obligatory and by implication rejects following a Sufi shaykh. This, in a sense, has consolidated the prevalent view in Twelver Shiism at present, which denounces Sufism as being opposed to Shiism and different from Is¬ lam. One of the most explicit denunciations of Sufism in the more recent period was produced by Ahmad Kasrawl, one of Iran’s fore¬ most early-twcnticth-century intellectuals. He labelled Sufism as su¬ perstition, as devoid of interest in this world, and also denounced the Persian literary heritage of mystical poetry. His views, which are discussed by Mongol Bayat , do not seem to have outlived him into the present. At least among the ulama Kasrawi’s ideas have left no traceable residue. Their attitudes, as Pourjavady points out, essential¬ ly go back to al-Razi and Amuli, while opponents and adherents of Sufism in Iran are evenly balanced at present. When Murtada Ansari, the first marji c al-taqlid , took up residence in al-Najaf, other forms of religious authority in Shii Iraq became devoid of legitimacy, and Sufi-oriented currents in Shiism in Iraq disappeared. Moreover, since the Ottoman Empire was a Sunni State, and since Sufi in Iraq essentially meant Sunni, the Iraqi Shiis were necessarily opposed to Sufism. During the Hamidian period in particular, the heads of Sufi orders were integrated into the Ottoman state and were perceived as representatives of Ottoman power. They were cultivated and protected against reformists with Wahhabi-in¬ spired orientations such as some of the members of the al-Alus! fa¬ mily. Anti-Sufi orientations could not become popular in Ottoman Iraq which harboured a Shii danger and was at the front-line of the Wahhabi threat. After World War I, when the British established control over Iraq, the Prime Minister of the Iraqi state under their mandate was the head of the Qadiriyya in Baghdad. The heads of the Sufi orders sided with the British in the confrontation with the Shiis who were hostile to the mandate and aimed at complete indepen¬ INTRODUCTION 17 dence. During the Kingdom of Iraq, the shaykhs of the orders were involved with the Monarchy. Following the revolution of 1958, the new regime deprived them of most of their prerogatives, including the revenues from the awqdf\ thus prompting the demise of the Sufi orders in Arab Iraq. In the twentieth century, the sequestration of awqdf established in favour of the orders or the transmission of control over awqdf from the heads of Sufi orders to government agencies, affected the exis¬ tence of the orders in several other parts of the world. Examples are Syria and Egypt, where economic considerations in conjunction with ideological convictions and political motives inspired the regimes to arrange for state monopolies on the control of awqdf >2 In Syria the demise of several Sufi orders, such as the Mawlawiyya and the Sa c diyya, was largely the result of the loss of revenue from their awqdf and the consequent erosion of their financial base. 13 In Egypt in modern times, direct involvement of the state with the management of awqdf of the Sufi orders, in conjunction with a po¬ licy aiming at obtaining more control over the orders and their heads, dates back to the mid-nineteenth century. Such efforts by the state continue in the period thereafter and result in the transformation of the Sufi orders into a fully fledged bureaucratic system. The regula¬ tions for the Sufi orders issued in 1893, and 1905, conlain a number of paragraphs prohibiting certain ritual practices in response to re¬ formist criticism. Yet, the impact of Salafi criticism on the Sufi or¬ ders in Egypt remained limited indeed, and movements aiming at islah , both internal and external to the Sufi orders, do not have an impact until the nineteen-forties. Wahhabism, represented in an undiluted form by Mahmud Khattab al-Subkl and his organisation, became a major challenge to Sufism in the nineteen-twenties. His writings elicited rebuttals from an array of famous Egyptian scholars, most of them with an Azhari training and with a teaching post at this institution. A period when the Society of the Muslim Brothers developed into the major opponent of the Sufi orders was cut short in 1955 when the Brothers were prohibited by the new Egyptian regime. In socialist Egypt the Sufi orders experienced a 2 Concerning Egypt, sec Gabriel Baer, ‘Waqf Reform’, in idem. Studies in the Social History of Modem Egypt (Chicago 1969) 79-92. On the waqf reforms in Syria in 1953, which implied the end of the zawivas and takiyyas as functioning institutions, see Dawud al-Takriti, Al-nusus al-'aqariyya. Al-waqf (Damascus 1967) 229-231. 13 Cf. De Jong. *Lcs confreries mystiques'. 212f. for the Sa'diyya in Syria. On the Mawlawiyy a in Syria and in the Arab world, see El, s.v. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED revival which was closely tied to a number of political objectives, which are spelled out by Frederick De Jong in his contribution. At the same time, however, the financial base of many orders and shaykhly families was seriously undermined by the waqf reforms and the contemporaneous land reforms enacted by the new regime. 14 In Yugoslavia the pious foundations in favour of tekke s were se¬ questrated in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the period of the Kingdom, as one of the anti -tarikat measures taken by the Ulema-medilis in Sarajevo. In addition, several tekke s were destroyed, and the resi¬ dents of others were expelled. These measures against the Sufi orders reflect an anti-Sufi movement which was supported by the ulama of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They aimed at reducing the role played by Sufi shaykhs in the wider society and at obtaining control over the orders and their establishments. This was equally the case with the Ulema- medilis in Skoplje (with authority over Serbia, Kosovo, and Macedonia), which called for measures of control and drew up regulations to this effect. The responses to this challenge were few and in writing only, possibly because the Sufi orders had lost their vigour and were somewhat deprived of orientation in the world of the post-Ottoman Balkans. In the communist era, all tekkes in Bosnia-Herzegovina were closed by the Ulema-medilis. This did not happen in Macedonia and Kosovo, where, as Nathalie Clayer and Alexandre Popovic point out, the tekkes were much more numerous, and the regime seems to have aimed at using tarikat and shaykhs to balance the power and influence of the ulama in these areas. Since 1989 tekkes have been allowed to function again in Bosnia- Herzegovina. The formal lifting of the prohibition of 1952 was preceded by a period of tolerance during which tekkes were re-acti- vated and Sufi orders could reconstitute themselves in Bosnia-Her¬ zegovina. A Sufi organisation was established which developed parallel to the official Muslim communities as embodied in the Ulema-medilis. One category of ulama reacted with direct attacks on the new Sufi organisation, its leader, and its periodical. Another group aimed at channelling the revival of the Sufi orders in Bosnia- Herzegovina in particular. They emphasise Sufism and the sharia as inseparable components of Islam. Albania is one of the areas in the world which has not experienced anti-Sufi movements in any period of its history, at least till 1944. Sufi orders were numerous in Albania in the Ottoman period, and re¬ 14 Cf. Baer. op. cit. 88-92. ceived official recognition by the state in post-Ottoman Albania. Many of the senior Muslim leaders were tainted by Sufism and even reformist ulama remained close to Sufi milieus. Here, as elsewhere in the Balkans, the coming to power of a communist regime changed matters dramatically, i* The climax of communist suppression came in* 1967 when all manifestations of religion were prohibited and all religious establishments were closed, and subsequently used for dif¬ ferent purposes or entirely dismantled. Whereas opposition to Sufism in the post-Ottoman Balkans is fo¬ cused on Sufi institutions, opposition in the Malay-lndonesian world would seem to be focused on teaching. The earliest writings critical of a mystical interpretation of Islam originate in fifteenth-century Java. This was the period when Siti Jcnar, “the Javanese al-Hallaj”, was declared a heretic and put to death. Authors who are central to the polemics concerning Sufism in the Malay-lndonesian world are Hamza al-Fansuri and Shams al-DIn al-Sumatrani, Nur al-Din al- Raniri, and c Abd al-Ra 3 uf al-Sinkili, who all lived in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These scholars have become icons of Malay-lndonesian Islam. To their names should be added c Abd al- Samad al-Palimbani and Da’Od al-Fatani who lived in the eighteenth century. Their ideas and some of the vicissitudes of their lives are discussed by Azyurnardi Azra in his contribution. Al-Fansuri and al- Sumatrani were adherents of Akbarian Sufism; they were attacked for this reason. Al-Raniri, who belonged to the c Aydarusiyya order, wrote against wahdat al-wujud and was involved in the prosecution of adherents of Wujudi teaching in the Sultanate of Aceh in the era of Sultan Iskandar II (1637-1641). Al-Sinkili, who was a khalifa of the Shattariyya and the Qadiriyya, adhered to the idea of pre-creation of the potential universe from al-nur al-muhammadi. He stressed the view that haqiqa cannot be experienced without combining the tariqa with the sharia, and was inclined to establish reconciliation between opposing views instead of contributing to confrontation. Al- Palimbani was an adherent of Ghazalian Sufism which he combined with Akbarian ideas. He was influenced by al-Ranirf s views critical of the Wujudiyya. Opposition against wujudi thought, i.e. directed against philosophical Sufism and with scripturalist forms of Sufism as its correlates, was characteristic of the leading ulama in the Ma¬ lay-lndonesian world in the eighteenth century. Adherents of notions 15 cf. Alexandre Popovic. L'Islam balkanique. Les musulmons du sud-est europten dam la piriode post-otiomane (Berlin 1986). passim. 20 ISLAMIC MYSTICISM CONTESTED of wahdat al-wujud, who were explicit in the expression of the lived experience of their beliefs, could loose their lives, as Azra illustrates with the case of c Abd al-Hamid Abulung in South Kalimatan. The complex nature of cases of opposition to Islamic mysticism in nineteenth-century Indonesia, and the problems involved in identify¬ ing the various determinant factors in each case, appears from Karel Steenbrink' s paper. In Javanese texts opposition between legalistic Islam and santri Islam, sometimes in conjunction with anti-Arab and Javanese nationalist tendencies, is evidenced. Teachers who stood in the tradition of santri Islam, and might be affiliated, though not ne¬ cessarily so, with a particular brotherhood, were opposed by penghu- lus and colonial authorities, often in alliance, once the former be¬ came successful and attracted adherents. Such teachers were cen¬ sored and/or deported for mainly political reasons. The colonial au¬ thorities only perceived the Sufi orders in general as a danger after the beginning of the war in Aceh in 1873. Concern for this potential danger, in conjunction with a complex sequence of events involving opposition to the Naqshbandiyya, explains the official distribution of a tract against the Sufi orders in West Java in the eighteen-eighties. This tract was written by Sayyid c Uthman al- c Alawi, who was one of the most visible Muslim notables in the archipelago in his time. As pointed out by Marlin van Bruinessen and by Werner Kraus in their respective contributions, the tract targets certain Naqshbandf leaders and not Sufism per se. Forceful criticism of Naqshbandi teaching and practice was formulated by Ahmed Khatib, the father of Indonesian twentieth-century reformism. He wrote a number of tracts, which provided much of the source materials for subsequent attacks on the order, and which continued to elicit refutations by ad¬ herents of the Naqshbandiyya till the very recent past. The influence of the Salafiyya movement is noticeable in the periodical al-Imdm and al-Munir and in the teaching of two organisations, Muhamma- diyah and Al Irsyad, founded in the early twentieth century. These reformist organisations, however, were neither anti-Sufi nor were they involved in debates concerning tarekats. Such debates took place within the traditionalist camp where Sufis engaged in polemics concerning specific aspects of teaching. Cases in point concern teachings of the Tijaniyya and the Naqshbandiyya. The polemics against the Naqshbandiyya were carried on within the broader con¬ text of party politics in the period after independence. The periodical al-Imdm, which was the first publication to spread Salafi thought in Southeast Asia, had considerable influence in Ma¬ laysia and in the Dutch Indies. It is a major source for Werner Kraus’ INTRODUCTION 21 contribution which concerns the opposition to the Ahmadiyya (Idrisiyya) order in twentieth-century Malaysia in particular. Oppo¬ sition to Sufism in Malaysia does not start with opposition to this “neo-Sufi” order, but is directed against the Shattariyya at the end of the nineteenth century when it became discredited in Malaysia and in the Dutch Indies. The attack against the Ahmadiyya was published in the pages of al-Imdm , whose editor-in-chief, Mohammad Tahir, eventually turned against all Sufi orders and expressed the opinion that they should be formally prohibited by the authorities of the state, that their shaykhs should be exiled, and their adherents punished if they do not abandon their despicable practices. The ideas of Mo¬ hammad Tahir stand in a Salafi tradition which has shaped Islam in Malaysia in the twentieth century. This brand of Islam is essentially inimical towards the Sufi orders and their teachings, has become in¬ creasingly scripturalist, and seems to have developed towards “a simplistic form of Salafi exoterism that reduces theology and dogma to the lowest common denominator”, as Vincent Cornell has re¬ marked with reference to twentieth-century Morocco. Elsewhere in the world of Islam similar developments are notice¬ able, and mystical Islam is contested at present as much as it was in the past, with considerable variation in the nature and intensity of the contest. An adequate understanding of the nature of these contests requires the penetration of the complexities of their historical con¬ text. Such a historicising approach, while taking into account the wi¬ der socio-political configuration, unites the papers presented in the following pages. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS 23 SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS REFLECTIONS ON TOPOI. TRIBULATIONS. AND TRANSFORMATIONS JOSEF VAN ESS When the three Qalandar dervishes knock at the door, Shahrazad, it would seem, is about to pause in her narrative. What is going to hap¬ pen? An orgy has been taking place in the house; some people have been having a rollocking time, three young ladies and a porter whom they invited to stay. And now these skinheads, mystics as they pre¬ tended to be, devoid of beards, not even a moustache, rings in their ears, possibly even through their genitals, wearing coarse garments and presumably a conical hat, 1 young and full of unspent power though exhausted after a long journey. ‘And when Shahrazad per¬ ceived the arrival of dawn, she brought to a close what it was permit¬ ted her to say’ — this is what we would expect to occur now, in or¬ der to give Shahriyar, the king, happy dreams full of sex and crime, and in order to whet the listener’s appetite for the next instalment of the soap opera. But, unlike television, the story goes on and takes a completely different turn. First surprise: the three men are allowed to come inside. It is true, they are foreigners, and so they have a right to be treated as guests. But they could have gone to a khanqah or even to a mosque; travellers would always have found a place there to stretch out and even to wash their feet. The only snag was: no one would have liked to see them there; these were not the kind of people pious Muslims cared to associate with. Then why do the ladies invite them in? Perhaps because they are a little bit curious and therefore not as cautious as they should have been. But all this is quickly fol¬ lowed by the second surprise: the three suspicious persons are polite. They ‘pronounce the salutation of the Muslims and demonstrate their 1 Cf. Ft iv, 472b. s.v. Kalandar. The phenomenon of the wandering dervishes in general has recently been analyzed by A.T. Karamustafa. God's Unruly Friends (Salt Lake City 1994). respect’ as the text tells us. 2 Qalandars were generally known for their rather uncivilized behaviour. But in this case they are different, and what now follows is anything but an intensified version of the previous orgy. Rather, in the end each one of them talks — about himself, of course — and it turns out that all three of them had been princes; thus the friendly reception had ultimately been rooted in a correct presentiment. Nevertheless, the unknown guests still act in accordance with their disguise. When they see that the porter is drunk, they conclude he is one of their kind, a Baghdadi Qalandar so to speak, shabby but joyful, and they set to drinking wine them¬ selves. When they are provided with musical instruments, a tambou¬ rine, a lute, and a Persian harp, they display their artistic abilities, and they sing together with the ladies — merry-making of a kind which could only be performed in a private home; music was frow¬ ned upon by many jurists. When, shortly afterwards, the caliph HarQn al-Rashid joins the group, likewise in disguise and therefore thought to be a rich mer¬ chant, we are given to understand thal all this took place in the se¬ cond/eighth century. In reality the society depicted in the story, or better: the stereotypes reflected, are those of Mamluk Egypt. 3 Qalan¬ dar dervishes became a ubiquitous phenomenon only in the se- venth/thirteenth century, by then having spread beyond the borders of Iran. They were still regarded as strange; the Mamluk sultan al- Malik al-Nasir forced them to adopt normal dress. 4 They were known to infringe the code of social behaviour; therefore our story can depict them as drinking wine and making music. The porter en¬ joys this; he even gets drunk in the unusual female company — something we are not told about the dervishes (who are princes, after all). But eventually he finds himself becoming incensed; lie cannot understand why the ladies let these people in, and when he hears that the Qalandars take him for one of their own kind he loses his temper. It is true that, when the opportunity arose, he did not hesitate to set aside the moral principles he customarily subscribes to, but we are given to understand that ultimately he does not have the slightest doubt about the validity of those principles. He is a bachelor, as we are told; this helps restrict the shocking aspect of the debauchery. In * Alf lavla wlayla. German translation by E. Littmann. Die Erzfihlttngen a as den Tousendundein Ndchten. i-vi. 2nd. cd. (Wiesbaden 1953) i. 109 f.; English translation by R.F. burton. The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, i-xii (London 1894) i. 86 f. CL the article by Th.E. Homcrin below p. 225 ff. Cf. El iv. 473 b. s.v. Kalandarivya. 24 25 JOSEF VAN ESS his view people who turn the moral code upside-down, namely the Qalandars, cannot be trusted; if ‘they enter a populous city’, he says, ‘they convert it into a howling wilderness’. 5 He represents the sound, reliable altitude of the ordinary folk. But what about the ladies? They are also, in their own way, quite conservative. They enjoyed the orgy, but only to the degree that is recommendable in a bourgeois puritanical society: they are virgins as the story-teller gives us to understand, and they remain so. 6 They are out to have some Tun; but they also want to be able to make a good match when it comes to getting married. When they are confronted with the new guests they become curious, but since the porter is in the house they know that they won’t have to pay a price. They as¬ sume that when the dervishes in their provocative get-up play the game of ‘epater le bourgeois’, it is really nothing more than a game; therefore they can afford to aestheticize the dangerous by reducing it to a bourgeois titillation. We feel reminded of the way our generation likes to deal with certain forms of pop-music; Gangsta-Rap would be the best example. ‘Invite the ghetto into your home!* Now all this is literature, not reality. 7 8 * * Where would we expect fiction to manifest itself more obviously than in the Arabian Nights? More¬ over, our Arabian Nights are not necessarily those narrated by the Arab story-tellers in Mamluk Egypt. Muhsin Mahdi has reminded us of the complicated history of the text, the enormous changes it un¬ derwent and the continuous additions made to it because of the strong ‘Orientalist’ leanings prevalent among the enlightened read¬ ing public of eighteenth-century France and ninteenth-century Eng¬ land (or British India).* In the Arabic original the three Qalandars do not pronounce ‘the salutation of the Muslims’* but simply ‘give 5 Burton 95. 6 I.itunann 110. 7 The story has recently been treated by Sandra Naddaff in her book Arabesques. Narrative Structure and the Aesthetics of Repetition in the 1001 Nights (Evanston 1991) and by Amiri Miqucl. Les Dames de Bagdad (Paris 1991). However, both authors put the stress differently in their analysis. David Pinault. Story-Telling Techniques in the Arabian Nights (Leiden 1992) does not deal with the story at all. 8 M. Mahdi. The Thousand and One Nights. From the Earliest Known Sources . vol. iii (Ixidcn 1994). Volume i-ii of the same work contain an edition of the Syrian manuscript used by Galland for the first seven volumes of his French translation which he published between 1704 and 1706. * Cf. note 2 above. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS thanks’ (shakarii)™ and when the porter thinks that they convert *a populous city into a howling wilderness’, 11 * he seems to do so not be¬ cause of their being Qalandars but because each of them has lost one eye, and thus their presence evokes the evil omen of the Dajjal. 17 All this is, however, not essential for our purpose. The additions and changes only underline, in our case, the emphasis intended by the original text, and acknowledging that we are dealing with mere fic¬ tion in no way prevents us from affirming that literature, by the manner in which it depicts things, at least conveys a reality of per¬ ception. What we learn from the story is how the person telling it viewed certain behavioral reactions and social stereotypes. Seen from this perspective, the Qalandars certainly appear to be strange fellows, but they are no heretics, and they are not a real dan¬ ger either. If the author had felt obliged to demonize the Sufis in front of his audience, he would have used another setting. As a mat¬ ter of fact, mysticism does not come into the picture at all; the spiri¬ tual dimension is kept entirely in the dark. We have, of course, to keep in mind that the Qalandars he wants to describe are, in reality, no Qalandars: they are kings. But this element of the story has not yet come to the surface. We may be pretty sure that he wants to say no more than what most of his listeners expected to hear, namely an allusion to an unconventional life-style. These fellows, his story im¬ plies, did not marry as normal people were supposed to do. They did not accumulate wealth but subsisted on charity. This had its roots in what angry theologians used to call tahrim al-rnakasib , the anathe¬ matization of all mercantile activity. 13 They did not reside anywhere, they were always foreigners. They were lax in following the obliga¬ tory prescriptions of Islam; in this respect they belonged to the ahl al-ibaha whom al-Ghazzali had vituperated — in a treatise written ill Persian so that even the common people could understand it. 14 They did not try to conceal their faults, since they feared hypocrisy (riya') more than sin. In this respect they stood in the tradition of the 10 Mahdi. i. 137.1. 15: cf. the translation of Mahdi’s text by H. Haddawy. The Arabian Nights (Ixrodon 1990) 76 f. * 1 Cf. note 5 above. ^ Mahdi, i. 146.1. 5 s. from below/trs. Haddawy, 85. But cf. the sixteenth-century report by Giovan Antonio Mena vino as quoted by Karanuislafa. God's Unruly Friends 7. Cf. my Theologie und Gesellschaft itn 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra. i-vi (Berlin 1991-1997) iii. 132 s. and ii. 547. Otto Prelzl. Die Streiischrift des Gazdli gegen die Ibtihiya. Sitz.-Ber. Bayer. Ak. 14 • Phil -Hist. Abt, Jg. 1933. Heft 7 26 27 JOSEF VAN ESS Malamatiyya — although the latter had still scrupulously performed the commandments of the Law.15 Above all, there was the unusual get-up. It is true that the beard was not yet, as it seems, the symbol of outstanding piety as it has be¬ come in recent years; sometimes a long beard was understood in¬ stead as a sign of stupidity. 16 But a moustache was rather normal, and several well-known ahadith described how to clip it in order to demonstrate asceticism. 17 The hair could be short as the Kharijites had worn it, but to shave one’s head completely was definitely too much. The shock was deliberate, and it was deep. There seems to have been more behind it than just provocation: the Qalandar der¬ vishes intended to reveal fully the beauty of their face. 18 For God had created Adam ‘ did su rati hi, ‘according to His face’ as this could be understood, and He loved beauty since He was beautiful Him¬ self. 19 But we may safely assume that many people were not aware of this reason, and even if they knew it they did not have to take it seriously: granted that God did not have a beard ,20 He had never been described as being bald. A whole gamut of offences then, social as well as theological ones. But was this enough to provoke opposition? There was curiosity, there was astonishment and silent disapproval, but for outright oppo¬ sition we usually need more: a power struggle. For a long time, how¬ ever, Sufis did not have very much power, and they usually remained within the limits of accepted piety. This may be the reason why their earliest opponents arc found among their immediate neighbours, i.e. those who interpreted asceticism in a different way. When, in the se¬ cond half of the third/ninth century, mystics were for the first time threatened with legal prosecution, I mean Abu’l-Hasan al-Nuri and his circle in Baghdad, the opponent, a certain Ghulam Khalil, was not a jurist nor a Hanbalite as has been surmised, but an ascetic who had himself written a Kitdb al-inqitd ‘ ild’lldh. He came from Basra where at that time, shortly after Ibn Hanbal’s death, the Hanball 15 EI iv. 473a; cf. also Frit/. Meier. Abu Sa'ld-i Abu l-tfayr (Leiden 1976) 494 ff. and Richard Gramlich, Die schiitischen Denvischorden Persiens i. 74 ff. with regard to the KJiaksar. *6 cf. H. Ritter. Dos meer der seele. Mensch, well und Goti in den geschichten des Faridttddin ‘Atfar (Leiden 1955) 343. 17 Theologie und GeseUschaft ii. 385 f. 18 EI iv. 474a. 19 Cf. Meier. Abu So'id 503 f. aud the material in: Theologie und GeseUschaft iv. 377 ff. 26 Theologie und GeseUschaft iv. 381 f. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS school (to the extent that it already existed at all) did not yet dispose over any influence. But he managed to get access to the court where he was protected by the mother of al-Muwaffaq, and he may have impressed high society as a popular preacher. He would not have been the first to play this role; similar influence had been exerted by Mansur b. c Ammar, a man from Khurasan who had won the favour of Zubayda, the wife of Harun al-Rashid, and had even been re¬ ceived by the caliph himself. 21 The preaching of both persons had been noted down and was circulated in written form; Ghulam Khalil’s sermons were collected in a Kitdb al-mawd'ii. When he died, the Bazaris in Baghdad closed their shops. But what was it that made him so angry? At the court he had no cause to fear any competition from the Sufis yet. Perhaps there was more reason to do so among the common folk. Most of those whom he persecuted were not rich. This is quite clear in the case of al-Nuri, but also seems to be true of al-Kharraz who was a cobbler if we may judge from his name. Seventy-five people in total had been put on the black list by the muhtasib and were wanted by his bailiffs, a considerable number for a movement which was so young. Al- Junayd, on the contrary, was not molested; he belonged to another social class, and he could pose as a jurist. Ghulam Khalil certainly realized how, at Basra, al-Hasan al-Basri’s asceticism (which he certainly appreciated) had turned into something more emotional, more ambiguous under c Abd al-Wahid b. Zayd; c Abd al-Wahid b. Zayd attributed the hadith al-'ishq, which he disseminated, to al- Hasan al-Basri. Some time later al-Muhasibi, who also originated from Basra, went to Baghdad; though standing in al-Hasan’s tradi¬ tion, he did not shun the new trend. Was this a power struggle then for the hearts of the Baghdadi populace? We do not know. We do not even know what the actual point was that Ghulam Khalil took up in the trial. The Sufi sources, all of them legendary and quite late, tell us that the offence had to do with the concept of c ishq, intense love. But was it this term which disturbed him, unlike the term mahabba , or was it the social behaviour he as¬ sociated with it? The meetings of the Sufis were attended by women as well as men; it was a woman, we hear, who, out of jealousy, urged Ghulam Khalil to act. In the only text we still have from him, the Kitdb shark al-sunna (a significant title!), he says: ‘Beware of the company of those who invite to yearning and love and who enjoy a ^ Theologie und GeseUschaft iii. 102 ff. 28 29 JOSEF VAN ESS tete-a-tete with women’ 22 And taking one of the Prophet’s Com¬ panions as a witness, he exclaims in a report that he transmitted: ‘May God curse a person who gives a boy a kiss. But if the same person embraces him, he will (even) be beaten with fiery whips; and if he has sex with him, he will go to Hell’. 23 Ghulam Khalil was a moralist, and although he cannot be counted among Ibn Hanbal’s pupils, he mentions the latter with respect in his book, along with Malik b. Anas and others; he shares their pietism and their suspicion of unbridled emotions. We may call him a fundamentalist; he fol¬ lowed the sahdba in whatever he knew about their way of life. The Companions, he said, had done justice to Islam in every respect. No one should ever go beyond the Koran, and we should only talk about God the way God has done so Himself in Scripture. To think about why and how is detrimental. 24 Al-Muhasibi was slandered by the Hanbalites for similar reasons. During a wedding, so they reported, he had tried to watch the women through a balustrade and his head got stuck between the bars; when he was reprimanded because of his behaviour he remarked that he wanted to imagine the houris in Paradise. 25 This reminds us again of c Abd al-Wahid b. Zayd; his disciples had gone out at night into the desert in order to meet the houris there.26 The suspicions one har¬ boured towards al-Muhasibi were expressed in the words of Ibn Hanbal himself: ‘Don’t be deceived because he lowers his head! He is a bad person. You cannot know him unless you have tested him. Don’t talk to him, and don’t pay respect to him! Should you really attend the classes of anyone who transmits hadith from the Prophet, even if he is an innovator? Nay, show him no respect and no fa¬ vour!’ 27 Here we have it for the first time, the characteristic catchword: bid c a , innovation. It seems that many people, even among those who were close to Ibn Hanbal, felt respect for al- 22 Cf. the text in Louis Massignon. Recueil de text* inedits concemanl fhistoire de la mystique en pays d'lslam (Paris 1929) 213 f. . . . ™ #lo *n ! 23 a l-DhahabI, A lizdn al-i'iidal. cd. f Ali Muhammad Btjawi. i-«v (Cairo 1382/1963) i. 142.1.6 f. . . .. 24 Theologie and Gesellschoft iv. 282 ff.; cf. the article by Gerhard Bowenng in this volume, p. 54 f.. and Christopher Mclchert. ‘The Transition from Ascetism to Mysticism at the Middle of the Ninth Century C.E.*. Stadia Islamica Ixxxiii (1996) 64 ff. 25 Cf. Theologie und Gesellschoft iv, 199. 26 Ibid, ii, 98. . ( . 22 Ibn Abi Ya c la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, cd. Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi. i-u (Cairo 1371/1952) i. 234.1. 2 ff.; cf. also my Gedankenwell des Hdrit al-Muhasibi (Bonn 1961) 9 f. and 29. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS Muhasibi and his approach, but, so the hardliners thought to have understood their master, there is a criterion by which to measure his ideas, namely the prophetic sunna , and according to this yardstick he did not come off well. The Hanbalites are reputed to have remained the arch-enemies of Sufism. In reality, however, this is not more than a stereotype de¬ rived from the fact that, in our limes, Hanbalism tends to present itself under the form of Wahhabism; as a matter of fact there is not much love lost for mysticism in Saudi Arabia. Yet, in the Middle A°es the attitude was much more differentiated. Iran is a case in point. In Isfahan, Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Banna 3 (d. in 286/899) seems to have simultaneously smoothed the way for Hanbali influ¬ ence and propagated a moderate kind of mysticism. He was the great-grandfather of Abu Nu c aym, the author of the well-known Hilyat al-awliya\ It is true that Abu Nu c aym himself was under at¬ tack from the Hanbalites; for a long time he could not leach in the Great Mosque because Ibn Manda, the spokesman for the ashdb al hadith, considered him to be an innovator. But among his contem¬ poraries we find Abu Mansur Ma c mar b. Ahmad al-I$fahani, a Hanbal! who had studied with such famous hadith authorities as Abu’l-Shaykh and al-Tabarani and nevertheless called al-Junayd and al-Kharraz his models. Fritz Meier and Nasrollah Pourjavady have rescued him from oblivion; before them Serge Laugier de Beaurecucil had edited his Kitab nahj al-khdss in which Abu Mansur elaborates on the different stages of the mystic path. 2 * By taking al- Junayd and al-Kharraz as his guides he indicated that he had oriented himself towards Baghdad and not towards Khurasan where mysti¬ cism had been flourishing since the days of Ibrahim b. Adham and ShaqTq al-Balkhi; mystical and Hanbal! trends in his view had the same origin. It is perhaps from this moment onward that the sources underline the good relationship between Ibn Hanbal and Bishr al- Haf!, 29 and one century later we find, at Herat, the Hanbal! mystic c Abd Allah-i Ansar!; as is clear from his Manazil al-sd'irin , he had learned a great deal from Abu Mansur’s Nahj al-khdss. The situation in Baghdad is, for the moment, not so easy to judge. 2* For bibliographical details cf. Theologie und Gesellschoft ii, 629 f. 29 Cf.. for instance. Abu Talib al-Makki. Qfr al-qulub. trs. Gramlkh, Die Maiming tier Herzen, i-iv (Stuttgart 1992-5) iii. 659 f.. following Ibn Hanbal*s Kitab at-wara'. Also the article by Florian Sobicroj in this volume, p. 71-3. 30 31 JOSEF VAN ESS Ibn c Ata°, the author of the well-known Sufi commentary’ on the Ko¬ ran, was a Hanbali. 30 But the trial against al-Hallaj and his execution in 309/922 polarized opinions and hampered a normal development. The tradition was cut off; what we know about the earlier generation, about al-Junayd and his contemporaries, is for the most part transmit¬ ted through Iranian sources. When, half a century after AbO Mansur al-Isfahanf s death, the Hanbali scholar Ibn c AqIl in Baghdad was forced to recant what his school-fellows took to be heretical views, he had lo do the same with respect to his sympathy for al-Hallaj. He had written a treatise in defense of al-Hallaj’s miracles ( Kilab nasr karamat al-Hallaj) which he was told to destroy. However, this ne¬ ver happened; the book later came to light in the private library of none other than Ibn al-Jawzi himself, the man who had written a strident critique of exaggerated Sufism entitled Talbis Iblis. When Ibn Qudama, the Hanbali jurist from Damascus whom we mainly know as the author of the juridical encyclopaedia al-Mughm , re¬ newed the attacks against Ibn c AqIl in his Kilab tahrim al-na^arfi kullib ahl al-kalam , he left Ibn c Aqil’s sympathies for al-Hallaj al¬ most unmentioned. For, in the meantime, c Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani had taken up al- Hallaj’s cause; he had read some texts about him with his masters, especially with Yusuf al-Hamadhani (died 535/1141) who may have been a disciple of c Abd Allah-i Ansari and of Ibn c Aqil. 3 ' And once again c Abd al-Qadir was a Hanbali; this is why the Qadiriyya order for a long time retained close connections with the Hanbali school. Ibn Qudama studied with him, and a short passage discovered by George Makdisi in the Zahiriyya library in Damascus informs us that he was even invested by him with the Sufi garment, the khirqa. We do not know exactly what this meant in his case, but the text shows at least that during his generation and the following ones there were always people interested in keeping this connection alive. Ibn 30 Cf. now the translation and study by Richard Gramlich. Abu /-'Abbas b. 'Ala , Sufi und Koranausleger (Stuttgart 1995). 31 At least according to Louis Massignon. *£tndcs sur les isnad ou chaincs de temoignages fondamentalcs dans la tradition musulmanc Hallagicnnc'. in Opera Minora (Beirut 1963) ii. 68. Yusuf's main teacher was not a Hanbalitc but the Shafi'ite Abu Ishaq al- Shirazi (died 476/1083); later Iranian tradition tried to associate him with the Hanafi school instead |cf. W. Madching, ‘Yusuf al-Hamadam and the Naqsbandiyya’. in Quademi di Snub Arabi Venice, v-vi (1987-8) 499 ff.J His relationship to c Abd AII5h-i Ansari (d. 481/1089) which is poorly attested should be re-examined, but he is at least credited with a commentary on Ansarl’s Marumi also 'inn (cf. H. Algar. 'Abu Ya'qub HamadanT. in Elran .. 395 f.). SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS Qudama’s immediate successor in the silsila, again a Hanbali jurist from Damascus who later on went to Baghdad and then to Cairo, be¬ came, in his last domicile, the director of a Sufi khdnqah . 32 Ibn Ra- jab who collected the biographies of the Hanbali masters from the middle of the fifth to the beginning of the eighth century, mentions a considerable number of scholars, mostly jurists, who, in one way or the other, followed the same line. Even Ibn Taymiyya, the figure¬ head of modem Saudi traditionalism, well-read and extremely learned, informed himself about the teachings of people like Sahl al- Tustari, al-Junayd, Abu Talib al-Makki, c Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, and Abu Hafs Umar al-Suhrawardi, the author of the c Awarif al- ma c ar)p 3 He concurred with Abu Mansur al-Isfahanl who, in a testamentary advice (wasivya), had pleaded for an alliance between ahl al-hadlth and ahl aliasawwufM Again it was the Qadiriyya which he appreciated most — though only as the ‘greatest among the well-known tariqas ’ as he says, for he also maintained an affiliation with other orders as well. He was invested with the Qadirl khirqa by one of Ibn Qudama’s nephews, 3 * and he handed it on to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. 36 He objected to the khirqat al-futuwwa, the initiation ritual practiced by the futuwwa brotherhoods, but only because they performed it in a new and untraditional way, by using water and salt; this he considered to be an innovation. 37 For similar reasons he at¬ tacked the Rifa c iyya 38 and above all those whom he identified as monists ( ittihadiyyfin ), Ibn c Arabi and his school. w Once again, however, we are dealing here with an opposition from inside rather than from outside. 32 For further details cf. George Makdisi. 'L'iioad initiatique soufi dc Muwaffaq nd-Din Ibn Qudama'. in Louis Massignon (Paris 1970) 88 ff.; as a general overview see also his article ‘The Hanbali School and Sufism*, in Humaniora Islamica ii (1974) 61 ff. 33 FT Hi. 953 b. 34 Ibn Taymiyya. Kilab al-isliqdma. ed. Muhammad Rashid Salim (Riyadh 1404/1983) i. 168.1. 1 ff. 33 Cf. George Makdisi in; American Journal of Arabic Studies i (1973) 123 f. 36 Id., in Humaniora Islamica ii (1974) 68 f. 37 Cf. Ibn Taymiyya. MajmiYat ai-rasd'il wa'f-masa’il. i-v. (Beirut 1403/1983) i. 156 ff. For the ritual itself cf. Henri Corbin in Trails des Compagnons-Chevalicrs, cd. M. Sarrnf (Tehcran-Paris 1973) iotrod. 72 ff.. after the Futuvvalname by Najmal-Din Zarkub-i Tabriz!. 38 Ibn Taymiyya. MajtmYa i. 13 i ff.; for their practices cf. El viii. 525 f. 3 ^ Ibn Taymiyya. MajmtYa ii. 3 ff. For a detailed analysis of Ibu Taymiyya’s attitude towards Sufism ef. Fritz Meier. 'Das sauberste tiber die vorbestiinmung', Sacculum xxxii (1981) 74 ff; also published in Fritz Meier, Bausleine. Ausgenahlle Aufstitze zur Islamu issenschafi. i-iii (Istanbul-Stultgart 1992) ii. 696 ff. Meier is perhaps unduly sceptical with regard to the khirqa tradition (ibid. 701. n. 9). 32 33 JOSEF VAN ESS This docs not mean that opposition from outside did not exist. The trial against al-Hallaj is a case in point, as are the other two specta¬ cular executions, those of c Ayn al-Qudat-i HamadhanI and Yahya al- Suhrawardl. These are complex cases, which are difficult to analyze. As far as al-Hallaj is concerned, the title of Ibn c Aqil’s book indi¬ cates where part of the problem lay: in al-Hallaj’s miracles. Again the opponents were jurists, but the issue was rather a theological one. Al-Hakim al-Tinnidhi, a man who claimed the seal of sainthood for himself, had complained about the c ulama 3 al-zahir, scholars who only accepted the evidentiary miracles (dydt) which God had per¬ formed for the prophets and therefore did not get to the inner core of things. 40 The people he had in mind belonged to his own Eastern Iranian milieu; they were Hanafites, perhaps also Mu c tazilites. Both groups intermixed, but our documentation comes mainly from the kalam sources. Rationalists like the Mu c tazilites did not have much patience with charismatics and miracle-workers; they felt the chal¬ lenge to their own claim of intellectual and educational superiority, and in many cases a social difference was also involved. Al-JubbiVi, the Mu c tazill teacher of al-AsITari, is said to have attended one of al- Hallaj’s performances in Aliwaz and to have ridiculed the miracle al- Hallaj worked on this occasion. Qadi c Abd al-Jabbar’s chapter on prophecy in his Mughni is full of such stories; 41 al-Hallaj appears as a trickster who cannot be taken seriously. With al-Tanuklh’s Nishwar al-muhddara 42 this image was transported into adab litera¬ ture; we find it later on. for instance, in the Kitab al-hiyal translated by Rene Khawam , 4 * a text which chronologically and, in a certain sense, in terms of its narrative posture comes close to the Arabian Nights. The background to the controversy is clear: Mu c tazili theo¬ logy had spent a lot of time in defining the difference between sor¬ cery and prophecy; al-Jahiz had perhaps been the first to write on al- Farq bayn al-nabi wa'l-mutanabbi , and he seems to have done so in order to prove that the challenge brought forth by the Prophet as evi- 40 Kitab shot al-awliw J , § 105. in Band Radtke (cd). Drei Schrifien des Theosophen von Tirmid (Beirut 1992) 82 f./trs. Bernd Radtke and John O'Kane. The Concepl ofSainlhootl in Early Islamic Mysticism (Richmond 19%) 155 f. 4 1 For the story mentioned cf. vol. xv. cd. Mahmud al-Khudayri and Mahmud Muhammad Qiisim (Cairo 1385/1965) 272,1. 11 fl. 42 On the conteuts of this text, see the contribution by Florian Sobicroj in the present volume, p. 80. 43 n vre des ruses. La strategic politique des Arabes (Paris 1976). SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS deuce of God’s i c jdz came from a trustworthy person. A miracle then could only be understood as the confirmation of a claim to prophet- hood Consequently, al-Hallaj looked like a competitor with Muhammad; as a matter of fact, mystics of the preceding generations had not pretended to work miracles, i.e. to suspend the laws of nature by ‘breaking custom’ as the Mu c tazilites used to say. However, the Hanafites — or those among them who sided with the Mu c tazila — were confronted, on their ancestral Iranian territory, by the disciples of al-Shafi c i, and the Mu c tazila was superseded, in certain areas at least, by the Ash c arites. Due to the somewhat one-si¬ ded distribution of our sources, we are best informed about the situa¬ tion in the town of Neshapur. It is there that al-Qushayri, the author of the Risala, who as a ShafTi jurist suffered persecution from the Hanafites under the Saljuq vizier al-Kundurl, wrote his famous Shikdyat ahl al-sunna bi-md ndlahuni min al-mihna in which he de¬ fends al-Ash l ari against the slanderous accusations of his adver¬ saries. But he was not an isolated figure as has been believed for a long lime. It is true that Tilman Nagel was perhaps a bit rash in speaking about a ’new piety’ in this respect, 44 but he has managed to trace the movement back to origins outside Khurasan, to Ibn Khafif in Shiraz who as a Sufi was an Ash'arite in matters of kaldtn, and to al-Baqillani in Iraq who as a MalikI jurist adopted Aslf arite theology and mixed it with ‘new piety’. In his Kitab al-baydn c an al-farq bayn al-mu c jizdt wa'l-kardmdt , al-Baqillani was, as far as I can see, the first theologian to employ rational arguments to defend the possibili¬ ty of miracles performed by human beings who were not prophets (although he still regarded al-Hallaj as an impostor), and in his Kitab al-insdf — if we may assume the book is authentic 4 * — he quotes al- Junayd as well as al-Shibli, two authorities who also appear in Ibn Qudama’s Qadiri silsila. Gradually Sufism succeeded in permeating the scholarly establishment almost at every point. Even the Hanafis at Neshapur had their own ascetic intruders: the Karramiyya who since the middle of the third century preached to the lower classes 44 Die Festung des Glaubens. Triumph und S(heitern des iskamschen Rationalismits im 11. Jahrimndert (Munich 1988) 95 ff. 45 Ii is not mentioned in the list of al-Baqillani*s works given by Qadi c Iynd in his Tailtb al-madarik. cd. Ahmad Bakir Mahmud (Beirut 1387/1967) ii, 601 f. Moreover, the enigmatic Sharif al-Ajall al-Imain Jamal al-Islam. who is quoted in the book ( 67.1. 6). does not seem to Fit into al-Baqillani*s period. The book would then cither be spurious or contaiu later interpolations. In the latter case the references to al-Junayd, al-Shibli and others may have been added as well. 34 35 JOSEF VAN ESS and started missioning the rural areas of GhOr and Gharchistan. It is true that they did not perform miracles, nor did they surprise their audience with unusual mystical ideas; they are on record rather be¬ cause of their anthropomorphism. But they also bear witness to the appeal of ostentatious asceticism. Ibn Karram wore a garment of un¬ sewn sheep skin when he travelled around; in Neshapur he used to sit on a fleece in a compartment built of brick, with a white qalan- siiwa on his head, and would offer everyone religious advice. 46 If there was any opposition to Sufism in these centuries, it always depended on how individual Sufis or certain practices were per¬ ceived. There has never been any clear and uniform pattern of en¬ mity between the jurists and the mystics, as Julian Baldick has re¬ cently stressed again. 47 c Umar al-Suhrawardi even taught jurispru¬ dence to students whom he had housed in his lodge*. This is, of course, not necessarily a representative case. There have always been mystics who scandalized their pious environment by their idiosyn¬ crasies: by listening to music and love poetry (sama ( ), by conversing with young boys and watching them as a shahid , a witness to God's beauty who has been created according to His image, 48 or by out¬ right antinomianism ( ibaha). But this does not seem to have affected the overall attitude towards them, and normally did not destroy an ultimate basis of tolerance. This statement applies, by the way, to both sides. Even Ibn c Arabi, though not very juridically-minded and a scandal to Ibn Taymiyya as we heard, felt obliged to assure his reader: ‘God forbid, my brother, that you should think that I blame the jurists for being jurists or for their practice of jurisprudence, for such an attitude is not permissible for a Muslim, and the nobility of the Law is beyond question.’ After all, he had collected ijdzas from jurists as well as from other scholars. The problem he saw was on a different level. ‘However’, he continues, T do censure those jurists who, harbouring merely worldly aims, cynically study the Law with the sole object of acquiring fame.’ This was a point which had al¬ ready been stressed by al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi and many others like him; al-Ghazzali did the same in his Iliya ', and he would also have agreed when, in the end, Ibn 1 Arab! sets the balance straight: ‘In the same way I have censured certain Sufis, not the sincere ones, but 46 Theologie und Gesellschaft ii. 609 f. 47 Mystical Islam (London 1989) 174. taking tip a statement by Gillcs Veinstcin. 48 Ritter. Das meet • der seele 470 ff. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS only those who affect before men a holiness which is contradicted by their true condition*. However, Ibn c Arabi also illustrates to what extent the pretensions of mysticism had grown, intellectually as well as socially. There is no shyness about him; he displays his speculative system with vigor and self-confidence. And there was a market for his ideas; they remained influential for centuries. He could afford to look down on the jurists he censured; ‘Since they continually offend against the Friends of God, they shall surely perish by their own testimony’, he says, and the context in which he says all this is equally significant, namely his Risalat nth al-quds which Asfn-Palacios translated into Spanish long ago and which through Austin’s recent English version has become accessible to a larger Orientalist reading public 49 For the book mainly contains stories about sanlones andaluces , as Asfn- Palacios puts it, 59 simple saints who sometimes did not even know how to read or write. The Sufis had filtered down to the grass-roots of society, and Ibn c Arabi, in spile of being the intellectual par ex¬ cellence , was quite aware of this fact; he had great respect for the charisma of the illiterate, and he was pleased to report on the power they exerted over the common-folk — and over their enemies. The Sufis had ceased to be unsure of their role; they were no longer con¬ cerned with defining the phenomenon of mysticism as such. This latter issue had been the quest of people like al-Muhasib! or al- Junayd; with enormous psychological insight and bold, though some¬ times still incomprehensible and awkward language, they had opened up a new horizon. Now, however, it was the sheer power of personality which mattered; the miracle-worker as well as the specu¬ lative genius had become common figures, or to put it more precise¬ ly: large strata of the population were on the look-out to be over¬ whelmed either by the radiance of a gifted individual’s charisma or by the depth of his unusual insight. The number of those who still shook their head and complained about this insight being irrational or close to gnosticism had decreased. 51 Orientalist scholarship has only recently come to grips with the phenomenon; Western scholars 49 R W.J. Austin. Sufis of Andalusia. The Ruh al-quds and al-Durral at-fdkhira of Ibn Arab} (Uiiiv. of California Press 1971) 105. •’0 Vidas de sanlones andaluces (Madrid 1933). 5I ^ For later criticism of Ibn ‘Arab! cf. the article by Michel Chodkicwicz in this volume. P 93 ff. aud now also Eric Geoffroy. Le soufisme en Egypte el en Syrie sous les demiers Marnelouks el les premiers Ottomans. Orientations spiritueUes et enjeux culturels (Damascus 1995) 452 ff. 36 37 JOSEF VAN ESS were strongly embedded in rationalism themselves. Even Massignon did not have much to say about Ibn c ArabI. The success had not come overnight; it was a slow process. In a se¬ minal article, Fritz Meier, taking up a differentiation used by Ibn c Abbad al-Rundi, has shown how the shaykh al-ta c lim, the theoretiz- ing mystical professor, turned into the shaykh al-tarbiya, the master who shaped the life and the person of his disciple. 52 Gradually, un¬ conditional obedience became more important than mere learning; thus, the student was not only expected to attend classes, but he de¬ pended on the teacher as his psychagogue and had to ask his per¬ mission in whatever he did. He had to give up his own will, and was forced to submit to a soldierlike discipline. This was a sign of inti¬ macy as well as of awe-inspiring distance; from such obedience the emerging Sufi brotherhoods drew their strength and their cohesion. The Mongol period which, with its breakdown of secular Islamic authority and its impulse for survival in a shattered and fragmented society, is normally held responsible for this development, merely added the final touch to it; in reality, the development had started much earlier. Meier pins the process down with respect to the town of Neshapur; authors like al-Sulami and al-Qushayrl already bear witness to the ongoing change. And in a broad overview he enume¬ rates the most important consequences, mainly with regard to Iran: in the third/ninth century Sufism was still an individual endeavour and rested on a personal basis, in the eighth/fourteenth century (i.e. a hundred years after Ibn c Arabi) it was organized in tariqas and fa¬ mily enterprises, and only the Uwaysis still represented the old type. 53 In the third century philosophy and metaphysics still lay beyond the horizon of mysticism, whereas in the eighth century they can be found almost everywhere. In the third century the visionary element, though it did exist, was usually left unmentioned when it came to public statements; in the eighth century it is an important element of mystical self-understanding. In the third century Sufism did not yet belong to the canon of religious disciplines; in the eighth 52 ffttrasdn und das ende der klassischert sufik , in la Persia nel Medioevo (Rome 1971) 545 ff.; also published in Meier. Bausteine i. 133 ff. 53 Cf. now Julian Baldick, Imaginary Muslims. The Uwaysi Sufis of Central Asia (London 1993): but see also Devin DeWeese. The Tadhkira-i Bughrd-khan and the «Uvaysi» Sofies of Central Asia: Notes in Review of Imaginary Muslims'. Central Asiatic Journal xl (1996) 87-127. For their presence in Egypt cf. the remarks by E. Gcoffroy (note 51 above) 215f. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS century it sometimes overshadows theology and jurisprudence. In the third century the authorities and the government were normally suspicious of it; in the eighth century they rather seek its support. In the third century Sufism, like theology and jurisprudence, spoke Arabic; in the eighth century, in contrast to theology and jurispru¬ dence. it expresses itself in Persian (and already in other languages). Vernacular language, visionary experience, rigid obedience, connections with the government, this is where popular influence and immediate power came in. Several of the contributions to the present volume concern dimensions of power politics. An example, again from Iran: Khwaja c Ubayd Allah Ahrar, on whom we are somewhat better informed thanks to Russian and, recently, North- American research. Ahrar was a Naqshbandl Sufi, but also a mighty landowner and politician: his holdings, documented by the waqf-c n- dowments related to him and his immediate descendants, were loca¬ ted in the wilayats of Tashkent, Samarqand, and Bukhara, and even beyond these areas, and they seem to have been vast if wc may judge by occasional lax reports. After the death — or judicial murder — of Ulugh Beg, the son of Shahrukh, he supported the Timurid ruler Abu Sa c id who was able to gain control of Samarqand in 855/1451. In the official source of the Naqshbandl order, the Rashahat c ayn al-hayat by Kamal al-Din al-Kashifi, he is depicted as the one who was pri¬ marily responsible for Abu Sard’s success, but he is said to have lent his help only after the prince had promised to uphold the sharia. However this may be. he came to enjoy considerable favour at the court, and he used to give advice concerning political decisions, even military campaigns. This was not without risk; when Abu Sa c id wan¬ ted to exploit the power vacuum in western Persia after the Qara Qoyunlu leader Jihanshah had been killed in his fight against Uzun Hasan’s Aq Qoyunlu, Ahrar encouraged him to set out on campaign, but this only led to Abu Sard’s death and the annihilation of his army. In spite of this. Ahrar survived the authority crisis which en¬ sued. He was obviously a very forceful personality. However, it was perhaps not so much his power as such which made him so forceful, but the belief people had in his power, the aura which surrounded him. Sufism could be an instrument for controlling the masses; this may have been one of the reasons why the government was so in¬ terested in him. On the other hand, he may have posed as an uphol¬ der of orthodoxy as he had to take account of the opposition, opposi¬ tion from fellow' Sufis at Samarqand and from theologians in the 38 39 JOSEF VAN ESS same town. Under these circumstances power struggle was an in¬ evitable element in the overall the picture. 54 Sufi involvement in contemporary politics continued to be a fa¬ miliar pattern for centuries. We need only think of a person like Abu’l-Huda al-Sayyadi who, as the head of the Rifa c iyya order, ac¬ ted as an advisor to the Ottoman sultan c Abdulhamid. 55 Not long before, during Turkey’s unsuccessful wars with Russia, Shaykh Diya 3 al-DIn Giimtishkhanewl (d. 1313/1894), a Naqshbandi, went with his followers to fight the enemy at the front, 56 and Shaykh Fehmi at Erzinjan, head of the Khalidi branch, was approached for advice by the generals, like an oracle; we learn about his influence through the bulky autobiography of one of his disciples, the A§^i Dede Ibrahim. 57 When he made his pilgrimage in 1276/1860 and again in 1282/1866, the population of his town saw him off and, on his return, gave him a musical welcome with the band of the local garrison. Sometimes it was not only the men who gathered in the zawiva for the dhikr on Thursday evening, but the entire families; on entering the courtyard of the convent built by the Shadhili/Yashruti shaykh Abu’l-Shamat in Damascus one can imagine even nowadays, in spite of the decay, how well they must have felt there in the fragrance of the orange-lrees. 5S The ‘holy man’, as Peter Brown would call him, had been completely integrated into society. Never¬ theless, he could still be seen as the outsider who, without being an expert, was able to answer unanswerable questions and to solve con¬ flicts which could not be solved from within. 59 54 On these poinls cf. the article Alirdr by J.M. Rogers iu El ran 1.667 ff.. but now also, in a broader context. JUrgen Paul, Die po/itise/te mid soziale Bedeulung der Naqibandiyya im 15. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1991) and Florian Schwarz, Bruderschaften. Gesellscliaft. Swat im islamischen Mittelosien (Transo.xanien) im 16. Jahrhnndert (PhD thesis Tiibingeu 1998). For the relationship between prince and saint in Mamlulc and early Ottoman Egypt cf. Gcoffroy (note 51 above) 119 ff. 55 For him cf. Werner Emle. ‘Sayyid Abfi 1-Huda. ein Vertrautcr Abdiilhamid's II.*. in Vortrflge XIX. Deulscher Orienlolisienmg = 7.DMG Snppl. iii 2 (Wiesbaden 1977) 1143 ff. and Butins Abu-Manneh. ‘Sultan Abdulhamid 11 and Shaykh Abulhuda Al-Sayyadi*. Middle Eastern Studies xv (1979) 131 ff. 56 F.I vii. 937a s.v. Nak&kbandiyya: for Guunishkhanewi cf. now Butnis Abo-Manneh. ‘Shaykh Ahmed Ziya’dddin el-Giimii§hancvi and the Ziya’i-Khalidi Suborder*, in F. Dc Jong (cd.). Shi‘a Islam. Sects and Sufism (Utrecht 1992) 105 ff. 57 Cf. HI ii. 878 f. 58 Cf. my article in Die Well des Islams xvi (1975) 76. For the later development of the Yashnitiyya cf. the remarks by P.-J. I.uizard in A. Popovic and G. Veinstein (cdd ). Les Voies cI'Allah (Paris 1996) 364 f. 59 p e j er Brown, ‘The Rise and Function of the Holy Man iu Late Antiquity*, in id. (ed.). SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS But where was the opposition when the integration of mysticism had advanced to such an extent? There was, of course, no end to the op¬ position from within. Thus, for instance, in Iran, the Naqshbandiyya was wiped out by the Safavids; the order only survived in Sunni areas, among the Kurds and the Uzbeks. The Safavids had a Sufi ori¬ gin themselves; in the beginning they were, as far as their concept of the charismatic leader is concerned, much more extremist than the Naqshbandis had ever been. But in addition to such clashes among relalives, what do we have? As far as 1 can sec, opposition consisted of three forces which, in different areas but during approximately the same period, worked to break up the established integration and were responsible for a complete reversal of the status quo: the Salafiyya for whom mysticism went against their puritanism and scripturalism, the political reformers for whom it went against their secularism and nationalism, and the Europeans for whom it went against their impe¬ rialism and colonialism. European opposition to Sufi orders is only touched upon in a few of the papers to be discussed during this symposium. This may be since the majority of the participants in this gathering are Europeans themselves, and thus would have to reflect upon the principles of their own research. Not that they are unable or always unwilling to do so. but in the prevailing circumstances the topic would fall under a different heading: the concept of the other or the theory of dis¬ course, a subject of all too many scholarly gatherings during recent years. But let us not forget that quite a number of publications con¬ sidered to be authoritative reports about mystical movements in the beginning of our century were closely linked to colonialism and mirrored its anxieties and prejudices: Depont and Coppolani’s Les confreries religieuses mitsulmanes published in Algiers 1897, the works by Duveyrier, Rinn, Le Chatelier and others. As late as 1951, fc. after the Second World War but still before the indepcndance of ihc Maghribi states, Georges Drague wrote, in the same spirit, his tsquisse de I'hisloire religieuse du Maroc: confreries et zaouiasfi 0 In the rural areas, the zawiyos functioned as local centers of educa¬ tion; that is why, in addition to the political reasons, the mission civi- Society and the Holy ,n ljue Antiquity (London 1982). especially 130 ff.; an example of C 60° g 3 Conc,lia,ion te'w* 0 two generals, ibid. 133. B rlr r.T 1 ? 0 au,hor was a c °lonial officer, as were his predecessors; for a general outline cf. E. t> e U. ‘The Sociology of Islam. The French Tradition*. in M.H. Kerr (cd.). Islamic Studies. * tra<t,non and its Problems (Malibu 1980) 73 ff. 40 41 JOSEF VAN ESS lisatrice kept a vigilant eye on them. But French imperialism is by no means the only, if perhaps the most obvious example. Similar ob¬ servations could be made concerning Italian research about the Sa- nGsiyya in Tripolitania, British publications about Mahdism in the Sudan, etc. (although in the latter case the tariqas might occasionally turn up on the good side). We are dealing, as has recently been pointed out again, 6 * with a litterature de surveillance or, when the writings are produced by British and American missionaries, an ‘Is¬ lamic Peril’ literature. Have we completely passed beyond this stage? It is true that, for the moment, all the phobia and all the polemics are directed against fundamentalism rather than mysticism, and that it is rather the media which lend to produce a litterature de surveillance for public con¬ sumption. But as far as our own work is concerned, we should per¬ haps not forget that part of the documentation we use for Central Asian brotherhoods in our century comes from reports which were compiled by Soviet political commissars. 62 In itself, of course, this docs no harm: Why should one not use Russian sources as well as Arabic or Persian ones? It is only *the view from outside’ which we have to be concerned about, the dangers inherent in the perspective, the evil eye as it were. During this symposium all of us will be ap¬ plying the view from outside since we are talking about opposition and not about Sufism as such, and since we arc talking in sociologi¬ cal or historical terms and not in religious ones. Again, this is nothing detrimental; on the contrary, it may be an expression of ‘de¬ tached’ scholarship. But we must keep in mind that the Sufis them¬ selves looked at things in a different way. Where we see power struc¬ tures, they talked about rdbita, the close connexion between the disciple and his shaykh, the urge to become identical with him, the famous — and infamous — fand' fi'l-shaykh criticized by the reli¬ gious opposition. 63 Similarly, where we see only political influence and the will to dominate, they talked about tasarruf, the ability of the shaykh to dispose over other people, and what they meant by this was frequently the magical side of his personality, his power to 6 1 Cf. R. Scan O' Fahey and Bernd Radlke, Der Islam Ixx (1993) 61 fr. 62 Cf. Ihe remark by Fritz Nlcicr in Znei Abhandlungen liber die NaqSbandivya (Istanbul 1994) 186. The kind of research I am alluding loo is dealt with by Jo-Ann Gross in her article in this volume p. 520 ff. 63 Cf. the first essay in I'rilz Meier’s book. Die Herzensbindimg an den Meister 17 ff.. and ibid, index s.v. Entwerden im Meister. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS bewitch his enemies. 64 This was the point which was taken seriously by men of worldly power, perhaps more so than the social influence — although both things cannot be completely separated since the simple people were as*superstitious as were the upper classes. The relationship between the shaykh and his followers was compared to that between the Prophet and his Companions; 6 * he was greeted with a prostration, and his feet were kissed. 66 Timur is said to have tried to keep Ni c matullah-i Wali-i KirmanT out of his territory, remarking that two kings cannot live together in one and the same clime. 67 This was a pertinent observation. The Sufis were to experience its truth again when, a few centuries later, this same ‘clime’ succumbed to the influence of ‘enlightened’ European nationalism. The mystical orders did not fit into this new pattern. They had spread all over the Islamic world and could therefore not be confined to the borders of the newly founded states; what had looked cosmopolitan in earlier days looked unpatriotic now. They lost their elite; Ihe Jilanis in Baghdad, heirs to the Qadiriyya establishment, joined the Arab na¬ tionalist movement in Iraq when they v/ere deprived of power by the Young Turks, and made a new career as politicians and prime mi¬ nisters. 68 With respect to late Ottoman Turkey, the tensions which ensued from this and the spiritual uncertainty which befell the tariqas themselves have been depicted by Franz Werfel in a chapter of his novel The Forty Days of the Musa Dagh , in connection with the persecution of the Armenians. Moreover, the quest for modernity which accompanied nationalism paved the way for European secula¬ rism; after that, the mystical orders looked old-fashioned, ‘me¬ dieval’, and dangerous because of their appeal to superstition and ir¬ rationality. When Vambery travelled in Central Asia, he could still observe that the Sufi shaykhs — ‘they' (ishdn) as they were called there, ishdn being a formula of reverence — enjoyed an extremely high prestige, higher than that of the mullahs, since it was the Sufi shaykhs who dispensed blessings and curses, by selling talismans or by their ‘breath’, indeed it was their supernatural power which kept the cattle in good health and the evil spirits at bay. 69 The new ad¬ ministrative elite, whether foreign (as in Russia or Algeria) or in- 64 65 66 67 68 69 Cf. the second essay. Kraftakt und Fausirechi des Heitigen. ibid. 245 ff. Ibid. 106 f. Ibid 148 f. Ibid. 245. n. 1. Cf. P.-J. Luizard in Les Voies d'Allah (note 58 above) 349 f. Ibid. 276. 42 43 JOSEF VAN ESS digenous (as in Turkey or in Iran), had no understanding for this. In their view, humanitarian and civilizational improvement was to be realized by European medicine and European bureaucracy, and in pursuing this goal they frequently asserted their power in an arrogant and therefore brutal manner. Ataturk is, of course, the best example, but by no means the only one. It is a peculiar irony of history that the national self-understanding of certain areas in Central Asia which have emerged as independent states after the dissolution ot the So¬ viet empire, Kazakhstan for instance, appear to be clinging once again to the role the mystical orders played in the past since there is not much else on which to build an identity. 70 In contrast to nationalism, the Salafiyya, the last one of the three forces of opposition, has tried to do without secularism. But it has not done without arrogance, the arrogance of the reformer who turns back to authenticity, to the roots. Muhammad c Abduh had been as¬ sociated with the Shadhiliyya, his disciple Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935) with the Naqshbandiyya, but they both contemptuously broke with their past. Rida reports that when he attended Sufi meet¬ ings in his youth, the participants were supposed to see spirits, i.c. to communicate with the souls of the deceased shaykhs and the an¬ cestors of their order. They were even told that they could smell them, obviously in agreement with the famous haciith which says that, in the afterlife, the cirwah recognize each other by their smell like horses. 7 ' The haditlu though, is something which Rida does not mention, lor the hadith would have run counter to the direction of Ins argument, namely to show that such practices did not agree with pure and original Islam. His polemics were in line with the attitude upheld by Ibn Taymiyya more than half a millennium ago, the atti¬ tude of reform and return to the ideal past which had been radica¬ lized in the meantime by the Wahhabiyya. However, until about 1920 the Wahhabiyya was still a marginal affair, much loo peripheral to have any significant impact in Egypt. 72 What made the call for reform in Egypt so strong was not puritanism 70 Cf. also the role of ihe Qadiriyya in the Chechen war. On the role or Sufi orders in the Caucasus at present see the contribution by Ch. Umercier-Quclquejay in Us Votes d’Allah 301 ff.. now deals with this topic briclly. 71 Ibid. 208 f.; for the hadith cf. Wcnsinck. Concordance i, 385a; a more complete version in Qastallani, Irshdd al-sdri (Cairo 1304) v. 325,1. 15 ff. 72 cf the article by F. de Jong in this volume, p. 310 ff.; also id.. Turuq and turuq- opposition in 20.h century Egypt’, in Frithjof Rundgrcn fed.). Proceedings Vlth Congress of Arabic and Islamic Studies (Visby/ Stockholm 1972) (Leiden 1975) 84 ff. SUFISM AND ITS OPPONENTS but the belief in reason, more specifically: the belief in a kind of rea¬ son which had incorporated technology and slowly repressed the sa¬ piential and spiritual dimension. This explains why the results of the development were so different there from those in the Arabian de¬ sert. Hanball thought had reduced mysticism to pietism, and when Wahhhbism finally acquired political importance, in the modem state of Saudi Arabia, Sufi movements — which had spread on the Ara¬ bian peninsula before, mainly due to the influence of Ahmad b. Idris __ ceased to exist. Ahmad b. Idris’s tomb was destroyed after the annexation of c Asir. In Egypt, on the contrary, where Napoleon had still tried to acquire influence by winning over the shaykh al-sajjada of the Bakriyya. 73 the fariqas came to the surface again when techni¬ cal reasoning was felt to be inadequale for spiritual satisfaction. As early as 1895, a Supreme Council of the Sufi Brotherhoods was created; in 1976 its organization and functions were regulated by law. There is no parallel to this institution in any other country of the Islamic world; only in Egypt are the fariqas legally recognized. The question is whether, at a certain moment, through the teaching of Ahmad b. Idris and others, the Sufi orders themselves aspired to a goal similar to that of the Wahhabiyya and the Salafiyya, namely the purification of religion from unorthodox doctrines and practices. This is the controversy as to whether there was something which may justifiably be called ‘Neo-Sufism’. The debate has just been started. 74 One of the points Sufism and Neo-Sufism have in common is their highly accentuated veneration for the Prophet Muhammad. Of course in certain respects such a tendency ought not be at all surprising, but it seems to have increased over the centuries. 7 * 5 The way it is expressed differs in both cases. In mysticism wc would have to concentrate on the famous but still somewhat vaguely per¬ ceived tariqa imihammadiyya , 76 whereas in the Salafiyya it is the 7 -' Cf. now J.W. Livingstone in: Stadia Islamica lxxx (1994) 125 ff. 74 Cf. R. Scan O’Fahey and Bcmd Radike. ‘Neo-Sufism Reconsidered', Der Islam Ixx (1993) 52 ff. 75 A good way of testing this hypothesis would be a closer study of how heresy was defined ai different periods, whether there was a shift in concern from scandalous statements about God (dualism or monism for instance) to statements vilifying the Prophet. But this work still remains to be done. 76 Cf. now the remarks by Bernd Radtkc Die Well des Islams xxxvi (1996) 353 ff. An early example (ninth/fiftccnth century) of unusually intense contact between a mystic and the Prophet, through dreams, which seems to replace the fand 9 in God has recently been analyzed by J.G. Katz, Dreams. Sufism and Sainthood. The Visionary Career of Muhammad <r/-Zmwfn'/ (Leiden 19%). For F.gypt cf. also Geoffroy (note 51 above) 101 ff. 44 JOSEF VAN ESS discovery of Muhammad’s role for Islamic identity, as the founder of the community in the political as well as the legal sense, which comes to the fore. What is connected with it is, among other things, the relationship between mysticism and what is called fundamen¬ talism in our time. That the Salafiyya wanted to go back to the fun¬ damentals of Islam is beyond doubt, but it is equally obvious that, in certain parts of the Islamic world, in Syria for instance, mystical trends and brotherhoods are nowadays employed to impede funda¬ mentalist influence. Before entering this discussion, however, a pri¬ mary clarification of terms is indispensable. It is not only that we must make clear what we mean when we use the word ‘fundamen¬ talism’ (or any other word we may try to replace it with); we must also define mysticism and Sufism (which are by no means inter¬ changeable expressions), and we will have to explain what a Sufi brotherhood nowadays stands for in contrast to a charitable organi¬ zation run by so-called fundamentalists. 77 And once we start defin¬ ing our terms we have to take into account our own world, its diffe¬ rent kind of spirituality and its non-religious, at times even anti-re¬ ligious mode of discourse. These are problems which may remain problems for us even after this symposium has ended; they are too general to be approached by means of a sequence of isolated papers. But they underlie much of what we will be talking about, and in a certain way they may well determine the language we use. For we shall be mostly talking in sociological and political terms. Poetry will not have a place in our discourse, nor will the language of spirituality lead us astray. But who knows? Maybe at a certain moment in the proceedings the three Qalandars will suddenly march in. Beyond all forms of academic orgy, they know the real story, and they arc always good for a sur¬ prise. 77 Statistics do not exist concerning the membership of contemporary Sufi lariqos in different countries and regions; but cf. G. Vcinsteiu in Us Votes d\Allah 20 f. I PERIMETERS AND CONSTANTS EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY GERHARD BOWERING The Muslim mystics of classical Sufism — from the beginnings of Islamic asceticism to the time of al-Ghazzall — did not challenge their opponents with an agenda of the just society, a blueprint of po¬ litical reform or a call for an Islamic state. Instead, they saw this world, Allah’s creation, as a transitory home, a theater of trial and tribulation, a situation to overcome rather than to organize and enjoy. Fully aware of the injustices of this world, they were intent on reach¬ ing God, the sole source and goal of justice and the only ruler and lord of the world to come. They identified the root and cause of in¬ justice as within man and devised ways to conquer evil by spiritual renewal, termed tawba, ‘repentance and inner conversion’. Far from understanding tawba simply as conversion from one organized reli¬ gion to another, the Sufis perceived it as a dynamic principle of radi¬ cal reorientation to God that made them abandon the false ways of this world and follow the straight path to God. This path to God was rooted in the powerful impulse of the Koran as a call to direct en¬ counter with the one God in His speech. There is neither mediator nor bridge between God and man in the act of listening to the Kora¬ nic word. The classical Sufis claimed unequivocal witness to this di¬ rect encounter with divine speech by hearing the divine Speaker beyond His word. For this reason, they saw themselves as occupying a place similar to that of the Prophet, the prototypical hearer of the Koranic word. Through this divine word the Sufis discovered in the symbolism of tawba a powerful paradigm to capture their unmedia¬ ted encounter with God. They found means to interpret it as an ex¬ pression of their direct, personal experience of the Divine, as the mutual turning of Creator and creature to one another. 46 GERHARD BOWER1NG This interpretation of tawba can be traced in Sufi accounts of con¬ version — stories which reveal the why and how of an individual’s choice of the Sufi way of life. A paradigmatic selection of these sto¬ ries, drawn from the hagiographies of five early Sufis, exhibits a ba¬ sic symbolism which accounts for the radical and lasting life changes that these stories recount. Rather than recording a sequence of actual historical occurrences, these stories embody the perceived historical memory of Sufi posterity, sometimes embellished for purposes of instruction and emulation. For the protagonist, however, they were events of self-perception, rooted in a powerful core of personal me¬ mory and expressed in a striking symbolism. Rapidly surveying these well-known life stories, one discerns the legends that this literature has woven around the typical figures. The legend of Ibrahim b. Adham (d. 161/777-8), an Arab of the Banu c Ijl, is especially rich in detail.* Escaping the turmoil of Abu Muslim’s revolt in 129/747, Ibrahim leaves his wife and their wealthy family estate at Balkh, gives up his royal palace, his silken robe, his golden bed, his favorite steed and his pastime of hunting gazelles. Meeting a stranger, or in another account, hearing a voice from the pommel of his saddle calling him to repentance, he changes his life drastically, dons sack-cloth, for some years dwells in a cave hermitage, walks all the way to Mecca as a pilgrim, forswears begging to earn his bread by manual labor, follows a celibate way of life, attracts many students and becomes the principal prototype of the Syrian ascetical tradition. Finally, he dies a martyr in holy war, pursuing Byzantine infidels on the borders and shores of Syria. In similar fashion the rich landlord and merchant Shaqiq al-Balkhi (d. 194/809), a member of the Arab tribe of the Banu Azd, 2 parts * R. Jones, Ibrahim b. Adham. El, iii. 985-986; for an extract of Ibrahim's Musnad. extant in manuscript, cf. GAS i. 215. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar a'lam al-nubala’. ed. Shu’ayb al- Arna J ut and c Ali AbQ Zayd (Beirut 1409/1988) vii, 387-396; al-Dhahabi, Ta’rikh al-lsldm. years 161-170, ed. f Utnar c Abd al-Salam Tadmflri (Beirut 1411/1990) 43-59; AbO ‘Abd al- Rahinan Muhammad b. al-Husayn al-Sulaini, Tabaqdt al-fufiyya. cd. J. Pedersen (I-eidcn 1960) 13-22; ed. N. Shurayba (Cairol389/1969) 27-38; Abu Nu‘aym al-Isfahani, Hilyat al- awliya 1 (Cairo 1937-38) vii. 365-395; Ibn ‘Asakir, Ta’rikh madinat Dimashq. Facsimile Dar al-Bashir (Amman n. d.) ii. 370-408; Farid ai-Din-i ‘Attar, Tadhkirat al-awliyd’. ed. R. A. Nicholson (Loudon-Leiden 1905) i, 85-106; R. A. Nicholson. ‘Ibrahim b. Adham'. Zeitschrifi fur Assyriologie xxvi (1912) 215-220; Richard Gramlich, Alte Vorbilder des Sufitums (Wiesbaden 1995) i. 135-282. 2 Cf. P. Nwyia, Trois oeuvres intdites de mystiques musulmans (Beirut 1973) 13-22 (an Arabic text edition of a small tract entitled Adab ab'ibadat that is ascribed to Shaqiq al- Balkhi); Hatim b. ‘Unwan al-A$amm (d. 237/851-2) transmitted Shaqiq's Thamani masd’il. Early sufism between persecution and heresy 47 with the companions of his extravagant youth, abandons his market and merchandise and exchanges his costly robes for a poor man’s woollen dress. He then leads an ascetic life, travels to many centers of Muslim learning in search of knowledge and studies with a great variety of religious authorities in Iran, Iraq, Arabia, Syria and Egypt. Achieving wide renown as a teacher of trust in God ( tawakkul ), he compiles learned writings on a great variety of religious topics and gathers a circle of disciples in Khurasan, on whom he exerts a lasting influence as the earliest teacher of the East-Iranian tradition of asce¬ ticism. Again, like Ibrahim, Shaqiq proves his mettle as a valiant and fearless warrior in holy war and is slain fighting Turkish infidels between Khuttalan and Washgird on the upper Oxus river in the bor¬ derlands of north-eastern Iran. A third example is the son of a prisoner of war and slave from Si- jistan, Malik b. Dinar (d. 131/749) of Basrah who repents upon hear¬ ing a mysterious voice as he strikes a few cords on his lute one night. An alternative, rather more poignant story traces his repentance back to a dream he had after spending the night drinking wine. At one time, he had purchased a female slave who caught his fancy. She bore him a daughter who died in infancy. Desperate to find relief from despair at the child’s death, Malik beholds the scene of the Re¬ surrection in his delirium and his daughter, clad in light, calling him to repentance as she chases away a threatening dragon.** Becoming an ascetic, Malik lives in modest quarters with neither lock nor key, and wears simple clothes, a sheepskin or a woollen coat. Well-ac¬ quainted with Jewish-Christian scriptures, he earns his livelihood making papyrus sheets and copying the Koran, observes protracted prayer vigils, writes a book on asceticism ( zuhd ) and dies in the year that an epidemic of plague ravages Basra. Two other stories of early Sufi conversions reiterate similar motifs. The highway robber Fudayl b. c Iyad (d. 187/803), a native of Samar- partially extant in manuscript, cf. GAS i. 639. Al-Dhahabi. Siyar ix. 313-316; Ta’rikh al-Islam (>ears 191-200) 227-232; al-Sulami, Tabaqat al-sufiyya. cd. J. Pcdcrseu. 54-59; ed. N. hurayba. 61-66; Abu Nu‘aym. Hilyat al-awhya’ viii, 58-73; Ibn ‘Asakir, Ta’rikh madinat Dimashq v iii. 94-102; ‘Altar. Tadhkirat al-awliya > i. 196-202. J. van Ess. Theologie and esellscha/t im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra (Berlin-New York 1992) ii 545-549 Gramlich, Alte Vorbilder ii. 13-62. SQ 3 Ch PeUat ' Mmk b - Dinar , El vi. 266-267; GAS i. 634; Gramlich. Alte Vorbilder i. -1 22; al-Dhahabi, Siyar v, 362-364; Ta’rikh al-islam (years 131-140). 214-217; Abu u ay m . Hilyat al-awliyd’ ii. 357-389; Ibn ‘Asakir. Ta’rikh madinat Dimashq vi. 181-205; AUar, Tadhkirat abawtiya 3 i. 40-48. Ibn Qudama, Kitdb abtawwabin. ed. G. Makdisi (Damascus 1961) 193-195. 48 GERHARD BOWERING qand who grew up in Ablward and belonged to the Banu Tamlm, re¬ nounces his life of robbery and rape to study hadilh at Kufa. Later he settles permanently as an ascetic in close proximity to the Ka c ba at Mecca (mujawir)* Bishr al-HafT (d. 227/841), a native of Marw who came to Baghdad, turns his back on an excessive life-style and a lust for women and wine, abandons his studies and buries his books to become a destitute mendicant, reported to have lived barefoot and in hunger. 5 6 In each of the five paradigmatic hagiographies the life change is embedded in a patterned scenario: an unforeseeable, sudden event shocks the individual; shaken by doubt or overcome by fear, he turns away from this world, abruptly abandons his accustomed way of life, repents and turns totally to God. The central event itself possesses mysterious qualities. A fire is kindled in Ibrahim’s soul; Shaqiq wakes up as if struck by a flash of insight; Malik hears the call of a mysterious voice; an arrow pierces Fudayl’s heart; and Bishr is visi¬ ted by someone calling in a dream. In each case, symbolic figures mark the turning point. Ibrahim happens upon a mysterious stranger on the roof top and in the halls of his house or encounters a beggar in his palace yard who is content with the modest daily ration God provides. Shaqiq meets a clean-shaven monk in saffron robes in a Buddhist temple of Central Asia who, although an idolater, teaches him the true meaning of the divine Sustainer. Malik meets the ange¬ lic figure of his deceased daughter in a dream. Fudayl realizes God’s presence and remembrance through someone’s solemn recital of a Koranic verse. Bishr finds a piece of paper in the gutter with God’s name written on it. These symbolic figures both conceal and reveal the powerful di¬ vine intervention that changes the Sufi's life. Though veiling the di¬ rect action of God, these symbolic figures manifest the actual pre¬ sence of the Transcendent who is apprehended directly in mystic ex¬ perience as ultimate reality, albeit ‘through a glass darkly’. Sufis of later centuries had the courage and freedom to express their spiritual 5 M. Smith. Fudayl b. r lyad. El, ii. 936; GAS i. 634; al-Dhahabi. Siyar viii. 372-390; Ta’rikh al-lsldm (years 181-190) 331-344; al-Sulami, Jabaqat al-sufiyya. ed. J. Pedersen. 7- 12; cd. N. Shurayba. 6-14; Abu Nu c ayin. Hityal al-awliya’ viii. 84-139; Ibn 'Asakir. Ta’rikh madinat Dimashq xiv, 256-289; 'Attar. Tadhkirat al-awliya 1 i. 74-85. 6 Cf. F. Meier. Bishr al-Hafi. El i. 1244-1246; GAS i. 638; al-Dhahabi. Siyar x. 469- 477; Ta’rikh al-lslam (years 221-230) 105-113; al-Sulami. Tabaqat al-suftyya. ed. J. Pedersen. 33-40; cd. N. Shurayba. 39-47; Abu Nu'aym, Hilyat al-awliya’ viii. 336-360; Ibn 'Asakir. Ta’rikh madinat Dimashq iii. 310-338; 'Attar. Tadhkirat al-awliya’ i. 106-114. Early sufism between persecution and heresy 49 life-history in full-fledged autobiographies. The early Sufis, how¬ ever, collected their spiritual itineraries as short fragments of me¬ mory about the first break-through of the Divine into their lives. As a constant in all five life stories, one finds the common elements of di¬ rect encounter with God and radical change of life: it is as if the two- sided nature of the Koranic tawba 7 i.e. God’s act of restoring man to divine mercy and man’s act of turning to God in repentance, was dramatically actualized in the lives of these mystics. The root t-w-b constructed with the prepositions c an or min does not occur in the Koran. It refers to the process of man’s turning away from sin and error rather than to a distinct crucial event at the be¬ ginning of a Sufi calling. This latter usage becomes a focal point in Sufi discussions about the theory of tawba , as it denotes most inci¬ sively the turning away from this world and describes the ideal of an ascetic way of life.® As the acts of external worship require outer and legal purity ( tahara ), so the Sufis felt, a person drawing near to God requires inner purification (tawba). The first is performed by actual ablution with water, the second by inward remorse and penitence. The Sufis observed that human beings in general were heedless in following the path to God, egoistic in their attitude and conduct toward others, and inclined to all kinds of sin ( dhanb , pi. dhunub), as mentioned in the Koran: minor sins, grave sins, unbelief (kufr) and 7 For a brief discussion of tawba in Ihe Koran, see the Appendix to the present article. 8 As a rule, the early Sufi handbooks include chapters on tawba\ cf. Abu Na$r 'Abdallah b. *Ali al-Sarraj, Kitab al-luma' fi'l-lasawwuf, cd. R.A. Nicholson (Ixidcn-London 1914) 43-44; cf. R. Gramlich. Schlaglichter iiber das Sufilum (Stuttgart 1990) 87-88; Abfl Uakr Muhammad b. Ishaq al-Kalabadhi. Kitab al-ta'arrtf li-madhhab ahl al-tasawwuf, ed. A.J. Arbeny (Cairo 1352/1933) 64-65; cf. G. C. Anawati and L. Gardet. Mystique mustilmane (Paris 1968) 147-159; Abu Talib Muhammad b. 'All al-Makki. Qut al-qulub fi mu'amalat al- mahbub (Cairo 1381/1961) i, 364-394; cf. R. Gnunlich. Die Nahrung der Herzen (Stuttgart 1992-95) ii. 9-52; Abu‘I-Qasiin 'Abd al-Kariui b. Ha«vazin al-Qushayri. al-Risala. cd. 'Abd al- Halim Mahmud and Mahmud b. al-Sharif (Cairo 1972-74) i, 253-263; cf. R. Grainlich, Das Sendschreiben al-Quiayris iiber das Sufttum (Wiesbaden 1989) 146-154; R. Hartmann. Al- Kuschairis Darstellung des Sufitums (Berlin 1914) 110-11; Abu Hamid Muhammad al- Ghazzali. Ihyd’ e ulum al-din (Cairo 1358/1939) iv, 2-59; cf. S. Wilzer. ‘Untersuchungcn zu Gazzalis Kitab at-Tauba’. Der Islam xxxii (1957) 237-309; xxxiii (1958) 51-120; xxxiv (1959) 128-137; R. Gramlich, Muhammad al-Gazzdli’s Lehre von den Stufcn zur Gottesliebe (Wiesbaden 1984) 19-135; M.S. Stern. ‘Notes on the theology of al-Ghazzali’s concept of repentance*. Islamic Quarterly xxiii (1979) 82-98. An early small tract on tawba is the Kitab bad’ man anaba ila Allah ta‘dla. ed. H. Ritter (Gliickstadt 1935) by Abu 'Abdallah al-Harilh b. Asad al-Muhasibi (d. 243/857); cf. also J. van Ess. Die Gedankenwelt des Hdrit al-Muhasibi (Bonn 1961)63. 126. 130-131. 140-142. 188. 51 50 GERHARD BOWERING idolatry (shirk).* For the Sufis, sin had its roots in disobedience ( ma'siya ) to the divine law and persistence in wrongdoing (isrdr). In adopting the theological definition of tawba as ‘regret for an act of disobedience, combined with the firm intention of avoiding it in the future’, 10 some Sufis inclined toward the Mu c tazili view that, be¬ cause of His justice, God is bound to accept the sinner’s sincere re¬ pentance, and others to the Ash c ari view that the Almighty has abso¬ lute freedom to grant or refuse forgiveness to the sinner. Going a step further in their early manuals, the Sufis offered a mi¬ nute analysis of sin and established catalogues of sins; ranging from al-Makki’s enumeration of principal sins 11 — arrogance, envy, greed and anger — to al-Ghazzali’s detailed lists that divide sins into those stemming from the heart, the tongue, the belly and other bodily or¬ gans. ^ Other Sufi theorists developed refined distinctions concern¬ ing tawbci, usually employing a threefold pattern, which al-Hujwiri synchronized and telescoped into succinct three-point maxims.>3 Sin and repentance were treated as relative concepts, keyed to the level of an individual’s spiritual progress. The differential scale of tawba for the common people ( al- c awamm ), the elect ( al-khawass ), and the gnostics (ahl al-ma'rifa ) is traced back by al-Sarraj and al-Kalabadhi to statements of DhQ’l-NQn al-Misri (d. 245/859) and Abu’l-Husayn al-Nuri (d. 295/907-8). 14 Dhfl’I-Nun coined the Sufi catchwords, ‘the sins of those drawn near to God (al-muqarrabun) are the good deeds of the pious (al-abrar)'^ and ‘the common people repent from sin and the elect from heedlessness’J 6 while al-Nuri held that Tcpen- 9 a.J. Wcnsinck and L. Gardct. Khali'a. El iv. 1106-1109; E. Sell. Sin (Muslim). Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics xi. 567-569 1° Muhammad c Ali al-Tnhanawi. Kitdb kashshdf iffilahal al-funun. ed. A. Sprengcr (Calcutta 1854) i. 162; cf. ‘All b. Muhammad al-Jurjani. Kitdb al-ta'rifat. cd. G. Fliigel (Leipzig 1845) 39, 74; M. Glotou. Knob al-ta c rifdl: ‘AH b. Muhammad al-Jurjdni (Tehran 1994)96.142-143. 11 Gramlich, Die Nahrung der Herzen ii. 46-48; iii, 213-227; iv. 227-228.239. 12 al-Ghazzali. Ihya ’ iv. 28; cf. Gramlich. Muhammad al-Gazzdli‘s Lehre 50-62. 13 Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali b. ‘Uthman al-Hujwiri al-Jullabi. Kashf al-mahjub . cd. V. Zhukovski (Tehran 1399/1979) 380-382; R.A. Nicholson. The Kashf al-mahjub (London 1936) 294-295 1 4 al-Sarraj. Kitdb al-luma' 44; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 88; al-Kalabadhi cites DhuT NOu as having reserved the third degree for the prophets (al-anbiyd’). cf. Kitdb al-ta'arruf 64: A.J. Arberry. The Doctrine of the Sufis (Cambridge 1935) 83. 1 5 al-Sarraj. Kitdb al luma'' 44; Gramlich, Schlaglichter 88. 16 al-SarrSj. Kitdb al-luma f 44; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 88; al-Kalabadhi. Kitdb al- ta‘arruf 64; Arberry, Doctrine 83. EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY tance is repenting of everything except God’.i 7 Three degrees of re¬ pentance, tawba, indba and awba, each with a successively higher motive, fear of divine punishment, desire for divine reward, and obedience to God’s command for its own sake, were cited m this ascending order of perfection by al-Qushayrf s teacher Abu c All al- Daqqaq (d. 405/1015).' 8 The distinction of specific termini a quo for repentance from sin, from heedlcssness and from everything other than God (i.e. from one’s own self and, particularly, from attention to one’s good deeds) became a standard Sufi tenet. 19 The differentiation between the repentance of the believers (al- mu’minun), the repentance of the saints, God’s friends (awliyd* Allah), and the repentance of the prophets (al-anbiyd*)™ ran into the difficulty of the delicate antinomy between the dogma of sinless prophets and the Koranic citation of their transgressions. To be sure, there were Sufi trends that developed to the extreme left and nght of these classifications, one lax and the other rigid. The Ibahiyya asser¬ ted that anyone who attains to union with God no longer lives in fear of sin or worries about the prescriptions of the law .21 In their scrupu¬ lous fear of shunning the praise of men, the Malamatiyya indulged in actions certain to appear scandalous in the sight of others so as to provoke their blame and rebuke. 22 A central aim of the Sufi handbooks, however, was to convey the good counsel of the Sufi masters on the necessity of avoiding the slightest voluntary sin to the point of scrupulosity ( wara c ) in one’s heart.23 The preferred means of maintaining this refined sense of sin was the examination of one’s conscience (muhdsabat al-nafs), be¬ cause the human heart was seen as a mirror that must be cleansed and polished of any rust spoiling it. 24 More importantly, however, 1 7 al-Sarraj, Kitdb al-luma t 44; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 88. 18 al-Qushayri. al-Risdla i, 258; Gramlich. Sendschreiben 150; al-Hujwiri. Kashf al- mahjiib 379-380. R.A. Nicholson. The Kashf al-mahjub 295. 19 al-Sarraj. Kitdb al-luma‘ 44; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 88; al-Kalabadhi, Kitdb al- ta'arruf 64; Arberry. Doctrine 83. 20 al-Kalabadhi. Kitdb al-ta c arruf 64; Arberry. Doctrine 83; al-Qushayri. al-Risdla i. 258; Gramlich. Sendschreiben 150; al-Hujwiri, Kashjal-mahjub 379-380; R.A. Nicholson. The Kashf al-mahjub 295. 21 W. Madelung and M.G.S. Hodgson, tbdha. El iii. 662-663; 22 F. dc Jong and H. Algar. Malamatiyya. El vi. 223-225. 23 al-Sarraj. Kitdb al-luma c 44-46; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 88-90; al-Qushayri. al-Risdla i. 284-291; Gramlich. Sendschreiben 170-176. 24 R. Deladrierc, Muhasaba. El vii, 465; van Ess, Gedankenwell. 139-143; al-Makki. Qut al-qulub i. 157-168; Gramlich. Die Nahrung der Herzen i, 271-28. The practice actually 52 GERHARD BOWERING EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 53 the disquisitions about sin and repentance led to a divisive contro¬ versy within early Sufism. Sahl al-Tustarl and his followers in Basra held that tawba means ‘that you do not forget your sin’, while al- Junayd and his group in Baghdad maintained that tawba means ‘that you forget your sin’. 25 Sahl al-Tustari stressed that man should be always aware of his sin so as to be able to turn to God with every breath, while al-Junayd understood the mystic to be so totally turned to God that he forgets about his sin. This controversy marked a deep divide within early Sufism about the Sufi’s fundamental attitude toward God. It separated the more ascetically-minded exoteric mystics of Basra who stressed spiritual struggle on the path to God ( mujdhada ), from the more mystically- inclined esoteric mystics of Baghdad who strove for mystical vision of God (mushahada). Eventually, Sufism inclined toward its more esoteric direction and saw the subtleties of tawba encapsulated in a powerful image: 4 Tawba means that you should be unto God a face without a back, even as you have formerly been unto Him a back without a face’.26 Beginning with the classical Sufi manuals, there is also evidence that tawba even crystallized into a Sufi ritual administered by the shaykh. As a ritual it included regulated physical postures and for¬ mulae of asking for God’s forgiveness in the spiritual master’s pre¬ sence. Few of the details of these rites are known and some are men¬ tioned only implicitly in the sources, but nevertheless they may be seen as forerunners of the standard rituals of tawba practiced in the later Sufi orders upon initiation into the fraternity and at moments of confessing sins in the presence of the brcthren.27 It is important to note that, already in classical Sufism, tawba as a ritual practice was probably concluded by the bay c a> the hand-clasp that re-established loyalty and authority with binding effect. 28 In early Sufism tawba was thus not only a dramatic experience of conversion and an ascetic ideal of rejecting the world, but a routinized and repeatable practice reflects the mystic's consciousness of being called by God to give an inward account of one’s actions. It is often understood in close association with the practice of “keeping God before one's eyes" (muraqaba) that focuses the mystic totally on God; cf. al-Makki. Qut al-qulub i. 182-193; Gramlich. Die Nahrung der Herzen i. 307-322; al-Ghazzali. Ihya’ iv, 381-409. 25 al-Sarraj. Kilab al-lurna e 43; Gramlich. Schlagiichier 87; al-Kalabadhi. Kilab al- (a c arruf 64. 26 al-Kalabadhi. Kilab al-ta'arruf 65. 27 r. Gramlich. Die schiitischen Denvischorden Persiens. Driller Teil: Brauchlum und Rilen (Wiesbaden 1981) 26-28. 94-95. 28 E. Tyan. Bay'a. El i. 1113-1114. of spiritual renewal. As Sufism became ever more organized in the communal life of its orders ( tariqa ), tawba increasingly became a moment of education in the shaykh’s instruction of the novice (murid) and thereby lost its original quality of a direct, though veiled encounter with the Transcendent. There is no doubt, however, that in the early centuries of Sufism tawba marked the decisive and crucial moment at the very beginning of a Sufi career. This explains why the Sufis embraced tawba as the first stage (maqam) on their path to God and understood their own place in history according to the hadith , that the time of Islam is zaman al-tawba y the time of radical reorientation to God. This radical reorientation to God brought the classical Sufis into conflict with large segments of that society on which they had turned their back. They were perceived as men who saw themselves as an elite, a group possessing higher knowledge and attaining a higher control over their own selves than the common Muslims. They pro¬ claimed their path to be a jihad greater than the most valiant effort in battle and called their discipline a violent conquest of this world, the lower self and the forces of Satan. They valued the spiritual journey to God deep within their own hearts over and above the pilgrimage to God’s house in Mecca. They chose practices for their way of life, such as particular forms of dress, routines of fasting, periods of retreat, exercises of mortification, and modes of seclusion that set them apart. Manifesting such unaccustomed behavior, they alienated society at large and were unable to find wide popular support. The Sufis’ visible, though marginal, presence in society was not only a reminder to everyone of the seriousness of their claims, it also particularly antagonized the scholars of law and religion. Seeing themselves as divinely chosen people, as God’s Friends (awliya*) and saints, the Sufis held their spiritual achievement to be equal to the experience of the prophets and laid claim to a reciprocal relation¬ ship of love with their Creator. Seeking deep mystical insight, which could be communicated only under the mantle of secrecy, they traced their ontological advent to the dawn of creation, when God entered into covenant with their primeval forms prior to fashioning mankind, and granted them the first act of intellect in their primeval profession of divine oneness (tawhid).w They couched their mystical insights in phrases and paradoxes that startled the scholars. From the 29 G. Bowcring, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam (Berlin-New York 1980) 145-157; M. Mole, Les mystiques musulmans (Paris 1982) 27-35. 54 GERHARD BOWERING moment of their tawba, they believed themselves to enjoy a direct access to God which other human beings were not privileged to pos¬ sess. In this manner the Sufis entered upon a course of conflict with the ordinary believers. They consciously provoked the learned in so¬ ciety with their claims to be a chosen elite. This conflictual situation may be illustrated by examples of Sufis who mainly lived in the third century of Islam. Some of them suf¬ fered the full brunt of this conflict through denunciations, charges of heresy or accusations of unbelief. Others were exiled, imprisoned, tortured or put to death. Abu Sulayman al-Darani (d. 215/830) was expelled from Syria for claiming to have had a vision of angcls.30 Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi (d. 269/882-3) was ostracized for declaring that he found God in the whistling of the wind and the crowing of the cock. 31 Abu Yazid al-Bastaml (d. 261/874-5) was exiled from his home town for claiming to have experienced a heavenly ascension analogous to that of the Prophcls.32 AbQ ‘Abdallah al-Husayn b. Bakr al-Subayhi, a contemporary of Sahl al-Tustari, was accused of unbelief by leading Shafi c i divines and forced to leave Basra. 33 AbQ Bakr al-Shibli (d. 334/946), a well-to-do c Abbasid official who gave up his lucrative post of prefect of Damawand to become a learned Maliki Sufi teacher, was thought to be insane, either by disposition or by design, and because of his outrageous utterances was eventual¬ ly confined to an insane asylum by the vizier c Ali b. l Isa (d. 334/946).34 Abu Bakr al-Wasitl (d. some time after 320/932) was driven out of seventy towns before he found safe quarters in Khura¬ san, first in Abiward and then in Marw.35 It would be too simplistic to assume that all these cases of conflict occurred between Sufis and non-Sufi opponents. Rather, it appears that some aspects of these conflicts were an intra-Sufi affair, pitting rival Sufis against each other and drawing the government into their quarrels and arguments. One personality, who came from Wasit to Baghdad in 264/877, stands out in this regard. He is Ghulam Khalil, 30 Ibn Kathir. al-Biddya wa'l-nihdya (Bcinii 1405/1984) x. 270. traces the story back to al-Sulami’s Mihan al-masha’ikh ; see also R. Gramlich. ‘Abu Sulayman ad-Daranl'. Orient xxxiii (1992) 22-85. 31 A.J. Arberry. Pages from the Kitab al-!uma c (London 1947) 6; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 551. 32 H. Ritter. Abu Yazid al-Bistdmi. El i. 162-163. 33 Arberry, Pages 9; Gramlich, Schlaglichter 549. 34 al-SarrSj, Kitab al-huna c 396-407; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 535-548. 35 al-Sulami. Jobaqal al-siifiyya 302. EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 55 who died in Baghdad in 275/888-9 but was buried in Basra.36 An ascetic scholar of hadith and a gifted preacher, Ghulam Khalil repre¬ sented the people of al-amr bi’l-ma c ruf who watched over public conduct and enjoined the good and forbade evil. Taking offense at the Sufi talk of mutual love between the Creator and His creature, he denounced al-NOri (see following paragraph) and his companions before the caliphal court and had government agents arrest some se¬ venty of them. 3 ? Besides a possible personal rivalry, it appears as if Ghulam Khalil may well represent the opposition of a deeply ascetic and traditional religiosity against the views of al-Nuri as an exponent of a more gnostic and mystically inspired spirituality. Abu’l-Husayn Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Nuri,38 bom in Baghdad and educated by Sari al-Saqati (d. 251/865), became one of the most prominent Sufis in the city and received the honorific titles ‘com¬ mander of the hearts’ and ‘moon of the Sufis’ from his fellow mys¬ tics on account of his subtle mystical knowledge and his shining face. In 264/877-8 Ghulam Khalil accused al-Nuri of heresy before al-Muwaffaq (d. 278/891), the caliphal regent and brother of the ca¬ liph al-Mu c tamid (256-79/870-92).39 Successfully responding to ac¬ cusations centered on his belief in reciprocal love between God and the mystic, al-NOri was released after an interrogation by the judge Isma c il b. Ish5q al-Hammadi (d. 282/896) and took refuge in Raqqa for fourteen years. Three specific accusations are highlighted in the sources: his claim of reciprocal love (‘I am in love with God and He with me’), his beginning to pray upon hearing the barking of a dog while cursing the muezzin (‘stab and poison him!’), and his claim of meeting God in his house (‘I am with God, whether I am at home or in an open field’). Al-Nuri countered each accusation with a Koranic verse: ‘He loves them and they love Him' (5/54); ‘Nothing is, that does not proclaim His praise’ (17/44); ‘We [i.e. God] are nearer to him [i.e. man] than the jugular vein’ (59/16). 40 In his old age, al-Nuri 36 For AbQ <Abdallah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ghalib al-Bahili al-Basrl. known as Ghulam Khalil, see al-Dhahabi. Siyar xiii. 282-285; Ta’rikh al-Islam (years 261-280) 276-278. His Kitab sharh al-sunna is extant in manuscript, see GAS i, 511; see also van Ess, Theologie und Geschichte iv. 281-8. 3 ^ Arbcny, Pages 5; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 549. A. Schimmel. Abu’l-Husayn al-Nuri, El viii. 139-140; GAS i, 650; al-Dhahabi. Sivar xiv. 70-77; Ta’rikh al-Islam (years 291-300) 66-72; lor his short treatise. Maqamat al-quliib, see P Nwyia. Textes mystiques inedits 117-143; Gramlich. Alte Vorbilder ii. 381-446. ^ al-Dhahabi. Siyar xiv, 71; Arberry. Pages 5; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 549. 56 GERHARD BOWERING returned to Baghdad, weak and partially blind, and met with the Sufis forming al-Junayd’s circle in the Shunuziyya Mosque. He died either in the ruins outside Baghdad or after lying unnoticed for days in the corner of a mosque, or by another account, of self-inflicted wounds received while running barefoot into a freshly cut reedbed in a moment of ecstasy. 41 Two other decisive instances when the government was drawn into Sufi quarrels involved al-Hallaj (d. 309/922), who was convicted af¬ ter a public trial and condemned to an excruciating death,« and Abu’l- C Abbas Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Adami, known as Ibn c Ata" (d 309/922), a renowned Hanbali Suf of Baghdad. Ibn c Aia 3 was at first a companion of al-Junayd (d. 297-8/910-11) and then became a close friend of al-Hallaj and a rival of Abu Muhammad al-Jurayn (d. 311/924), al-Junayd’s successor as leader of the Sufi circle^of Bagh¬ dad. 4 * Especially known for his jealous love of God, Ibn c Ala 3 was highly respected among the Sufis for his subtle interpretation of the Koran and his deep mystical union with God. He is further said to have lost his wife, his ten sons and all his possessions under violent circumstances, perhaps when their caravan was ambushed on a pil¬ grimage to Mecca. 44 Possibly against the background of such painful experiences, Ibn c Ata 3 engaged in intra-Sufi controversies, maintain¬ ing, against al-Junayd, that ecstasy was caused by sorrow rather than joy, and asserting, against al-Junayd and al-Jurayn, that wealth held pride of place over poverty as a Sufi ideal. 45 While such heated al¬ tercations earned him the curse of al-Junayd, his public rebuke of the vizier Hamid b. al- c Abbas (d. 311/924) (not C AII b. c Isa as al-Sarny says), possibly in defense of statements by al-Hallaj, so enraged the vizier that he had the outspoken mystic brutally beaten to death. 4 * Two other examples, which indicate intense conflict within Suti circles and illustrate the link between Sufi polemics and politics, are the earlier cases of Dhfl’l-Nun al-Misri and Abu Sa c Id al-Kharraz. 41 al-Sarrai. Kitcib al-luina r 210. 290: Gramlich. Schlaglichter 324,418. 42 His case has been studied extensively by L. Massignon. The Passion of al-Hallaj (Princeton 1982). See also L. Massignon/L. Gardct. al-Halladi. El ui. "‘UM ._ 43 al-Sulami, Tabaqat. ed. J. Pedersen. 260-268; ed. N. Shurayba 265-272; al-Dhahabt. Slyar xiv, 255-256; Ta’rikh al-Islam (years 301-320) 247-248; cf. Gramlich. Abu l-'Abbas b. ‘Atd\ Sufi und Koranausleger {Stuttgart 1995) 1-10. 44 al-Ansari. Tabaqat al-fufiyya, ed. c Abd al-Hayy-i Habibi (Kabul 1340) 295. Attar. Tadhkira ii. 68. 45 al-Makki, Qut al-qulub i. 201; Gramlich. Die Nahrung der Herzen u. 74. 4 * Arberry, Pages 9; Gramlich. Schlaglichter 555; al-Dhahabi. Siyarxiv . 256; Ta nkh al-lslam (years 301-320) 248. EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 57 Dhu’l-Nun (d. at JTza between 245/859 and 248/862) lived mainly in Lower-Egypt (Misr). He visited Mecca and traveled extensively in Palestine and Syria, becoming familiar with yrian asceticism. 47 His most influential contributions to Sufism remain his teaching on ec¬ stasy (wajd) and gnosis (ma c rifa), and his description of the soul’s journey to God along a path of stages and states, frequently called the ‘seven steps’ of the Sufi path. He defined the Sufi gnostics ( e arijun) as those who exist in God and contemplate His Face within their hearts, so that He reveals Himself to them in a way not accor¬ ded to others. Although Dhu’l-NQn’s notion of ma c rfa seems to re¬ flect his own mystical experience of inner religious knowlege of God, later Persian mystics tended to view him as an early Muslim exponent of a Hellenistic theory of gnosis 4 » During his lifetime he met with opposition from the Mu c tazila and from the Maliki jurists of Egypt, among them c Abd Allah b. c Abd al-Hakam (d. 214/829) who condemned him for public teaching about mystical experience. The Mu c tazila forced him to leave Egypt in 228/843 during the mihna. He was brought to SSmarra 3 to preach at the court of caliph al-Mutawakkil (232-47/847-61) and may have been imprisoned in Baghdad for a short while, presumably for maintaining the ‘uncre¬ atedness’ of the Koran. After being released on al-Mutawakkil’s or¬ ders, he returned to Egypt. The case of DhO’l-Nun illustrates the controversial nature of the knowledge the Sufis claimed to have re¬ ceived as intuition and inner revelation. Abu Sa c Id al-Kharraz (d. in Egypt in 286/899), a leading figure in the Sufi circles of Baghdad, became an outstanding exponent of classical Sufi theory and was called ‘the tongue of Sufism’ by his contemporaries. Born in Baghdad, al-Kharraz studied with promi¬ nent Sufis of his time and traveled extensively, visiting the major Muslim cities of Iraq, Syria, Arabia and Egypt, as well as Jerusalem in Palestine and Qayrawan in North Africa. 4 ^ Al-Kharraz’s life and work as a Sufi author were marked by polemics and persecution. He 47 G. Bowering, Du 'l-Nun Mesri. Encyclopaedia Iranica vii. 572-573. 4 ® Bowering. Mystical Vision 50-54. Yahyft al-Suhrawardi (d. 587/1191) dubbed ihe wisdom tradition of the ancient sages "the pre-eternal leaven ( al-khainira at-azaliyya )" and considered his own philosophy of illumination to stem from the confluence of the two principal strands of this wisdom tradition. Ihe Persian legacy (transmitted through Kaykhusraw and continued in the Sufi milieu by Bayazid al-Basldmi and al-Kharaqanl) and the Greek heritage (transmitted through Hermes and integrated into Sufism by Dhu’l-Nun and Sahl al- Tuslari). 49 W. Madelung. Al-Kharraz . El iv. 1083-1084 58 GERHARD BOWERING was accused of unbelief ( kufr ) by the scholars of Baghdad because they judged expressions he employed in his Kitab al-sirr to be here¬ tical. Probably in 264/878 al-Kharraz was forced to leave his home town and take up residence in Mecca where he lived for eleven years, until his teachings led to his expulsion by the local governor. During the last part of his life al-Kharraz found refuge in Egypt where he died in 286/899. He conducted a controversial correspon¬ dence on Sufi doctrine with Ibn c Ata 3 and al-NOri, sustained a lengthy polemic with the Sufi circles of Damascus concerning the nature of the vision of God, and he wrote his Kitab al-kashf wa’l- bayan — perhaps a refutation of al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi's theory of sainthood (wilaya). 50 His case clearly reveals the friction that existed within Sufi circles over the issue of the precise nature of visionary experiences. Al-Kharraz endeavored to synthesize theories of ecstatic mysti¬ cism with the traditional teachings of Islamic religious law. He maintained that the esoteric meaning of scripture and law had to be authenticated by their literal sense and he upheld the superiority of prophetical over mystical knowledge. He grounded such Sufi practi¬ ces as recollection of God (dhikr) and listening to Koran recital ( samd c ) in the regular and proper performance of five-fold daily prayer. Al-Kharraz developed the influential mystical theory of al- fana* wa’l-baqcv' (self-obliteration and subsistence in God), which became a watchword of Sufism for the apex of mystical experience, combining mystical knowledge as anamnesis of the primordial co¬ venant ( alastu bi-rabbikum) with the vision of God {ru’ya).^ Through this theory he refined the Sufi argument favoring the substi¬ tution of divine attributes for human qualities in the experience of mystical union — a view condemned as heresy by later generations but one which remained influential in Sufi circles for many centuries. The common denominator for both the intramural rivalries be¬ tween Sufi ascetics and mystics and their external conflicts with the scholars of law and religion seems to have been the claim to recipro¬ cal love between God and the mystic, particularly when such a claim was made publicly. Once the notion of mystic insight, whether vi¬ sionary experience of God or symbolically-mediated encounter with the divine presence, became a public scandal, the Sufis were con- 50 al-Kharraz. Rasa’ll al-Kharraz, cd. Q. Samarra’i (Baghdad 1387/1967) 31-37 51 G. Bowering. ‘Baqa J wa fana’ Encyclopaedia Iranica iii. 722-724 EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 59 fronted with persecution by the populace and prosecution by the government. As long as their teachings were confined within their own circles, the Sufis managed to find ways of peaceful coexistence with both the government and society at large. As soon as they pro¬ claimed their teachings in public, however, they came into serious conflict with the authorities, as the trial and crucifixion of al-Hallaj demonstrate most dramatically. Subsequent to public exposure, Sufi doctrines were attacked by the scholars of law and religion and eventually labelled as heretical. As in other areas of religious disputation, the polemical presentation of Sufi doctrine for purposes of refutation tended to caricature the actu¬ al teachings and to reinforce the objections raised by the adversaries of Sufism. This process can be amply documented with regard to the tenets of a group of Sufi theologians known as the Salimiyya, who were allied with the Malikls and attacked by the Hanbalis. The case of the Salimiyya also shows in quite some detail how Sufi Koran in¬ terpretation, in this case that attributed to their ninth-century forebear Sahl al-Tustari, was exploited by opponents of Sufism to formulate accusations of heresy and to draw up lieresiographical lists of false doctrines. Tracing that process requires an understanding of both the mystical exegesis of Sahl al-Tustari and its subsequent enshrinement and development by the Salimiyya. Sahl al-Tustari (d. in Basra in 283/896)52 is remembered in later hagiographical literature for his technicolor vision of God's supreme name, written in the sky from east to west in green light,53 and for his visionary journeys to Noah’s ark on Mount Qaf and the city of the c Ad, built by the Jinn in Yemeni When the Zanj occupied Tustar for a short time in 263/877, he was summoned to the camp of the Saffarids to cure their ailing leader, Ya c qub b. al-Laylh, who had been wounded when defeated by the caliphal regent al-Muwaffaq in 262/876.55 Expelled from his home town for political or doctrinal reasons, Sahl al-Tustari took up residence in Basra early in 263/877, though another strand of evidence in the sources would suggest that he had already settled there as early as 258/871 when the Zanj sacked the town. 56 In Basra, Sahl al-Tustari was initially welcomed 52 53 54 55 56 Bowering. Mystical Vision 43-99. Cf. Sahl al-Tustari. Tafsiral-Qur’an al-karim (Cairo 1329/1911) 17. 24. al-Makkl. Qut al-qulub ii. 138; Gramlich, Die Nahrung der Herzen ii. 564-565. Abu Nu e aym. Hilyat al-awliya 9 x. 210. al-Makki. Qut al-qulub ii. 141; Gramlich. Die Nahrung der Herzen ii. 569. 60 GERHARD BOWERING EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 61 by Abu Da 3 ud al-Sijistanl (d. 275/889) but, because of his claim to be ‘the proof of God’ ( hujjat Allah), soon became involved in reli¬ gious controversy with Abu Yahya Zakariya 3 al-Saji (d. 307/909) and Abu c Abdallah al-Zubayri (d. 317/929), leading Shafrii scholars of the city. 57 The central focus of Sahl al-Tustari’s mysticism is the Sufi re¬ collection of God ( dhikr ), a key practice which he put on a firm theo¬ retical basis. According to the extant biographical sources, all his life he observed the method of recollecting God by repeating the mental prayer ‘God is my witness’ ( Alldhu shahidi) and understanding this recollection to be his daily nourishment (qut). He interpreted it ex- perientially as the breakthrough to God, who effects His own re¬ collection within the mystic’s heart (dhikr Allah bi'llah; al-dhikr hi’l-madhkur). Anchoring the foundations of dhikr in the self-revela¬ tion of God at the primordial covenant in pre-existence (< alastu bi- rabbikum , 7/172), Sahl al-Tustari understood this practice of re¬ collection as anamnesis. The mystic rediscovers that primeval mo¬ ment of humanity before God in the inmost recesses of his soul ( sirr al-nafs) when he hears Pharaoh’s blasphemous proclamation of his own lordship, ‘I am your Lord Most High’ (and rabbukum al-a c la , 79/24). Listening to God, the true speaker of the Koran, the mystic paradoxically perceives the actual essence of belief flowing from Pharaoh’s tongue of unbelief and remembers in his experience the moment when God, in pre-existence, affirmed His oneness and lord- ship before all humanity. There is only one who can truly say, T am’ (and). This is God Himself, giving expression to the secret of divine lordship (sirr al-rububiyya) as captured by the mystic in the expe¬ rience of recollection. 58 Sahl al-Tustari’s mystical theology is deeply embedded in Koranic exegesis, and his interpretation of Koran 7/172, in conjunction with 79/24, as well as his interpretation of 2/30 in conjunction with 53/13- 18, and his interpretation of 39/42, all provided focal points of con¬ troversy involving his circle of disciples in Basra. Interpreting Koran 2/30 and 53/13-18, Sahl al-Tustari developed the idea of ‘the light of Muhammad’ (nur Muhammad) to designate the primal man and prototypical mystic, conceiving of Muhammad as the column of light ( c amud al-nur) standing in primordial adoration of God, the crystal which draws the divine light upon itself and projects it onto 57 al-Sha c ranI, al-fobaqat al-kubra (Cairo 1315/1897) i. 67. 58 Bowering, Sahl al-Tustari. El viii. 841. humanity. In his psychology, Sahl al-Tustari plays on the double entendre of nafas (breath; life-breath) and nafs (soul, self) and per¬ ceives the human soul as the theater of a struggle between two anta¬ gonistic tendencies, the spiritual self (nafs al-ruh) and the natural self (nafs al-tab c ). Interpreting Koran 39/42, Sahl al-Tustari traces the two selves to the notion of tawaffi (God’s taking the souls unto Himself in death, sleep and mystic ascent) and understands each of them as subtle substances, the one luminous, the other coarse. 59 There are only fragmentary source texts which illuminate Sahl al- Tustari’s resolution of the central problem of Muslim theology con¬ cerning the interrelation between divine omnipotence and human responsibility. From these we can reconstruct his view that God creates both good and evil and possesses two kinds of will, divine volition (mashVa) and creative will ( irada ). Since human action is caused by divine agency, God must possess divine foreknowledge ( c ilm Allah al-sdbiq) of it prior to its actual occurrence. God’s provi¬ dence, made explicit in His commands and prohibitions, parallels His guidance, as expressed in His help (ma c una t also termed wilaya) and protection ( c isma). When man performs an action in conformity with the divine commands and prohibitions, he is granted the divine succour of God’s ma c una , i.e. divinely conferred success (tawfiq). Should he commit an act in opposition to the divine commands and prohibitions, man places himself outside the divine custody and is deserted by God, who withdraws His c isma and forsakes man (khidhldn). It is man’s duty to turn to God with thanksgiving when he performs a good deed and to seek God’s succour through repen¬ tance when he commits an evil deed. Whether man conforms to, or opposes, the divine commands and prohibitions, in each case the action itself comes from God, although it is carried out through man.60 Shortly after his death in Basra, Sahl al-Tustari’s direct disciples split into two groups. One group chose Baghdad as the center of their activity, either joining the Sufi circle of al-Junayd or associating themselves with the Hanbalis in the city’s Muhawwal quarter. The other group remained in Basra and found acceptance among the local Malikls. It formed the nucleus of a previously-mentioned theological school, the Salimiyya, that was organized by Abu’l-Hasan Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Salim al-Basri (d. 356/967), the son of Sahl al- 59 Bowering. Mystical Vision 149-153; 244-246. 60 Bowering. Mystical Vision 175-184. 62 GERHARD BOWERING Tustari’s life-long associate Muhammad b. Salim. The most famous exponent of the Salimiyya, however, was Abu Talib al-Makkl (d. 386/996) who, in his Qut al-qulub, frequently cites Abu’l-Hasan as 'our shaykh' and Sahl al-Tustari as ‘our imam’. The Salimiyya, which also adopted ideas propagated by AbO Hulman al-Farisi al- Dimashqi (d. circa 340/951), became the target of a refutation («/- Radd c aia lbn Salim ) written by the ShafTi (or Zahm) Ibn KhafTf (d. 371/981 ). 61 Possibly on the basis of this refutation, a polemical list of eighteen objectionable propositions was drawn up in Hanbali circles by Ibn al-Farra 3 (d. 458/1065) and recorded in his Mu'tamad. c Abd al-Qadir al-Jilan! (d. 561/1167) copied and rejected twelve of these propositions in his GhunyaV The Mu'tamad presented the teachings of the Salimiyya in a manner guaranteed to appear here¬ tical to those Hanballs who were intent on casting aspersions on pro¬ ponents of Malik! Sufism. Even after a cursory glance at a few of the eighteen propositions, one realizes how much such a polemical presentation is a distortion of Sahl al-Tustari’s original teachings. In the third proposition of the anti-Salimiyya polemic, Sahl al-Tustarfs conception of the light of Muhammad is transformed into the anthropomorphic heresy: God will be seen on the Day of Resurrection in the form of a Muhammad- like human being’. This, in turn, seemed to be reinforced by the sixth proposition: ‘The unbelievers will see God in the world to come while He calls them to give account'. In the thirteenth proposition Sahl al-Tustarfs distinction between God’s volition and His creative will is misrepresented as introducing finitude into the concept of the Creator- ‘The creative will is a branch of the divine volition, and di¬ vine volition is the root of the creative will; the divine volition is eternal but the creative will is originated’. Again, this misrepresenta¬ tion appears to find confirmation in the seventeenth proposition: ‘God has a single divine volition, as He has a single knowledge; but He has an (act of) creative will with each expressly willed object . The fifteenth proposition seems to challenge the concept of prophet- hood: ‘The Prophet knew the Koran by heart pnor to the (call to) prophethood and before Gabriel came to him’, an assertion appa¬ rently supported by the ninth propostion: ‘Gabriel comes to the Pro¬ phet without leaving his (heavenly) place’, and the sixteenth: God 61 This texl has cot come down to us; see Bdwering. Sahl F.I vui. WO. 62 ibn al-Farra 5 . al-Mu'tamadfi usul al-din (Bemit 1974) 217-221; Abd al-QSdir al- Jilani. al-Ghunva U-talibi fariq al-haqq (Cairo 1322) i, 106-107. EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 63 (Himself) recites through the tongue of every Koran reader; when one listens to the Koran recitation of a reader, one hears it from God’. 63 In addition to such polemical distortion, charges of heresy against Sufis took the form of direct attacks on Sufi Koranic commentary. A particularly virulent and enduring line of attack emerged from the in¬ creasing Sunni-Shii polarity. In this regard, some of the harshest cri¬ ticism was reserved for Abu c Abd al-Rahman al-Sulaml (d. 412/1021) who dared to integrate a considerable body of Shi c i mate¬ rial into his two Sufi Koran commentaries and thereby aroused the opposition of orthodox scholars. Already during al-Sulamfs lifetime, Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Qattan (d. 422/1031) disparaged him as an unreliable fabricator. 6 -* Al-Wahid! (d. 468/1076) likened the Haqd'iq al-iafsir to unbelief ( kufr ) 6 ^ and Ibn al-Jaw/j (d. 597/1200) attacked it in his Talbis Iblis.^ Later authors such as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) in his Fat aw a issued highly critical judgements against the work. 67 Al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348) doubted even whether al- Sulami ought to be credited with the authorship of the Haqa'iq al- tafslr , since in al-Dhahabi’s opinion the work was a compendium of distortion and heresy ( tahrif wa-qarmatc). 68 In fact, al-Sulami collected hundreds of glosses on the authority of Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765) in his Koran commentaries. The material derives from different sources, though much of it is explicitly quoted on the authority of two isnads. One isnad is traced back through Abu Nasr Mansur b. c Abd Allah al-Isbahani, Abu’l-Qasim al-Iskandaran! and Abu Ja c far al-Malati to the chain of the Shi c i imams ascending from c AIT al-Rida (d. 203/818) through Musa al-Kazim (d. 183/799) to Ja c far al-Sadiq. The other isnad links al-Sulami to the same Sh! c I line of imams through Ahmad b. Nasr al-Dhari c , c Abdallah b. Ahmad b. c Amir and his father. Though al-Daraqutn! (d. 385/995), Ibn al-Jawzi and al-Dhahabi consider this latter chain totally unreli¬ able, they substantiate a written source ( nuskha ) and well-known volume (juz 3 mashhur) as the basis for much of the same material at- 63 Bowcring, Mystical Vision 94-95. 64 al-Dhahabi. Tadhkiral at-hujjaz (Hyderabad 1958) 1046. 65 al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. Ta'rikh Baghdad (Cairo 1931) ii. 248. 66 Ibn al-Jawzi. Talbis Iblis (Cairo 1340/1922) 354. 67 lbn Taymiyya. MajmiV fatawa shaykh al-lslarn (Beirut 1328/1910) x. 367. 681; xi. 41-43.578. 581; xiii. 240. 242-244; xviii. 72; 35. 184. 68 al-Dhahabi. Siyar xvii. 255; Ta’rikh al-Isldm (years 401 -420) 307. 64 GERHARD BOWERING tributed to Ja c far al-Sadiq. 69 Al-DhahabI further states that there were three versions of the family tradition transmitted by c AlI al-Rida and attributed to Ja c far al-Sadiq, one of which was_‘a big volume’ (nuskha kabira) in the possession of Ahmad b. c Amir al-Ta’i. This information is con¬ firmed by al-Najashi (d. 450/1058) who read the volume (nuskha) with his teacher and received an authorization ( ijaza ) to transmit it. The second version was in the hands of c All b. Mahdi al-Raqqi, a source with which al-Sulam! became familiar at Kufa as transmitted by Muhammad b. c Abdallah b. al-Muttalib al-Shaybanl (297- 387/910-97). The third version was in the possession of Da J ud b. Sulayman al-Jurjani who is cited in the local history of Qazwin as a transmitter of Shi c i material on the authority of C AII al-Rida, who spent time in Qazwin hiding from his enemies. Though not directly germane to my argument, it is worth noting that the polemical atti¬ tude of al-Dhahabl and others toward the Shi c i tradition induced the polemicists to record the existence of this line of transmission and to establish evidence indicating the appropriation of the ShH tradition by Sunni Sufism in Khurasan in the fourth/tenth century. 70 The opponents of Sufism, and the Hanbalis in particular, recog¬ nized the power of Sufi Koran interpretation and combatted it with polemical invective that tended both to misconstrue the actual teach¬ ings of the Sufis and to vilify their doctrines. These adversaries per¬ ceived the inner strength of the Sufi hermeneutics, an interpretive perspective based on direct access to a deeper level of meaning enshrined in the Koran, generally termed batin , the ‘inner sense’ of the Koran. They also detected the strong link that mutually bound Sufis and Shi c is in their employment of a batin method of Koranic interpretation. Discounting the genealogical limitations through which the Shi c is restricted the validity of the batin to authentic statements of the imams, the Sufis anchored themselves in the con¬ viction that God continued to communicate directly with his mystical elect in the time after the Prophet. They discovered the foundations of their election in tawba, their total and unconditional turning to God, a movement accepted and rewarded by unequivocal divine self- revelation. They remained anchored to this foundation in the face of conflict, persecution and accusations of heresy, from both within 69 G. Bowering. ’The Major Sources of SulamJ's Minor Koran Commentary'. Oriens xxxv (1996) 35-56. 70 Bowering. ‘Major Sources' 52-56. EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 65 their own circles and beyond, by continuing to elicit from the Koran a level of meaning that unearthed treasures of insight. Despite their attempts throughout history to appease the scholars of law and reli¬ gion by presenting themselves as law-abiding and tradition- respecting Muslims, the Sufis continued to challenge a rigid under¬ standing of the unimpeachable transcendence of God and the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood. This challenge was perennially rein¬ forced both by their inner conversion and their belief in the impor¬ tance of continually sending deep resonant probes into the inex¬ haustible text of the Koran. APPENDIX A note on i-w-b in the Koraa The various derivatives of the stem t-w-b arc cited 87 times in the Koran (63 times in Medinan, and 21 times in later Meccan verses) and their earliest occurrence falls iu the second Mcccau period with reference to God's turning to Adam in forgiveness. 7 * Besides its general use in absolute construction, the root displays a characteristic usage in the Koran when joined with the prepositions iM and 'ala. Used with i/d. it denotes man's turning to God in repentance; used with 'ala. it signifies God's turning to man in forgivcucss.72 Allah is tawwab rahlm, most forgiving and merciful. 7 -* ‘Iliough God is always ready to accept repentance 7 ^ from both men and wotnen. 7 ^ the Koran docs not approve of dcithbcd repentance. 70 The Koran includes a telling example of God's forgiveness in answer to the repentance of the prophet David 77 and records Moses's outcry. *1 repent to You', for having requested to look upon God 7 ® Honoring Moses's words of repentance, a Meccan sura of the Koran cites the formula. ‘I repent unto You and am of the Muslims', as the expression of a polytheist's conversion to Islam 79 Just ns Mo¬ ses was thrown to the ground before the divine manifestation, so the convert accepts Islam in total surrender to God. 71 Koran 2/37. 7 ^ Derivatives of the root frequently appear in surah 9 which bears the title al-tawba. For a complete list of references for the stem t-w-b and its derivatives in the Koran, sec Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abd al-Baqi. al-Mu'jam al-rnufahras fi alfai al-Qur’an al-karim (Istanbul 1982) 156-158. 73 Koran 110/3 (rawwab); 2/37. 54. 128. 160; 9/104, 118; 49/12; 4/16, 64 (tawwab rahim ); 24/10 (tawwab hakim), cf. the frequent parallel passage ghafur rahitn, 2/173 et passim. Koran 40/3 (qabil al-tawb); cf. 42/25; 9/104. Koran 9/112 ( al-ta 3 ibun)\ 66/5 (al-td : ibat): 2/222 (al-tawwabln). Koran 4/18. Koran 38/24-25 (anaba wa-ghafama lahu). Koran 7/143 (tubtu ilayka). Koran 46/15 (tubtu ilayka wa-inni min al-muslimin). 74 75 76 77 78 79 66 GERHARD BOWERING Reflecting the awareness that repentance is a life-long practice and an abiding attitude of the Muslim, the hapax legouieuon of a Mediuan surah issues the highly intensive command. "Be¬ lievers. turn to God in sincere repentance'. 80 Sincere repentance for sins committed through ignorance 81 is preceded by asking forgiveness 82 and followed by works of faith 83 In the Ko¬ ran repentance is necessary for a variety of transgressions such as idolatry, hypocrisy, doubting revelation, persecuting Muslims, lending money at interest and slandering virtuous women. 84 Repentance is especially required of the Mcdinan turncoats (al-mundftqun) who publicly ac¬ cept Muhammad's authority yet secretly undermine it, 85 and imposed ou those who have re¬ sisted Muhammad's cause by the force of arms. 86 Though the Koran leaves no room for re¬ pentance from apostasy, 87 it opens a loophole for an apostate's rccantatiou 88 This mitigation accords with the general tenor of Koranic repentance, encapsulated in the succinct statements. ‘Whoever repents after his evildoing and makes amends. God will turn toward him'. 80 and. "God will turn only toward those who do evil in ignorance and then repent without delay". 90 The two-sided prepositional construction of the root, denoting God's act of restoring man to divine mercy and mau’s act of turning wholeheartedly to God in repentance, signifies a ge¬ nuine conversion, a mutual turning of Creator and creature to one another. Both the origin and the terminus of repentance is God. The initiative for tawba is with God. because "He turns toward them, that they might repent'; 91 it becomes complete only when repentance is accepted by God, thus rcintroduciug the creature into the full compact and covenant with Him. 92 80 Koran 66/8 (tawbalan nasutum). 81 Koran 6/54; 16/120. 82 Koran 11/3, 52. 61. 90. The prophet $alih's admonition of his people, the Thamud. to ask forgiveness aud repent of their idolatry (1 1/52. fa'slaghfiruhu ihumma lubQ ilayhi) may reflect a prc-Islamic ritual of repeutauce. requiring intercession and a gesture of remorse before one receives pardon. 83 Koran 25/70-71. 84 E.g., Koran 9/3; 4/146; 9/126; 85/10; 2/279; 24/5. 85 Koran 4/145-146. 86 Koran 5/33-34. 87 Korau 5/90 (Ian tuqbala tawbaiuhum). 88 Korau 9/74 (fa-in yaliibu yaku khayran) 89 Koran 5/39 (fa-man taba min ba'di fulmihi wa-aflahafa-inna Alldha yaliibu 'alayhi). 90 Koran 4/17 (innamd al-tawbatu c ala 'Itdhi li 'l-ladhina ya'maltina al-sil’a bi-jahdlatin ihumma yatiibuna min qarib). 9 1 Koran 9:118 (taba c alayhim li-yatubu ); cf. Muhyi al-Din lbn al- c Arabi. al-Fuiuhdt al- makkiyya (Cairo 1329) ii, 144. 92 The Koran employs the root n-d-m nine times to denote cither the act of remorse and regret (al-niddma) or to express a person's attitude of feeling vexed at having done (or hidden) an evil deed. Thus, after killing his brother Cain became one of those who repent (al-nadimin, 5/31). The use of al-niddma and al-nadimin, however, neither includes a person’s explicit act of turning to God nor connotes the reciprocity found in the root t-w-b which entails the mutual turning of Creator and creature to one another (for references to the stem n-d-m in the Koran, sec c Abd al-Baqi. al-Mufam al-mufahras 691). On the other hand, the derivatives of the root n-w-b. used 19 limes in the Koran (sec { Abd al-Baqi. al-Mu'jam al-mufahras 722). stress the EARLY SUFISM BETWEEN PERSECUTION AND HERESY 67 Three issues related to the notion of tawba that arc not treated in the proceeding discussion arc: (1) the linguistic question of why Arabic usage did not follow the laws of Semitic sound- shift when it adopted t-w-b with regard to its Syriac/Arainaic and Hebrew equivalents; 93 (2) the historical phenomena of the Shi'i Arab lawwdbun, who sacrificed their lives for the failure of the community to fulfil its obligation to Husayn. the Prophet's grandson, aud of the Sunni Arab lawwdbun, mentioned by al-Mas‘udi as a detachment of police who were recruited from a group of former thieves who had repented of their past misbehavior; 94 and (3) the theologi¬ cal discussion of the Mu f tazila about tawba, ranging from its origins in the Kitab al-tawba ascribed to Wa$il b. ‘Ata* (d. 131/748 ) 95 to the disquisitions in the Mughni of Qadi c Abd al- Jabbar (d. 415/I025) 96 including the illustrations found iu the Kitab al-tawba of lbn Abl'l- Dunya (d. 281/894) 97 and the Hanbali treatise Kitab al-lawwdbin of lbn Qudama (d. 620/1223) 98 creature’s turning to God in repentance without, however, implyiug the reciprocity included in the use of t-w-b. Rather, as shown by the example of David. 38/24-25, derivatives of the frequently cited stem gh-f-r in the Koran (see ‘Abd al-Baqi, al-Mu e jam al-mufahras 499-SQ3), denoting God's forgiveness, express the Creator's turning to the creature, (hereby establishing the divine response to the human act of repentance. 93 Hebrew teshtibdh. Aramaic telhubdh. 94 Though the term tawwabun has a Koranic origin (2/222). it is used with particular connotations in the historical sources; cf. al-Tabari. Ta’rikh al-rusul wa't-muliik (Cairo 1387/1967) v. 551-563; lbn Kathir. Al-biddya wa'I-nihdya viii. 250-253; 254-259; al-Mas c udi, Muruj al-dhahab. ed. B. dc Mcynard (Paris 1877) v. 217-223. 95 For tbc Kitab al-tawba ascribed to Wasil b. c 4ta 5 . see GAS i. 596; van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschafl v. 137. 96 f Abd al-Jabbar b. Ahmad al-Asadabadi. al-Mughnifi awdb al-tawhid wa'l-'adl (Cairo 1960-65) xiv (1385/1965) 311-461. 97 For the Kitab al-tawba of lbn Abi’l-Dunya, : Abdallah b. Muhammad al-Qurashi. sec A.J. Arbcrry. ‘lbn Abi'l-Dunya on Penitence", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1951) 48- 63; cf. GAL i. 153-154; S i. 247-248; Rcinhard Wcipcrt und Stefan Wcningcr, ‘Die crfialtcncn Wcrkc des lbn Abi d-Dunya*. Zeitschrifl der Deuischen Morgenlandischen Gesellschafl cxlvi (1996)449. 98 lbn Qudama. Kitab al-iawwdbtn, ed. G. Makdisi (Damascus 1961). THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 69 THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM FLORIAN SOBIEROJ Contrary to all appearances, Sufism and the Mu'tazila share com¬ mon roots. Al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110/728), considered one of the founding fathers of Sufism, 1 is known to have been the teacher of Wasil b. c Ata 3 , who is associated with the origins of the Mu c tazila. Although the Mu c tazila were not the major recipients of Hasan’s re¬ ligious legacy — ascetico-mystical ideas ( ikhlas, c ishq ) flourished in particular in the circle of Hasan’s student c Abd al-Wahid b. Zayd and the Bakriyya 2 — nevertheless there were some Mu c tazila who wore the woolen Sufi frock and manifested ascetic traits. When, in the wake of the fall of the Barmakids (187/803), the ahl al-hadith gained influence over Harun al-Rashid, the Mu c tazili poet Abu c Amr Kulthum al- c Attabi (d. probably 208/823) who sought the favour of the caliph began to ‘wear wool ( yalbis al-suf) and dis¬ played asceticism’. 3 As Sufi tendencies increased yet further, an Iranian preacher of Mu c tazili persuasion, AbuT-Sari Mansur b. c Ammar al-Sulaml, enjoyed an even greater popularity than Kulthum. 4 Abu c Abd al-Rahman al-Sulamt has included him in his collection of Sufi lives. 5 In addition to these developments, the occurrence of the civil war between al-Amln and his brother al-Ma^mun brought about a certain 1 Cf. Abu Talib al-Makki, Qut al-qulub: ‘Al-Hasan was Ihe first who revealed ihe path of this science' (cf. Richard Gramlich, Die Nahrung der Herzen. Abu Talib al-Makkis Qut al- qulub, eingclcitct, iibcrsctzt und koinutentiert, i-iv (Stuttgart 1992) i. 14. See also c Abd al- Wahhab al-Sha c rani, al-Tabaqdl al-kubra (Cairo n.d.) i. 25. 2 The Bakriyya were followers of Bakr b. Ukht f Ahd al-Wahid b. Zayd. the nephew of c Abd al-Wahid; see Josef van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jh. Hidsehra. Eine Geschichie des religiosen Denkens bn friihen Islam, i-vi (Berlin-New York 1991-7) ii, 108- 118. The Mn c ia/ili leader Bishr b. al-Mu c lamir disputed with Bakr (van Ess. op. cit_ ii. 109). 3 Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. Ta’rikh Baghdad. 1-14 (Cairo 1349/1931) xii, 488; van Ess. op. cit. ii. 100 f.) 4 Ibid. iii. 102 ff. 5 Abu c Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami. Tabaqat aUsufiyya, cd. Nur al-Din Shurayba (Cairo 1372/1953) 130-6. no. 17. modification of Mu c tazill theology in the direction of Sufism.6 The protagonist in this process was the founder of the Baghdadi school of the Mu c tazila, Abu Sahl Bishr b. al-Mu c tamir (d. 210/825). Among his students Ibn al-Mu c tamir attracted certain people who are desig¬ nated in a Mu c tazill text 2 as sufiyyat al-mu : tazila. One of these Mu c tazili Sufis was Abu c Imran al-Raqashi,Abu’l-Qasim al-Balkhi 8 who declared paid labour forbidden and considered the Islamic community to be a ‘house of disbelief. The prohibition of paid la¬ bour, tahrim al-makasib, was known in Sufism as a manifestation of extreme trust in God as preached by the Khurasanian ascetic Shaqiq al-Balkhi (d. 194/809-10). Certain of these Sufis also eschewed the pursuit of kasb on the grounds of religious scrupulosity (wara% since they considered everything in the dar al-islam to be corrupt and illegitimate. Thus, they viewed the gains of their mendicant ac¬ tivity as equal to carrion which is permissible for the Muslim in an emergency situation. 9 Some of the sufiyyat al-mu c tazila held anthro¬ pomorphic beliefs. An example is Abu Shu c ayb al-Nasik, who is re¬ ferred to as ‘one of the old Mu c tazila’ by al-Jahiz and as a sufi by al- Ash c ari. 10 He believed that God shows emotion; that He becomes glad or angry depending on the behaviour of man. The image of God thus constructed was far removed from that of the ‘orthodox* Mu c tazila. The sufiyyat al-mu ( tazila denied the legitimacy of political autho¬ rity by arguing that as long as men knew the laws and kept them, a ruler was superfluous. 11 Besides Abu c Imran, Pseudo-Nashi 3 also mentions Fadl al-Hadalhi, a student of al-Naz$am, 12 as a member of this group. Ibn Khabit, a Mu c tazill of Baghdad (d. between 227/842 and 232/847), who is often mentioned along with Fadl al-Hadathl, ge¬ nerally subscribed to the theological views of their teacher al- ** Van Ess, op. cit iii. 106 f. 7 The author (Pscudo-Nashi 3 ) of this text, who wrote shortly before 236/850-1. is possibly identical with Ja r far b. Harb. For the Arabic text on the sufiyyat al-mu'tazila see Josef van Ess. Fhihe rnu'tazilitische Hdresiographie. Zwei Werke des Nasi' al-Akbar (Wiesbaden 1971). Arabic part. 8 Al-Hakim al-Jushami. Fadl al-i'lizdl wa-tabaqat at-mu c lazila, in AbuT-Qasim al- Balkhi. Qadi l Abd al-Jabbar. al-Hakim al-Jushami. ed. Fu 9 ad al-Sayyid (Tunis 1974) 284, 4. van Ess, op. cit. iii. 131. 9 Ibid. iii. 133. 10 Ibid. iii. 143. 11 Pseudo-Nashi 3 . translated in van Ess, op. cit. v. 329 f., text xviii. I. 12 Van Ess. op. cit. iii. 132.436. 70 FLORIAN SOBIEROJ THE MUCTAZILA AND SUFISM 71 Nazzam. However, Ibn Khabit and Fadl believed in the transmigra¬ tion of souls. 13 Fadl, advocating an even more extreme form of tanasukh than Ibn Khabit, believed that the souls of the damned could be reincarnated not only in animals but even in plants and stones. 14 Fadl and Ibn Khabit, who of course were excommunicated by the Mu c tazila, also shared the belief that Jesus was ‘logos’, hav¬ ing been created as the first being and standing between the world and God. They viewed Jesus as their exemplary model rather than Muhammad whom they allegedly criticized for his numerous mar¬ riages. 1 * According to them, Jesus directs the world, as a temporal, anthropomorphic deity, a demiurge or a second God of the creation. 16 However, as the Mu c tazila and the ahl al-sunna wa’l-jama c a de¬ veloped into separate denominations, with the Sufis by and large being members of the Sunni community, their common heritage was soon lost sight of. Traces of a corps of Sufis within the Mu c tazila cease to be discernible. The Sufis criticized the Mu c tazila for their disagreement with Sunni doctrine. As a result, the Sufis experienced the repercussions of their criticism just as any other Sunni Muslim might, but at the same time they were also criticized for some of the distinctive views they held as Sufis. One of the centers of Mu c tazili power at the time when Sufism first made its appearance as a distinct religious movement was Baghdad. While the Mu c tazili theologians had allied themselves with the c Abbasid caliphs since al-Ma’mun, the Sufi community of Baghdad was grouped around men like Bishr b. al-Harith al-Hafi, a former hadith- scholar. 17 Bishr, of Khurasanian origin, lived well into the 13 14 15 16 17 Tanasukh ; van Ess. op. cil. iii, 435. Ibid. iii. 436. Ibid. iii. 437. Ibid, iii, 438. • • Bishr was bom near Marw in 150/767 or 152/769 and he died 226/840 or 227/841-2 in Baghdad. He was regarded as an accomplished mystic by contemporary Sufis such as Yahya al-Jallfr' and by later ones like Ibn Khafif [Rukn al-Din Yahya b. Junayd-i Shirazi, Sirat al- shavkh al-kabir Abu c Abd Allah Ibn al-Khafif al-Shirdzi. ed. A. Schimmcl (Ankara 1955) 121 f.. 1271. Yahya al-Shirazi compared Bishr with Dhul-Nun and Sahl al-Tustari lAbu Nasr al- Sarraj. AMuma' ft l-tasawwuf. cd. R.A. Nicholson (London-Leiden I914)J 184. 22.1-or Bishr see al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. Ta’rikh vii. 67-80; Abu’l-Faraj e Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Jmwi. Mandqib Ahmad b. Hanbal. ed. Muhammad Amin al-Khanji (Ca.ro 1349/1930) 116-120; Shams al-Din Abu <Abd .Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dhahabi. Siyara‘lam al-nubala . cd. Shu*ayb Arna’ut et al. i-xxiii (Beirut 1401-5/1981-5) x. 469-77; El. s. v. period of the Mu c tazill Inquisition, which lasted from about 218/833 to 237/851, i.e. for almost twenty years. Al-Ma 3 mun and his two immediate successors used the inquisition, known as the mihna , to impose the view that the Koran was a ‘created’ work. Bishr’s seem¬ ing aloofness when Ahmad b. Hanbal was brought before the Inqui¬ sition exemplifies the iack of Sufi opposition to the Mu c tazila in the early third/ninth century. 18 Before the mihna many had regarded Bishr, by virtue of his piety (wara c ) and asceticism (zuhd) y as superior to Ibn Hanbal. However, during the ordeal of the Mu c tazili Inquisition Ibn Hanbal emerged as the upholder of the Sunni faith and came to be seen as far excelling Bishr. Even Jam!, the well-known later Sufi author, admits this: ‘He (Bishr) was regarded as greater Ilian Ahmad-i Hanbal until, when the fitna of declaring the Koran created occurred, he stayed at home and Ahmad stepped forward’.^ Both Sufi 20 and non-Sufi authors relate how Bishr was scolded for his passivity when he was challenged to go out and assist Ibn Hanbal (qum bi-na nansur hddha’l-rajul). 21 Bishr contented himself with praising Ahmad for his allegedly unflinching stance on the Koranic issue: His nephew C A1I b. Khashram, later one of the teachers of al- Junayd, c Abd al-Qadir b. Badran al-Dum! al-Dimashqi 22 asked him; ‘Abu Nasr, why did you not go out to speak on behalf of religion and the ahl al-sunna ?’ Bishr is said to have replied: ‘Do you expect from me the rank of the prophets? My body does not possess the strength for this. God protected Ahmad from the front and from the back...’ 23 Or according to another tradition: ‘Ibn Hanbal was placed inside the furnace and he emerged from it as red gold’. 24 In private Bishr 18 In a work by Ibn Khafif of Shiraz, a Sufi who lived in the fourth/lcnth century (d. 371/982). Bishr is depicted as not responding to the efforts of the uon-Mu f tazili caliph al- Mu c tadid (ruled 892-902) to gain his favours — a story which rannot be true for chronological reasons; cf. Muhammad b. Khafif. Kilab al-iqtisad in F. Sobicroj, Ibn (Jafif ai-Sira zi und seine Schrifi zur Novizencrziehung (Kilab al-lqtisad). Uiographische Studien, Edition und Obersetzung (forthcoming) fasl 47. *9 c Abd al-Rahman-i Jami. Nafahat al-uns min hadardt al-quds, cd. Tawhidipur (Teheran 1336)48. 26 c Abd Allah-i Ansari, Tabaqai ul-sufivya, ed. Muhammad-i Sarwar-i Mawla’i (Teheran 1362) 85. 21 Ibn al-Jawzi . Manaqib 119. 22 Cf. al-Sulami in ‘Abd al-Qadir b. Badran al-Dumi al-Dimashqi. Tahdhib Ta’rikh b. c Asakir. vii vols. (Damaskus 1329-51) iii. 229. 23 K>n al-Jawzi. Mandqib 118. 24 al-Dhahabi. Siyar xi. 197. AI-Dhahabi has the following variant: ’When Ahmad was 72 FLORIAN SOBIEROJ THE MU C TAZ1LA AND SUFISM 73 expressed his full agreement with Ahmad’s stance on the Koranic issue. c Abd Allah, a son of Ibn Hanbal, relates that when his father was beaten, Bishr was told by his students: ‘If only you had gone forth’, and he said: T support what Ahmad says’ (inni c ala qawl Ahmad). 25 Another way Bishr expressed his support for Ibn Hanbal’s stand¬ point was by reproaching companions of the latter — and of his own — who had given up their resistance to acknowledging the Mu c tazili dogma of khalq al-qur 3 an. Of the religious dignitaries who surren¬ dered under duress it was Abu Nasr al-Tammar 26 and three other eminent hadlth -scholars whose defection, we are told, had distressed Ibn Hanbal the most. Ibn Hanbal declared that henceforth, hadlth should not be copied from al-Tammar, a transmitter from Malik. A nephew of Bishr, Abu Hafs, reports that his uncle asked him about ‘news of Abu Nasr’ (ai-Tammar), on the day when the latter was summoned to the palace of Ishaq b. Ibrahim, the amir of Baghdad. Abu Hafs is quoted as replying that al-Tammar ‘answered’ (i.e. that he acknowledged the dogma) and that Bishr had him repeat this a number of times, until Bishr exclaimed: ‘How beautiful this beard would be if it were coloured — i.e. with blood — and if he had not answered until he was killed’. 27 Tradition also has it that Bishr ex¬ pressed regret for having allegedly been incapable of assisting Ahmad in his ‘ordeal’ 21 * and that he envied Ibn Hanbal for the staunchness he is reported to have shown in his defense of the Sunni lakcn out to be flogged, they went to Bishr b. al-Harith saying: "It is incumbent upon you that you speak." He said: "Is it that you want me to adopt the stand of the prophets? 1 am not up to it.'” ( taysa dhd 'indi ); ibid. xi. 254. 25 Ibu al-Jawzi, Mandqib 118. That Bishr defended Ibn Hanbal for the latter's view on the nature of the Koran is also implied in a report included in al-Dhahabi's biography of Bishr (Siyar x, 473 f.): "A student of Bishr said to c Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Halim: 'Someone reported to Bishr while I was present: "It was said to that man — and he meant Ahmad b Hanbal: ‘Is God not eternal and everything beside him is created?' And Bishr did not leave this man alone, discoursing ( yalakallam ) until he said: ‘No. everything is created except the Koran"". 26 AbO Nasr al-Tammar as well is known to have associated with Bishr. He reports (Ibn al-Jawzi, Mandqib 117) that Bishr came to him during the days of the mihna when Ahmad was flogged and said: ‘Abu Nasr, this man today performs a work of which men at large are incapable ( c ajaza c anhu 'l-khalq)\ 27 Cf. ibid. 386, and the following variant: 'Would that their heads were tinged with their blood and that they had not answered’ (al-Dhahabi, Siyar x i. 323). 28 Abu’l-Haytham. the ‘worshipper’ ( al- c abid ). reports that a man came to Bishr informing him that by that moment Ahmad had already been flogged seventeen limes. Bishr extended his leg and looking down at his feet, exclaimed: ‘How ugly is this foot since it docs not bear a chain for having supported this man' (Ibn al-Jawzi. Mandqib 119). doctrine on the Koran. 29 Whereas on the whole the Sufis apparently did not show any note¬ worthy opposition to the Mu c taziIT-backed regime in Baghdad, or, for that matter, any active solidarity with Ibn Hanbal who was per¬ ceived as the standard-bearer of Sunni doctrine, they soon began, possibly by way of compensation, to honour and glorify Ibn Hanbal. Thus, on the authority of Bishr, the Sufi author Abu’l-Hasan C AH b. Jahdam (d. 414/1023) transmits a lengthy description by Sufyan al- Thawri of the virtues of the fata , i.e. the chivalrous young man. Bishr concludes the quotation of Sufyan by designating Ibn Hanbal as a man in whom all the characteristics of chivalry (futuwwa) were united. 30 Yahya al-Jalla 5 , who was a disciple of Bishr and a leading Syrian Sufi shaykh, 3 * acknowledged the spiritual superiority of Ibn Hanbal over his Sufi companions,Yahya al-Jalla 3 c Abd al-Wahhab al-Warraq 32 as emerges from a report with an isnad of Abu Nu c aym, recorded by Ibn al-Jawzi. By means of this hagiographical activity, Ibn Hanbal is finally ele¬ vated to the rank of one of the guardian saints of Baghdad. Al- Sulami mentions Ibn Hanbal among the four awliya 9 whose tombs in Baghdad were believed to guard its population against affliction (hum hisn lahum e an hull baldyd). The other saints are Ma c ruf al- Karkhi, Bishr al-Hafi, and MansOrb. c Ammar. 33 The Sufis also transmitted statements of Ibn Hanbal reflecting an awareness of the crucial importance of his stance on the Koranic issue, 3 * as well as sayings ascribed to him concerning renunciation 29 a. ibid. ii9 f. 30 Ibid. 120. 31 al-Sarraj ( al-Luma f 184, 22) mistakenly claims that Yahya's son AbO f Abd Allah (d. 306/918) was the disciple of Bishr (the chrouological error is pointed out by al-Sulami in Ibn Badran, Tahdhib iii, 233). 32 A certain AbO Hafs of Tarsus relates (Ibn al-Jawzi. Mandqib 196 f.) that he and Yahya al-Jalla* ‘who was said to be one of the abddV went *.o Ibn Hanbal aud asked him what it is that softens the heart (bi-md lalin al-qulub). Ibn Hantxil replied: 'My son, it is through eating ritually pure food'. The visitors then put the same question to Bishr and a certain f Abd al- Wahhab al-Warraq. They both intended to quote Koran 13/28 ('Do not the hearts come to rest through the remembrance of God?') but upon hearing Ibn Hanbal's answer, they admitted that his reply was the best: ‘He has expressed the essential' (jd*a bi'l-asl/ja 3 akn bi'l-jawhar). The answers Bishr and ‘Abd al-Wahhab gave stressing activities of the heart rather than matters of ritual, distinguish these men as members of a religious group separate from Ibn Hanbal. 33 Ibn al-Jawzi, Mandqib 145. 34 Ahmad b. Abi'l-Hawari, a Syrian Sufi, relates a tradition concerning Ibn Hanbal's mihna : ‘Since I became embroiled in this matter. I have not heard a more powerful word than 74 FLORI AN SOBIEROJ THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 75 (zuhd). In addition, Sufi stories about Ibn Hanbal’s heavenly rewards, narrated in the form of dreams, are numerous. One example is a story related by Ibn Khafif, in which Ibn Hanbal appears to one of his followers in a dream. Ibn Hanbal struts with the gait of ‘the servants of Paradise’ and he is quoted as saying that God adorned him with a crown and dressed him with golden shoes for having declared: ‘The Koran is My [God’s] speech’. 35 Another story describes how C AH b. al-Muwaffaq (d. 265/878-9), a Sufi from Baghdad, had a vision of Paradise. Here he sees Ibn Hanbal being honoured along with two other Sufis of Baghdad, Bishr and Ma c ruf al-Karkhi. Ibn Hanbal stands at the gate of Para¬ dise and is ordered to look at the faces of the people of the Sunna and to decide whom to admit. Bishr, for his part, is seated at a table¬ cloth, served by two angels with food and drink, as a reward for hav¬ ing departed from this world hungry and thirsty. Ma c rGf is situated at the center of the Garden. His eyes arc fixed on the Throne and he gazes at the Lord, this being his reward for having served God while longing to behold Him. 3 <> A nephew of Ma c ruf al-Karkhi tells how one time when he was asleep during the period of the mihna , Moses and Jesus appeared before him. They joined Ibn Hanbal, the bearers of God’s Throne and all the (other) angels, in declaring that the Koran was ‘the un¬ created word of God’.37 In their dreams the Sufis also saw Ibn that of a bedouin who spoke lo me at Rahbat Tawq (on the Ruphratcs). He said: 'Ahmad, if God kills you. you die a martyr, and if you live, you live in praise’ (al-Dhahabi. Siyarx i. 241). Rath b. Shakhrai, a student of another Syrian Sufi. l 'Abd Allah b. Khubayq al-Anliki. relates a similar story about Ibn Hanbal: 'When Ibn Hanbal was in prison, awaiting his public punishment, one night a man appeared to him asking him lo persevere because he would be rewarded with Paradise.' [Abu Nu'aym. Hilyat al-awlivd’ wa-tabaqat al-asfiya*, x vols. (Beirut 1967/1387) ix. 1931. 35 Cf. Sirat-i Ibn Khafif 169.3-170.15: Ibn al-Jawzi. Manaqib 439. 36 al-Dhahabi. Siyar xi. 349: also Ibn al-Jawzi. Manaqib 443. In a similar story which was quite popular among 3rd/4th-ceutury Sufis (Abu Nu c aym, flilya Lx. 190). Ibn Hanbal is associated with Bishr as well as with Sufyan al-Thawri. The transmitter. Abu *Abd Allah b. Khuzayma. says that Ibn Hanbal told him in a posthumous dream that he was rewarded by God in Paradise for maintaining that the Koran is God's uncreated word. According to this story, in Paradise Ibn Hanbal also meets Sufyan, whose prayer he used to recite during his lifetime. Sufyan has grown two green wings by means of which he flics from date-palm to date-palm. After giving information about the fortunes of another inhabitant of Paradise. e Abd al-Wahhab al-Warraq, Ibn Hanbal explains how God treated Bishr: ‘God said to me: "Well done, you and those who are like Bishr.” I left Bishr before the Almighty and in front of him there was a table-cloth [covered with) food, and turning to him, the Almighty said: “Eat. you who did not eat, and drink, you who did not drink, and live in ease, you who did not live in ease."' 3 ? Abu Nu c aym, Hilya ix. 193. Hanbal seated together with his opponent Ibn Abl DD 3 ad (d. 240/854), the Mu c tazili leader and closest confidant of al-Ma^mun. The two men were in the presence of Muhammad who was praising the one and condemning the other. The Sufi Ibn Abi’l-Ward is repor¬ ted to have heard Yahya al-Jalla J say: 38 ‘I saw the Prophet in a dream standing at Siniyyat al-Karkh, with Ibn Abl Du'ad sitting on his left site and Ahmad b. Muhammad sitting on his right. The Pro¬ phet turned to Ibn Abi Du 3 ad and said: ‘If they disbelieve it, we shall appoint a people who do not disbelieve it, and he pointed at Ahmad b. Hanbal’. 39 The hagiographical assimilation of Ibn Hanbal’s image by a cer¬ tain traditionalist brand of Sufism was facilitated through correspon¬ dences between Sufi teachings and Ibn Hanbal’s attitudes towards poverty, tawakkul and zuhd. Likewise, the high respect in which he seems to have held certain Sufis of his time may have encouraged the process. He is said to have turned to Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi (d. 289/902), a companion of Sari al-Saqati and Abu Turab al- Nakhshabi, and asked him to answer questions in his gathering ( ajib yd sufi).w Ibn Hanbal considered Bishr al-Hafi as one of the saints \abddl) of his time ‘who was only comparable to c Amir b. Qays, the lover of Layla, as they both were perfect in their renunciation of the world\4i Similarly, it is reported that Ibn Hanbal’s eyes were ‘bathed in tears’ when mention was made of the nakedness and the perseverance in poverty ( c uryuhu wa-sabruhu) of the pious ascetics al-Fudayl b. c Iyad and Path al-Mawsili. 4 2 However, Ibn Hanbal’s sympathy with Sufism had its distinct li¬ mits, as is clear from the advice he gave his followers not to asso¬ ciate with al-Muhasibi. Nevertheless, Ibn Hanbal was once moved to tears when he heard this Sufi theorist deliver a sermon on mysti¬ cism. 43 The only Sufi who physically suffered for his refusal to acknowledge the dogma of khalq al-qur^an seems to have been the famous Egyp- 38 Ibn al-Jawzi. Manaqib 445. 39 As a variant of the story’ (Ibn al-Jawzi, op. cit. 444) explains, this remark refers to Koran 6/89: ‘These are the ones to whom wc have given the book, the judgement and the prophethood’. 40 Ansari. Tabaqal 148. 41 Ibn Badran. Tahdhib ii. 233. 42 Ibn al-Jawzi. Manaqib 273. 43 Ibid. 186. 76 FLORIAN sobieroj THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 77 tian mystic Dhu’l-Nun who died in 245/860. Both al-Ansari 44 and Jam! 45 transmit a report by the Syrian Sufi shaykh Ibrahim b. Dawud al-Qassar al-Raqqi.AbO c Abd Allah b. al-Jalla 346 In the report al- Raqqi relates: ‘At the time when "the Koran was declared to be created" and Ahmad b. Hanbal was in prison, people reported that Dhu'l-Nun al-Misri (as well) was being taken to the caliph's prison to force him declare that the Koran is created. I had heard of Dhu’l-Nun's reputation, and the people were going to look at him. At the time I was a child. I also went to look at him. at the bridge of Manbij. When I beheld him he appeared wretched in my eyes, for indeed he was wretched in terms of his outer appearance. I said to myself: "Can this be Dhu'l-Nun who has so great a name and reputation?" Dhu'l-Nun immediately turned his face to me in the midst of the large crowd and said: "Boy. when God turns away from a servant, the servant’s tongue becomes long in criticizing the Friends of God." I fell into a swoon and they poured water over inc to bring me back to consciousness. When I stood up. I was a Sufi'. 47 Al- Dhahabi also adduces a report about Ibn Hanbal and Dhu’l-Nun being in prison together, and indicates that the reason for the imprisonment of the mystic was his declared conviction that ‘the Koran is the uncreated word of God’. 48 In one story in his Tabaqdt Ansari al-Harawi seems to imply that Dhu’l-Nun was more consistent and radical in his opposition to Mu c tazili rule. It is insinuated that whereas Ibn Hanbal in principle considered himself obliged to obey the commands of the ‘sultan’, Dhu’l-Nun felt free of such constraints 49 As a matter of fact, in one 44 Ansari. Tabaqdt 19; 409. 45 Jfimi, Nafal}dt 166. ^ al-Raqqi was a student of al-Junayd and Abfl c Abd AllSh b. aI-Jalla\ the son of a disciple of Bishr. Given that al-Raqqi died at a very advanced age in 326/937. his claim that as a small child he had seen Dhu'l-Nun cannot be ruled out on chronological grounds. On al- Raqqi see Abo’l-Qasim c Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri, al-Risdia fi’l-tasawwuf (Cairo 1359/1940) 27. 47 Ansari, Tabaqdt 409. This coercion to which DhO’l-NQn was subjected to make him acknowledge the Mu e tazili dogma should be distinguished from the persecution he suffered towards the end of his life (possibly as late as 244/858). Probably because of his mystical teachings (al-SuIami calls him the first person to speak about the mystical stales and stations in Egypt), he provoked the wrath of the authorities and. having been dubbed a zindiq . he was evicted by the Egyptian *uU»m &' (al-Dhahabl, Siyar xi. 534). He was brought before al- Mutawakkil in 244 A.H., under orders to be killed but won over the caliph by means of his effective preaching (ibid. 535). 48 Ibid. xi. 535. 49 'Dhu'l-Nun al-Misri was in prison with Ahmad b. Hanbal at the time of the mihna to do with declaring the Koran created. One day when evening arrived, extending his hand and removing his chains and fetters, he went up to Ahmad and said: “Will you come along?" He replied: "No, because I am in the prison of the sultan". This (he answered) because Ahmad was in prison because he was a Koran-recitcr. Dhu’l-Nun then left Baghdad and performed the of his credos, 50 Ibn Hanbal defines the faith as including the re¬ quirement ‘to persevere under the banner of the sultan whatever jus¬ tice or injustice he may perpetrate’ (wa'l-sabr tahta li\va : al-sultan c ala md kan minhu min c adl awjawr). Another setting for conflict between the Mu c tazila and Sufism was fourth/tenth-century Shiraz 51 The Mu c tazili man of letters al- Muhassin al-Tanukhl mentions that the Sufis in this city were num¬ bered in the thousands and that their chief was ‘Ibn Khafif al- Baghdadl’. 52 Ibn Khafif had already come into contact with the Mu c tazila around 300/900 when, as a very young man, he was pre¬ sent at a debate between Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash c ari and the Mu c tazila of Basra. On this occasion al-Ash c ari displayed his mastery of theo¬ logy and his rhetorical skill, and is meant to have outwitted the Mu c tazila. Ibn Khafif claimed to have become al-Ash c ari’s student (kunru ashabuhu) thereafter. 5 * His life-long adherence to the theo¬ logical doctrine of al-Ash c ari is attested by al-BSqillani (d. 403/101 3)* Thus, Ibn Khafif had a negative attitude towards the Mu c tazila which is evident in the biography, Sirat-i Ibn Khafif, which his disciple c Ali al-Daylami composed about him. His derision is direc¬ ted at a Mu c tazil! theologian who, for some time, gave instruction to the Saffiirid ruler c Amr b. al-Layth 55 In Ibn Khafif’s biography the theologian in question teaches that it is Iblis who wills evil 5 * and thus appears to subscribe to the Mu c taziIT tenet of a relative freedom of the human will and the corollary belief in the justice of God ( asl al- c adl) who does not will evil. c Amr is then portrayed as having re¬ futed the doctrines of his erstwhile teacher by dint of his intelligence. He remains loyal to the teachings of Sunni orthodoxy and in the end morning prayer ( narnaz-i bamdad) in Egypt. He turned his face round and said: “Pray for Ahmad! " (Ansari. Tabaqdt 19). 50 Ibn al-Jawzi. Mandqib 176. 5 ! For an overall picture of the Mu ( tazila under the Buyids see Heribert Busse. Chalif und Grofikdnig. Die Buyiden im Iraq (945-1055) (Beirut 1969) 437-447. 52 Abu e Ali al-Muhassin b. f AH al-Tanukhl al-Qadi, Nishwar al-muhadara, viii vols., ed. 'Abbud al-Sh&liji (n. p. 1972/1392) iii. 228. 5 * Abu'l-Qasim * Ali b. al-Hasan b. Hibat Allah Ibn c Asakir, Tabyln kadhib al-muftarifi¬ rm nusiba ilal-imdm AbVI-Hasan al-Ash r ari (Beirut 1399/1979) 94-97. 54 AbuT- c AbbSs Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Tilimsani al-Maqqari. Azhdr at- riyadfi akhbar e Iydd, ed. Mustafa al-Saqqa et al. (Cairo 1358/1939) iii. 80. 55 Cf. Sirat-i Ibn Khafif 186-9. fasl 21. 56 Ibid. 188. 78 FLORIAN SOBIEROJ orders the theologian to be flogged and driven out of town. 57 When the Shii sultan of the dynasty of the A1 Buya c Adud al- Dawla (d. 372/982) assumed rule over Shiraz in 338/949-50, the si¬ tuation of the Sufis in Fars took a turn for the worse, since the Buyid amir was under the influence of prominent Mu c tazili theologians who sympathized with the Shia. 58 A judge of Baghdad, Abu Muhammad c Abd Allah b. Ahmad al-Fazan, was dispatched to Shiraz and is said to have founded a convent ( khanaqdh) in the city for the followers of Ibn Khaflf. 59 Although al-Fazari was treated badly by c Adud al-Dawla, in the end he was confirmed in his office and actually outlived the ruler .60 Towards the end of Ibn Khaflf’s life a tyrant arose in Shiraz whose injustices are referred to by al-Daylami 61 as the mihna of Danaqsh .62 This designation may have been chosen by al-Daylami or his infor¬ mant, Ibn Khaflf, as a deliberate allusion to the Mu c tazili mihna un¬ der which the Sunni community suffered one and a half centuries earlier. The Danaqsh might be identical to the Baghdadi Abu Talib c Abd al- c Az!z al-Danaqshi who belonged to the same genera¬ tion as Ibn Khaflf and who was appointed qadi of the town of Ramhurmuz, a locality between Arrajan and Ahwaz.63 The popula¬ tion of Ramhurmuz is reported to have adhered to the Muctazili doctrine 64 Al-Danaqshi was an associate of the son of al-Muhassin 57 c Ainr ruled over Isfahan in 265/878-9 where (here was a strong Mu'tazill community. Perhaps this was the town in question. In al-Daylaini's Sira, the story is preceded by eight sections dealing with personalities who came from Isfahan (fasl 13-19). 58 Al-Tanflkhj, Nishwdr vii, 210 f.. informs us about the dose relationship between ’ Adud al-Dawla and Abu f Abd Allah Husayn b. e AU al-Basri (d. 369/979). a leading Mu'lazili theologian and ascetic. The latter, a student of Abu Hashim al-JubbaM and a teacher of Qadi f Abd al-Jabbar. combined his Mu r taziU discourse with strong e AIid leanings (Ibn al-Murtadi. Jaboqat ol-mu'taiila. ed. S. Diwald-Wilzer (Wiesbaden 1961)1 105; Abu Rashid Sa c id b. Muhammad al-Naysaburi. Masd’il fl'l-khildf bayn al-basriyyin wal-baghdddiyyin. ed. Ma'n Ziyiida and Ridwan al-Sayyid (Beirut 1979) 162. 59 Zarkub-i Shirazi, Shirdzndina. ed. Isma'il-i Wa c iz-i Jawadi (Teheran n.d.) 35. 60 Ibn al-Balkhi. Fdrsndma. cd. G. Le Strange and R.A. Nicholson (London 1921) introd. xix, 117 f. 61 Sirat-i Ibn Khaflf 206, fasl 14.12. 62 l propose to read Cun mhnat-i Danaqsh ba-Shiraz ufldd for Cun muhibb-i Danaqsh ba-Shiraz uflad as in Schimmcl's edition of the Persian text. She was uncertain of the reading as is indicated by the question mark in the text after Danaqsh. 63 Abu Sa c d *Abd al-Karim b. Muhammad al-Sam c anI. Kitab al-ansdb. i-xiii (Hyderabad 1962) v. 384 f. 64 Hcribcrt Busse, Chalif and Grossk&nig. Die Buyiden im Iraq (945-1055) (Beirut 1969)438. THE MU C TAZ1LA AND SUFISM 79 al-Tanukhi, whose strong dislike of Sufism is clearly demonstrated in the stories he narrates about the Sufis in his Nishwdr. c Abd al- Rahim, one of Ibn Khaflf s servants, relates in the Sira how Danaqsh perished after Ibn Khaflf invoked God against him at the request of the inhabitants of Shiraz 65 Many stories sympathetic to Ibn Khaflf and Traditions from him were transmitted by qadis of Shiraz who were Maliki and Shafi c I scholars. Qadis belonging to the Maliki and Shafi c i schools had been the chief judges of Fars for several decades until 372/982. From that year the office was occupied by a Zahiri jurist and Mu c tazill theolo¬ gian, Bishr b. al-Husayn, who was summoned to Shiraz by c Adud al- Dawla. In the Tabaqat al-fuqaha* of Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi 6 6 he is re¬ ferred to as the ‘chief qadi of Fars, Iraq and all the administrative districts (a c mal) of c Adud al-Dawla’. The disdainful, or at best be¬ mused, attitude of Bishr b. al-Husayn towards Sufism is well at¬ tested^ 7 In al-Tanukhi’s Nishwdr& we read that Bishr complained of a predominance of the Sufis in Shiraz. Al-Tanukhi also tells a story about a trial presided over by Bishr and attended, along with the liti¬ gants, by al-Tanukhi’s informant, the Mu c tazili mutakallim and faqih, Abu’l-Qasim c Abd al-RahmSn al-Sirafl, known as Ibn al- Sammak. Al-Sirafi relates: 'I was in Shiraz, with the city’s qadi. Abfl Sa e d Bishr b. al-Husayn al-Dawudi, when a male and a female Sufi brought their case before him. This business of Sufism had exceeded all bounds so that one could say the Sufis numbered thousands of men aud women, lire woman had appealed to the qadi for assistance against her husband, aud when they were convoked before him. she said: "Oh Judge, this is my husband who wants to divorce me but it is not fit¬ ting for him to do so. If only you could make him desist!" Then Abu Sa c d began to arouse my amazement concerning this discourse and revealed to arc how the Sufis pursue it. He said to 65 ‘When the inquisition of Danaqsh befell Shiraz, the people complained of his injustice to the shaykh and entreated the shaykh to invoke God against him. He would not agree to do this. However, when Danaqsh *s oppression izidm) transgressed the limits, one night the shaykh said during his prostrations: "God. let him be preoccupied with himself!” The next day I said to the shaykh: ‘‘Yesterday I heard that you invoked God.” He replied: "Oppression has transgressed the limits". A few days later a letter arrived ordering that those who had been imprisoned be released and the confiscations be annulled. When we examined what the cause of this might be. they said: "At the fool of a/thc mountain he was seized by a fit ( dar ddman-i kuh u-ra sar‘i rasid): he went mad and died in a most dreadful state"'. **6 Abu Ishaq al-Firuz&badi al-Shirazi, Tabaqat al-fuqaha’. cd. Ihsan c Abbas (Beirut 1401/1981) 122. 6 7 Abu’l-Faraj c Abd al-Rahman b. al-Jawzi. Talbis Iblis. Naqd al- e ilm wa'l- c ulama 9 , cd. Muhammad al-Sabbah (Beirut 1409/1989) 380. 68 Nishwdr iii. 227. nr. 147. 80 FLORIAN sobieroj THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 81 her: "Why is il not filling for him?" She replied: "Because when he married me, his substance (or: essence? wa-ma c nahu qa’im) was persistent but now he says his substance has come to an end with regard to me ( inqada ma'nahu irunni). whereas my substance still persists in him and has not come to an end. So he should endure patiently until my substance comes to an end in him, the same way his substance has come to an end with regard to me." Then Abu Sa c d said to me: "What do you think of this kind of fiqhV Thereupon he made peace between them, and they departed without divorcing'. The words al-Tanukhi puts in the mouth of the female Sufi who sued her husband, also a Sufi, may be interpreted as ridiculing the Sufi concept of annihilation in God and the terminology associated with it, or possibly, such annihilation in one’s partner as a pedago¬ gical preparation for attaining the highest goal. The husband has per¬ haps run out of patience with his wife whom he regards as incapable of keeping up with his pace of ‘spiritual’ advancement. Leaders and representatives of the two major rival schools of Mu c tazili theology at the time of c Adud al-Dawla, the Bahshamiyya and the Ikhshidiyya, participated in religious debates at the Buyid court. There was considerable tension between the two schools. This is amply illustrated by the diatribes levelled against al-Ahdab, the leader of the Ikhshidiyya in Baghdad, by the prominent polemicist of the contemporary Bahshamiyya, Abu Rashid Sa c id al-NaysabGri. Al- Naysaburi in his Mas&ifi 9 reproaches al-Ahdab for allegedly colla¬ borating with Nasr b. Harun, the Christian vizier of the Buyid sultan. Moreover, Nasr b. Harun is said by al-DaylamF 0 to have acknow¬ ledged Ibn Khafif’s sanctity. In this connection c Abd Allah, the qadi of Bayda 3 and a follower of Ibn Khafif, tells a story about the con¬ version of the vizier to belief in the wilaya of Ibn Khafif. This belief may be based on the teachings of Ibn Ikhshid, whose school al- Ahdab belonged to: Ibn Ikhshid was one of the few exceptional Mu c tazilites who did not deny the possibility of saintly miracles (karamaOJi If al-Naysaburi’s allegation of collaboration between the Christian vizier and the Ikhshldi theologian al-Ahdab is correct, the vizier would have been associated with the opposition to Bishr, the chief qadi of the Mu c tazila. Thus, the complexities of politics in conjunction with the rivalry between the two schools of the Mu c tazila would explain why Ibn Khafif and the Sufis of Shiraz en- 69 Masd’ilfi't-khildfbayn al-basriyyfh wa-l-baghdadiyyin. Ed. Ma e n Ziyada and Ridwan al-Sayyid (Bcinil 1979) 284 ff.; introd. 21. ™ Sirat-i Ibn Khafif 200. Cf. Richard Gramlich. Die Wunder der Freunde Gottes. Theologien und Erscheinungsformen des islamischen Wunders (Wicsbadea 1987) 122. joyed protection by some representatives of the Mu c tazilT-dominated political elite and suffered oppression by others. One of the targets of ridicule of the Mu c tazilJ adib al-Tanukhi in his Nishwar al-muhadara was, as we have seen, the Sufi movement of Shiraz. He attacked Ibn Khafif personally in a story 7 2 which he claims to have heard from a group of trustworthy 73 and learned people: 'They lold me that in Shiraz there was (or: there is) a man called Ibn Khafif al-Baghdadi. the local Sufi shaykh, with whom they meet. He speaks about random thoughts (khdiirdl) and Satanic insinuations (wasawis), and thousands attend his assembly, (and I was told) that he is quick, intelligent and clever and that he has seduced the weak among the people to join his school'. Later in the story, al-Tanukhi charges Ibn Khafif with having en¬ couraged his male disciples to have promiscuous sex with their fe¬ male counterparts after a funeral he conducted for one of his fol¬ lowers. This he does while giving an explanation of Sufi vocabulary. The words of consolation Ibn Khafif imparted to a female Sufi whose husband had just died are meant to be an example of Sufi dis¬ course ( kalam min kalam al-siifiyya). The first term al-Tanukhi ex¬ plains is the word ghayr in the question Ibn Khafif put to the women: hahunQ ghayr ? Al-TanQkhI translates the expression as ‘Is there anyone who disagrees with our way?’ Subsequently, a second question is quoted by means of which Ibn Khafif urges the women to consent to spending a night in orgies with his numerous male disciples: ‘What good is it to hold on with the souls to the calamities of sorrows and of tormenting them with the pain of grief, and why should we abstain from mingling ( imlizdj) so that the lights meet, the spirits become pure, that successors are brought forth and the bles¬ sings descend?’ Of the words included in this phrase al-Tanukhi singles out as ‘technical terms’ imtizaj, explained subsequently as sexual intercourse, 74 ‘meeting of lights', i.e. ‘according to their be¬ liefs everyone is endowed with a divine light’, ikhlafat , i.e. ‘every one of your husbands, be he dead or (otherwise) absent, may have a successor (khalaf)' 12 Nish war iii. 228 f.; also Ibn al-Jawzi. Talbis 499. 73 Nishwar iii, 229.6. Imiizaj, commingling, is explained by Abu'l-Hasan e Ali al-Daylami. c Atf al-alif al- m luf'ala Nam al-ma’tuf cd. J. C. Vadcl (Cairo 1962). as one of Ihc terms by which various groups of people have defined love; cf. the translation by Joseph Norment Bell and al-Shafi c i (Cairo: in the press), 100 f. The practice of licentious deeds, however, al-Daylami ascribes to a s*t of people who hold that 'love is knowledge’ (ibid. 99). 82 FLORIAN SOBIEROJ With this allegation of sexual promiscuity al-Tanukhi would seem to be perpetuating the well-known stereotype of heretics as people who declare their women licit for the male members of the group. Thus, one of al-Tanukhi’s objectives in this story is to present Ibn Khafif, whose staunch adherence to Sunni orthodoxy was widely re¬ cognized, as an ibahi, rather than to educate the reader, as is one of the stated objectives of adab literature. At the end of his story al- Tanukhi claims that he feels shocked (hddha 'indi c azim ) by the al¬ leged incident and that he would not have reported it had his infor¬ mants not been ‘far removed from telling lies’. - ” Al-Tanukhi also singles out other Sufis, Baghdadis in particular, to be the butt of his crude humour. In the Nishwar two stories deal with Abu Bakr al-Shibli (d. 334/945). The first one functions as an ap¬ pendix to a long story 76 about a would-be saint who is exposed as a charlatan after having vainly tried to prove that his body is immune to boiling oil. Al-Tanukhi claims that his informant Abu’l-Tayyib b. Harthama had seen al-Shibli dip his hands into a heated cauldron which contained faludlwj pudding. Al-Shibli is supposed to have re¬ peatedly extracted some mouthfuls of the fdludhaj from the boiling cauldron with his bare hands. A Sufi present on one of these occa¬ sions exclaimed to al-Shibli: ‘Woe unto you! See to it that you wear a thimble. Is your throat a water-tank?’ ( wayhaka, i'mal anna fi yadika kashtban, halquka musahraj?). This may be an allusion to the suspicion he harboured that the master had protected himself by un¬ sound means. The remark is also somewhat sarcastic because it pro¬ poses a stratagem to al-Shibli which is actually rather unsuited for keeping a man exposed to fire unscathed. This story illustrates the negative attitude which the Mu'tazila had towards karamdi or ‘mi¬ racles of the saints.’ The second story 77 begins with a reference to the miracles and amazing actions attributed to al-Shibli. One such action, al-Tanukhi says, he heard about from the vizier al-Muhallabi. Al-Muhallabi re¬ ports that once when he was walking through the streets of Baghdad, he saw people gathered around a man lying prostrate on the ground. He was told that this was al-Shibli who, a moment earlier, went past 75 Al-Tanukhi’s narrative also contains some factual mistakes: Ibn Khafif was not known as Ibn Khafif al-Baghdadi nor were the groups constituting his Sufi community dispersed by c Adud al-Dawla (wa-shattata jumu'ahum). On the contrary, judging by the evidence, they continued to flourish. 76 Nishwar ii, 128. 77 Nishwar ii. 129, nr. 65. THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 83 a seller of harisa (= a dish of meat and bulghur) as the latter’s crier called out: ‘How long will you err?’ Just then a fit came over al- Shibli. He let out a shout and fell down unconscious. Al-Muhallabi walked on wondering to himself about al-Shibli’s ‘ignorance’ until he met a Sufi to whom he described what had happened. He said to the Sufi: ‘Woe unto you! What is this that causes al-Shibli to let out a shout and enter into ecstasy?’ The Sufi replied: ‘He believes that God is speaking to him through the tongue of the crier’. Al- Muhallabi said: ‘This is most amazing. If there was another harisa- seller’s crier opposite the first crier and he called out: “How long will you err?” (ila kam taghlat ), which of the two would be the speech of God?’ The Sufi said: “It is for him to give an answer to this.’” Thus, the story contains criticism of al-Shibli’s ecstatic states, lor which he had rightly become famous. It is demonstrated that if the reasoning put forward by a Sufi in the story to explain al-Shibli’s behaviour was followed through to its logical conclusion, one could infer the existence of two deities. Al-Tanukhi’s rejection of al- Shibli’s wajd may be explained in terms of Mu c tazili epistemology: knowledge of God is not obtained by inspiration (ilham) or ecstasy ( wajd ), but through a process of reasoning and inference. Among the other stories al-Tanukhi relates about the Sufis of Baghdad, there is one 78 in which a certain Ahmad b. Muhammad al- Mada'ini acts as a jester among the Sufis with the intention of fool¬ ing them. Al-Mada’ini relates: ‘I once stood in the Madina Mosque of Baghdad before a circle of Sufis while they dis¬ coursed about random thoughts and insinuations which occur in the soul ( al-khatarat wa’l- hawajis) and on questions of Satauic whisperings (al-wasawis) — I did not understand what they were saying It then occurcd to me to mock them and I said: "Oh presiding shaykh ( al■ shaykh al-mtisaddir), I have a question!" The shaykh said: "Ask it!" I asked: "Tell me. if you are a master in your subject... should a cracking afflicl your vertex, by way of knowledge, while you arc under the will of God. will anything injure your qualities, while you arc attached to the rope of Omnipotence, o champion?" Those gathered around the shaykh thought this was a serious question and began to discuss a possible answer. But the shaykh understood I was making fun of them. Fearing he would have them do me some harm. I ran away’. The question: ‘Should a cracking afflict your vertex... while you are under the will of God?’ seems to be mocking the belief in divine predestination which the Sufis, as Sunni Muslims, adhered to. The Sufis are also derided for being too stupid to distinguish between a 78 Ibid. i. 99. nr. 48. 84 FLORIAN SOBIEROJ THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 85 serious question and a sarcastic joke. The shaykh, however, is pre¬ sented as clever {fatin') y just as in the story about Ibn Khafif, where it is said that the shaykh lured to his school those who were intel¬ lectually feeble. In both stories the underlying assumption is that the Sufi shaykh is an outright charlatan. In many of al-Tanukhl’s stories we meet with al-Hallaj who is portrayed as a very negative figure. In one story 79 the miracle ascribed to al-Hallaj of going without food for a month or so is re¬ presented as a deception. In another story 80 al-Tanukhi depicts al- Hallaj as preoccupied with enticing the Shiis to believe in him. Al- Hallaj is said to have tried to win the Shii theologian Abu Sahl al- Nawbakhti as a recruit, but then gave up hope of doing so when he realized that Abu Sahl was only pretending to believe in him. Al- Nawbakht! asked al-Hallaj to use his miraculous powers to cure his baldness, but at the same time he made it clear that he would never believe in him. The story concludes with the assertion that al-Hallaj tried to win over many different groups of people by promising to satisfy some particular desire they had. These attempts to win fol¬ lowers is again qualified as ‘deception’ or ‘enticement’ ( istighwa’). Al-TanQkhI also gives an account 8 1 of the proceedings of the trial which led to al-Hallaj’s condemnation. He mentions that al-Hallaj repudiated letters from his missionaries who allegedly addressed him with titles which refer to God or the Prophet. It is mentioned that al- Hallaj had put forward the idea that a symbolic enactment of the hajj be permitted as a substitute for a Muslim who is physically incapable of performing the pilgrimage. Al-TanOkhI quotes the conflicting fatwas issued by two leading faqihs concerning al-Hallaj. He reports that the more severe of the fatwas came to be adopted and he ex¬ presses his approval of this judgement. 82 The story ends with a refe¬ rence to the alleged belief of some followers of al-Hallaj (Halldjiyya) that a work-horse was killed in his place and that al-Hallaj will re¬ turn at some time in the future. Al-Tanukhi dismisses these beliefs as forms of stupidity. The existence of contacts between the Mu c tazila of Abu c Ali al- JubbaT and al-Hallaj is asserted in another story related by al- 79 Ibid. i. 159 f.. or. 81. 80 Ibid. i. 161. or. 82. 81 Ibid. i. 162-4. or. 83. 82 ‘In his maltcr thcfaiwa of Abu f Umar was followed, in view of whal was known and learned of his affair and what was manifest of his apostasy and disbelief, and of his seducing the people, etc.'. Nishwar i. 163. Tanukhl. 83 In this case al-Hallaj is implicitly categorized a trickster on the authority of the Mu c tazill leader. Al-Tanukhi sets out to ex¬ plain that the people of Ahwaz and the neighbouring districts were deceived ( iftatana) by al-Hallaj and by the ‘foods and dishes which he produced out of season’ as well as by the dirhams he called ‘Dir¬ hams of omnipotence’ (.darahim al-qudra ). Al-Jubba 3 i heard about all this and is said to have instructed his students as to how to pre¬ pare themselves in order to expose al-Hallaj’s alleged prestidigita¬ tion. 84 Subsequently to this, al-Hallaj is said to have departed from Ahwaz. In another story 85 the method al-Hallaj employed in writing books is described by al-Tanukhi as ‘following the way of the Sufis, in ac¬ cordance with mad raving’ (fi’l-hawas ). However, al-Tanukhi con¬ cedes that when al-Hallaj uttered intelligible words, his art of letter writing was attractive and his enunciation intelligent (kana tarassuluhu hasanan wa-talaffuiuhu malihan)* 6 Al-Tanukhi also sets out 87 to ridicule al-Hallaj’s followers who are said to have organized themselves in Tustar around one of al-Hallaj’s sons. They arc represented as believing that the divinity ( al-ldhut) which resided in al-Hallaj subsequently took up residence in his son (, hulul ). According to the same story, another member of the local school believed that the spirit of the Prophet Muhammad had also settled inside him. 88 The theological point of this story is the denial that God or the ‘spirit of Muhammad’ can dwell in chosen indivi¬ duals: By highlighting what, in their claims, appears to be a logical 83 Nishwaru 172. nr. 88. 84 'These things are being kept at places where ruses can be employed. Lead him inside one of your houses, not to a place of his. and enjoin on him that he produce two black and red pearls. If he does that, then declare him truthful*. 85 Ibid. i. 169. nr. 85. 86 To illustrate this point al-Tanukhi relates that al-Hallaj once remarked about the sad tune of a wind-instrument he heard nearby: ‘This is Satan's lamentation over the world* (hadha nawh Iblis ’alal-dunya). 87 Ibid. i. 173-176. nr. 89-91. 88 Al-Tanukhi illustrates these alleged beliefs with a story (i. 173, nr. 89) he heard from someone whom the Hallajiyya in Basra tried to make acknowledge their leader as master: ‘I visited the leader of the HaUajiyya and they thought that I sought guidance. Then the leader spoke in my presence and this man was cross-eyed so that his eyes were directed to the ceiling of the house, while his mind was boiling in that madness (yajish bi-dhalika ‘I-hawas). When we left, the man (with me] said: "Do you believer' I said: "I have never disbelieved your words more than now. This person in your view holds the rank of the Prophet? Then why does he not cure himself of being cross-eyed?” He replied: “You fool! As if he were really cross-eyed! He simply directs his eyes upwards to the heavenly kingdom’". 86 FLORIAN SOB1EROJ contradiction, the Hallajiyya are presented as being irrational, hence, astray from the truth. , ., , ,_ Another Sufi ridiculed by al-Tanukhi is Ruwaym b. Ahmad from Baghdad *» He transmits Ja c far al-Khuldl’s judgement on this Sufi: •He who wants to confide a secret may confide it to Ruwaym, for he kept hidden his love for this world for forty years’. This is an allu¬ sion to Ruwaym's promotion from relative poverty to the rank ot de¬ puty to the chief qadi of Baghdad, Isma ll b. Ishaq. Indeed Ruwaym's changed condition drew criticism from some of his Suit colleagues. According to 'Abd Allah-i Ansar!. 90 however, this change in no way affected the inner state of Ruwaym who was great in dissimulation’ (lalbis). In a story of the al-Faraj ba c d al-shtdda- type,’ 1 al-Tanukhi ridi¬ cules the Sufi concept of tawakkul, as understood and practised by its most extreme quietistic adherents. The protagonist of the story is introduced as a Sufi who used to speak to his companions about ’ tawakkul , sustenance (arzaq), and the weakness and strength of the soul in their regard’. The Sufi takes an oath ’not to savour anything other than a faludhaj pudding to be sent [to him] in a bowl and not to eat except after having been urged to do so by means of an oath . The story goes on to relate that the Sufi travels to a distant place and nearly perishes in a mosque after having been deprived of food for days. Eventually he is forced to eat by a slave-girl when she threa¬ tens to beat him to death. Later the slave-girl explains the bt^rre cir¬ cumstances that led her to force the Sufi to eat Ae /a/udhay: Her master, a village-headman, had ordered a faludhaj 'pudding to be prepared for him but then dishing out the pudding had been delayed. This had angered the headman so much that he took an oath. He would divorce his wife if anyone other than a stranger in the village ate the dish. The Sufi’s misfortune turns out to be the cause ot the deliverance of the headman (from having to divorce his wife). Here al-Tanukhi rejects the Sufi doctrine of tawakkul showing how preca¬ rious the consequences of this doctrine are for the Sufi protagonist, with his form of ‘trust in God’ the Sufi is presented as suicidal. However, the anti-Sufi aspect of the story is subordinate to the more important concern of demonstrating the workings of God s provi- 89 Ibid, iii, 120. nr. 77. 90 Ansari, Tabaqat 262 f. 91 Nishwar iii. 76 f.. or. 54; also Ibn al-Jawzi. Talbis 428- THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 87 dence.^ Absolute tawakkul as a distinctive feature of the Sufism of his day is also criticized by al-Tanukhi elsewhere in the Nishwar .93 A case in point is the reported claim by Ja c far al-Khuldi that he had performed the hajj fifty-six times c ala’l-madhhab ,, i.e. by trusting in God and without provisions or riding-beast. However, in the story of the revenge of a grieving mother ele¬ phant, 94 the Sufi protagonist Ibrahim al-Khawwas is depicted with outright positive traits. Having suffered shipwreck, al-Khawwas vows not to eat any elephant meat. When a young elephant is caught and subsequently eaten by al-Khawwas’ companions, he chooses to abstain from the meal. When the revengeful mother elephant crushes his companions to death, al-Khawwas survives the carnage and is returned to civilization on the elephant’s back. Theological aspects of the story include just retribution for good and bad deeds, as well as God’s wisdom which is also manifest in the animal kingdom: the revengeful elephant distinguishes between the men who ate her young and the person who abstained. Like the story which focuses on tawakkul , this narrative is incorporated in al-TanOkhi’s book al- Faraj ba c d al-shidda. The general theme of the work is God’s unfailing mercy towards those who bear tribulation with fortitude. The stories demonstrate that by acting thus the latter bring about their own deliverance.95 Many of the stories referred to above attest to the rationalist outlook of the Mu c tazila. The Sufis of the early and middle c Abbasid periods considered this outlook inappropriate. Generally speaking, rationality was deemed ‘frivolous’ with regard to religion but especially when it came to the more essential questions concerning man's relationship to God. Speculation on religious questions was cautioned against out of fear that an error might endanger salvation. The ambition to know 92 For a literary analysis of this story see Julia Ashtiyani. 'Al-Tanukhi’s al-Faraj ba'd al-shidda as a Literary Source*. Arabica Felix { 1991) 108-128. 93 Nishwar iii, 119, nr. 70. 94 Nishwar iii. 195. nr. 127. 95 In the Nishwar, al-Tanukhi includes among his literary materials on Sufis a number of examples which consist of little more than a sentence, i.e an utterance by a Sufi and an isnad. Intended criticism of the Sufis does not seem to be discernible in them (cf. ibid. iii. 123. nr. 81; iii. 122. nr. 79; iii. 121. nr. 78; iii. 119. nr. 75). These materials reflect al-Tanukhi’s interest in pithy phrases and lexicographical rarities, nawadir. For instance, his lexicographical interests tnay be the reason why he quotes a saying of the Sufi Ja'far al-Khuldi (ibid, iii, 117. nr. 73) in which the latter contrasts the sciences of hadith and Sufism ( f //m al-khiraq/'ilm al-waraq). FLORIAN SOBIEROJ THE MU C TAZILA AND SUFISM 89 88 more than the Koran and hadith was considered blasphemous prided 6 Polemics as a basic trait of rationalist theology was viewed as unseemly in religious discourse. The relevant hadith often quoted by the Sufis in their tracts 97 stipulated that there be ‘no dispute in religion’ (la mira’a fi'l-din). The rationalist theologians were also accused of pursuing their science solely because of worldly ambitions. 98 Sufis contrasted disputation (mujddala) as engaged in by the speculative theologians with the ‘fraternal counsel’ (wasiyya) which they ideally practised. The antagonism in the attitudes of Sufism and Mu c tazila towards the concept of the transcendence of God is expressed in a pro¬ nouncement of the fourth/tenth century Egyptian Sufi Abu c Ali b. al- Katib: ‘The Mu c tazila have striven to eliminate anthropomorphic elements from the concept of deity (or: declared God transcendent) by way of reason (nazzahu’llaha min haythu’l- c uqul/ l aql) but they have failed. The Sufis have done so by way of religious knowledge (nazzahuhu min haythu’l- c ilm) and they have succeeded’ 99 The dogma of a created Koran was a consequence of the Mu c tazila’s re¬ flections on the oneness of God. The Sufis, as natural allies of the traditionists, criticized the Mu c tazila for their scepticism vis-&-vis hadith and the ultimate source of hadith transmission, the Companions of the Prophet. For their part, the Mu c tazila looked down upon the Sufis as ‘adherents of blind imitation, reports and traditions, who transmit a report and its opposite, who believe in both while one of them abrogates the other...’. 100 Important Sufi personalities in the third and fourth cen¬ turies shared the traditionists’ view that the discord between the sahdba, which the Mu c tazila highlighted and discussed, ought to be suppressed and passed over in silence: Ibn Khafif relates in the SfraKM that when Muhammad b. c All al-Kattam, one of his masters 96 Cf. Tilman Nagel, Geschichte der islamischen Thealogie von Mohammed bis zur Gegenwart (Miinchen 1994) 133 ff. 97 Cf. Ibn Khafif, IqtisOd, fast 46. 98 Ibn Khafif warns the novice: ‘Be on guard and endeavour lo shun the assemblies of Chose contemporaries given to theological speculation ( ahl al-naizdr) who are characterized by disputation (mujadala). For the Prophet forbade this and strictly restrained (his followers) from it. He said that it is unbelief to argue about the Koran. Firstly, that would engender hatred and sow discord among them. Then it would cause a person to engage in hate and enmity while striving after a position of leadership (riydsa)' (ibid.). 99 al-Sulami, Tabaqat 386 f.; al-Qushayri. Risala 29. 100 Bishr b. al-Husayn, in Ibn c Asakir. Tabyin 119. 101 Siral-i Ibn Khafif 65.16 f. in Mekka, asked the Prophet in a dream about the ‘temptations (fitanha) by which the Companions were afflicted in their mutual re¬ lations’, the Prophet asked al-Kattam to keep silence (kuffa c alayka lisdnak). The Sufis held the Mu c tazili concept regarding qadar to be an in¬ fringement on God’s omnipotence and dignity. This is illustrated in the derogatory story which Ibn Khafif tells about the Mu c tazill theologian. 102 The early fourth-century Sufi Abu Bakr al-Wasiti (d. 320/932) even compared the Mu c tazila, on the basis of their belief in free will, with Pharaoh who had claimed to be God: ‘Pharaoh openly claimed lordship for himself ( idda c d Fir c awn al-rububiyya)\ the Mu c tazila do so covertly. They say: “I do whatever I want’”. 103 Likewise, when addressing a student of the Mu c tazili leader al- Jubba 3 !, al-Hallaj explains his stance regarding qadar. He maintains that the motives behind God’s actions arc unfathomable to human reason, and that man’s actions are not governed by free will. 104 The Mu c tazill concept of God’s justice ( al- c adl ) which implies that God redresses any wrong that man suffers undeservedly is also ridiculed by the Sufis, as for instance in Ibn Khafif s SiraJM The Sufis’ main criticism of Mu c tazill rationalism, which focuses on the Mu c tazila's rejection of the hadith and their view of qadar , is shared by Sunnism at large. Moreover, the Sufis differed from the Mu c tazila in that they believed that knowledge of ‘the unseen’ ( al - ghayb) can be acquired by means of inspiration, 106 whereas the Mu c tazila taught that knowledge of God could only be attained by a process of ratiocination and not by intuition. 107 In their commitment to the belief that God can be known through some form of inspira¬ tion and not only by the prophets, the Sufis shared common ground 102 Ibid. 186-9. 103 al-Qushayri. Risala 5. 1-6. 104 ‘As God brought forth bodies without cause, he also brought forth the attributes (sifatiha ) contained in them without cause, and as man does not own the root of his action ( la yamlik al- f abd asla fi‘lihi), he also docs not own his action’ (al-Sulami, Tabaqat 311). It is precisely this knowledge that ‘all creation's movement and rest is the action of God alone lharakat al-khalq wa-sukunihim fi‘l Allah wahdahu )' which al-Junayd defines as the contents of tawhid (al-Qushayri, Risala 5,-7 ff.). 105 Sirat-i Ibn Khafif 186-189. 106 Ilham. mukashafa; op. cit. 66. 107 Cf. al-Jahiz. in his Kitab al-masd’il wa’l-jawdbat fi‘l-ma c rifa; G. Vajda, ‘La connaissancc naturelle de Dieu selon al-Gahiz, critiquee par les Mu : tazilitcs\ Stadia Islamic a «iv (1966); van Ess. Theologie und Gesellschaft iii. 382; The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature, cd. A.F.L. Beeston et al.. iii vols. (Cambridge 1983-1992) ii. 85. 90 FLORIAN SOBIEROJ THE MU : TAZILA AND SUFISM 91 with the Shiis. From the contents of al-Tanukhl’s Nishwar presented above, we may conclude that the Mu c tazila primarily criticized the Sufis for being insincere, ignorant and irrational. The Sufis are insincere be¬ cause they are glad to be promoted from poverty to worldly positions in order to become rich (the case of Ruwyam). 108 They pretend to work miracles (as in the case of al-Shibli and al-Hallaj). 109 They de¬ ceive the weak-minded into joining their school by means of trickery or by appealing to the base motives of potential converts (al- Hallaj). no They are licentious in their relations with fellow-Sufis of the opposite sex (Ibn Khafif). 111 The Sufis arc ignorant and irrational because they can be hoodwinked by a buffoon (al-Mada^inl). 112 Their terminology and science (‘the fiqh of the Sufis’) is cause for ridicule (Qadi Bishr regarding the Sufi couple in the lawcourt). 1 ^ Madness governs how the Sufis compose their books (al-Hallaj). 114 Their concept of tawakkul runs the risk of having suidical effects for its practitioners, ns They hold superstitious beliefs, as for example that certain prayer-formulasn6 and talisman-like objects have magic powers. 11 7 They claim to hold the rank of the Companions of the Prophet and believe that God or the spirit of Muhammad dwells within them ( hulul ), whereas they cannot even cure themselves of being cross-eyed.ns Besides asserting that the Sufis are insincere, ignorant and irra¬ tional, al-Tanukhi criticizes them for claiming to be able to work miracles. The stories involving Sufis in the Nishwar expressly maintain that the great Sufis — such as al-Shibli, Ibn Khafif and al- Hallaj — are not really saints, nor are the miracles (karamat) attribu¬ ted to them accepted as saintly gifts. On the contrary, any miraculous behaviour associated with the Sufis is due to sorcery ( sihr ) and ul¬ timately stems from Satan whose purpose is to lead man into per- 108 Nishwar iii, 120. * 09 Ibid. i. 159 f.; ibid. ii. 128; and ibid. i. 172. HO Ibid. i. 161. 111 Ibid, iii, 228 f. H2 Ibid, i, 99. 11 3 Ibid. ui. 227. 114 Ibid. i. 169. U5 Ibid. iii. 76 f. 116 Ibid. iii. 198. 117 Ibid. iii. 199. 118 ibid. i. 173-6. dition. 119 The majority of the Mu c tazila denied that miracles were a confirmation of the sainthood of pious individuals. Only mu e jizdt , miracles confirming the prophethood of the historical Messengers (and dydt , ‘signs’ of God), were accepted as real. Among the argu¬ ments advanced by the Mu c tazila for rejecting karamat was the claim that miracles of this kind could not be distinguished from ma¬ gic. 120 The stories about a wish-fulfilling charm and talisman a Sufi was given seem to be motivated by the kindred denial by some Mu c tazila of the belief that prayers are answered by God. 121 Thus the original Mu c tazili criticism, as revealed in al-Tanukhi’s stories involving Sufis, seems to be that the Sufis had elaborated a science based on an apparently irrational epistemology. As a conse¬ quence of this epistemology, the Sufis claimed to have become re¬ ceptacles of God’s indwelling and to be able to work miracles. The notion that the Sufis arc distinguished by God by being able to per¬ form miracles was perceived by the Mu c tazila as undermining the unique position of the Prophet, which in their view rests on the mu c jiza which God effected through him. If the status of the Prophet is challenged by persons distinguished by the performance of mi¬ racles, the sharia itself, whose guarantor is the Prophet, might eventually be rendered irrelevant. Preventing this from happening is a requirement of the Mu c tazili principle of actively defending the 119 Prestidigitation such as al-Tanukhi attributes to al-Hallaj in some stories was commonly associated with sorcery; cf. Gramlich, Wander 131. 120 Gramlich, op. cit. 106 f. Other arguments the Mu'la/ila employed include the following: 1) If a miracle is performed by someone who is not a prophet as proof of his enjoying divine distinction, it could be performed at any time, so that it would eventually lose its miraculous character. 2) If miracles could be performed by non-prophets, this would detract from the pre-eminence of the prophets. But the obligation to obey prophets is based on the fact that they perform miracles. 3) A miracle provides evidence by way of demonstrating (lie distinctive and exceptional (ibdna wa-lakhsis: ‘the argument of Abu Hashim al-JubbaT). Qadi Abd al-iabbar explains: ‘A miracle proves the special distinction of the prophets above anyone else. Were it not for miracles, they would not be different from other people’ (cf. Gramlich. op. cit. 109). 4) If miracles could be performed by non-prophets, this would diminish the effectiveness of a miracle to prove prophethood (cf. ibid. 98). *2! Gramlich. op. cit. 106. mentions the Andalusian theologian Ibn Hazm as an example. The author of Kazarunl's vita. Mahmud b. °Uthman. on the other hand, attributes to the Mu'tazila at large the belief that God answers the prayers of both the righteous and sinners IMahmud b. ‘Uthman. Firdaws ul-murshidiyya fi asrar al-samadiyya , ed. Iraj-i AfshSr (Teheran 1358)66, 11 f.J. 92 FLORIAN SOBIEROJ precepts of divine law (al-amr bi’l-ma c ruf wa’l-rtahy c an al-munkar, ‘to enjoin the good and to forbid the reprehensible*). This principle, inherited from al-Hasan al-Basri, would seem to be the fundamental basis of Mu c tazili opposition to Sufism.122 •22 cf. Hellmut Riuer. ‘Studien zur islamischen FrdmnugkeiL 1. Hasan al-Basri'. Der Islam xxi (1933) 1-83; 66.. LE PROCES POSTHUME D'IBN c ARABl MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ Dans l’introduction d’un ouvrage publiea Medine en 1990 un auteur wahhabite, le Dr. Musa b. Sulayman al-Darwish, exprime son souci de defendre Pislam contrc les manoeuvres perfides des orientalistes ct de leurs disciples musulmans (cette derni&re remarque visanl particulierement Abu'l- l Ala c Afifi, editeur dcs Fusils al-hikam). Aussi se rejouit-il d’avoir eu la bonne fortune lors d’une visite an Caire de dccouvrir dans la bibliothcque d*Al-Azhar el de pouvoir offrir au lecteur un recueil de textes qui ont en commun de d^noncer la doctrine impie d’lbn c Arabi. Le premier de ces textes est d’Ibn Taymiyya. I-e dernier est une fatwa dc Sa c d Allah Efcndi (ob. 1538- 1539) qui fut mufti hanafite a Istanbul. En r£ponse a une longue question, cc juriste donne son avis en quclqucs lignes: celui, dil-il, qui accorde enhance h la doctrine d’Ibn c Arabi ou simplemcnt hesite a se prononcer sur son caractfcre h6r£ticuc, cclui-la est un kafir. S’il persiste sans se repentir, il doit etre mis i mort. 1 Cette sentence, nous le verrons. est rcmarquablement indulgcnle. Qu’un wahhabite exhume quelques Merits ancietis hostiles au Shaykh al-akbar n’a dvidemment ricn dc surprenant. Ibn " Arab! clait deja Pune des cibles dc Muhammad b. c Abd al-Wahhab qui accusait les syriens de “I*adorer*' ( ya c buduna Ibn ‘Arabl ) et de faire de sa tombe une idole.2 La polemique anti-akbarienne occupe toujours une place importantc et meme souvent centrale dans la plupart des publications saoudiennes recentes qui s'attaquenl au soufisme dcs qu'elles abordenl des problemes doctrinaux: Ibn c Arabi y apparait coniine Yimam des soufis, celui dont I'enseignement pernicieux, dc maniere ouverte ou cach£e, est partout present. 3 Cela est vrai de simples brochures de propagande comme les Fadd'ih al-sufiyya du 1 Rasa'll M'a-fatawaJi dhamm Ibn ‘Arabi al-fii/i (Medine 1990) 122. 2 Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Majiml'at al-fatana wa’I-rasa’il uyf 'l-ajwiba (Beyrouth 1987) 46. 3 Ce diagnostic, a vrai dire, me parait fort lucidc. Cf. M. Chodkiewicz. Un ocean sans rivage (Paris 1992) {An Ocean without Shore. Albany 1993) introduction. 94 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ shaykh c Abd al-Rahman c Abd al-Khaliq 4 selon lequel, pour Ibn Arab!, “Tblis est une partie de Dieu” comine cTouvrages plus ambiticux tel celui que le Dr. Sabir Tu c ayma a consacrc aux croyances et pratiques des soufis 5 6 et ou la critique de V auteur des Fusils occupe plusieurs dizaines de pages. Je limiterai toutefois a ces breves remarques — pour une raison que j’exposerai bientol — mon incursion dans le champ de la lilteralure wahhabite contemporaine. Je me bornerai dc meme h rappeler, sans y insister, la position bien connue des salafiyya, telle qu’elle s’exprime dans le Tcifsir al- mandr* mais aussi dans d’innombrables livres ou articles depuis plus d’un siecle. Les arguments utilises dans les campagnes anti- akbariennes inspirces par ces deux courants ou par les mouvements qui en sont issus sont, ii vrai dire, a peu pr&s identiques. Au del5 de leurs effets directs, aisement reperablcs. e’est a dire des convictions militantes qu’elles suscitent dans certains secteurs du public musulman, ces diatribes out des consequences indirectes qui mdrilent de retenir (’attention. D6sormais, au Prochc-orient, et particulierement en Egypte, les dignitaires officiels du tasawwuf anxieux d’ecarter tout soup^on d’hetSrodoxie, ddsavouent gdneralemcnt avec un empressement peu glorieux le soufisme "(Stranger h l’islam” que reprdsentent Ibn c Arabi et ses 616ves: “ils n’onl plus aujourd'hui”, assure d’ailleurs le shaykh de la tariqci inuhammadiyya sltddhiliyya , “ni disciples ni hiSriticrs". 7 Bien que 4 I'add'ih al-sfifiyya <Riynd 1991. 2cmc ed.); voir. 23 f. cl .‘>8. 5 Al-fftfivya mu'taqadan wa-maslakan (Riyad 1983) 388. Stir Ibn ‘Arabi. voir notammciil 163 a 183 ct 205-245. Parmi ccs polciniques wnhhnbitcs rcccntes conln: Ibn ‘Arab? seraient a rclcvcr aussi divers ouvrages rclalifs aux furuq cl cn pariiculicr ccux d'‘Ab<l al- Rahman Dimashqiyya dans la collection Dirasdt fi’l tasawiif, public a Riyad. 6 Tafsir al-mandr vii. 439; ix. 170. Sur ce poinl. connnc sur bcaucoup d'auircs. il cst difficile dc disccrncr dans lc Tafsir at-manor une position propremeut salafiyya ct dislincte dc ccllc du wahhnbisme, dont I’inRucDCc sur Muhammad Rashid Rida cst bien connue. On sail que Muhammad c Abduh avail redige vers 1874 unc Risdlat al-wdriddt oil il exprimait sou adhesion it la doctrine dc la nahdat al-wtijud. Au cours des annees Ircntcs. un shaykh algcrien. Ahmad b. ‘Aliwa. sc fern d'ailleurs un plaisir de rappcler ccrlaines phrases particulicreinent coinpromcllantes de cct dcril dans sa riposte h un article pam dans la revue dc Beubadis. al- Shihdb. (Cc (exte a ete repris dans le recueil d’nrticlcs du Shaykh Ibn c Aliwa intitule Risdlat al-Ndfir Ma e ruf public it Dautas. ca. 1960; voir, sur Ibn ‘Arabi. 58 et 112-115). Bien que 1'cvolution d* e Abduh 1’ail cntrainc fort loin des idecs exprimees dans son oeuvre dc jcuncsse. on peut penser que, s'il avail vecu asscz longtemps pour cn controler la redaction, certains passages du Tafsir auraicni exposd des vucs ccrlcs hostiles a Ibn ‘Anibi mais plus pcreonnelles et peut-etre plus nuancees. 7 Interview du Shaykh Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim dans lc no. d’aout 1992. 43. de la LE PROCES POSTHUME D'IBN ‘ARABI 95 nombre de facteurs extra-doctrinaux soient a prendre en consideration dans l’analyse d’une affaire compliquee, on peut vo[r une manifestation de cettc prudence dans la condamnation, en 1975, par le "Conseil supreme soufi” de la TabrFat al-dhimma du Shaykh Muhammad c Uthman al-Burhani (ob. 1983): le livre edite sous son nom n’est en effet qu’une vaste anthologie ou figurent de longs extraits — ires pnScisemcnt r6ferences — d’teuvres d’Ibn c Arabi et d* c Abd al-Karim al-Jili. Cc sont done ccs derniers qui en fait sont vises par les chefs d’accusalion retenus contre Muhammad c Uthman. 8 Ijx mcme annec 1975 vit s’ouvrir une controversc cetebre oil, cette fois, Ibn "Arabi lui-meme etait express^ment mis en cause. Je me trouvais au Cairc lorsque, le vendredi 14 novembre, le quotidien Al- Akhbdr publia unc "letlre ouverte au ministre de la culture” signee du Shaykh Kamal Ahmad c Awn, directcur d’AI-Azhar h Tanta, qui d6non$ait les Futuhat comme un ouvrage blasph^matoire el s’indignait du patronage accord^ par le ministerc a l’6dition critique etablie par le Dr. Osman Yahya. 9 Cette premiere salve fut suivie de beaucoup d’autres sous forme dc conferences et d’articles. 10 Le zfcle d'un depute dc Tanta (coincidence qui n’a evidemment rien de fortuit) devait, on le sait, amener une commission du Rarlcmcnt dgypticn a decider en fevrier 1979 d’interdire la diffusion des Futuhat. Jc nc m’6tendrai pas sur les remous provoqu6s par cette decision qui dflt finalement etre annuiee. Un article de Th. Emil revue at-Tasauuiif at-isldmt. organc du "Conseil soufi supreme" (Sgyptieii. ® Sur les polcmiqucs autour dc la Burhaniyyt el de sou chef, voir 1’articlc dc P. J. I.iiizard. ’Le role des confreries daus lc systfcinc politique egypticn’. Maghreb-Mashrek cxxxi (1991) cl cclui de Valerie HoiTman-Ladd. ’Devotion to the Prophet and his Family iu Egyptian Sufism'. tJMES xxiv (1992) 615-637. ainsi que lc chapitrc 10 de I'ouvrage du meme auteur. Sufism, Mystics and Saints in Modem Egypt (University of South Carolina 1995). Voir cgalcmcnl mes remarques dans ’I.e modelc prophet iqac dc la saintetd cn islam’, Al-Masaq vii (1995). 9 J’avais pnScisihneut rendez vous de bon matin ce jour-lh avec O. Yahya ct Ini fit lire cette "Icttre ouverte" qui. stir lc moment, lui panit plus ridicule qu'inquietantc. 10 Parmi les innoinbrablcs articles suscilcs par cette affaire sigualous: la reponse d*0. Yahya dans al-Akhbdr le 8 mars 1976 ct la replique dc Kamal Ahmad ‘Awn dans cc meme journal lc 9 avril 1976 (jour ou paraissail. dans al-Ahrdm. une declaration d’lbrahlm Madkfir, pr^facier de l’cdition dcs Futuhat). O. Yahya reponditdc nouveau a Kamal Ahmad ‘Awn dans al-Akhbdr le 14 mai 1976. Kamal ‘Awn entrcprit d'aulre part de ddvelopper sa denonciation des erreurs d'Ibn ‘Arabi dans six numcros succcssifs dc la revue Liwd' al-isldm a partir d'avril 1976. 97 96 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ Homerin 11 decrit les principales etapcs de cette affaire. Plusieurs membres du “Conseil supreme soufi” se decidereni i intervenir publiquement en faveur d'une lev6e de la censure (le Shaykh al- SutuhT, le Dr. Abu'l-Wafa al-Taftazanl, le Dr. Kamal Ja c far)> 2 mais assez tardivement et a un moment ou la conjonction d’une volonte politique d’“ouverture” et de vigoureuses protestations d’intcllectuels “laics” avail assure le succes d’une solution liberate. Bien des signes me donnent a penser qu’aujourd’hui, quinze ans apr^s cette bruyante querelle, la pratique de la taqiyya en ces matieres est encore plus frequente chez les notables que par le passe. Quoiqu’il en soit, je n’ai evoque quelques aspects recents de la polemique contrc le Shaykh al-akbar que pour rappeler qu’elle n’est jamais dteinte. Son interet est done d’une toute autre nature que celut qu’on peut porter & la condamnation de Siger de Brabant ou de Maitre Eckhart. Si, pourtant, je renoncc a proposer une analyse d6tailtee de ses formes les plus actuelles, e’est pour une raison que suggiire le titre domte h ces reflexions. L’emploi du singulter (le proccs) y est d^libtSre: de sidcle en stecle, nous ne nous trouvons pas, en d6pit des apparences, devant une serie de procSs mais devant un meme proems indefiniment recommence, avec les memes accusations appuydes sur les memes arguments. Un inventaire exhaustif des milliers de pages qui ont ete ecrites contrc Ibn c Arabi — et dont la masse s’accroit chaque ann£e — est bien enlendu impossible. Les listes qu’a dresses O. Yahyai* n’ont qu’un caractcre indicatif. Tres incompletes h partir du scizieme stecle, elles ne tiennent compte • 1 Th. Emil Homerin. ’Ibn c ArabI in the People’s Assembly’. Middle East Journal xl (1986) 462-477. II rcstemil bcaticoup h dire sur les dcssous politique* de cette affaire comme aussi sur les luttes d’influcncc — notammenl an setn d’al-Azhar — qui en expliquent certains aspects. Le recteur d’al-Azhar, r Abd al-Halim Mahmud (ob. 1978), dont rintdret bicnveillant pour Ibn ‘Arab! cl pour le sonfisme en general <$tait dc notoriety publique. fnl au depart I one des cibles dc cctle campagne. II etait d’ailleurs express^menl vise dans fun des articles dc Kamal 'Awn (DW al-islwn. dec. 1976, 45) a propos du chapitre 2 dc son livre al-Madrasa al-shddhilivva al-hadftlw (Lc Caire. ca. 1968). Ce chap.tre. od il dvoquait la constitution en Egypte au debut du sieclc d’une association “Akbariyya”. n’est en fait que la reprise d’une brochure publide par lui (s. d.; lorsque j’en fis l’acquisition au Caire au printemps 1954. elle etait de publication rtcenlc), al-Faylasitfal-mnslim. r Abdol-Wahid Yahya. 12 Abu'l-Wafa 5 al-Taftazani est fauteur, entre autres. d’un volumineux ouvrage Ibn Sab'ln wa-falsafatuhu ol-sufiyya. Lc Dr. Kamal Ja'far a notammenl edit* plusieurs traites d'Ibn Masarra. >3 Hisloire el classification dc I'oeuvre d'Ibn ‘Arabi (Damas 1964) i. 114 f. edition du Mass al-nusus de Haydar-i Amuli (“Lc Tcxtc des Tcxtcs"). (Paris-Rheran 1975) 36-65 du texte arabe. LE PROCCS POSTHUME D’IBN c ARABI d’autre part que des sources arabes et ignorent les innombrables ecrits rediges en d’autres langues dans toutes les regions du mondc musulman: Iran, Inde, Indonesie. Mes propres recherches portent d’ailleurs elles aussi sur le domaine arabophone. Sur les autres secteurs du dar al-islam , mes connaissances sont lacunaires et le plus souvent de seconde main. Je ne crois pas me tromper cependant en affirmant que des etudes pluridisciplinaires couvrant en Vendue et en profondeur la totalite du champ de la literature anti-akbarienne n’apporteraicnt guere de surprise: des l’epoque mamlouke, lc cadre du ddbat est trac£, la liste des theses condamnables arretce, les armes scripturaires fourbics et pretes pour un long usage. ■* Certaines des controverses ultericures reprendront I'ensemble du requisitoirc; d’autres s’attacheront plus particulterement £ la dcnonciation d’une ou de quelques lines seulcment des theses her£tiques cataloguees. Mais ces rhapsodies, quels qu’en soient les signataires, cousent avec plus ou moins d’habilite des morceaux dont chacun appartient originellenient a une production litteraire qui stetend du ddbut du quatorzteme a la fin du quinzteme siccte — disons dc 1305, date de la lettre d’Ibn Taymiyya au shaykh al-Manbiji, h la mort, en 1497, de Muhammad al-Sakh5wi. auteur d 'al-Qawl al-munbl 'an larjamat Ibn al- 1 Arabi. C’est done b I’cxamen dc quelques episodes majeurs de la polemique au cours de cette p^riodc que je vais m’attacher dans les remarques qui suivent. Comme 1’indique d’autre part le titre du present exposd, le proefes d’Ibn c Arabi est un proems posthume. Contrairement h des tegendes lardives — parfois entretenues par les d6fenseurs d’Ibn 1 Arabi — ce dernier ne semble pas avoir 6t6 victime de persecutions dc son vivant (I'histoirc selon laquelle il aurait cte menace de mort en Egypte est d^pourvue de toute credibility ct il a b6ncfici£ de Kamitte et du 14 11 me faut loutefois preciscr que je laissc ddlibdrfment dc cote, comme relevant d’tinc toute autre analyse, un type de debal qui coucerne aussi la doctrine akbarienne: cclui qui oppose, a I’inlcricur du souflsine. partisans de la wafrdat al-wujud et partisans de la wahdat al- shuhfid. En depit des efforts dc certains auteurs indicus (et. par cxeinple, tout rcccmment, dc Muhammad Abdul Haq Ansari dans Sufism and Sharjah (Londres 1986)] pour fairc d’Ahmad Sirbindi un succcsscur d’Ibn Taymiyya. jc pense avec Y. Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (Montreal/Londrcs 1971) et avee J. G. J. Ter Haar. Vclgeling en erfgenaam van de profeel (Leyde 1989) que lc Mujaddid. s’il critique Ibn c Arabi. nc pent elre considcrc comine un adversaire du Shaykh al-akbar. Il avauce d’aillcurs des thises qui nc sont pas moins ’’heretiques". II est vrai, ncanmoins. que al-Sakhawi {ol-Qawl al-munbl. ms. Berlin 2849, Spr. 790. ff. 84b-85) enregimente Simnani dans la lisle des tSmoins a charge. Mais al-Sakhawi fait feu de tout bois. 98 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ patronage de fuqahd* eminents. 15 Les premieres reactions hostilcs a son sujet fesultent de la diffusion progressive, apres sa mort, de certains de ses ecrits demeures jusque la confines dans le cercle de ses eleves et en particulier dcs Fusils al-hikam qui, de manure relativement concise, 6non$aient plus explicitement que d’autres ouvrages quelques uns des themes les plus provocants de renseignement akbarien. Les effets de cette diffusion furent de toute Evidence aggraves par la presentation sysfematique et la formalisation dans un langage marque par la falsafa que donnerent de ces themes les commentaires de I’oeuvre d’Ibn "Arab! — ct surtout des Fusils — dus aux disciples directs ou indirects: Sadr al- Din al-QQnaw! (ob. 1274), al-Jandl (ob. 1301), al-Qashani (ob. 1329). AI-DhahabI declare expressement que e’est a la fin du septieme siecle de 1’hegire, lorsque les Fusus commencerent a circulcr parmi les ulama, qu’Ibn c Arab! fut demasque. 16 Ibn Hajar al- c Asqalani, dans le Lisan al-mizon , 17 constate de meme qu’Ibn c Arab! fut jugd favorablemcnt par ses contemporains et y voit la preuve qu’ils ignoraient “ce qu’a rendu evident son livre des Fusus Le faqih malikitc c Abd al-Latif al-Su c Cdi (ob. 1335) confirme — selon une version imprinfee d’une de ses fatwas — cette datation.18 Lc combat contre l’“hdri5sic akbarienne” nc s’engage vdritablement, cn tout cas, qu’au d6but du huitteme/treizifcme siecle ct e’est Ibn 15 Jc rcuvoie sur ces points a Claude Addas. Ibn ‘Arabi on la quite du Sottfre rouge (Paris 1989) 230-232 ct chapilre x; Quest for the Red Sulphur (Cambridge 1993) 191-192 el 245s. 16 al-Sakhawi. op. cit., t 102. 17 Usdn al-mizein (Haydcrabad 1329 h.) v, 312-315. Ibu Hajar pratiquait-il la taqiyya cn CCS matures ? Je n’oscrais I'affirmer mais il cst cn tout cas curicux dc cons.ater que son uom figure dans unc chainc de transmission (remontant h Sadr al-din al-Qunawi) dc la riwaya dcs oeuvres d’lbu 'Arab! Jvoir la these de B. Aladdin. ( Abdalgani an-Nabutusi. oeuvre, vie, doctrine (Paris I 1985)) ii, 153). II conscrva d'autre part tout au long dc sa vie dcs relations atnicalcs avee lc Shaykh Muhammad al-Hanafi (orphclins tous deux, ils s’ctoicot connus dcs I’cnfauce) dont les audaccs de langage auraient pu I'inquirer. e Ali al-Batanuni. al-Sirr al-fa/i (I.c Cairc 1306 h.) i 7. Sur Ibn Hajar, voir egalemcnt infra, note 92. 18 Le texle dc cette fatwa se trouve inclus dans le recueil signal* note 1.1-e passage cite figure p. 76. (Toulcfois, dans lc ms. dc Berlin tie al-Sakhawi, op. cit.. f. 74b. Ia notice sur al- Su'udi, qui reproduit cette phrase, mentionne lc sixifcme et non lc septieme sieclc dc l'hegirc) Voir aussi le propos dc Kamal al-din al-Maraghi rapportc par Ibn Taymiyya. MajimY at al- rasa'il nn’l-masd’il, ed. Muhammad Rashid Rida (Le Cairc s.d.) iv. 75-76. scion leqitel cc sont les commentaires oraux de c Afil al-din al-Tilimsam (ob. 1291) sur les Fujux qui lui ont ouvert les yeux. LE PROCES POSTHUME D’IBN "ARAB! 99 Taymiyya qui ouvrira les hostility. Le docteur hanbalite a certes des precurseurs, tel ce Qutb al-DTn al-Qastallani (ob. 1287) — fils et neveu, pourtant, de personnages avec lesquels 1’auteur des Fusus fut ires lie 19 — dont les invectives contre al-Hallaj, Ibn c ArabI et surtout Ibn Sab c in nous sont connues a travers les citations qu’en donnent, outre Ibn Taymiyya lui-meme, differents auteurs plus tardifs. 20 Mais j| ne s’agit encore que de guerillas disperses. C’est avec Ibn Taymiyya que se fait jour une strategic coherente a defaut d’etre efficace: elle vaudra en effet a celui qui la met en ceuvre des infortuncs successives dont la chroniquc sst trop connue pour que je I’evoque ici el n’empechera pas les theses qu’il denonce de se fepandre. Mais elle prepare d6ja d’autres assauts. Ibn c Arabi ct ses disciples sont a maintes reprises mentionnes dans les trentc-sept volumes de I Edition saoudienne des fatwas du shaykh al-islam. Ces ecrits dc circonstances sont toutefois extremement fepetitifs. Dans cette copieuse production, jc retiendrai done principalement trois textes qui sont les plus significatifs ct les plus complets: la lettre au shaykh al-Manbijl, qui paratl elre le premier expose systematique de la position d’lbn Taymiyya, 21 et les deux traites publics sous les litres d'lbtal wahdat al-wujud 22 et de Haqiqat tnadhhab al-ittihddiyyin , 23 Cc dernier, qui est le plus long, cst une reponse d’lbn Taymiyya 5 un disciple qui n’a pu entendre jusqu’au bout les explications orales de son maitre. Lc ton en est plus abrupt que celui de la lettre i al-Manbijl, qui s’adressait & un partisan d’lbn 1 Arabi. Mais, surtout, le catalogue des h6fesies y est plus complet, la documentation plus abondante. Cette difference ne s’cxplique sans doute pas seulement par celle dcs dcslinalaires mais aussi, me semble-t-il, par unc meilleure connaissance du dossier: tout au long de son combat solitaire contre la conjuration des impies, Ibn Taymiyya poursuit son enquete, accumule les pieces h conviction. 19 Sur le piire de Qulb al-diu. Abfi’l- f Abbas, voir al-Futiihflt al-Makkiyya , (Bfilaq 1329 h.) i. 391-392. iv, 474. 20 al-Sakhawi. at-Qanl al-munbi . f. 44. fail reference a denx dc ses ouvrages. le Kitab al-irtibdt ct la A Uislta sariha dont je ne connais pas dc mss. identifies. 21 MajimY fatawa shaykh al-islam Ibn Taymiyya (=MF) (al-Riyad 1340-1382 h.) ii, 452- 479; MajimY at al-rasa’il no 'l-masa'il (=A 1RM). ed. Muhammad Rashid Rida (I* Cairc s.d.) i. 161-183. 22 MF ii. 286-361. MRM iii. 61-120. 23 MF ii. 134-285; MRM iv. 1-102. Les references a ces trois textes scront ci-apres a fcdiiion Rashid Rida, plus accessible et moins encombrantc. 100 101 MICHEL CHODK1EWICZ Une rcmarque s'impose neanmoins: dans la lettre a al-Manbiji, il convient qu’ayant lu d’abord les Futuhat Makkiyya il avait retire de cette lecture une impression plutot favorable. II precise merne que les modalites du suliik, telles que les present Ibn c ArabI, sont conformes h la tradition. 24 Or il ne s’agit pas la d’une simple concession h un soufi influent. Dans la HaqJqa , ou il n’a aucune raison d’user de prudence, Ibn Taymiyya declare que, bien que cette doctrine (celle d’Ibn c ArabI et de ceux qui le suivent) soil du kufr, Ibn c Arabi est, parmi eux, le plus proclie de I’islam ct qu’on trouve dans son oeuvre d’excellents propos. 23 Les caudataires tardifs d’Ibn Taymiyya seront, on ne s’en etonnera pas, insensibles a ces nuances. Leur information sera d’ailleurs souvent moins Vendue que celle du polemiste hanbalite: outre les Futuhat et, bien sur, les Fusus , Ibn Taymiyya mentionne ^galement la Durra fdkhira , 26 le c Anqa mughrib , le Kunh ma la budda li’l-murid minhu et le Amr al-muhkam. 21 Sans doute exag&re-t-il quclque peu en affirmant que I*ignorance des ittihddiyyun de son epoque est telle que “lorsque j'expliquai h certains de ces gens et a leurs chefs la signification r6elle de ce qu’ils professent et le secret de leurs opinions, ils se mirent a faire grand cas de cela au point que, si je n’avais accompagne mes paroles d’un blame et d’une refutation, ils m’auraient consider comme un de leurs imams". 2 * Mais on ne peut nier son souci pers£v£rant de connaTtre — sinon de comprcndrc — les oeuvres qu’il censure. Les citations textuelles d’lbn c Arabl qu’on trouve dans les trois opuscules que je considerc ici sont cependant emprunt£es pour la plupart aux Fusus et surtout au prologue et aux chapitres 2, 3 et 4 de cet ouvrage. 29 Mais Ibn Taymiyya fait aussi irts largement appel, il faut le noter, ft des citations d’autres ittihddiyyun : Sadr al-Din al- QOnawI, Ibn Sab c In, Ibn Isra 'll, c Afif al-Din al-Tilimsani. Awhad al- DTn al-Balyanl: e'est a un madhhab qu’il s’attaque, a une ecole 24 MRM i. 171. Ibn Taymiyya soluble meinc avoir consultc. siuou uu mannscril nuiographe des Futuhat, du moins un mannscril revise par Ibn 'Arabi. 25 MRM iv, 6. 26 MRM i. 171. 27 MF iv. 18. 28 MRM iv. 4. 29 Mcnlionnons. a litre d’exemples: MRM iv. 42-43. reference au chapitrc 3 (Nub). suivi d'unc longue citation: 46. citation du chapitrc 9 (YusOf); 46-50, longue citation du chapitrc 2 (Shlth); 58. citation du chapitrc 14 ( c Uzayr); 63, nouvcllc citation du chapitrc 2; 79. citation du chapitrc 3 (Nuh): 80 f., tres longue citation du chapitrc 24 (Hariin). Des Futuhat sont surtout citds quelques vers {MRM 1.62 et 81, 112) LE PROCLS POSTHUME D'IBN c ARABI OU les epigones sont plus coupables et plus dangereux que le fondateur. Il s’ensuit que, malgre le souci plusieurs fois exprime d’innocenter Ibn c Arabi de certaines des abominations professes par ses successeurs, Ibn Taymiyya tend a globaliser ses critiques et opere done de facto un amalgame. Scul un lecteur ayant une connaissance directe et solide de 1’ceuvre du Shaykh al-akbar pourra garder presentes a l’csprit les distinctions qui s’imposent. Cette connaissance faisant presque toujours defaut a ceux qui pretendent aujourd’hui revetir le mantcau d’lbn Taymiyya, il n’esl guere surprenant de les voir imputer au Shaykh al-akbar des idees qui ne sont aucunemcnt les siennes. C’est ainsi qu’lbn e Arabi sera frequemment par la suite accuse de considerer comme licites les rapports sexuels d’un homme avec sa mfere ou sa soeur. Or, chez Ibn Taymiyya cette opinion evidemment scandaleuse n’est pas attribute h Ibn c Arabi mais (tout aussi injustement d’ailleurs: on reconnait la un des topoi favoris des chasseurs d’h£r6sie) h Ibn Sab c In et a al- Tilimsani. 30 On peut regrouper les theses condarandcs sous quatre teles de chapitres. 31 En premier lieu vient, on ne s’en Etonnera pas, la doctrine de la wahdat al-wujud* 2 m6re de toutes les erreurs, et qui, selon Ibn Taymiyya, consiste h croire que l’etre de Dieu est l'elre mcme “des djinns, des demons, dcs infiddes, des prdvaricateurs, des chiens et des pores”. 33 Ceux qui professent cette croyance impie protestent d’ailleurs, note h juste litre Ibn Taymiyya, contre 1’accusation de hulul (“inherence”) el refusent la denomination d’ ittihddiyyun, ces deux termes impliquant une duality ( tatlmiya ) que leur doctrine cxclut. A la critique de r"unicil6 de PEtre” se rattache directement celle de Pinterpretation blasphematoire par Ibn c Arabi du hadith qudsi selon lequel Dieu aime lc serviteur qui s’est “approche de Lui” par Paccomplissement des actes surerogatoircs C nawafil) et obligatoires ifara 'id) et devient alors “son oui'c par 30 Bughyat al-murtadd. MF iii. 1326-1329. 31 Pour une analyse beaucoup plus dctailtee que celle. Iris sommaiic, que jc propose ici voir Cyrillc Chodkiewicz, Les premieres poltmiqiies autour d’lbn ‘Arabi: Ibn Taymiyya (These dc 3eme cycle dactylographiec. Paris iv 1984). 32 L'cxprcssion wahdat al-wttjud. qui esi devenue en quclquc sorlc lc nom dc code de la metaphysique akbarienne. nc se trouve pas chcz Ibn c Arabi. lillc apparail furlivement chez al- Qunawj ct nc commence a revetir un sens technique que chez al-Farghani. Ellc devra sa fortune au moins autant aux adversaircs qu'aux partisans du Shaykh al-akbar. 33 MRM iv. 5. 102 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ LE PROCES POSTHUME D'IBN c ARABl 103 laquelle il entend, son pied par lequel il marche, sa main par laquelle il saisit...” Pour Ibn c Arabi, ce hadith implique Fidentification totale dc Dicu el du c abd — ou plutot Factualisation par le c abd d’une idenlite qui n’a pas a advenir car elle n’a jamais cessd d’etre meme si la creature n’en avail pas conscience. 34 La deuxidme thdse visee est celle de la wahdat al-adyan , expression qui n’appartient pas au vocabulairc du Shaykh al-akbar. Ibn c ArabI et ses disciples sont accuses de ne faire aucune difference entre le shirk el VJ/ndn au point que "chez eux, lc shaytan lui-meme est considere comme un lieu iheophanique ( majld ildhi ) qu’il faul done honorcr: et [scion eux] celui qui I’adorc n’adore que Dieu’\35 Cette presentation — evidemment caricaturalc — de textes akbariens — et plus specialcmcnt du chapitrc 3 dcs Fusils , celui consacre a Noe — qui semblent mettre sur le meme plan la vraie foi et les pircs idolatries ne pent bien sur qu’liorrifier le commun des croyants. La troisidme thdse, d’ailleurs logiquement liee a la precedente, est celle — indubilablement prdsente chez Ibn c Arabi — de la non-dtemitd du chatiment des damnds lesquels, sans quitter le sdjour infernal, seront ncanmoins, eux aussi, enveloppds par "la Misericorde qui embrasse toute chose" (Cor. 7/156): cettc forme islamiquc dc la doctrine de I’apocatastase est rdcusde de fa$on particulierement violente comme propre h dcarter toute crainte du jugement de Dieu et done a encourager les pires turpitudes. 3 <> Un cas particulier qu’on peut inclure sous cettc tele de chapitrc donne lieu, chcz Ibn Taymiyya, 5 de frequents ddveloppements et son importance sera meme sou vent hypertrophide par les auteurs ultcricurs au point d’etre l'uniquc sujet de certains dcrits poldmiques: je veux parler du statut posthume de Fir c awn, qu’Ibn c Arabi ddclare sauvd par I’acte de foi qu’il enonce au moment oh la mer Fengloutit. Ni musulman, ni juif, ni chrctien MRM iii. 113: iv. 17. Sur I’intcrprctation dc cc hadith par Ibn f Arahi. voir par cxcmplc Futiihai iv. 24 ct 449; Fttsits i. 81. 35 MRM iv. 85. Sur cel aspect de la doctrine akbarienne voir par cxcmple. outre Ic clmpitre 3 des Fits /?.?. Futiihat iv. 400s.; 449. I.’idee scion laquelle Dieu esi al-ma'bftdfi ktdl tiut'bud u'csl evidemment pas chez Ibn f Arabi une invitation a adorer les idolcs ou Ic diabk:. Soil appui scriptuniirc est le verset 17/23 donl I’intcrprctation. on va lc voir, est un element inajcur de la polcmiquc. 36 MRM iv. 74. \x\ formulation chretienuc dc l’apocatastase — coudanmee par le magist^re (Canon 9 du Concile dc Constantinople cn 453) — apparait chcz Origcnc. On la trouve aussi, entre autres auteurs, chcz Grcgoire de Naziaoze, Gregoire de Nyssc. Scot Erigenc. Dc nos jours la doctrine de l'apocatastase a etc avanccc — comme "hypothese" el non couune "th6se” — par le theologicn Urs von Balthasar. n’avait jamais ose proferer une erreur aussi scandalcusc, declare Ibn Taymiyya. 37 La quatrieme cible du docteur hanbalite est Fhagiologie akbarienne avec toutes les notions qui lui sont liees: celle dc haqlqci muhammadiyya et celle de "Sceau dc la saintete" en particulier (pour laauclle la principale piece h conviction est le chapitrc 2 des Fusils, celui consacre a Shith). 38 L’identification dc la “Realite muhammadienne’’ au qolam ou au : aql awwal est rejetee avec force comme Fest aussi la these prctcc (a tort) h Ibn c ArabI selon laquelle le wait serait superieur au nabi. Quant au khatrn al-waldyci — terme dont Ibn Taymiyya attribue correctement le premier emploi a al- Haklm al-Tirmidhi — e’est unc invention exhorbitante qui ne peut se prevaloir d’aucun appui scripturaire el attente ^t la dignite du Prophete. On pourrait certes allonger cede liste de "propositions condamnables" en y incluant des critiques portant sur diverses formulations qu’Ibn Taymiyya juge erronees ou scandalcuses. Mais si Foil s’en tient aux attaques visant Ibn c Arabi lui-meme, cn excluant done cellcs qui visent ses disciples, on constate qu’elles peuvent etre regroupdes sous Fun ou Fautrc des quatre chefs d*accusation mentionnds ci-dcssus Restc par consequent h s’interroger sur les proeddds mis cn ceuvre par Ibn Taymiyya dans cette entreprise polcmique dont je ne soulignerai jamais asscz le caractdre fondateur. Nul ne saurait contester I'habiletd dialectique du shaykh al-isldm et Fdclat de son talent. J’ai dejh dil, d’autre part, qu’il s’appuyait sur une documentation etenduc et de premiere main. S’il me parait dvident que sa lecture d’lbn c ArabT comporte de graves contresens (que denonceront les defenseurs dc I’auteur des Fusils), il n’en est pas moins vrai qu’clle n’est pas superficiellc. Quand il fait lc proces de la wahdat al-wujud , il se borne parfois a en appeler ironiquement au simple bon-sens. C’est ainsi qu’il raconte qu’un shaykh appartenant au madhhab honni declara un jour: "Si MRM iv. 91-92 et 98-101. Sur ce problcme vcir D. Gril. ‘I.e persounage coraniquc dc 1 haraon dapres I’interpretation d’lbn ‘Arabi’. Annates islainologiques xiv (1978) 37-57 et Carl W. Ernst. ’Controversies over Ibn al-'Arabi’s Fusus: the faith of Pharaoh’. Islamic Cidture cix (1985) 259-266 38 >v. 48-50 ct 58-70; la critique de I’litgiologic d’lbn r ArabI est longucmcnt devcloppee dans al-Farq bayn awliya’ al-Rahtnan wa-ow/iya’ af-shayfan. MF xi. 156-310. Sur a doctrine d’lbn ‘Arab! cn ccttc matiere. voir M. Clodkicwicz. U Sceau des saints (Paris 1^86); id.. Seal of the Saints. (Cambridge 1993). 104 MICHEL CHODK1EWICZ quelqu’un pretend qu’il y a dans Inexistence autre chose que Dieu, il menl !” A quoi quelqu’un objccla: “mais alors qui ment?" Confondu, le shaykh ne sut que repondre.39 Mais Ibn Taymiyya ne se contente pas de ces arguments faciles el analyse par exemple avec attention la notion dc c aw thabita dont il voit bien qu’elle est fondamentale dans la mdtaphysique d’Ibn c ArabI. Il ne peut evidemment s’accommoder de rexemplarisme akbarien qui, a ses yeux, r&fie les objets de la science divine en leur conferant le thubut , la permanence, I 1 immutability il voit aussitot poindre la la croyance impie en I’eternite du monde. On observe d’ailleurs, sur ce point precis, les limites de sa capacite d’analyse: pour Ibn c Arab», les a c yan thabita sont effectivement ctemelles. Mais elles sont eternelles en Dieu. Elies ne sont done pas “le monde” car — pour reprendre la fomrale d’Alain de Lille — “tout ce qui est en Dieu est Dieu”. Mais Ibn Taymiyya permit claircment, d’autre part, ce qui s6parc \'6co\e d’Ibn c Arabi. pour laquelle Punivers est le d6ploiement des thlophanies ( tajalliyat ), de la wahda mutlaqa d’lbn Sab c In ou de al- Balyani 40 memo si, dans le feu dc la poldmique. Tanalhfcme confond finalement les uns et les autres. Les arguments 1 inguistiques tiennent une grande place: I’expression coranique al Fir'awn (Cor. 40/45), scion Ibn c Arab!, ddsigne les “gens de Pharaon” a 1'exclusion de ce dernier. Ibn Taymiyya entend, lui, dtSmontrer que celte interpretation n’est pas conforme au bon usage de la langue arabe 4 > Autre querelle de vocabulairc particulifcrement vive, car elle porte sur I’appui scripturaire de ce qu'Ibn Taymiyya appcllc wahdat al-adydn , cellc qui concerne le verbe qada dans le verset 17/23 (wa qadd rabbuka an la ta l budu ilia iyydhu j: s’agit-il d’un dec ret (imprescriptible) ou d’un commandement (auquel on peut desobdir)?^ Ibn Taymiyya s’applique aussi h demontrer I’inauthenticite de hadith-s souvent cites par Ibn c Arabi comme celui qu’il emploie pour legitimer la notion de haqiqa muhammadiyya : “J’etais prophete alors qu Adam 39 MRM iii. 76. 40 Voir MRM iv. 5-17. La distinction entre ashab al-tajalli et ashab at-uahda al-mirtlaqo sera ires clairement marquee aussi chc/. Lisan ai-din Ibn al-Khatibct chcz Ibn Khaldun. Sur cc point, voir uotre introduction a la traduction dc f'Epilre sur i’Unicite absolne dc nl-Balyani (Paris 1986). souvent attribute a tort a Ibn c Arabi. 4 1 MRM iv. 99 (Cf. Funlhat ii. 277). 42 MRM i. 79, 89. 173. LE PROCES POSTHUME D'IBN L ARAB1 105 6tait encore entre 1'eau ei la boue”.« Mais les armes le plus frequemment utilisces relevent de l’exegese et opposent le sens obvie des versets ou des Iwdiths aux interpretations qu’en donne e Shaykh al-akbar, 44 constammenl accus6 de tabdll ou de tahrif de la Parole divine au point qu’il est “pire que Musaylima".^ Si les disciples sont plus lieretiques que leur maitre — al-Qunawi entre autres est "le plus impie et le plus depourvu de science et de foi — il li'cn reste pas moins qu’Ibn 'Arab! cumule — cette lisle n’est pas limitative — les erreurs des jalmtiyya, des qarmates, des falasija, des mu c tazila et que les chretiens eux-memes sont moins egares que lui. Husayn b. al-Ahdal. qadi d’Abyat Husayn -oiiacu lieu, dit-il, l’enterrcment d’ c Abd al-Karim al-Jfll 47 — meurt lui-meme en 1451, au moment oh va prendre fin le rhgne de la dynastie rasQlidc sur le Y^men. 48 De meme que la campagne menec par Ibn Taymiyya contre Ibn e ArabI est explicitement en relation avec le p6ril mongol ct constitue un appcl urgent aux dirigeants, trop complaisants pour I’h6r6sie, d’une umma affaiblie, I’ceuvrc potemique d’al-Ahdal s’inscrit, elle aussi. dans un contexte politique qui en explique la violence. An Y6mcn. les souverains rasiilides, d’une mamhre 43 MRM i. 8 cl 70 (Cf. FulOMl i. 243; iii. 22. 141. etc.). Autre cxemplc intiSicssant, celui du hadlth "zidni ftka taliayyuran" fondement dc la doctrine akbarienne dc la fjayra (qu on pent assimiler i I'epcktasis dc GixSgoirc dc Nyssc). Voir MRM iv. 45 (Cf. Fill 0 fid I i. 270. 420; ii. 137.607.661; iii. 490. dc). 44 Voir notammcnl la critique dc l’intcrprftation par Ibn r Arnbi du vcr.scl 8/17 (uvr -inn ramasia...). MRM iii. 95 f. (Cf. Ftifflf. ed. e Aflll. 185; Fnluhfll iv. 41. 280....) et du hadlth qitdsi cclcbrc mandat fa lam ta'udni... MRM i. 169 (Cf. Fntuhat i. 407; iii. 304 ; iv. 451). Jc souligne que le sens obvic n'est pas ncccssn ire mail lc sens littoral (auquel rhcrmencutiquu d’Ibn ‘Arab! est trcs fennement attaches-. Voir a cc stijd uotre Un ocean sans riiage. chap. I). 45 MRM iv. 44-45. 46 MRMiv. 18. 47 al-Ahdal. Kashf al-ghitfi* c an haqa'iq al-tawhid. cd. A. Bakir (Tunis 1964). Sur la mort de al-Jili. voir p. 214. Un manuscrit incdil d'al-A’idal mentionne (p. 131) par rhistorien yemcnitc contcmporain Muhammad al-Hibshi dans son ouvrage al-Sufiyya wa'lftqahaji'l- Yamon (San'S* 1976) conduirait a situer la mort de al-Jili vers 826/1423. Mais. scion une indication donnec par lc fils de al-Jili a la fin d’un manuscrit dc Vlnsdn kdmil que cite le copiste du ms India Office 459 B (f. 295b) du Ghunva erbab al-samV la mort dc al-Jili scrait a datcr de Jumada II 811/novcmbre 1408. Scion la mernc source al-Jili scrait ne cn Inde. a Calicut. 48 Sur I’histoire des sultans rasulidcs. voir A Chronicle of the Rasfdid Dynasty, edite par Hikoichi Yajima (Tokyo 1976) d’apres un manuscrit anonyme dc la Bibliolhcquc Nationals 106 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ LE PROCES POSTHUME D'lBN c ARABl 107 generale, temoignent — par calcul ou par conviction — une bienveillance excessive pour les soufis — y compris ceux qui, venus d’autres contrees, trouvent un refuge au Yemen en cette epoque trouble et y importent dcs doctrines suspectcs. 49 L’un d’eux, surtout, est mis en cause par al-Ahdal pour son patronage systematique des soufis akbariens: il s’agit du sultan al-Nasir, qui rggna de 1400 a 1424 et dont nous savons, par un temoignage contemporain, qu’il ddtenait dans sa bibliotheque de nombreuses ceuvres d’lbn c ArabT, parmi lcsquelles un cxemplaire des Futuhat Makkiyya stir certaines parties duquel figurait I’ecriture de 1’auteur. 50 Al-Ahdal deplore am&rement la protection qu’al-Nasiret son pcrc al- Ashraf ont accordcc a un personnage qu’il exccre, Abu l- c Abbas Ahmad Ibn al-Raddad, ami de al-Jili et, comme lui, disciple du shaykh al-Jabarti. 51 II ne cache pas le soulagemcnt que lui ont apporte les morts d’al-Raddad (en 1418) puis d’al-Nasir quelques annees plus lard: ddlivres de cette longue mihna , les fitqaha ’ prennent enfin leur revanche sous les sultans al-MansQr c Abd Allah (1424-1427) et Zahir Yahya (1428-1439) 52 A quel moment la doctrine d’Ibn c Arabi a-t-ellc etc introduce au Yemen et par qui? Scion certains, on en trouverait ddja des traces dans les ouvrages attribues Abu’l-Ghaylh Ibn Jamil, mort en 1253, soit treize ans apr&s le Shaykh al-akbar. Telle n’est pas l’opinion d’al-Ahdal, qui contcstc l’authenticitd des textes imputes h Ibn Jamil. 53 Les coupablcs qu’il denonce — ct dont le role parait en effet historiquement certain — dans le passage oil il tSvoquc cc probteme sont surtout c Umar b. c Abd al-Rahman al-Maqdisi (ob. 688h.) et Radi al-DIn Abu Bakr al-Yahyawi (ob. 709 h.). 54 Ce qui est tout h fait sflr, d’autre part, e’est que I’importance reconnue par al-Ahdal au shaykh Isma c il al-Jabarti comme diffuseur de renseignement d’Ibn c Arabi est pleinement justifiec. Outre les indications qu’on releve a 49 Sur les rapports coin: les sultans msiilidcs cl les soufis. voir al-Hibshi. op. cit. 45-50. 50 Voir al-Hibshi. op. cit. 81 qui s'appuie sur unc citation de al-Mizjaji (ob. 1425-1426). Voir aussi al-Qari al-Baghdadi, Monaqib Ibn ‘Arabi (Beyrouth 1959) 64. 51 Koshf 217-218. Sur nombre dcs personnages qui inlcrvienuent dans ccttc louguc controvcrse. voir Ahmad al-Sharji (ob. 1488), Jaboqot al-khanvss (Lc Cairc 1321 h ). (Sur al- Jabarti, 37-40 : sur al-Raddad. 30-32). 52 Koshf 221-222. 53 Koshf 220; voir al-Hibshi. op. cit. 69-82. Une notice biographique sur Abu l-Ghaytli b. Jamil figure chcz al-Sharji. op. cit. 187. 5 4 Koshf. ibid. Sur al-Maqdisi. voir al-Sharji. op. cit. 107. ce sujet dans les ecrits de al-Jili, il est etabli que al-Jabarti avail re£U une ijdza c amma des Futuhat Makkiyya 55 Dans l’introduction de son Kashf al-ghira\ al-Ahdal expose les motifs qui le conduisent il prendre la plume: l’ignorance abonde, les f lta „ se repandent. Il importe done de mettre a nu les erreurs d’lbn ‘ Arabi, de rappeler les fatwas qui le condamnent, de demasquer ces hashwiwa, mujassima, hululiyya, ittihadiyyun que sont ses partisans. A maintes reprises ces qualificatifs pris en bloc, ou d’aulres semblables, seront genereusement appliqites aux disciples du Shaykh al-akbar. Mais plus de la moitie du livre est d’abord consacree a un expose, appuye sur de nombreuses citations, de la lh6ologic ash c arite, scule orthodoxe aux yeux d’al-Ahdal. Les temoignages de al-Qushayri, al-Suhrawardl, Taj al-Din al-Subki, al-Yafi c i sont, entre autres, invoqu^s pour (Stablir que le soufisme authentique est en plein accord avec lc kaldin le plus sfir. Ce n’esl qu a la page 181, avee lc chapitre trois, que commence la d6nonciation en rcigle des hashwiyya, falasifa, bdtiniyya, maldhida, jabriyya dont I’apparente devotion abuse les croyants. Bicn qu'Ibn Taymiyya soil souvent mentionne 56 et que Lon retrouve dans le Kashf une lisle de chefs d’accusation qui ne differe gufcre de cclle qu’a dress6e lc docteur hanbalite, il est clair qu’al- Ahdal ne s’est pas borite & demarquer le rdquisiloire de son pr6d6cesseur et qu’il a pris personnellement connaissance d’ouvragcs d’Ibn c Arabi. La critique de la wahdat al-adyan s'appuie sur une phrase du chapitre 10 dcs Fusils, puis fait reference b la muqaddima des Futuhat V Suit cellc de la croyance en Itetcmite du monde. ou l’auteur renvoie aux chapitres 2 ct 73 des Futuhat. Viennent ensuite les attaques contre la wahdat al-wujud , la negation du chatiment corporel dcs damites et de son dternite, la notion de sceau de la sainted, la "foi de Fir c awn", 1’interpretation akbarienne du hadith: kuntu sam c ahu , la these selon laquelle “les amis dc Dieu 55 II tenait ccttc ijazo du Shaykh Qasim b. Muzaffar b. Mahmud b. c Asakir. Nous devons ccttc information a D. Gril qui I’a relcvcc dans le ms. 1520 a Dar al-kutuh. Unc autre chalnc dc transmission est donnee par B. Aladdin, op. cit. 153. 56 Ces mentions sont plus nombreuses que nc lc conne a penser un index tres incomplct. Voir 105. 186.199.203,212... 52 I .a phrase des Fusils (“Sois la maieria priina dc toutes les formes dc croyance") figure p. 113 dc f edition c Afifi. Celle de la muqaddima des FnliViat est ccllc oil Ibn r Arabi declare que la ‘aqida de P‘elitc dc l’elitc” est volontaircmcnt dispersec dans l'cnscmble de son livre (Futuhat i. 47). Al-Ahdal (227) le cite dc nouveau. 108 109 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ sont caches [dans le Coran] sous la forme de ses ennemis”, la notion de c dlam al-khayal : tout cela s’accompagnant d’abondantes references aux Fusus (chapitres 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 24) mais aussi aux Futuhat (chapitres 2, 5, 559) et aux Tanazzulat mawsiliyya (que, sauf erreur, ne cite pas Ibn Taymiyya). Al-Ahdal se refere cgalement, a la fin du chapitre, aux rcuvres de al-Qashani (en 1'occurrence les Ta’wilcit , qu’il n’attribue pas a Ibn ^Arabi comme s’obstinent a le faire les editeurs modemes), dc al-Qaysari et a la Ta'iyya d’lbn al-Farid. 58 Commence alors la reproduction d’une s^rie de fatwas, dues a Badr al-Din Ibn Jama c a, Ibn Taymiyya, Shams al-Din al-Jazarl. NQr al-Din al-Bakri, c Isa al-Zawawi, Taql al-Din al-Subki, toutes condamnant la doctrine d*Ibn c Arabi. Ce n’cst la qu’un floritege: al- Ahdal nous informe en effet qu’il extrait ces responsa d’un recueil de prfts de deux cent fatwas qu’il a compose antyrieurement.™ Ce chiffre est pcul-etre une cxageration mais il n’est pas invraisemblable: al-Sakhawi, qui, malgre sa rage de colleclioiineur, ne peut tout recenscr, enregistre quatre-vingt fatwas ou opinions ddfavorables a Ibn c Arabi entre la mort d’lbn Taymiyya et celle d’al- Ahdal. Le Kashf al-ghitd ' abordc ensuite les donnecs strictement yem^nites de la controverse, mettant violemmcnl en cause al-Jabarti, al-Jill et surtout al-Raddad mais, plus g6n6ralement, les soufis de Zabid. Aux accusations proprement doctrinales, s’ajoutent celles visant les moeurs de ses adversaires (ils boivenl du vin, pratiquent rSchangisme...). Les efforts des fiiqahd 3 pour defendre la vraie foi et imposer I’observance de la sharia ont, helas, tenus en 6chec par la complaisance du souverain qui, meme apres la mort d’al-Raddad. a continue a leur imposer le silence et a prendre parti pour les malahida. L’accession au trone dc sultans lucides et ynergiques a permis enfin aux fuqahcF de redresser la tete — et a al-Ahdal de rediger une seconde fatwa plus severe que celle qu’il avait r^dig^e pendant la mihna : il nous en donne le texte, qui confirme sa preoccupation — commune aux herysiographes, toutes religions confondues — de ramener chacune des erreurs qu’il combat a un 58 En raison de la brieve^ de cc chapiire 3 (181-20!) cl de I*imbrication dcs themes qu. y sont abordes. je nc crois pas nccessaire dc renvoycr. pour chacun deux, a une page precise du Kashf. 59 Kashf 213. LE PROCES POSTHUME D’lBN l ARABi precedent historique ( hashwiyya , qarmates...)- 60 On constate en outre que. si la potemique a un caractere yemenite tres marque, al-Ahdal ne ne°lige pas de viser aussi des cibles plus lointaines comme les eoyptiens Ibn c Ata 3 Allah el Ibn Abl Mansur dont les ccuvres, bicn qu’elles ne soient pas a proprement parler akbariennes, temoigncnl d’une inclination pour les idees pernicieuses et la personne meme d*ibn c ArabI. 61 Mais il faut sans doute aussi voir la une maniere de rappeler que cc sont des influences venues de I’etranger qui ont corrompu le soufisme y6menile — un type d’argument promis a un long succes, ‘‘l’etranger” ayant, bien sur, une identity variable selon les epoques (les persans, les lures... — aujourd’hui I improbable conjuration des sionistes, du Vatican et des loges ma^onniques). En definitive, on constate que, bien qu’al-Ahdal ait pris la peine de sc reporter aux Merits d’lbn c Arabi, sa critique des id£es akbariennes proprement dites est loin d’avoir la precision de celle d’lbn Taymiyya: il se contente, en somme, de mettre en regard les theses du kalam ash c arite et celles d’lbn l Arabi — telles qu’il les comprend — 1’autoritc qu’il attribue aux premieres suffisant, selon lui, a elablir la faussete des secondes. On retiendra surtout que, dans sa deuxteme fatwa al-Ahdal, qui au fond sc soucie moins d’lbn c Arabi que de ses disciples y^menites avee lcsqucls il a bicn des comptes ft rdgler, adopte une position qui m’a fail juger indulgente, par comparaison, celle du mufti turc mentionnd au ddbut de cette dtude. Peut-on accepter le repentir des partisans dc ce kafir — qui, par Ift-meme, sont eux aussi des kuffarl Al-Ahdal mentionne cinq attitudes possibles, plus ou moins rigoureuses, ft I’dgard dc ce problftme et conclut pour sa part au refus de la tawba — ce qui, lcgalement, prive en principe I’accuse de toute possibility d’dchapper ft la peine capitale. Comme al-Sakhawi, l’auteur d’un livre de cinq cents pages de critique sur 1’auteur des Futuhat et des Fusits , que nous retrouverons bientot (et qui le considere comme un carrieriste pret ft tout pour qu’on le remarque) Ibrahim al-Biqa c i (ob. 1480) est un dleve d’lbn Hajar al- c Asqalani. Son caractere manifestemenl irascible est sans 60 Kashf 225-228. 6' Kashf 273. L'accusation contre Ibn c Ata’ Allah vise les Lata ’if al-minan. ou Ibn c Arabi est mentionne a trois reprises. Celle concernanl Ibn Abi Mansur renvoie au paragraphe 115 dc sa Kisala. cd. Denis Gril (Le Caire 1986). 110 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ doute, au moins autant que ses convictions, responsable dc 1’obstination avec laquelle il jouera un role central dans un de ces episodes paroxystiques qui, de loin en loin, font que lc debat permanent inais feutre entre specialistes eclate sur la place publique. Depuis I bn Taymiyya, nombre d’auleurs avaient exprimd des positions hostiles h Ibn c Arabi et, parmi eux. des personnages notoires: al-Dhahabi, Siraj al-Din al-Bulqini, lbn Khaldun, Sa c d al- Din al-Taftazani et son disciple c Ala' al-Din al-Bukharl. al-Ahdal... Al-Biqa c I, on va le voir, n’ajoute rien a un argumentaire depuis longtemps fige et ses oeuvres sont loin d’etre les plus intercssantcs dans le vastc corpus des Merits anti-akbariens. La critique de la wahdat cil-wujud h laquelle se livre l’atrabilaire al-Bukhari dans sa Fddihat al-mulhidin, sans etre ni vraiment nouvelle ni ires profonde, a au moins le meritc de presenter une certaine rigueur formcllc — ce qui explique que, prds de trois siecles plus tard. al-Nabulusi consacre encore plusieurs pages d’un dc ses ouvrages a sa refutation. 62 Al- Bukhari est d’ailleurs cn 1428, sous le rfcgne du sultan Barsbay, a rorigine d’une crise qui prefigure celles (car il y en a plus d’une) que ddclenchera al-Biqa c i trente ans plus lard. Il s'agit, d£ja, d’Ibn ‘ Arab! et d’Ibn al-Farid, souvent associds dans I’opprobre car les principaux commentateurs de la Td'iyya du second sont des disciples du premier: al-Farghani, al-Qaysari, al-Ayki. Al-Bukhari, lors d'une discussion entre fuqahd\ prononce le takfir contre Ibn c Arabi et exige la destitution du qadi Muhammad al-Bisati, lcquel estime qu’une interpretation adequate de leurs propos perinet dc juslifier les partisans de la wahdat al-wujud. Al-Bisati fmira par cedcr et jettera lui aussi I’anatheme sur Ibn c Arabi. Mais al-Bukhari, furieux de n’avoir pu obtenir sa destitution, quittera definitivemcnt I'Egypte pour la Syrie... oD il se livrera a des attaques dirigees, cette fois, contre Ibn Taymiyya et ses disciples hanbalites, 6 ' se brouillant ainsi avec ceux qui seraient ses allies naturels: la Syrie de cette epoque, plus provinciale que I’Egypte, est en general aussi plus refractaire aux idees akbariennes, plus prompte a les condamner sous la plume de ses ulama. Le soufi marocain c AIT b. Maymun al-Fasi, lorsqu’il 62 n s'agit d'al-Wijud al-haqq. dont I’cdition critique a etc ctablic par B. Aladdin (Dainas 1995). Stir la relation entre ccl ouvrage et la Fddiha. voir I’lntroduction dc l editetir. chapitrc2. Sur cette affaire, voir I’introduction d’al- Wtijfid al-haqq 14-15 ; In- Emil Homerm. From Arab Poel to Muslim Saint (University of South Carolina Press 1994) 59-60; Eric Geoffrey. Le soufisme en Egypie et en Syrie (Damns 1995) 5cme partie. LE PROCES POSTHUME D’IBN v ARABI 111 arrivera a Damas a la fin du quinzieine siecle, decouvrira que remplacement du tombeau d’Ibn ‘Arabi n’esi plus qu un terra.n vl J e 64 e t il faudra, quelques annecs plus tard, une decision eitergique de Salim ler pour que soil construit le ntausolee qu on visite encore aujourd’hui. Parmi les procureurs qui se succedent dans le proces posthume d’lbn c Arabi, al-Biqa c I, disons-le tout net, est un des plus mediocres. Il a cn commun avec Ibn Taymiyya et al-Ahdal d’avoir choisi le mauvais moment: comme Ibn Taymiyya sous Baybars II. comme al- Ahdal sous al-Nasir, il n’a pas la chance d’eenre sous des regnes ou les anti-akbariens ont pour eux cct appui des pnnees sans lequel leur cause n’a aucune chance dc triompher. Comme eux, il va s’exposer a de stSrieux desagrements. Lc destin lui offrira une ironique revanche: vilipend^ de son vivant, il prendra rang post-mortem parmi les autorites qu’invoqueront des pol6mistes plus tardifs... mais il devra aussi une notoriete paradoxale it Fun deses plus serieux adversaires. A son Tonbih al-gluibi ila takfir lbn al-'Arabi al-SuyOti. rctournanl le compliment a I’expcditeur. r^pliquera par un Tanbth al-ghabi fi labri'at lbn al-'Arabi qui contribuera a perpetuer le souvenir de al- Biqa c i. 65 Ce dernier, en tout cas, va se signaler h I’attention 6 trois reprises au cours de sa vie agit6e. En 1460, au Caire, e’est principalement a Ibn c Arabi ct subsidiairemenl h Ibn al-Firid qu’il s’en prend. Dix ans plus tard, en 1470, il entreprend une nouvelle campagnc de d^nonciation. Elle vise les memes auteurs mais, cette fois, c’esl Ibn al-Farid qui est lc plus directement mis en cause. L'affaire prend aussitot de vastes proportions: les vers d'lbn al-Farid sont plus rSpandus que les ecrits d’lbn c Arabi, sa tombe est v<5ner6e au Caire. Le sultan Qaytbay demande au grand qadi Zakariyya al-Ansari de trancher le debat. Al-Ansari a la reputation d’etre un pieux juriste. 64 c Ali b. Maymun. Risala fi'l-intisar li’l-shaykh Muhyi'l-din (=Tanzih al-fiddfq). ms. Berlin 2851. wc 1545. ff. 55-59b. 65 La premiere edition du Tonbih al-ghabi de al-Biqa c i a etc publtee au Caire en 1953. jointe a exile dc son Tahdhir al-‘ibad min ahl al-'inad. sous le litre dc Masra ( ai-taStwnf. Li« vehemence hysterique dc rintroduction cldcs notes dc I'cdileur( f Abd al-Rahman al-Wakil) merite le dclour. Quant an Tonbih dc al-Suyuti. il cr, exisle une edition publiee au Caire en 1990 par le Shaykh c Abd al-Rahman Hasan Mahmud (qui s'cmploic — avec plus dc picle que d'acribic — a ediler des renvres d'lbn 'Arabi). Fanl-il voir la malice d un typographe gagne aux theses wahhabiles dans la faute d’impression qui. dans lc tilre. transformed tabri'al Ibn al-'Arabi cn fi takhti’at Ibn al-'Arabi? 112 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ LE PROCES POSTHUME D'lBN : ARABl 113 Mais il n’est pas quc cela: c’est un soufi et meme, selon al-Sha c rani qui ful son yievc, un saint eminent. 66 Son nom apparait dans plusieurs silsilas. Toutefois il a, d£s sa jeunesse, choisi sur le conseil d'un wall le tasattur bi'l-fiqh. Sanctus absconditus, il cache les charismes doni il a ety gratify. Sa fonction, au demeurant, lui impose une certaine reserve. Il hesite h donner une fatwa sur le probleme qui lui est soumis. Finalement, sur resistance du katib al- sirr , Ibn Muzhir (qui 6tait un d6fcnseur d’Ibn al-Farid), al-Ansari acceptcra de rendre une sentence, moder6e dans ses termes mais qui exonere Ibn al-Farid dcs accusations portees contrc lui. L’entetement de al-Biqa c i allait provoquer sa disgrace: en 1473, c’etait lui qui, 5 son tour, etail denonc 6 comme kafir et devait quitter I’FIgypte. 67 Refugio en Syrie, il couronna sa carri^re dc potemistc en s’en prenant h al-Ghazali« Le resultat ne se fit pas attendre: “il s’en fallut de peu qu’il ne fflt mis a mort ct il dfit se cacher dans sa maison sans pouvoir meme se rendre 5 la priere du vendredi’’. 69 Si al-Ahdal sc bornait — comme tant d’autres avant et aprfes lui — a reprendre les chefs d’accusation que retenait d6ja Ibn Taymiyya, du moins prenait-il la peine de se reporter lui-memc aux sources, c’csl a dire aux ceuvres du Shaykh al-akbar, sans sc limiter aux classiques passages-t^moins des Fusfis. Al-Biqa c i, lui, est un pamphletaire paresseux. Sa tactique semble d^duite de la remarque dddaigneuse que Saint Jerome adressait aux pyiagiens: sententias vestras prodidisse superasse est. Le Tanbih al-ghabi est en effet, pour une large part, constitue de longues citations d’Ibn c Arabi, toutes tiroes des Fusus, dont il semble penser qu’elles suffiront h inspircr une pieuse horreur (le chapitre 3 des Fusfis est ainsi presque enticement reproduit) et qu’il ne commente que de manure lrfcs expeditive. 70 Les themes sont ceux qu'on attendait: la wahdat al- 66 al-Sha c r5ni. al-Jabaqdt al-kubra (I* Cairo 1954) ii. 122-124. Scion Ibn Major al- Haylaml. al-An§ari Tin meme 1c sahib Misr. le saint qui detenait I’autoritc spiritucllc sur l’Egyptc touie entierc. al-Fatanil al-hadithiyya (Le Cairo 1970) 50. 67 Sn r cc t episode voir E. Geoffrey, op. cit., 5cme panic; cl Th. Homcrin. op. cit. 63-75 68 ixs aUaqnes dc al-Biqa‘! portaient sur la fameusc formula laysafi'l-imkan ct prirent la forme d’un nouvcl ouvrage Ic TohJim al-arkan. Sur cette qucrclle. voir Eric L. Orinsby. Theodicv in Islamic Thought (Princeton 1984) 135-160. 69 al-SuyOU. al-Tahadduth bi-ni'mat allah. dans E. M. Sartain. Jalal al-din al-Suynfi (Cambridge 1975) ii 187; voir aussi i. 54-55. 70 On trouve ainsi dcs citations de la khutba dcs Fusils (p. 37). du chap. 3 (42 a 62). du chapitre 4 (62 a 73). du chapitre 7 (74-75). du chapitre 9 (p. 76). du chapitre 10 (88-103). dcs chapitres 15 cl 16 (104-108). du chapitre 18 (p. 109), du chapitre 19 (p. 110). du chap.trc 22 wujud (qui consiste selon al-Biqa c I a professor que Dieu est la somme des parties de 1’uni vers), la wahdat al-adyan , la foi de FJr c awn, l’apocatastase, la superiority de la hayra sur le c ilm , le tahrif al-qur : an. Seul de la lisle habituelle est absent le probleme du “Sceau de la saintety”. Bien que diverses opinions hostiles a Ibn c Arabi soient mentionnees dans la premiere partie de 1’ouvrage, c’est dans la seconde 71 que al-Biqa c i les entasse dans le desordre, aucun critere chronologique ou thematique ne determinant leur succession. On retrouve la Ibn Taymiyya, al-Dhahabi, Sa c d al-Din al-Taftazanl, al- Bukhari (longuement cite), al-Ahdal, al-Bisati, Ibn Khaldun (avec un extrait de sa fatwa. dont il sera question plus loin, prescrivant I’autodafc des ouvrages d’lbn c Arabi), Ibn Hajar al- c Asqalani... Un cas precis dymontre que al-Biqa c i ne s’smbarrasse pas de scrupules: il cite un passage de la Rawdat al-tc/rif dc Lisan al-DIn Ibn al- Khatib d’unc manterc qui fait apparaitre cc dernier comme condamnant, lui aussi, les theses akbariennes. Or il suffit de sc ryf6rer & la Rawda pour consialer que ce passage concerne Ibn Sab c In ct ses disciples et que la section prycydente, celle ou Lisan al- Din parlc d’lbn c Arabi et de ses fidfeles, les dccrit comme dcs muhibbun, mustahlikun [JVllahJ et, & propos de leurs doctrines, dyclare: hadhd'l-ra’y nabil. 72 L’yditeur du Tanbih y a joint I’opusculc redig6 par al-Biqa c I en 878/1473 sous le litre Tahdhir al- l ibad ct qui, cette fois, s’attaque plus particuliferement a Ibn al-Farid. Mais, pour une raison signage plus haut, 1’auteur de la Khamriyya et celui des Futuhat sont fryquemment considers comme solidaircs — certains supposent meme qu’il y eut entre eux des relations personnelles qu’aucune donnye historique n’autorise h juger vraisemblables. Al-Biqa c i va done, lui aussi, les confondre dans l’anath&me et, cette fois encore, utiliser des citations des Fusus. Les autoritds qu’il invoque sont les memes que dans le Tanbih : Ibn Taymiyya, al-Dhahabi, al-Bulqinl, Ibn Hajar, al-Ahdal... Mais, pas plus que 1’ouvrage precedent, celui- (111-115), du chapitre 23 (116-120). du chapitre 24 <120-126). du chapitre 25 (127-139), du chapitre 27 (140-149). Les citations d’Ibn ‘Arab! sont cutrecoupees, ici et la, dc citations d’lbn al-Farid. 7 * De la page 149 a la page 206. CcUc dcuxicinc partie est snivie du Tahdhir al-'ibad dont nous parlons infra. 72 Tanbih 169-170. Cf. Randal al-la c rif{ Lc Cairo 1968) 582-601 (4cmc “rameau”; le Seme “rameau". celui ou il est traite d’lbn Sab'iu. figure 602-612). 114 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ LEPROCES POSTHUME D’IBN c ARABl 115 ci n’apporte de contribution vSritablement personnelle au debat. De toute evidence, c’est a son activisme brouillon, plutot qu’a 1’interet de ses ecrits que al-Biqa c i doit de se signaler a 1’attention de ses contemporains. 11 connaitra d’ailleurs un long purgatoire avant d’apparaitre, beaucoup plus tard, comme un h6ros de la cause anti- akbarienne. C'est ce que rappelle, non sans malice, Ibn Hajar al- Haylami (m. en 974/1567): al-Biqa c i, dit-il, a ete puni par Dieu de son attitude a 1’egard du Shaykh al-akbar car personne ne lit plus ses ouvrages ni ceux des disciples qui, & son exemple, ont condamne Ibn c Arabi ou Ibn al-Farid. II aurait d’ailleurs reconnu, h la fin de sa vie, que sculs une quinzaine de passages des Futuhat lui paraissaient condamnables et que ce qu’cnscigne Ibn c Arabi sur les “secrets des mu'dmaldt ” 6tait plus beau que ce que Ton trouve chez al-Ghazali sur le mcme sujet. 7 ^ Mort en 1497, Muhammad b. c Abd al-Rahman al-Sakhawi n’aura pas eu I’amertume d’assister h ce triomphc d’Ibn c Arabi qui va suivre la conquetc oltomane de la Syrie et de I’Egypte: (lbs 1517, Kama! Pasha Zadeh (m. 1534), futur shaykh al-isldm , delivre une fatwa affirmant forthodoxie du Shaykh al-akbar. 74 Ibn Tulun (m. 1546), imam de la mosqudc d’Ibn c Arabi edifiee par Salim ler, reproduit le lexte de cette fatwa dans un ouvrage dont le litre — al- Nutq al-munbi 'an tarjamat Ibn al-'Arabi — est une r£plique 5 cclui du livre d’al-Sakhawi, al-Qawl al-munbi. La protection impSriale ne fera certcs pas laire toutes les critiques anti-akbariennes. Hajji Khalifa (m. 1657) 6voque dans son Milan al-haqq ces querelles sans cesse renaissantes et qui l’exasperent. 7 *' Mais les accusaleurs d’Ibn 7 3 al-Fatfiwfi al-hadithiyya 52-54. La rcmarque sur les "secrets des mu'amaUir sc mpporte sans doute aux chapitres des /•’ utilhdl traitant des ‘ibdddt. Defcnseur d'lhn f Arabi (voir aussi. op. cit.. 296. 335...), Ibn Hajar al-Haytami. s'il vise plusieurs des advcrsaircs de cc deruicr, souligne surtont Ic role d'Ibn Taymiyya. qu’il critique avec vehemence (114-117): c'est. dit-il. un innovatcur (>mtbladi c ). un dgard qui egarc les aulres... On doit observer que 1’a-uvre d’lbu Hajar (encore utilisec aujourd'hui, nolammeut en Turquie. dans des publications nnti-wahhabites) n'est gucre plus originaie que celle dc al-Biqa'I: coniine elle, mais en sens conlrairc, cllc recourt avec profusion h 1’argument d'autoritc. 74 Pour B- Aladdin (op. cit.. introd. 63-64) Kanial Pasha Zadeh aurait coutresigne cctte fatwa sans en etre proprcmcnl l’auteur. II est en lout cas I'autcur d'uue Risdla fi wahdat al- wujud (Berlin, ms. or. 4106. f. 110-113). 75 Traduction anglaisc par G.L. Lewis. The Balance of Truth (Loudres 1957) (voir chap, ix et x). Soucieux, coniine le suggerc le litre dc cct ccrit. de s’en tenir a un juste milieu entre les parties opposes. Hajji Khalifa n’cu preud pas moins. quoiqu'en termes moderns. une c Arabi, y compris en Syrie, trouvent g6neralement peu d’echos et s’exposent meme parfois a une s6v£re repression. 76 Des auteurs de poids, tel al-Nabulusi (m. 1731) les contredisent sur la base d’une argumentation serr6e et avec moins de pr6cautions oratoires que cefles dont s’entourait, nagu&re, un al-Suyuti. 77 Aux derniers jours de la dynastie, un Yusuf al-Nabhanl (m. 1931) s’emploiera encore a maintes reprises, dans son abondante production, i la defense et h |’illustration du Shaykh al-akbar — mais, cette fois, pour repondre a des adversaires — wahhabites et salafiyya — plus resolus et plus dangereux que l’infortune al-Biqa c i. Si le Qawl al-munbi n’est done pas le chant du cygne de I’opposition a Ibn c Arabi, il n’en marque pas moins la fin d’une epoque et, d’une certainc maniere, epuise le repertoire des arguments anti-akbariens. Quiconque a lu les cinq cents folios oh le z&le policier d’al-Sakhawi a consign^ l’esscntiel des condamnations anterieures peut se dispenser d’examiner la litt^rature polemique des siecles suivants: il n’y trouvera rien de nouveau. Frustrc dans ses ambitions, jaloux en particulier de al-Suyuti qui fut son 6teve et qu’il critique avec aigreur dans son Daw 3 al-lami r , 78 al-Sakh5wi compile avec un mcme enthousiasme minutieux des fatwas respectables et d’infames calomnies (que, de nos jours, certaines brochures d’inspiration saoudienne reprennent avec complaisance). Sa m6thode est simple: “J’ai rassembte dans ce livre les paroles et les textes qui critiquent 1’auteur des Futuhat et des Fusus et je les ai disposes scion la date de ddcfcs dc leurs auteurs” ddclare-t-il en pr^ambule. 79 Ainsi pourra-t-on constater “le consensus (ijntd c ) des savants de tous les madhdhib et de toutes les disciplines”. Cette declaration d’intention est suivie d’une liste des principales sources dcrites d’informations utilises (mcnlionnSes en ordre chronologique inverse: Mansur al- Kazaruni, mort en 860/1456 apparait en premier, suivi d’al-Ahdal, puis de ‘Ala 3 al-Din al-Bukhari..., le dernier nom cite, el done le plus position pro-akbarienne. 76 Eric Geoffrov (op. cit.. 2£ine partie. chap. 2) rapporte le cas dc Muhammad al-l : alQji. condamne a mort a Alep cn 1535 pour avoir accuse Ibn c Arabi dc professer une doctrine herctiqne ainsi que cclui du mufti Jawizadch. rcvoquc pour une raison analogue en 1541. 77 Outre le Wujftd al-haqq. deja mentionnd, qui date de 1693. al-Nabulusi est I'auteur du tdah al-maqsnd min nahdat al-wujud (Damas 1969), ccrit en 1680 et d’un traite inedit, al- Radd al-matin ‘aid muntaqis al- r drif Muhvl'l-din. redigd en 1672 (ms. Zahiriyya. 9872, ff. 1- 67). 7 ^ Sur les rapports de al-Sakhawi et de al-Suyuti. voir E M. Sartain. op. cit. i. 72-77. 79 Nous utilisons ici lc ms. dc Berlin 2849. Spr. 790. ff. 1-250. 116 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ ancien, etant cclui de al-Qastallanl). Vient alors I’annonce d’une iniroduction divisee cn huit sections, qui s’etendent du folio 3 au folio 43. La section 1 a pour objet d’etablir l’illegitimite d’un ta’wil qui viserait a decouvrir une signification orthodoxe a des formulations dont le sens obvie est heterodoxe. La section 2 est destinee a dEmontrer que les Futuhdt , les Fusils et tous les ouvrages du memc genre out ete constamment condamnEs et que leur saisie et leur destruction ont etE prescrites par les ulama (la fameuse fatwa d’Ibn Khaldun est mentionnee sur ce point). La section 3, demarquEe d’al-Ahdal, Evoque les evenements survenus au Yemen sous les Rasulides. La section 4 analyse les diverses positions qu’ont adoptees les lecteurs d’Ibn c Arabi et, notamment, les excuses que certains ont invoquees pour le defendre: les propos qui lui sont reprochds ne sont-ils pas des interpolations malveillantes? Ne donnait-il pas lui-meme aux formules qu’on lui reproche un autre sens que celui qu’clles ont si on les prend a la lettre? Quelles qu’aient pu etre ses erreurs, qui peut affirmer qu’il ne s’en est pas repenti avant de mourir? La cinquieme section accompagne un choix de citations d’Ibn c ArabT (dont le cEIEbre poEme laqad sdra qalbi) d’une Enumeration des principaux chefs d’accusation: EternitE du monde, supEriorite du wall sur le nabi , wahdcit al-wujud , etc. La section 6 passe en revue ses disciples et ses partisans: al-Qaysari, al- Farghftni, al-Tilimsani, al-Qashanl, al-Jabarti, al-Raddad... La septiEmc et la huitiEme section de cctte muqaddima confuse et repetitive reviennent sur le problEme examiite dans la premiere et la troisiEme. S’appuyant sur des autoritEs dEjE invoquEcs prEcEdemment (et qui le seront de nouveau abondamment par la suite) al-SakhawI, une fois de plus, exclut toutc circonslance attenuante en faveur d’Ibn c Arabi. On relevera que, comme Ibn Taymiyya avant lui, il n’hesite pas a inscrire in fine Ibn Sab c in dans la lisle des tEmoins a charge bien que ce dernier “soutienne des theses rEprouvees et professe des croyances corrompues”. A cette laborieuse introduction succede un long dEfilE d’environ cent-cinquante personnages. Le premier est Muhammad b. Shaddad al-Halabi (m. 684), suivi de Qutb al-Din al-Qastallani, mort deux ans aprks lui. L'ordre chronologique est rigoureusement respecte jusqu’au bout, annEe par annee et, le cas echeant, mois par mois et nous amene a la fin du neuvieme/quinzieme siecle. La longueur des notices est, elle, trEs variable. Quelques lignes pour les uns (six pour al-Biqa c I, que al-SakhawI detestait, guEre plus pour chaque nom de la turbo magna des auteurs les plus tardifs) mais une trentaine de LE PROCES POSTHUME D’IBN C ARABI 117 folios (ff- 53-68) pour Ibn Taymiyya ou pour c Abd al-Latif al-Su c udI (ff. 69-84b), une dizaine pour Ibn Hajar al- c AsqaIanf (ff. 209-213) ou al-Ahdal (ff. 213-217). L’avantage de cette presentation est d’offrir au chercheur une vue panoramique sur un peu plus de deux siecles de polemiques. L’inconvEnient reside dans le fait que la plupart des individus mentionnEs font Etat des propos de leurs predecesseurs qui, a leur tour...On a done souvent affaire a des citations dans les citations dans les citations. Les memes phrases, d’abord apparues dans la notice consacree a celui qui les a profcrccs, reviennent ainsi, ad nauseam , dans nombre de notices ultericurcs. Les plus significatives ayant dEja fail leur apparition dans la muqaddima, la lecture de 1’ouvrage se revEle assez fastidieuse. Tels propos du qadi c Izz al-Din b. c Abd al-Salam (dont il existe deux versions contradictoires) 80 ou d’lbn Taymiyya (donl les ecrits sont une refErence obligEe pour la plupart des critiques postErieurs) sont inlassablement repEtEs. Al-Sakhawi, d’autre part, n’hEsite guere a tirer dans son camp des soufis comme al-Yafi c i (f. 112b) dont la position vis-a-vis du Shaykh al-akbar est prudente (= ses Ecrits ne peuvent etre mis entre toutes les mains) mais ne peut en aucun cas etre considErEe comme une condamnation de sa doctrine. 81 Il classe resolument parmi les adversaires d’lbn 'Arabi un persomiage comme al-Firuzabadi (f. 163), auteur d’une fatwa bien connue, rEdigEe h la demande du sultan yEmEnite al-Nasir, et oh I’auteur du Qamus justifie la possession par al-Nasir des oeuvres du mailre andalou, donl il fait 1’Elogc avec Eloquence. Selon al-Sakhawi, qui dEclare tenir cette information d’Ibn Hajar, al-Firuzabadi aurait revise son attitude avant de mourir. Cette affirmation reste fort sujette a caution. Le souci de faire nombre amEne aussi al-Sakhawi, par exemple, a inclure (f. 52b) un auteur — le faqih hanbalite Musa al-Yusi (m. 726) — lequel se borne 5 constaterque "seule une petite partie de ses I=Ibn c ArabiJ Ecrits est comprEhensible” mais que “ce que Von peut comprendre et qui parvient a l’esprit [du lecteur] est bon et beau 80 Sur ccltc affaire compliqu^e, nous rcnvoyons a Cl. Addas, op. cit. 297-299. Al- Sakhawi rapporle Ics deux versions mais privil6gie dvidemment cclle qui condaume Ibn f Arabi. 81 Al-Sakhawi convient que al-Yafi c i dtait connu pour pcncher en faveur d'Ibn c Arabf (cc que confim»e la notice que Yafi 1 ! consacre h Ibn c Arabi dans 1c Mir*at al-jandn iv. 100- 101) mais retient sunout qu'il reprouvait I’ctudc dc ses ouvrages par des lecteurs qui n'avaicnl pas unc connaissancc eprouvee des fondements de la Loi sacrcc — position qui lui est commune avec nombre d’admirateurs du Shaykh al-akbar. 118 119 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ (hason jamil)”. Certes, ajoute-t-il “il y a dans ses oeuvres des paroles malsonnantes mais certains de ses disciples pretendent qu'elles ont un autre sens que le sens apparent”: jugement reserve, done, d’un auteur qui avoue son incompetence. Si Ton ecarte, d’une part, les cas douteux de ce genre et, d’autre part, les supputations sur les mceurs des ittihddiyyun (licence sexuelle, consommation de vin ou de hashish) ou les legendes qui ridiculisent Ibn c ArabI (son mariage avec une djinn femelle qui 1'aurait battu), reste une quantite a premiere vue impressionnante de jugements categoriquement hostiles a la doctrine akbarienne. Cet effet de masse nc doit pas cependant dissimuler la minceur du dossier. II cst d’abord, quantitativement, moins substantiel qu’il n’y parait si on elimine les repetitions incessantes que j'ai signages plus haut. La density des notices n’y cst pas, d’autre part, proportionnelle h leur longueur. J’ai mentionne le nombre important de folios reserves a I’obscur al-Su c udi 82 II a, nous dit al-Sakhawi, compose en 711 (du vivanl d’Ibn Taymiyya, notons-le cn passant) un ouvrage intitule Baydn hukm indfi'l-Fusus min al-i'tiqaddr al-mafsuda ou, mettant cn application le hadith: al-Din al-nasiha, il rcunissait — dej&! — les responsa relatives 5 l’heterodoxic d’Ibn c Arabi. Mais une large part de cette notice est occup£e par cinq qasidas extraites de ce livre. Al-Su c udi, versificateur plus besogneux qu'inspire, y dresse cn d^sordre un catalogue sans surprise des heresies akbariennes ( wahdat al-wujiid, wahdat al-adydn, non-etemitd du chatiment des damnes, sceau de la saintete...) dSnon^ant h diverscs reprises dans les Fusils un kalam bdtil, un kufr sarih. une zandaqa , un soufisme corrompu par la falsafa. Puis, dans les passages en prose, il 6numere les premiers critiques: al-Qastallani, c Izz al-DIn b. c Abd al-Salam, al-Ja c bari... mais insiste sur Ibn Taymiyya dont il ceiebre le zhle et la science et chez qui il semble en fait avoir puise une grande part de son information. On guise de refutation des erreurs d’lbn c ArabI, il prochde — comme le fera plus tard al-Ahdal — par juxtaposition en citant un passage de la c Aqida d’Abu Ja c far al-TakhawI et de l’ouvrage sur les usul du hanafite al-AwsI. Il rapporte enfin des propos de quarante soufis (al-Nuri, al-Sari al- Saqatl, Dhu’l-Nun, al-Bistami, al-Tuslari, al-Shibli, etc.) pour etablir 82 Ce personnage mal connu (sur Icquel voir GAL ii. 9: El* iv, 600; Kahhaia, Mu*jam al-mu e aliffin vii, 12) nc semble devoir quclque notoricie qua la notice de al-Sakhawi. Lc Mu'jam lui attribuc a tort la paternite du Qawl al-munbi- LE PROCES POSTHUME D’IBN ‘ARABI a partir de ces t6moignages qu’il n’est pas de tasawwuf authentique sans observance de la sharia., ce en quoi Ibn c Arabi est parfaitement d’accord avec ces maitres du passe. Le libelle de al-Su c udI est-il en realite plus riche que ne le donnent a penser les extraits retenus par al-Sakhawi? J’en doule fort. Ce qui est sur, e’est que I’espace concede a cet epigone n’est pas justify par l’interet des extraits offerts au lecteur. Dans d’autres cas, il est clair que al-Sakhawi n’a pas tire le meilleur parti possible des ulama qu’il mobilise dans son combat contre 1’crreur. D’Ibn Khaldun, il ne retient que la fameuse fatwa oh ce dernier conclut qu’on doit brOler les ecrits d’Ibn c Arabi (et de beaucoup d’autres) ou en effacer le texte par l’eau.83 L’argu- mentation y est des plus sommaires. La Muqadditna ou le Shi fa’ al- sa'il* que al-Sakhawi ne mentionne meme pas, contiennent des analyses qui relent qu’lbn KhaldOn — grace, sans doute, a son ami Lisan al-DIn Ibn al-Khatib — est capable d’analyses plus fines el permit fort bien par exemple les divergences doctrinales entre I’ecole d’Ibn c Arabi el celle d’lbn SabTn. 84 "Ala" al-Din al-Bukhari n’a droit qu’a deux folios et demi. Les propos rapportes (Ibn c Arabi est akfar al-kdfirin , etc.) ne nous instruiscnl gu&re. Or al-Bukhari, s’il n’a pas, et dc loin, la stature de son maitre al-Taft5zani a 6t6 form^ aux disciplines du kaldm. S'il lui arrive d’utiliser, comme les fuqahd\ des arguments simplistes — ce soutenir, par exemple, que la wahdat al-wujud conduit a identifier Dieu aux ordures les plus r^pugnantes — il recourt aussi h des raisonnements plus serrts, notamment sur la notion d’etre (wujud) h propos de laquelle son nominalisme s’oppose radicalement a 1’interpretation akbarienne. Comme al-Taftazani 85 — et contrairement i Ibn Taymiyya, qui per?oit cette distinction mais n’en tient fmalemenl aucun compte — il 6vite la confusion usuelle entre la wahdat al-wujud , Yittihad et le 8 -3 ixs circooslanccs qui amenent Ibn Khaldun id^livrer celle falwa prtsenlent nil int^rel hiMoriqne. On constate cn cffci que des soufis d'Alexandrie defendaient Ibn f Arahi cn s appuyani sur I'clogc qu’en avail fait Abu'I-Hassn al-Shadhili (voir f. 138b). Dc fail, l'influence du Shaykh al-akbar sur al-Shadhili et ses premiers successeurs m'a lonjours paru ^videntc et jc nc puis souscrirc aux reserves que fonnulait P. Nwyia sur cc point. Ibn ‘Aid' Allah et la naissance de la confririe shadhilile (Beyrouth 1972) 25-26. Discours sur I'hisloire universelle (= Muqadditna ). trad. V. Monteil (Paris, 2e ed., 1978) 1017-1022; Shifd ' cd-sa’il (Bcyroulh 1959) 51-52; trad. fr. dc R. Perez. lx>i el la Vole (Paris 1991) 180-184. ^ al-Taftazani. Sharh al-tnaqasid (Beyrouth 1989) iv, 59-60. Ibu c Arabi. claircmcnt vise dans ce passage, n’y est loulcfois pas nomme. 120 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ hulCd . Or al-SakhawT, s’il cite le titre de la Fadiha , prccisant meme que la redaction en a 6l6 achevee en 831 h., n’en fait aucun usage 86 La question qui se pose alors est celle-ci: si al-Sakhawi avait ete plus exigeant dans ses choix, s’il avait fait place dans sa “Somme” a des personnages ou a des textes qu’il a ecartes, volontairement ou par ignorance, le bilan serait-il intellectuellemcnt moins d6cevant? Je repondrai personnellemcnt par la negative. Le Qawl munbi , quels qu’en soient les defauts, me paraTt donner un tableau historiquement exact de la nature des polemiqucs anti-akbariennes au cours des siecles dont il dresse l’inventaire. La triste v6rite est que la m^diocrite de 1’ouvrage est un fiddle reflet de la m6diocrit£ de la plupart de ces potemiques. Les d6bats internes au soufisme sur la validity de la doctrine d’Ibn c ArabI — qui rel^veraicnt d’une toute autre etude et que je n’ai done pas pris en consideration ici — ne sont pas moins violents (j’ai cite le nom de c Ala 3 al-Dawla-i Simnani). 87 Mais ils ne se limitent pas h des querclles de vocabulaire. Les critiques des fuqaha 3 ne portent en definitive que sur les mots. Elies visent des formules en cxcluant non seulement tout ici'wil (cc refus s’exprime avec obstination de generation cn generation) mais tout effort pour replacer ces formules dans un contexte qui, s’agissant d’un auteur comme Ibn c Arabi, devrait etre pris au sens large: mcmc si les expressions visees proviennent, comme e’est generalement le cas, des seules Fusus, e’est aussi b d’autres ecrits — et surtout aux Futuhat — qu’il faudrait se reporter pour en saisir la signification cxacle. Autrement dit, ce que montrent sans peine les auteurs de ces response r, e’est que Poeuvre d’Ibn c Arabi ne doit pas etre mise entre toutes les mains. Cette position est parfaitement comprehensible... et elle est aussi celle des plus fermes partisans du Shaykh al-akbar.88 Entendues litteralement et hors contexte, nombre de phrases justifient effectivement la censure des fuqaha 9 , qu’Ibn c ArabI lui-meme, d’ailleurs, excuse d’avance 89 i 86 Oa irouvera d'utilcs precisions sur la Fadiha dans l'inlroduction dc B. Aladdin a 1’edilion. deja signalcc, da al-Wiijftd ai-haqq de al-Nabulusi qui cn csl pnrtiellemcnt la refutation. Comme le precise M. Aladdin. c'esl la Fadiha que. sous le litre Radd abdril al- Ftiffts, O. Yahya attribuc a al-Taftazani. 87 Voir note 14. Sur Simnani, voir H. Landolt. ‘SimnanI on wahdat al-wujud*. in Wisdom of Persia iv (Teheran 1971). ainsi que son edition dc la correspondancc entre Simnani cl Qashaiu (Tehcran-Paris 1972). 88 Je renvoic sur ce point a l’inlroduction d'Un ocean sans rivage. 89 Voir par exemplc dans Fuluhat ii. 79. la fin de la reponse a la question 57 de al- LE PROCES POSTHUME D’IBN l ARABl 121 condition qu’ils demeurent dans les limites de leur competence et done se bornent a condamner les expressions litigieuses prout sonant . Le probleme, e’est que justement, ils ne s’en tiennent pas la et se prononcent sur le fond sans recourir aux procedures qui autoriseraient a le faire. L’anatheme, profere de maniere incantatoire (wa-hadha kufr mubin), tient lieu de demonstration. Feinte ou sincere, Pindignation qu’eprouve le faqih devant tel ou tel passage d’Ibn c Arabi — le plus souvent choisi dans une lisle standard de formules condamnables — lui paraii devoir etre automatiquement partagee par tout lecteur musulman sans qu’il soit besoin d’en dire plus et, surtout, dc s’interroger sur la possibility d’une interpretation orthodoxe d’un propos qui, pris ad litteram, est suspect ou choquant. Cette indignation est parfois comique car il arrive qu’elle soit suscit^e par des textes qui ne sont ni specialement obscurs, ni specialement scandaleux. Un bon exemple. sur ce point, nous est fourni par une critique qui n’est pas, cette fois, mediyvale mais contemporaine. Il s’agit de la "lettre ouverte" d6jh citdc du Shaykh Kamal Ahmad c Awn dans laquelle ce dernier, se ryferant b des expressions extraites des chapitres 2 cl 4 des Fuluhat Makkiyya, accuse en quelquc sorte Ibn c ArabI d’hypostasier les Noms divins et d’en faire autant de dieux. Or il n’est pas besoin d’etre paniculidremcnt perspicace pour comprendrc que le Shaykh al-akbar a recours dans ces pages — comme en plusieurs autres de ses ycrits — h un procede litt6raire destiny h illustrer la fonction propre de chacun des asma : traditionnels — e’est dire des attributs divins — dans la oration de I’univers. 90 Cette scynographie est d’autant moins susceptible d’engendrer de malentendus qu’Ibn c ArabI ne ccsse d’affirmcr que les Noms divins ne sont que des “relations" (nisab) depourvues de toute consistance ontologique et qu’ils n’introduisent par consequent aucune multiplicity dans l’unite de l’essence divine. 91 La reaction violente que souiyvent ces passages rel^ve-t-elle de la naivete ou de la mauvaise foi? A chacun d’en decider. Les remarques qui precedent doivent s’accompagner d’un caveat . Hakim al-Tirmidhi. Ibn c Arabi y approuve les fuqaha' de “fermer la porte" A des assertions en favenr dcsquellcs ils ne trouvent aucune preuve legale (‘nous leur donnons raison ct nous jugeons qu'ils miritcnl que Dieu leur accorde une plcine recompense'). Mais ccla sous reserve qu ils ne tranchcnl pas calegoriqucmcnl (lam yaqla'u) en declarant intrinsequement errond tout cc qui s'dcartc de leur propre point dc vttc. 90 Voir ’Anqd mughrib 32 f. de Tedition du Caire 1954; et Fuluhai i. 322 f. 91 Voir par cxcmple Fuluhat iv. 294. Cc passage csl traduil par William Chittick. The Sufi Path of Knowledge (Albany 1989) 52. 122 123 MICHEL CHODKIEWICZ J'ai parle des fiiqaha* en termes generaux, ce qui peut suggerer que je souscris a la th£se soutenue, entre autres, par al-Sakhawi, selon laquelle il y aurait eu un ijma c des gardiens de la foi pour condamner Ibn c ArabL Certains specialistes out ete tentes de le croire et le “neo- wahhabisme” s’cmploie activement h entretcnir cette illusion d’optique. II convient done de relativiser I'dtendue et la force de cette opposition. Je suis convaincu qu’elle fut et qu’ellc demeure encore minoritaire inerne si, depuis que lc wahhabisme lui assure une base logistique ct dc considerables moyens de communication, elle a la possibility de se faire entendre plus fort et plus loin. Si les mcmes autorites — au premier rang desquelles Ibn Taymiyya — sont constamment invoquees dans la suite des ages pour appuyer les positions hostiles, e’est bicn parcc qu’il cst malaise de rassembler un large effectif de noms prestigieux. Quantity d’obscurs fuqahd\ figurants plutot qu’acteurs, sont enroles par al-Sakhawi dans le Qawl munbl b cot6 de ces personnages notoires et s’abritent derriere leur renommee. Mais on ne doit pas oublier qu’il y eut aussi — ct sans attendre la p£riode ottomane pendant laquelle I’ecole akbarienne benificia souvent de la faveur imperiale — des fatwas favorables h Ibn c ArabI: les listes que donne O. Yahya n’en Ipuisent pas le nombre. II y eut d’autre part, majoritairement, des fuqaha 3 qui, quelles que fussent leurs opinions personnelles, observ£rent un strict tawaqquf. Les tins le firent sans doute par prudence (les malheurs d’lbn Taymiyya ou de al-Biqa c i etaient une le^on pour les t6m6raires). D’autres le firent par sagesse, signalant — c’£tait leur role — le risque inherent a la diffusion imprudente de formulations qui pouvaient troubler la foi des simples tout en refusant de juger sur lc fond et done de prononcer le takfir. Nous disposons d’ailleurs sur cc point d’un temoignage de poids, celui d’lbn Hajar al- c Asqalani, dont al-Sakhawi fut 1’eleve. lnterrog£, au mois de safar 849, sur le statut legal de ceux qui lisent les Fusils ou d’autres ouvrages d’Ibn c ArabT et de ses pareils et qui adherent ft leurs croyances, il constate — e’est la phrase initiale de sa reponse — que ‘de nombreux imams se sont abstenus de parler en mal [d’lbn c Arabi et de ses disciples]’ ( fa-qad tawaqqafa kathlr min al-a : imma ‘an al-qadh). Les motifs de cette abstention ne sont pas toujours les mcmes. Tantot, dit-il, elle s’inspire de la supposition charitable que les auteurs en cause sont revenus de leurs erreurs. Tantot elle se fonde sur leur reputation de pi£t6 et de renoncement et sur leurs nombreux charismes. Tantot enfin les fuqaha* s’abstiennent parce qu’il est possible que la LE PROCES POSTHUME DTBN ‘ ARABI veritable croyancc de ces personnages ne soit pas celle qui se deduit de la lettre de leurs ecrits. Ibn Hajar exprime ensuite, en des termes severes mais qu’il faut peut-etre decrypler h la lumiere de ce qui precede, son avis personnel: aucun homme de jugement droit ne peut s’abstenir de voir de I’infidelite (kufr) et de I’erreur (daldl) dans Yenonce (maqdla) des theses de ccs auteurs. En consequence, celui qui s’en fait le propagandiste (al-da c i) est coupable d’un crime grave. Tel est aussi, ajoute-t-il, le point de vue des maitres qu’il a connus ou dont l’enseigncment lui a ete transmis. 92 La circonspection des “nombreux imams ” dont Ibn Hajar rapporte avec honnetete la position n’esl pas toujours une verlu facile h pratiquer. Face a la strategic d’intimidation que mettent en reuvre certains courants radicaux, elle devient parfois heroYque ct les heros ne sont pas Idgion, je l’ai dit. II s’en trouve cependant. On peut constater meme qu’en depit de campagnes agressives et qui n’^pargnent pas les personnes (volontiers d6noncees comme complices d’un complot occidental) les Etudes sur Ibn c ArabI, les dditions de ses ceuvres ou de cclles de ses disciples se multiplient dans le ddr al-islam. Ces travaux sont assur<3mcnt dc valeur in<$gale. Mais leur existence atteste en tout cas que. si le proems posthume d’lbn c Arabi n’est jamais clos, les procureurs ne restent pas seuls i\ y revendiquer le droit a la parole. ai-Qawl al-iminbi. T. 213. La complex^ (signalde note 17) de la pcrsonnalitc d lbn Hajar est soulignec par la presence dc son nom a la fois dans la listc dressee par O. Yahya des fatwas dcfavorables a Ibn c Arabi (Histoire et classification, no. 105. 130) et dans ccllc des fam-as favorables (no. 13. 134). Jc n'ai pn consultcr les deux manuscrits auxqucls O. Yahya fait reference pour juslificr I’insertion d*Ibn Hajar dans la seconde liste. ZAYDl ATTITUDES TO SUFISM 125 ZAYDl ATTITUDES TO SUFISM WILFERD MADELUNG The relationship between the religious movement of the Zaydiyya and organized Sufism has been predominantly antagonistic through¬ out their history. At the root of the conflict was a clash about autho¬ rity in religion. As a Shii sect, the Zaydiyya recognized the ultimate religious authority of the Family of the Prophet (ahl al-bciyt). The Zaydi imams demanded obedience from their followers not just as political rulers but also as teachers and guides in religious matters. Unlike the imams of the Twelver Shia and the Isma'iliyya, however, they were not endowed with impeccability and infallibilty ( c isma) and their religious authority could be challenged. The Sufi shaykhs, who were mostly Sunni, demanded absolute personal obedience from their disciples, though not from their community at large. Apart from this clash concerning leadership, there were also pro¬ found differences in religious motivation which were never bridged. Zaydi Islam was essentially sober, sharia-oriented, legalistic, and ra¬ tionalist. It lacked and repudiated any dimension of ecstatic intuition, esoteric knowledge and gnosis, and any form of mystical approach to the world of the divine. The Twelver Shia and Isma'iliyya shared such features with Sufism, leading Henry Corbin to his view that Sufism itself was in essence a Shii phenomenon. Zaydfs vigorously condemned antinomian and laxist tendencies in Sufism. They took offence at, and strictly forbade, Sufi practices which aimed at induc¬ ing states of ecstasy, such as the sama c , singing, music, dancing, and gazing upon beautiful youths. They totally rejected the speculative mysticism of Ibn al- c ArabI and his school. Rationalist, anti-mystical Mu c tazili theology was adopted by the Zaydiyya more consistently than by the Twelver Shia and evidently suited them better. In agree¬ ment with the Mu c tazila they generally restricted the possibility of miracles to prophets and denounced claims of miracles by Sufi shaykhs as sheer fraud. There was, however, an aspect of Sufi piety which could be fully appreciated by the Zaydiyya. Like early Sufism in particular, Zaydi religious devotion contained a strong element of asceticism, i.e. re¬ jection of this world — both its attractions and iniquities — and of a preoccupation with, and preparation for, the world to come. A popu¬ lar Zaydi movement like the Mutarrifiyya in the Yemen, which summoned to withdrawal from the world in hijras, to repentance, to ascetic exercises, purification and meditation, can certainly be de¬ scribed as analogous to early Sufism, although there is no evidence of direct Sufi influence on it. Zaydi imams and scholars, however, did not hesitate to praise early ascetic Sufis such as al-Fudayl b. c Iyad, Bishr al-Hafi, al-Junayd and Dhu’l-Nun al-Misri. Indeed they cited their sayings and held them up as individuals who had led ex¬ emplary religious lives. This positive attitude towards early Sufi ascetic piety, together with some reserve, is reflected in the Risalat si yd sat al-muridin of the Caspian Zaydi Imam Ahmad b. al-Husayn al-Mu’ayyad bi’llah (d. 411/1021).' The Risala apparently represents the earliest extant Zaydi literary reaction to Sufism, written by an imam otherwise known as an author on Mu c tazili Zaydi kalam and Zaydi (Hadawi) fiqh. The title. Management of the Desirous , employs Sufi termino¬ logy. AI-Mu 3 ayyad begins by observing that he has found all (religious) disciplines thriving in his lime except for the discipline of mu'Smala , i.e. devotional practice, which had become neglected and abandoned. He goes on to quote al-Junayd’s characteristic praise of c Ali as the potential master in this field. Al-Junayd says: ‘God shall call to account those who turned the attention of our master’, mean¬ ing c Ali, ‘away from us through (the battles of) the Camel and Siffin. If he had not been preoccupied with these wars, he would have set forth for us what we arc incapable of accomplishing with regard to these disciplines (ma la qibala land bih)\ The first station of devotion, al-Mu’ayyad explains, is repentance (tawba), and the foundation of repentance is fear. The murid must therefore instill fear into his own heart, especially by imagining the woes and pains of death. Repentance is followed by desire (irada), which is defined as seeking to turn to God exclusively while cutting oneself loose from everything else (talab al-inqitd ‘ ild’lldh min kull ma siwah). Here al-Mu'ayyad quotes in extenso a lengthy exhorta¬ tion (wasiyya) of al-Junayd, stressing the great benefit which the murid may draw from it. Throughout the Risala, al-Mu°ayyad cites the prophets, members of the Prophet’s Family such as c Ali, Zayd b. c All, Muhammad al-Baqir, Ja c far al-Sadiq, and al-Qasim b. Ibrahim, and Sufis such as al-Fudayl b. c Iyad, Dawud al-TaT, Abu Sulayman Ms. Ambrosiana C 186. 126 WILFERD MADELUNG al-Darani, Dhu’l-Nun al-Misri, AbuT-Husayn al-Nuri, and Ruwaym b. Ahmad; but he also warns of the defects of Sufism. The Sufi Ru¬ waym is quoted as saying: ‘This our path consists of expenditure of the spirit (badhl al-ruh). If you are capable of it, good; but if not, do not occupy yourself with the farces of the Sufis ( turrahdt al-su- fiyya)\ The search for closeness to God requires constant exertion (mujdhada). Yet the enemy, Satan, attempts to delude the murid by suggesting that reaching the goal is simply a gift from God and that effort and struggle in fact place a veil between God and the servant. This delusion affects in particular those who associate with the Sufis (wan yu'dshir aid al-tasawwuf). The Enemy may also suggest to the murid that practices contrary to the sharia may bring him closer to his goal, practices such as listening to singing, dancing, and amusing oneself with games like backgammon and other forms of entertain¬ ment. He may encourage him to neglect his religious duties and even to abandon the obligatory prayers while making him believe that he has reached a noble and distinguished station. Al-MiCayyad adds that he had met an old shaykh from among the ignorant Sufis (min jahafai al-siifiyya ) who used to lament about the long years (of his vain struggle) since he had not reached the goal, and who now thought that this would come about by merely removing the screen between himself and God. Al-Mu’ayyad expresses shock at such monstrous ignorance. He also refers with disgust to the class of Sufis who call themselves the blameworthy (ahl al-maldma). They claim that by involving themselves in evil situations and committing repre¬ hensible acts they abase their ego, yet in reality they fall from the state of repentance and may well revert to being offenders (fitssdq ). Al-Mu'ayyad ignores any mystical states beyond that of irada. In¬ stead he concludes his treatise with a chapter on worshjp ( c ibada) and holds up as examples the Prophet and c All Zayn al- c Abidin who spent their lives in strenuous and never-ceasing worship. Al-Mu J ayyad’s treatise set the guidelines for later Zaydi attitudes to Sufism. It was brought to the Yemen together with his major works and is quoted at length in his biography in Humayd al- Muhalli’s al-Hada'iq al-wardiyya , the large Yemenite collection of the iives of the early Zaydi imams. 2 The guidelines did not entirely prevent internal Zaydi controversy with respect to later develop- 2 See W. Modelling. Arabic Texts concerning the History of the Zaydi Imams of Tabaristan, Daylaindn and Gilan (Beirut 1987) 293-305. ZAYDi ATTITUDES TO SUFISM 127 ments in Sufism. Some time after 560/1165, a Zaydi pretender to the imamate, Muhammad b. Isma c il al-Dawudi, was active in the Caspi¬ an region. He had written a book entitled al-Wasila ild 'l-fadila which is described as similar to al-Ghazali’s al-Munqidh win al- dalal. His followers were accused of being negligent with regard to the sharia. The Caspian Zaydi community was split concerning him, and his opponents backed a counter-candidate, c Ali b. Muhammad al-Ghaznawi, for the imamate. The conflict continued for thirty years. 3 The prominent religious figure of al-Ghazall and his Sufism evidently evoked a mixed response among Zaydis. His espousal of a strong ethical dimension in the sharia appealed to many of them. The more esoteric aspects of his Sufism and his defence of the practice of sama‘ mostly met with opposition. In the eighth/fourteenth century the Caspian Zaydi community came under the rule of an c Alid dynasty, which lasted until the community’s absorption into Twelver Shiism in the early Safavid period. The founder of the dynasty, Sayyid c Ali KiyS b. Amir Kiya al-Malati, was the leader of a Sufi movement of ‘penitents’ (icdiban). The Zaydi scholars of Lahijan, according to Zahlr al-DIn Mafashi’s account, recognized him as the imam, testifying that he possessed all five qualifications required by Zaydi law for the imamate. Only one of them, Yahya b. Muhammad al-Salihi, dissented and went into exile in Rasht. 4 At present nothing further is known about the Sufism and religious policy of the dynasty. In the Yemen, conflict between the Zaydiyya and Sufis did not arise until the seventh/thirteenth century. 5 The Zaydis seem to have kept Sufism out of the highlands from Sa c da to San c a 3 and Dham&r where they were dominant, and there is little mention of Sufism in the writings of the early Yemenite imams. Organized Sufism spread in the Sunni, mostly ShafiT, lowlands, Tihama, Zabld, and Ta c izz from the fifth/eleventh century on. 6 As Zaydi imams sought to ex¬ tend their domination into the lowlands. Sufi shaykhs, who wielded ^ Modelling. Der Imam al-Qdsim ibn Ibrahim nnd die Glaubenslehre der Zaiditen (Berlin 1965)217-8. 4 Zahlr al-Din Mar c ashi, Tarikh-i Gilan wa Davlamdn, ed. M. Suludeh (Tehran 1347/1969) 16.41. 5 The following account is based in part on the study of ‘ Abd Allah Muhammad al- Habshi (al-Hibshi). al-$uf,yya wa'I-fiujaha* fi * l-Yaman <San c a : 1396/1976). My thanks arc due to Mr. Bernard Haykcl for making available some of the literature used in this study and for valuable advice. ^ al-Habshi. op. cit. 12 . 128 129 WILFERD MADELUNG considerable influence over the local populace, put up resistance. The Zaydl Imam al-Mahd! li-dln Allah Ahmad b. al-Husayn, who ruled from 646-656/1249-1258, wrote a letter to Abu’l-Ghayth b. Jamil (d. 651/1253), the most prominent Yemenite Sufi shaykh — at that time active in the village of Bayt c Ata 3 in Wadi Surdud — and summoned him politely to unite with him in ‘ordering what is proper and forbidding what is reprehensible’. Abu’l-Ghayth replied to him with equal politeness, assuring him that if God supported al-Mahdi no one could overcome him. He, Abu’l-Ghayth, had heard and was following the summons of the Truth (haqq), God, and after that there was no room left to respond to the summons of any creature. 7 8 The surface politeness concealed the deep aversion of the Sufi to the pretense of the Zaydi imam. It was at this time, or perhaps on an earlier occasion when a Zaydi imam intended to invade the lowlands, that AbO’l-Ghayth wrote to another Sufi shaykh, Muhammad b. Isma c il al-Hadrami, proposing that they both depart from Yemen be¬ cause of the spread of civil strife ( zithur al-fitan) there. Al-Hadrami, who was active in al-Dahi near al-Mahjam, replied that he was un¬ able to leave because of his many dependents and close relatives and suggested that each one of them protect his region. Abu’l-Ghayth also decided to stay in the Yemen 8 Abu’l-Ghayth’s rejection of Imam al-Mahdi’s overture did not lead to a serious deterioration of the relations between Zaydis and Sufis. Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Daylami, a Zaydi scholar who came to the Yemen from the Caspian region, does not deal with the Sufis among the heretics and opponents of the Prophet’s Family in his large Kitdb qawd'id Al Muhammad completed in 707/1307. 9 In his Kitdb al-sirdt al-mustaqim bi’l-din al-qawim , written a year later, he endorses Sufi ethics and ascetic practice, describing fear of God, taqwd, as the only condition for salvation. He names al-Ghazali’s Iliya* 1 ulum al-Din and ‘other books of the ascetics’ as works in which all errroneous opinions are rejected. Occasionally he refers to Imam al-Mu 3 ayyad’s Risalat siyasat al-muridin , to the Shii imams 7 al-Habshi, op. cit. 53-4. 8 al-Sharji, Tabaqdt al-khawdss ahl al-sidq wa’l-ikhldf (Beirat 1406/1986) 280. Al- Habshi seems to interpret the passage incorrectly in suggesting that Abii’l-Ghayth was al this time active in the highlands and proposed to move to Tihama <op. cit. 55). AbiiT-Ghaylh had been active in the highlands at an earlier stage (al-Sharji. op. cit. 407), but when he wrote his letter to al-Hadrami he was certainly living in the Tihama. 9 Ms. San c a\ Great Mosque; see al-Sayyid al-Husayni. Mu’aUafat al-Zaydiyya (Qumm 1413/1993) ii. 357. ZAYDI ATTITUDES TO SUFISM Ja c far al-Sadiq and al-Qasim b. Ibrahim, but most often he cites Sunni Sufis. His Kitdb al-tasfiya c an al-mawani c al-murdiya al- muhlika , a work on religious ethics, was later read and quoted by Zaydis inclining to Sufism. 11 The Zaydi Imam al-Mu ? ayyad bi’llah Yahya b. Hamza, who rei°ned from 729-749/1328-1349, maintained good relations with the°well-known Yemenite Sufi shaykh and historian 0 Afif al-DIn c Abd Allah b. As c ad al-YafiT (d. 768/1376-7) residing in Mekka. Al-Yafi c i notes in his large history Mir 3 at al-jandn wa- c ibrat al- yaqzdn that the imam appreciated a qasida in which al-YafiT ex¬ tolled the Sufis in general and his shaykh c All b. ‘Abd Allah al- Tawashi in particular, using metaphors (ini'drat) which were censu¬ red by some Sunni scholars. While on a raid against the Isma c Hls of Haraz, al-Mu 3 ayyad asked a pilgrim on his way to Mecca to bring back from the latter city some of the writing (kaldm) of al-Yafi c i, stating that he admired two of his qasidas, one of them in praise ol his shaykh. Al-Yafl c i expresses astonishment that the metaphors in his qasida should be appreciated by one of the opponents (of Sun¬ nism) who deny the stations ( maqdmdt) of the mystics, while they were denounced by a Sunni. 12 Imam Yahya b. Hamza, a prolific author, wrote a large book on religious ethics and etiquette entitled Tasfiyat al-qulub min daran al- awzdr wa 'l-dhunub. It may well have been patterned on al-Ghazall’s Ihyd 3 c ulum al-Din as has repeatedly been suggested. 13 The work reflects Yahya b. Hamza’s lack of sectarian zeal and his openness to Sunni learning. Hardly anything is said about the religious rank of the ahl al-bayt as is common in Zaydi works. In the section about the death of the Prophet and the early caliphs, AbO Bakr, c Umar and c Uthman are treated virtually on a par with c All. Al-Mu^ayyad Ahmad b. al-Husayn's Siyasat al-muridin is not mentioned. While there are few citations of C A1I and his descendants, quotations from early Sufis, including Ibrahim b. Adham, al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Abu See Madeluag. Der Imam al-Qdsim 220. 11 Mu’altafat i. 290-1. The Zaydi Sufi Ibrahim al-Kayua c i (d. 793/1391) owned a copy of the book and quoted from it (Yahya b. al-Mahdi. Sital al-ikhwdn . Ms. Ambrosiana D 222. fol. 26 a). 12 al-Yafi f i. Mir’eit al-jandn (Hyderabad 1347-49/1919-21) iv, 315. al-Habshi, op. cit. 63-4. AI-Mu’ayyad is called by al-Yafi c i imam al-Zaydiyya al-'alldma al-fdtfil Yahya b. Hamza. 13 al-Habshi. op. cit. 65; Isma f il b. Ahmad al-Jiran. introduction to his edition of Tasfiyat al-qulub (San'a’ 1408/1988). 130 WILFERD MADELUNG ZAYDl ATTITUDES TO SUFISM 131 Yazid al-Bistanri and al-Shibll, abound. The author points out that the Sufi shaykhs ( mashyakhat al-tarlq fi 'l-tasawwuf ) had much to say about the reality of good ethics (haqiqat husn al-khuluq), though they said more to explain its norms and the way to achieve its fmits than about its nature and definition. 14 Yahya b. Hamza is adamant, however, that singing belongs to the evils of the tongue. The masters of the ahl al-bayt and the imams from among them are agreed that it is prohibited and reprehensible, that it is contrary to virtue and religion, and that its practice invali¬ dates legal testimony and integrity. This was also the view of Sunni jurists such as Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi c I, Malik, Sufyan al-Thawri and others. The deviant opinion of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali that it is per¬ mitted and recommended deserves no consideration. Al-GhazaH’s evidence in support of his opinion was tenuous and based on state¬ ments of men without authority, which should be seen as an outrage and baseness in religion. Al-Ghazali, Yahya b. Hamza adds, surely could have dispensed with lending support to the permissibility and promotion of singing and have avoided discussing it in his religious books, not to mention arguing in favour of it. 15 Imam Yahya evidently had strong feelings on the subject, for he also wrote a shorter book entitled 7 qd al-l<r'ali J fi'l-radd : ala Abi Hamid al- Ghnzdli in which he specifically refuted al-Ghazalfs chapter on sama c in the Ihya 3 c ulum al-DinA 6 Sufism is not expressly mentioned in Imam Yahya’s condemnation of singing. In a chapter on the delusion (ghurur) of various religious and social groups, however, the Sufis (ahl al-tasawwuf) occupy a prominent position. Imam Yahya describes the kinds (sinf) of delu¬ sion to which Sufis commonly fall victim. These range from their dress and speech, in which the ‘would-be Sufis of our time (mutasawwifat ahl zamdnina) imitate the true Sufis such as al- Junayd, al-Shibli, al-Bistami and others, to fraudulent claims ot gnosis, antinomian libertinism, and false hopes of having reached the ultimate goal (wusulYA 1 Imam Yahya b. Hamza, it should be noted, also espoused the Mu'tazilf theological doctrine of the school of Abu'l-Husayn al- 14 Tasfival at-quiub 37. __. , ,, . . - 15 Tasfival al-qulitb 139. The passage is quoted by al-Mansur al-Qasim b. Muhammad m his HaWI-W (n»- in a private collection in Dahyan) 63-1. Al-Mansfc orn.ts the menuon of al-Ghazali. .. 16 al-Habshi. op. cit. 65; al-Husayni. Mu’allafat u, 2U. 1 1 Tasfiyat al-qitliib 498 - 501 . Basri which, in contrast to the doctrine of the school of Abu Hashim al-jubba 3 i previously prevalent among the Zaydiyya, upheld the possibility of karamat , miracles of non-prophets including Sufi saints 18 His teaching evidently furthered the emergence of an mdi- oenous order of moderate Sufism in the Yemenite ZaydT community. Substantial information about this development is furnished by the sayyid Yahya b. al-Mahd! b. Qasim b. Mutahhar al-Zaydi al-Husayni in his haeiosraphical account of the life of his shaykh and founder of a Sufi order, Ibrahim b. Ahmad al-Kayna c I (d. 793/1391), entitled Silaf al-ikhwan fi hilvat barakat ahl al-zaman. There is some evi¬ dence for an influence from the Caspian ZaydT community, where Sufi currents had been strong for a long time. Yahya b. al-Mahdi mentions the sayyid Ahmad b. Amir [b. al-Nasir al-Hasanl] al-Jilanl, who came to the Yemen from the country of the Jil and Daylam in¬ tending to visit Imam al-Mu’ayyad Yahya b. tfamza. When he ar¬ rived al-Mu 3 ayyad had already died, and he visited his successor, Imam al-Mahdi c Ali b. Muhammad (750-73/1359-71) in Sa c da and al-Mahdi’s son and later successor, al-Nasir Salah al-Din Muhammad b. c Ali, who at that time was teaching Koran-rcadmg in Masna c at Bani Qays. This sayyid, according to Yahya b. al-Mahdi, was the author of books on devotion and asceticism, among them one entitled $ajwat al-sajwa fizithd al-sahaba . |9 When Yaliya b. al-Mahdi visited Sayyid Ahmad b. Amir al-JIlani in Mekka, he found the qadi^o al-Hasan b. Salman with him. This Yemenite from Wadi’l-Har near Dhamar is described by Yaliya as the first person to practice the worship of the Sufis (ahl al-tarlqa) in the land of the Zaydiyya and the first to dress in their garb. At the same time he was an erudite scholar in religious law, hadilh , and Ko¬ ranic exegesis. In particular he was an expert in the legal doctrine of the Caspian Zaydi imam al-Nasir li l-Haqq. 21 He may well have hnAit tr\ fKir I'llKll’rl fl’P T TlnnT ^nvvid 22 Al-Hasan b. 18 Der Imam al-Qasim 222 and nole 456 19 Silat al-ikhwan I9b-20a. Ahmad b. Amir al-Jilanl was taler remembered among the Yemenite Zaydiyya as the one who brought the six-volume Kildb al-jami' al-kafi of Abu c Abd Allah al- e Alawi ou early Kufan Zaydi fiqh lo ihc Yemen and presented it to Imam al-Mahdi 'Ali b. Muhammad (sec Der Imam al-Qasim 88. noie 236). The title qadi was in Yemcnilc usage of the time often applied lo non-* Alid scholars, who were noi necessarily judges. 21 Yahya b. al-Mahdi. Silat al-ikhwan 19a. 22 The Nasiri religious law was nol practiced iu the Yemen and presumably not normally laught. Yahya b. al-Mahdi does nol provide any information about al-Hasan b. Salman’s teachers. It is to be noted, however, that he mus: have been well-known as a Sufi ascetic 132 WILFERD M ADELUNG Salman was an active supporter of Imam al-Mahdl urging the people to join his jihad against the opponents of the Zaydiyya and to pay their alms-tax to him. 23 The hijra which he founded in Wadf’l-Har is still thriving under his name. 24 Yahya b. al-Mahdl refers to al-Hasan b. Salman as the shaykh and model in piety of Ibrahim al-Kayna c i, who later continued to visit him every year. More important, however, as al-KaynaTs teacher seems to have been C A1I b. c Abd Allah b. Abi’l-Khayr [al-Sayidi], 23 whom Yahya also designates as his shaykh in asceticism and his model in words and deeds. Ibn Abi’l-Khayr was a prominent Zaydi scholar at the time, learned in religious law, legal methodology and theology, and author of books on many subjects, including refuta¬ tions of the predestinarians (mujbira), Islamic sects, and Isma c ilis ( malahida ). He also wrote on the sciences of Sufi devotion, asceti¬ cism, and the stories ( hikdydt) of the Sufis, the praiseworthy as well as the reprehensible. 26 Probably late in his career, he personally became engaged in Sufi practice and devotion. In 773/1371-2 he was initiated into the practice of dhikr by Ahmad b. Muhammad al- NassSkh who in turn had been initiated by Yusuf [b. c Abd Allah b. c Uinar al-Kurdi] al-Kurani (d. 768/1367), an Egyptian shaykh well- known for his special practice of dhikr which he propagated among his followers in many countries. 27 AI-KOrani traced his silsila back through Abu’l-Najib al-Suhrawardl (d. 563/1168) to Ja c far al-Sadiq and c Ali b. Abi Talib. 2 * In spite of his involvement with Sufism, Ibn Abi’l-Khayr upheld the critical attitude of the Zaydiyya to some aspects of Sufi belief and practice. Yahya b. al-Mahdi quotes his treatise al-Muqaddima wa’l-waia'if ft tariq al-murid wa’l-ta'if in which, after describing already before al-Jilani’s arrival since Yahya reports that the latter went to visit him when he arrived in the Yemen {Silal al-ikhwfin 20a). 23 Silal al-ikhwan 19b. 34b. Al-Hasan b. Salman is said to have reached an age of more than 1 30 yeare. 24 liijrat Hasan Salman; sec al-Qadi Isma'il b. c All al-/\kwa c , al-Madkhol ila hijar al- r Uin wa-ina c aqilihifi 7- Ya/ruin (Beirut 1415/1995)82. 26 Sayid is a branch of Hamdan. 26 $ilat nl-ikhnan 46a. On extant works by Ibn Abi’l-Khayr see Mu’allafat iii. 227-8. where he is listed under three different names: c AIi b. c Abd Allah Abi'l-Khayr. r Ali b. f Abd Allah al-Sa 5 idI. and c Ali b. c Abd Allah b. Abi'l-Khayr. 27 On Yusuf al-Kurani sec Ibn Hajar. ai-Dtirar al-kamina (Hyderabad 1350/1931-2) iv. 463. Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Najri al-Nassakh was. according to Ibn Abi'l-Rijal {Marla' al- budiir, ms.. S.v.), a religious scholar from Khubban (Khabban?) with whom the Zaydi imam Ibn al-Murtada read al-Zamakhshari’s Koran commentar>' ai-Kashshaf. 28 Silal al-ikhwan 48b-49a. On AbS’l-Najib al-Suhrawardi see GAL i. 436. S i. 780. Zaydi attitudes to sufism i 33 the obstacles on the path to spiritual perfection, he specifically warns against the belief of some Sufis that coutravention of the sharia is permissible once one has reached a high station, against false doc¬ trines like anthropomorphism, determinism, and irjd \against refus- ing jihad on behalf of the Prophet’s Family and failure to respond to their summons, and against listening to music, dancing and ecstatic love (wajd). 79 Ibrahim al-Kayna c i received the dhikr ^ his Sufi frock ( khirqa) from Ibn Abi’l-Khayr.™ The Banu*l-Kayna c i, his family, were local chiefs and owned castles one day’s journey {band) west of Dhamar. Ibrahim was fully trained in Zaydi religious law and theology. He became closely associated with Imam al-Nasir Salah al-Din Muhammad b. c Ali (ruled 773-793/1371-1391) and participated in some of his campaigns against the Tayyibi Isma c ilis, 31 who at this time were closely allied with the Sunni Rasulids ruling in Ta c izz and were the major rivals of the Zaydis in the highlands. The imam backed him and used to visit him annually in Dhamar, seeking the blessing of his prayer. During al-Kayna c f s stay in $an e 3 3 , al-Nasir would visit him monthly or every second month for a solitary session with him. Al-Kayna c i received material help for his Sufi brethren from the imam, who, at his request, gave a house confiscated from the Isma c iHs in San c a 3 to one of them. 32 According to Yahya b. al- Mahdi, al-Kayna c i staled that lie had met no one better informed about the practices and disciplines of the mystics than Imam al- Nasir. He had seen in the imam’s library rare books on the sciences of the ascetics and stories about the saints which he had not seen anywhere else, among them al-Ghazali’s Kimiyd ’ al-sa c ada and parts of his Ihya ' c ulum al-din, 33 Al-KaynaT founded Sufi communities all over northern Yemen which he visited regularly, in Dhamar, Ma c bar, Masna c at Bani Qays, Khubban (?), San c a°, Thula. Hflth, Wa c ra, Qara, Zafiir, and Sa c da. 34 He established hijras for retreat and devotion, among them Hijrat Ma c bar in Jahran, Hijrat c Aram and Hijrat al-Washal in Wadi Zu- bayd and the region of Dhamar. One of his followers, al-Hasan b. 2 ^ Silal al-ikhn an 47b. 30 Silal al-ikhwan 49a. Yahya b. al-Mahdi in Uim obtained his initiation and khirqa from aI-Kayna f i. 3 * Silat al-ikhwan 36b. 32 Silal al-ikhwan 29a-b. 33 Silal al-ikhwan 36b-37a: al-Habshi. op. cit. 62-3. 34 Silal al-ikhwan 19a. 66b. 134 WILFERDMADELUNG ZAYD1 ATTITUDES TO SUFISM 135 Musa al-Awtani, founded Hijrat al-Awtan in Bilad Madhhij. 35 The qadi c Abd Allah b. Hasan al-Dawwari (d. 800/1397-8) invited him to come to Sa c da in order to spread his blessings there. Many of the lo¬ cal inhabitants responded to his call and began to practice asceticism and dhikr and to read books of devotion in the mosque of Imam al- Mansur in the desert of Sa c da (barriyyat Sa'da). Their leader in wor¬ ship was another Caspian immigrant to the Yemen, Dawud b. Muhammad al-JIlani, known for his great miracles and as the author of books on Sufi devotional sciences. 36 Al-Kayna c i evidently represented a Zaydl form of ascetic Sufism which found favour with Imam al-Nasir Salah al-Din because it sup¬ ported the Zaydi imamate and repudiated the Sufi practices generally condemned by the imams. In contrast, the uneasy truce which had prevailed between the Zaydis and the Sunni Sufis was shattered towards the end of al-Nasir’s reign due to a particular incident. Ahmad b. Zayd al-Shawirf, a Shafi c i scholar of the law and Sufi shaykli active in the region of Hajja, 37 at that time just outside Zaydi territory, used to denounce the Zaydi creed and doctrine, and wrote a short book in which he raised the call to support Sunnism and warned against innovation. 38 In 793/1391 Imam al-Na§ir raided his area with a strong army. The house of the shaykh was attacked, and he. his son Abu Bakr, and several of his companions were killed, al¬ though they had not put up any armed resistance. As a result of the conquest, the people of the region converted from ShafTi Sunnism to Hfidawi (Zaydi) Shiism. 39 The violent death of the respected shaykh provoked a strong Sunni reaction. The prominent Shafrii scholar and poet lsma c il b. Abi Bakr al-Muqri, who belonged to al-Shawiri’s people, composed a lengthy elegy on his death in which he sharply condemned the imam for his transgression.lsma c il al-Muqri, it should be noted, later became a vociferous Sunni critic of Sufism, in particular of the school of Ibn al- c Arabi. 41 At this time he was evi- 3 5 al-Akwa*, al-Madkhal 82. 36 Silai al-ikhwan 66b-67a. A Kitdb at-Maqdsidal-ukhrawiyya ai-mimtaza' min kitdb al- anmlr al-mtidiyya by him is extant in part {Mit’allafdt iii. 44). 37 The region of Hajja is named in the account of al-Sharji. Yahya b. al-Husayn b. al- Mu'ayyad speaks of the Banu Shinvir in Bilad La c a and Bilad Qalaba [Anbd ’ al-zaman, quoted in Muhammad b. Muhammad Zabara, A’i/mnai al-Yoman (Ta'izz 1372/1952) i. 277] 38 al-Sharji. op. cit. 78. According to al-Habshi. op. cit. 55. note 3. the book was refuted by Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Fadli in his al-lnsaffi 'l-rndd c ald ahl al-zaygh wa'l-i c iisdf 39 Zabara. A'immat nl■ Yaman i. 277. 40 al-Sharji. op. cit. 78; al-Habshi. op. cit. 55-6. 41 al-Habshi. op. cit. 135-42: Alexander Knysh, Tbn c Arabi in the Yemen". JournoI of dently still attracted to the Sufis. Al-Nasir Salah al-Din’s first successor, overthrown and impri¬ soned after only one year, was Imam al-Mahdl Ahmad b. Yahya al- Murtada (d. 840/1437), author of the massive Zaydi theological and legal encyclopaedia al-Bahr al-zakhkhdr. In the eleventh book of the encyclopaedia, entitled Takmilcit al-ahkdm wa'l-tasfiya 'an bawatin al-dtham , Ibn al-Murtada dealt with religious ethics in a Sufi fashion. He provided a large commentary to it under the title Tho- morat al-akmam. The book, according to al-Habshi, was widely stu¬ died among Yemenite Sufis. As late as the eleventh/seventeenth cen¬ tury commentaries and supplements to it were written by the Zaydi scholar Salah b. c Abd al-Khaliq al-Jahhaf (d. 1053/1643), 42 as well as al-Hasan b. Ahmad al-Jalfil (d. 1084/1673) 43 and others. Ibn al- Murtada furthermore composed some smaller treatises on Sufi topics such as his Haydt al-qulub ft ihya 3 ‘ibadat 'allow al-ghuyub and al- Zahra al-zdhira bi-tahqir al-dunya wa-ia c zlin al-dkhira. 4A Yet he also wrote a book which refutes those scholars who allowed amuse¬ ments and the use of musical instruments, entitled Kitdb al-qamar al-nawwarfi ’l-radd c ald 'l-murakhkhism fi 'l-malalriwa’l-mizmar. Here he quotes at length the hadiths condemning musical instru¬ ments, singing, the purchase of singing slave girls, etc., which Imam al-MansQr c Abd Allah b. Hamza (d. 614/1217) had collected in his Kitab al-shafi . 45 In a Qasida qafiyya Ibn al-Murtada censured those who ‘proscribed the books of right guidance and allowed the tam¬ bourine and the flute (miunar) in the markets’, whose enemies were the scholars (‘ ulania ’) and whose friend was the dancing and clapp¬ ing would-be Sufi (al-mutafawwif al-raqqds al-sqffaq). 46 the Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi Society ix (1992) 50-6; Taha Ahmad Zayd, htnn'U al-Muqri: hayatithu wa-shi'nthu (Beirut 19%). 42 Nihayat ol-afhdm li ma c ani Takmilal nl-ohkiim ; see Mu 'allq/at iii. 132. 43 Talqih al-ajham bi-sohih al-koldtn ‘ala Takmilal al-ahkdm: sec Mit'altaftil i. 325. 44 al-Habshi. op. cit. 65-6. 43 This section of Ibn al-Murtada's al-Qamar al-nawwdr is quoted by al-Mansflr al- Qasim b. Muhammad in his Half anf al-dfik 34-7. In the edition of al-Mansiir c Abd Allah b. Hamza's Kitdb al-shaft (San c a J 1406/1986) *.he text is found in vol. i. 221-3. f Abd Allah b. Hamza reports these hadiths in the context of his censure of the behaviour of the c Abbasid caliphs, not as anti-Sufi polemics. By contrast, the Ainir al-Nasir li-Din Allah al-Husayn b. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. YahyS (d. 662/1261) in his Kitdb al-yandbV al-saluha, after citing the traditions forbidding play and amusements, adds a warning for the seeker of right guidance not to be deceived by the Sufiyya and the empty rhetoric of the Hashwiyya (al-Yandbi 1 al- sahiha. facsimile edition by Ahmad Muhammad Hajar. San'a 1 n.d.. 352). The passage is quoted by al-Mansiir al-Qasim b. Muhammad in his Hatf (tnf al-dftk 42-3. 46 Quoted by al-Mansiir al-Qiksim b. Muhammad. Hatf anf al-dfik 40-1. 136 WILFERDMADELUNG ZAYDI ATTITUDES TO SUFISM 137 Another book on religious ethics entitled Kan al-rashad wa-zad al-ma'dd was written by Imam al-Hadl ‘Izz al-Din b. a -Hasan “ ; Yahyawi (ruled 879-900/1474-1495).« c Izz al-Din deals with the reprehensible character traits which must be avoided and the sound ones which the worshipper should strive to acquire. In the intro¬ duction he mentions his having read books encouraging aseehewm (kutub zuhdina) and treatises of 'the people of the approved path („/,/ al-tanqal-inardivya)'.« At the end, however, he stresses that he never pursued the path and apologizes to those ireaders who be!heve that only those who have reached a high rank travelling the path themselves ought to write about the subject.-"- In the course of his exposition he frequently quotes from Sunni Mit/i-collections He praises al-GhazSli for his powerful discourse in condemning man s attachment to worldly chattels,** but rarely mentions any other Sl qz Z a l-Din’s predecessor. Imam al-Mutawakkil al-Mutahhar b. Muhammad b. Sulayman al-HamzI (ruled 840-879/1436-1474), was evidently more hostile to Sufism. Al-Man$ur al-Qastm Muhammad in his Half anf al-dfik quotes some «nes of poe^O-in which this imam derides the doctrines of a people whose religion consists of play and who dance and clap in the darkness of night. They end up in the intoxication of ecstasy deprived of jhe.rmmds. Never has any sunna supported this practice, nor does the Book of G ?y J stemati l c persecution of Sufis was initiated by Imam “t- Mutawakkil Sharaf al-Din Yahya b. Shams al-D.n, who ruled from 912 to 965/1506-1558. In his Kitdb al-athmSr, a popular abridge¬ ment of Ibn al-Murtada’s Kitdb al-azhdr, Sharaf al-Dm accused the Sufis of generally furthering hostility to the Alids (nasb). Some of them maintained that the Family of Muhammad (al consisted of all followers (atbd‘) of the Prophet” Al- quotes Imam The book was completed in 897/1492. Kara al-rashad <$•»*»’ 1392/1972) 138 Konz 2 1 49 Kcmz 137-8. M al^Habshi op cil. 66. Al-Habshi erroneously stales .ha. Imam ‘Izz al-Din in his al-Wasi c b. Yahya al-Wasi c i. not by the imam. 52 a |-Mansur, Half anf al-afik 46. 53 See the quotation in al-Habshi. op. cil- 57. 47 48 Sharaf al-Din *s response to someone asking him about the Sufiyya: •This sect (firqa) which in our lime and before it has been called die Sufiyya has no founda¬ tion in religion on which they cao rely and no proof (barium) in reason or in the law of religion (shor‘) to which they can refer. Rather, their affairs are based upon false fancies, empty rheto¬ ric. deceptive illusions, and claims remote from truth and veracity. Whoever enters into these fancies to any extent depans from Islam and embraces unbelief (kufr) without any doubt. He becomes a corporcalist and a denier of divine attribuics in the recognition of the Omniscient King. This is well-known to every scholar who peruses their books and to every wise learned man who takes cognizance of their secrets. It is therefore incumbent upon every Muslim uot to affiliate himself with them, nor to wear any of their emblems, nor to imitate (wlashabbnh) any one of them; for it has come down in tradition that whoever imitates a people is counted as one of them. The rules for chargiug someone with unbelief and grave immorality (ohkaw at-/nkJ7r wo liofsTq) are based on this'. 54 Imam Sharaf al-Din ihus clearly branded the practice of Sufism as potentially constituting infidelity. According to Ibn Abfl-Rijal, he forbade adherence to Sufism and entering upon their path from the beginning of his reign. As a result, all public display of Sufi cere¬ monial practices disappeared, and Sufi dancing, clapping, and singing became concealed in houses.In 939/1532 he summoned several Sufis, among them the qadi Muhammad b. c Atf Allah al- c Absi,56 to a debate concerning their religious beliefs. After the de¬ bate Sharaf al-DIn threatened to treat qadi Muhammad as an apostate, to force him to relinquish his spouses, and, after a period of grace, to execute him if the latter did not renounce his Sufism. Qadi Muhammad recanted after having been beaten and tortured and wrote a declaration in which he explained his renunciation of Sufism. The others also repented. 57 A sayyid c Abd Allah b. al-Qasim was likewise forced by Imam Sharaf al-Din to sever his ties with Sufism. The sayyid had been enticed to the heresy by the shaykh c All al-Jabarti who had visited al-Zahrayn in the region of Hajja, and had accompanied him on his travels. When his Sufi proclivities be- ^4 al-Mansiir, Half 41-2. Al-Mansur adds that the text of the response is much longer and invites anyone interested to read it in the original. 55 ibn AbiT-Rijil. quoted by al-Habshi. op. cil. 58. Al-Habshi is evidently mistaken in suggesting (57) that Sharaf al-Din's hostility to Sufism was the result of the Sufi support of the Ottoman Turks and their forsaking him in his struggle against the invaders. From the account of Ibn AbiT-Rijal and other sources it is clear that Sharaf al-Din began to persecute the Sufis long before the Ottoman invasion in 945/1538. ^ Thus the name given by al-Habshi, op. cit. 57. In Zabara. A 3 it nmol oi-Yaman i. 408, the name appears as Muhammad b. c Abd Allah al- c Aosi. ^ 7 al-Habshi. op. cit. 57-8; A’immot ol-Yomar i. 408. 138 WILFERD MADELUNG zaydI attitudes to Sufism 139 came apparent, the imam imprisoned him in the fortress of al- c Arus and reprimanded him. He was only released after writing a declara¬ tion in which he dissociated himself from the teaching of the Sufis. 58 Less fortunate was another Sufi shaykh, Hasan b. c All al-Jadr, who espoused the Sufism of the practitioners of ecstatic utterances {shallahun) and attracted many followers. The imam disdained to debate with him at the time of his debate with other Sufis since he considered him deficient in religious learning. When the forces of the imam seized Sa c da in 940/1533, a letter of Hasan al-Jadr was found in which he encouraged the Sufis there to remain faithful to their convictions, assuring them that the words and rebukes of the imam did not frighten him. The imam wanted to kill him, but the imam’s son, Shams al-Din, persuaded him to have him imprisoned. Hasan al-Jadr then swore that he had renounced Sufism both in se¬ cret and in public and that his letter had been written before the re¬ pentance of Qadi Muhammad al- c AbsI. The imam accepted his ex¬ cuses, and had him released. Some time later, however, it became apparent that Hasan al-Jadr still secretly adhered to his Sufi doctrines. He was executed in San e a 3 in Safar 942/Aug. 1535 at the order of the imam. 59 Anti-Sufi polemics reached their climax with Imam al-Mansur al- Qasim b. Muhammad (ruled 1006-1029/1598-1620), the founder of the Q5simi imamate. Al-Mansiir’s reign was dominated by his relentless struggle against the Ottoman occupation of the Yemen. The Yemenite Sufis had initially welcomed the Ottoman invasion, and they were in turn courted by the Turkish governors. 60 Al- Mansur’s fierce attack on Sufism was in part a reaction to this al¬ liance. Early during his reign al-Mansur composed a sixty-line poem entitled al-Kamil al-muiadarik fi baydn mcidhhcib al-siifi al-halik to¬ gether with brief explanatory notes. The poem opens with a com¬ plaint about the rejection (rafd) of Muhammad’s Family by the ma¬ jority of the Muslim community ever since the death of the Prophet, which has resulted in its split into numerous sects; he then exposes the heresies of the Sufis and in particular accuses them of gross sexual debauchery. 61 He is said to have sent the poem to his son. 58 al-Habshi. op. cil. 58. 59 al-Habshi, op. cil. 58-9; Ibn al-Mu'ayyad. Ghay<ii al-amoni 680-1. 60 al-Habshi, op. cil. 52-3. 61 Ms. Bril. Mus. Or. 3851, 10tb-l05. Al-Mansur mentions three Sufi sanctuaries, one of them in the region of Dhamar in which women allegedly acted as prostitutes, and claims that (he Yemenite Sufis regularly engaged in a communal sexual orgy lasting three nights probably Muhammad, who was then engaged in fighting the Turks. Al-Mansur’s biographer, al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Jurmuzi quotes another anti-Sufi Risala followed by a Qasida which the imam ad¬ dressed to all the Muslims it could reach. In the risala , as in al-Kamil al-mitfaddrik, al-Mansur describes the Sufis as a sect of the Batiniyya whose religion was founded on the remnants of the Zoro- astrians ( tmijiis ) when they recognized they could not fight Islam openly. He accuses them of equating their lord with beautiful women and beardless youths while denying the real Lord of the world, and of adopting the singing of love poetry, music, and pleasant diver¬ sions as their religion. When they feared for their lives, they would mix exclamations of Id ildha ilia 'lldh into these diversions and cele¬ brate the Prophet’s birthday (man-lid al-nabi) in order to deceive the ignorant. It was the duty of all Muslims to declare licit the shedding of their blood and the seizure of their property because they were in¬ fidels and polytheists. Indeed their polytheism was greater than that of the polytheists whom the Prophet had fought in holy war because those had affirmed the existence of God while associating idols as partners with him. whereas these consider only beautiful women and beardless youths as their gods and do not recognize any other lord. In the Qasida al-Mansur repeats these accusations and calls Muslims to allegiance to the Family of the Prophet. 62 The Turks evidently took note of this. Sinan Pasha, then comman¬ der of the Ottoman forces in the Yemen and later governor, ordered the sayyid Muhammad b. c Abd Allah (d. 1008/1599-I600) 6 \ a grandson of Imam Sharaf al-Din known as a poet and man of letters (adib), to compose a refutation of the al-Kdmil al-mutadarik. Earlier in 994/1586, Si nan’s master, the Ottoman governor Hasan Pasha, had rounded up the most prominent descendants of Imam Sharaf al- Din and deported them to IstanbulSayyid Muhammad was not among them, but he was evidently frightened into submission to Ot¬ toman domination. 64 He complied with the order by composing a poem in which, besides defending moderate Sufism and the practice of music, he sang the glory of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet III and during the month of Rabi f al-awwal. Two Sufi works which al-Mansur quotes lo illustrate objectionable Sufi doctrine arc al ljun'o al-nuriyya (of AbiiT- 1 Abbas Ahmad b. f All al-Bunl. d. 622/1225, GAL i. 497) and Rayhan nl-qulftbji l-itn\assul ila 'l-mahbub (of Yusuf b. f Abd Allah al-Kurani. GAL. ii 205. the shaykh through whom Ibrahim al-Kayna'i traced his silsila) - al-Jurmuzi. al-Nubdha al-mushirn (facsimile edilion (San e a 3 ca. 1981 ?)J 31 -2. 6 ^ Ghayat al-amani 782. In his response to Sayyid Muhammad’s qafidi, al-Mansur suggested that Sayyid Muhammad had been compelled by Sinan to write it. Half 2-2. 140 WILFERDMADELUNG ZAYDl ATTITUDES TO SUFISM 141 praised Sinan Pasha as well. .. , Some time after the death of both Sayyid Muhammad and Mehmet HI, but while Sinan Pasha still held the governorship, al-Mansur re¬ sponded with another poem and a commentary on it entitled Kitab Half anf al-afik fi jawabihi ‘ala 'l-KSmil al-mutadarikV From the outset, he again pursued the line of accusation that Sufism was de¬ rived from Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism, addressing his opponent as: •O you who have departed from ihc religion of !hc Family of Muhammad by entering into the Khurrami religion of the Magians’. khnrijan ‘on clfni fili Muftammadm bi-dukhulihmfi dini Imujusi ’/-khurmadi) In his commentary he explains that the root of the Batimyya was the religion of the Mujus and that Khurramdin, a Persian word, had become a name for them. This was the old accusation against the IsmaTliyya that their religion was a Mazdakite conspiracy to under¬ mine Islam — which was now being applied to the Sufis. By way of justifying his accusation, al-Mansur quotes the Kitab ai- irshad of c Abd Allah b. Zayd al- c Ansi, a prominent ZaydT scholar writing in 632/1234, who had described the Batimyya, meaning the lsma c iliyya, as the most dangerous heresy in Islam founded by de- scendants of the Mujus and remnants of the Khurramiyya with the aim of destroying Islam. Some of the Batiniyya hadI infiltrated the Imamiyya and the SQfiyya, and had lured them away from Islam. Al- Mansur approves of this interpretation and comments that the IsmS'Iliyya, in contrast to the Sufis, were universally condemned by Muslims as infidels, although both groups were equally Batini. he reason was that the Isma'Ilis cursed the Companions of the Prophet and many religious schools (meaning the Sunnis) were more inclined to set angry at insults to their ancestors than at insults to God. 1 hus without adverse reaction they would listen to these Sufis proclaiming their doctrine of incarnation and their denial o