Intellectual Life in The Ijāz in The 17 Century: The Works and Thought of Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī (1025-1101/1616-1690)

Intellectual Life in the Ḥijāz in the 17 th Century
The Works and Thought of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (1025-1101/1616-1690)
Naser Dumairieh
Institute of Islamic Studies
McGill University, Montreal
A Thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the

requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
© Naser Dumairieh, October 2018.

2
“I had hoped to combine the conclusions derived from logical proofs and
the fruits of unveiling and direct vision”
Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī

The Qūnawī-Ṭūsī correspondence, p. 131.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Résumé ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................................ 10
Chapter One: The 17th-Century Ḥijāz in its Local and Global Context .................................. 32
[1.1] Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 34
[1.1.1] The Ḥijāz in Western Literature .......................................................................... 34
[1.1.2] Some of the Main Primary Sources of the History of the Ḥijāz...................... 36
[1.1.2.1] Main Sources of the History of Mecca during the Ottoman Period ... 36
[1.1.2.2] Main Sources of the History of Medina during the Ottoman Period . 39
[1.2] The 17th Century Ḥijāz in its Local Context .................................................................... 42
[1.3] The 17th Century Ḥijāz in its Global Context .................................................................. 53
[1.3.1] European Navies in the Indian Ocean ................................................................ 54
[1.3.2] Iran’s Conversion to Shiʿism ................................................................................ 60
[1.3.3] Mughal Empire....................................................................................................... 65
[1.3.4] Ottomans and the Ḥijāz ........................................................................................ 75
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 82
Chapter Two: Intellectual Life in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century............................................. 85
[2.1] Speculation about Intellectual Activities in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century ............... 87
[2.1.1] Southeast Asian Studies........................................................................................ 87
[2.1.2] Reform Movements of the 18th Century ............................................................. 89
[2.2] Educational Institutions in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century ............................................ 95
[2.2.1] Madrasas, Ribāṭs, and Zāwiyās .............................................................................. 95
[2.2.2] Libraries, Book-Binders, and Book Scribes in Medina ..................................... 99

4
[2.2.3] Some Theoretical and Practical Sciences in the Ḥijāz ...................................101
Medicine................................................................................................................... 102
Agriculture (ʿIlm al-filāḥah) .................................................................................... 103
Astronomy ............................................................................................................... 103
Chemistry (ṣanʿat al-kīmyāʾ) ................................................................................... 104
Music theory and practice .................................................................................... 104
[2.3] Scholars in the Ḥijāz ........................................................................................................ 105
[2.4] Isnād as a Source for Intellectual Life in 17th Century Ḥijāz ...................................... 118
[2.4.1] The Isnād of Intellectual Texts ...........................................................................123
[2.5] How the Rational Sciences Reached the Ḥijāz............................................................. 126
[2.5.1] Al-Taftāzānī’s (d. 793/1390) Works ...................................................................126
[2.5.2] Al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) Works .......................................................128
[2.5.3] Al-Ījī’s (d. 756/1355) Works ................................................................................133
[2.5.4] Al-Dawānī’s (d. 908/1502) Works ......................................................................134
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 138
Chapter Three: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s Life, Teachers, Students, and Works......................... 142
[3.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Life................................................................................................................. 146
[3.1.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Early Life and Studies in his Homeland.......................................148
[3.1.2] Al-Kūrānī in Baghdad ..........................................................................................149
[3.1.3] Al-Kūrānī in Damascus .......................................................................................151
[3.1.4] Through Cairo to the Ḥijāz.................................................................................152
[3.2] Al-Kūrānī’s Education ..................................................................................................... 153
[3.3] Al-Kūrānī’s Teachers ....................................................................................................... 162
[3.4] al-Kūrānī’s Students ........................................................................................................ 178

5
[3.5] Al-Kūrānī’s Works ............................................................................................................ 194
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 233
Chapter Four: Al-Kūrānī’s Theological and Sufi Thought .................................................... 238
[4.1] Part One: al-Kūrānī’s Metaphysical and Cosmological Thought .............................. 241
[4.1.1] God is Absolute Existence (al-wujūd al-muṭlaq or al-wujūd al-maḥḍ) .............242
[4.1.2] God’s Attributes and Allegorical Interpretation (taʾwīl) ................................250
[4.1.3] God’s Manifestations in Sensible and Conceivable Forms ............................258
[4.1.4] Nafs al-amr in al-Kūrānī’s Thought ....................................................................270
[4.1.5] Ashʿarites and Mental Existence .......................................................................275
[4.1.6] Realities: Uncreated Nonexistent Quiddities ..................................................281
[4.1.6.1] Classifications of Nonexistents .............................................................. 287
[4.1.6.2] The Description of Nonexistent and the Concept of “Thing” (shayʾ)
................................................................................................................................... 289
[4.1.7] God’s Knowledge of Particulars .........................................................................293
[4.1.8] Creation.................................................................................................................296
[4.1.9] Unity and Multiplicity ........................................................................................304
[4.1.10] Destiny and Predetermination ........................................................................318
[4.1.11] Kasb: Free Will and Predestination .................................................................323
[4.1.11.1] Good and Bad According to the Intellect (al-ḥusn wa-l-qubḥ al-
ʿaqliyyayn)................................................................................................................. 332
[4.1.11.2] Legal Responsibility (al-taklīf) .............................................................. 336
[4.1.12] The Unity of the Attributes (waḥdat al-ṣifāt) ..................................................339
[4.1.13] Waḥdat al-Wujūd .................................................................................................342
[4.2] Part Two: al-Kūrānī’s other Theological and Sufi Thought....................................... 352
6
[4.2.1] The Faith of Pharaoh ...........................................................................................352
[4.2.2] Precedence of God’s Mercy and the Vanishing of the Hellfire (fanāʾ al-nār)
............................................................................................................................................359
[4.2.3] Satanic Verses ......................................................................................................365
[4.2.4] Preference for the Reality of the Kaʿbah or for the Muḥammadan Reality
............................................................................................................................................372
[4.2.5] God’s Speech (kalām Allāh)..................................................................................380
[4.2.6] Al-Kūrānī and Sufi Orders ..................................................................................389
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 394
Chapter Five: Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Ḥadīth, Fiqh, and Arabic Grammar ............................. 399
[5.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Ḥadīth ........................................................................................... 399
[5.1.1] Some Aspects of 9th/15th Century Ḥadīth Studies ............................................414
[5.2] Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Fiqh ............................................................................................... 423
[5.3] Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Arabic Grammar ........................................................................ 431
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 437
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 441
Appendix A: al-Kūrānī’s Teachers .......................................................................................... 449
Appendix B: al-Kūrānī’s Students .......................................................................................... 450
Appendix C: al-Kūrānī’s Works ............................................................................................... 454
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 461

7
Abstract
This dissertation aims to situate the Ḥijāz within a broader narrative of Islamic
intellectual history by demonstrating that the intellectual sciences, transmitted
knowledge (i.e., from scripture), and Sufi theories and practices flourished there and
together made the region one of the most intellectually dynamic centers of the 17th-
century Islamic world. By exploring this understudied aspect of the history of post-
classical Islamic thought, the dissertation aims to correct the tendency in both Western
and Muslim scholarship to ignore this region and this time period. By showing that
prejudices about the supposed decline of post-classical Islamic intellectual life are not
based on solid evidence, my research offers convincing proof that this period witnessed
interesting and original philosophical contributions that warrant further investigation.
The principle case study used to support this argument revolves around the works and
ideas of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, a leading scholar who is representative of Ḥijāzī intellectual
activities in that period.
The dissertation begins by investigating the local and global factors that transformed
the Ḥijāz into one of the primary scholarly destinations of that era, and hence into a
meeting point for all the major intellectual trends in the Islamic world during the 16th
and the 17th centuries. Then it focuses on the life and writings of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī in
order to explore the extent to which philosophical, theological, and Sufi texts were
disseminated, studied, and discussed. On the basis of a detailed account of around 80 of
al-Kūrānī’s works - mostly still in manuscript – the dissertation ultimately synthesizes
his ideas into a coherent philosophical system, and shows that intellectual life in the
Ḥijāz during the post-classical period was rich and dynamic.

8
Résumé
La vie intellectuelle dans le Ḥijāz au 17e siècle
L’Œuvre et la pensée d’Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (1025-1101/1616-1690)
Cette thèse s’efforce de situer le Ḥijāz au sein du champ plus vaste de l’histoire
intellectuelle islamique et entend démontrer que les sciences intellectuelles, les
connaissances transmises (par exemple, à partir des écritures), et les théories et
pratiques Sūfīes y étaient florissantes et qu’elles contribuèrent à faire de cette région l’un
des centres intellectuels les plus dynamiques du monde musulman au 17e siècle. Grâce à
l’exploration de cet aspect sous-étudié de l’histoire de la théologie islamique post-
classique, cette thèse vise à corriger la tendance qu’ont en partage les universitaires
occidentaux et musulmans, à ignorer cette région et cette époque. En montrant que les
préjugés concernant la période post-classique ne se fondent ni sur une documentation
précise ni sur un examen détaillé de la vie intellectuelle, ma recherche offre l’évidence
manifeste que cette période a connu des contributions philosophiques intéressantes et
originales qui mériteraient un examen plus approfondi. La principale étude de cas
utilisée ici pour étayer cet argument gravite autour des travaux et des idées d’Ibrāhīm
al-Kūrānī, un érudit de premier plan, représentatif des activités intellectuelles d’un Ḥijāzī
de cette époque.
Cette thèse s’ouvre sur une recherche consacrée aux facteurs locaux et globaux grâce
auxquels le Ḥijāz est devenu une destination savante de premier plan à cette époque, et
conséquemment, un point de confluence de toutes les principales tendances
intellectuelles représentées au sein du monde musulman durant les 16e et 17e siècles. Elle
s’attache ensuite à étudier la vie et les écrits d’Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī afin de déterminer dans
9
quelle mesure les textes philosophiques, théologiques et Sūfīs étaient alors diffusés,
étudiés et discutés. Sur la base d’un compte-rendu détaillé d’environ 80 œuvres d’al-
Kūrānī — pour l’essentiel encore manuscrites — cette recherche se clôt sur une synthèse
de ses idées en un système philosophique cohérent, synthèse qui permet de montrer que
la vie intellectuelle dans le Ḥijāz durant la période post-classique était riche et
dynamique.
10
Acknowledgment
During the several years of this project, when asked about my work, I used to reply that
I was investigating the intellectual life of the Ḥijāz in the 17th century. The usual reaction
was: Was there anything in the Ḥijāz during the 17th century? I have realized how I have
been extremely lucky that my supervisor, Professor. Robert Wisnovsky, accepted this
topic, encouraged me to continue my research in this understudied area, and cared so
much about my work. I am sincerely grateful for Wisnovsky’s acceptance, patience,
guidance, support, and encouragement throughout this long process of study and
research. Without his confidence, knowledge, discussions, comments, corrections, and
verification of every technical term, this dissertation would not have been possible.
Many other scholars in the Institute of Islamic Studies and McGill University more
broadly contributed to my academic carrer. Two names deserve to be mentioned firstly,
Jamil Ragep and Stephen Menn. It was fantastic to have the opportunity to study and
work with them. My deepest appreciation also extends to my dissertation committee for
their encouragement, insightful comments, and helpful suggestions: Pasha M. Khan,
Setrag Manoukian, Carlos Fraenkel, and Mohammed Rustom.
I am grateful to Dr. Bakri Alaaden, who was the first person who directed me toward
the 17th-century Ḥijāz with confidence that I would find a very interesting and rich
intellectual life.
I would also like to thank all the members of the staff at the Institute of Islamic Studies,
in particular Laila Parsons, Sally Ragep, Adam Gacek, Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi, Shokry
Gohar, Rula J. Abisaab, and Reza Pourjavady, Alison Laywine, and Ihsan Fazlioglu for their
invaluable assistance and support.

11
My sincere gratitude to the administrative staff of the Institute, Zeitun Manjothi and
Anne Farray, and especially to Adina Sigaru for her help with my endless requests about
the complicated administration process. And my thanks extend to the librarians of the
Islamic Studies Library, Anaïs Salamon, Charles Fletcher, and Ghazaleh Ghanavizchian.
I am also sincerely grateful for the financial support from the Institute of Islamic
Studies without which this dissertation would not have been possible. Also, my gratitude
extends to the Arts Graduate Student Travel Award that allowed me to spend one month
in the summer of 2015 in Istanbul researching in archives and libraries.
I am grateful, too, to all of my colleagues and fellows graduate students with whom I
have had the pleasure to work during my time in the Institute of Islamic Studies. A very
special thank goes out to Leila El-Murr, the first friend I met at McGill. In addition to her
friendship, without her help in proofreading, commenting, and encouraging, this long
journey would have been much more difficult. I have a deep gratitude for my friend
Giovanni Carrera, with whom I had discussions more than with any other friend in the
Institute and with whom I shared an office for three years and many other projects. I also
thank Pauline Froissart, who was an inspiration and a motivation. Chris Anzalone was
very supportive and helpful; our discussions about the Middle East and especially Syria
was a valuable source for me. Jonathan Dubé’s willingness to help and his encyclopedic
sources never let me down. My special and hearty thanks are due Brian Wright for our
wonderful conversations, as well as his constant suggestions and comments. And many
thanks to Hasan Umut, who helped me to obtain several manuscripts from Turkish
libraries.
12
I am grateful to all of my colleagues with whom I have had the pleasure to work,
especially Sajjad Nikfahm, Fatema Savadi, Pouyan Shahidi, Fariduddin Attar, Osama
Eshera, Walter Edward Young, Temel Ücüncü, and Peiyu Yang.
I would like to offer a special thanks to Marion and Lorol Finley: they are such an
inspiration and generous beyond measure with their time and knowledge.
Words cannot express my indebtedness to and sincere appreciation for Jessica Stilwell
for her invaluable reading, comments, recommendations, and feedback. This dissertation
would not read as it does without her insightful and attentive work.
Special thanks and gratitude to a Syrian family that was my home and family in
Montreal; to all my friends from the Jalabī family, many thanks for everything.
Lastly, and most importantly, a special thanks to my family in Syria, who were the
source of love, encouraging, and inspiration, I will always be thankful for all of them.
Especially I am thankful for my father, who was my first supporter in my academic life,
constantly encouraging me, and who passed away before the completion of this work.
His love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue.
I can not express how thankful and grateful I am to my loving and supportive wife, for
her unconditional love, support, encouragement, and inspiration. And to the light of our
life, Neijem, who provides us with unending inspiration and joy. I dedicate this work to
Florence and Neijem, the two stars of my life.

13
Introduction: The 11th/17th Century between Two Narratives
In the beginning of their Introduction à la théologie musulmane, Louis Gardet and Georges
C. Anawati state that the Islamic sciences started in the Ḥijāz, specifically in Medina, the
capital of the state established by Muḥammad.1 Soon after the death of Muḥammad, the
political and intellectual centers of the Islamic world as it developed and matured shifted
to Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo, Isfahan, Shiraz, and other cities. Despite Gardet and
Anawati’s welcome reminder of the birthplace of the Islamic sciences, neither they nor
any other scholars, to the best of my knowledge, have mentioned the important role
played by the Ḥijāz and by Ḥijāzī scholars in the intellectual activities of the Islamic world
after this early formative period. In this dissertation, I argue that during the 17th century,
the Ḥijāz, and in particular Medina, returned to the center of Islamic intellectual life.
This dissertation aims to situate the Ḥijāz within larger narrative of Islamic
intellectual history by demonstrating that the intellectual sciences, transmitted
knowledge, and Sufi theories and practices flourished there and together made the Ḥijāz
one of the most intellectually dynamic centers of the 17th-century Islamic world. The
principle case study on which my argument is based revolves around the works and ideas
of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, a leading scholar who is representative of Ḥijāzī intellectual
activities in that period. This dissertation will argue that the 17th-century Ḥijāz was also
one of the most active Sufi centers of its time, with scholars heavily influenced by the
thought of Ibn ʿArabī. Through these arguments, I hope to extend research on post-
classical Islamic thought to include new geographical zones, principally the Ḥijāz, as well
as new disciplines that I argue contain important philosophical discussions, such as
1
Louis Gardet and Georges C. Anawati, Introduction à la théologie musulmane; essai de théologie comparée (Paris:
J. Vrin, 1970), p. 22.
14
debates over different aspects of the Ibn ʿArabī tradition. As I will elaborate below, I will
also show the utility of a new research tool, the isnād, in tracing scholars and texts for
achieving a more precise understanding of how knowledge circulated between different
parts of Islamic world.
“The Ḥijāz” in the current study refers mainly to the two holy cities of Mecca and
Medina. However, the Ḥijāz also contains other important cities such as Jeddah, the main
port city serving Mecca;2 al-Ṭāʾif, the summer residence of the emirs of the Ḥijāz and a
destination of many who settled there because it contains the tomb of the Prophet’s
companion Ibn ʿAbbās;3 and Yanbūʿ, the port city serving Medina.
Studying intellectual life in the Ḥijāz during the 17th century directly challenges two
narratives that have dominated both Western and Muslim studies related to this
geographical zone during this century. For most of the 20th century, Western studies of
Islamic intellectual history were dominated by a narrative of “decline” or “stagnation,”
the assumption being that intellectual life in the Islamic world entered a long period of
decline after the 13th or 14th century, a decline that lasted until the 19th century. In the
Islamic world, another narrative of “decline” dominated studies of the pre-modern era,
namely, the Wahhābī narrative of “ignorance” (jāhiliyyah) that considered the Islamic
world before Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and his movement to be in a period of
ignorance for several centuries. The 11th/17th century thus suffered in both narratives,
2
Jeddah played an important role in Red Sea trade, in addition to serving as the main port for pilgrims who
came from the Indian Ocean. See: A. Pesce, Jiddah: Portrait of an Arabian City (London: Falcon Press, 1974); A.
al-Anṣārī, Tārīkh madīnat Jiddah (Cairo: Dār Miṣr li-l-Ṭibāʿah, 1982); A. Bokhari, Jeddah, A Study in Urban
Formation (University of Pennsylvania, PhD Dissertation, October 1978); D. Howell, City of the Red Sea (Essex:
Scorpion Publishing Ltd., 1985); Muḥammad ʿAlī Maghribī, Malāmiḥ al-ḥayāt al-ijtimāʿiyyah fī al-Ḥijāz (KSA,
Jeddah: Dār al-ʿIlm, 1985).
3
Henri Lammens, La Cité arabe de Tāif à la veille de l'Hégire (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1922); Muḥammad
Saʿīd b. Ḥasan Kamāl, al-Ṭāʾif fī kutub al-muʾarrikhīn ([KSA, Mecca]: Nādī Makkah al-Thaqāfī al-Adabī, 1995).
15
albeit for different reasons, as we shall see. This dissertation builds on the efforts of
several prominent scholars to challenge these established narratives.
The Western narrative of decline is based on several prejudices dominating the
discipline of Islamic studies through most of the 20th century. Dimitri Gutas in “The study
of Arabic philosophy in the twentieth century” refers to several reasons for the spread
of this narrative. Among these reasons is the assumption that Islamic philosophy came
to an end with Averroes, “Ibn Rushd,” an idea that spread with Ernest Renan’s Averroes et
l’averroisme, which was published in 1852. In Renan’s narrative, al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111)
was blamed for contributing to the demise of philosophy in the Islamic world. When
Henry Corbin attempted to demonstrate the fallacy of this view in his Histoire de la
philosophie islamique, he focused on the Illuminationist tradition and its Safavid
developments.4 Corbin’s efforts carried assumptions that philosophy only survived, in
mystical form, in a very limited geographical zone, namely Safavid Iran, and within only
the Twelver-Shiʿite tradition, in a sort of parallelism with Renan’s idea above.5
A second reason for the narrative of decline is the idea that Islamic philosophy was
only an intermediary between Greek and Medieval Latin philosophy. Gutas gives the
example of De Boer’s The History of Philosophy in Islam, which considered Islamic
philosophy as philosophically insignificant in itself and as merely an intermediary
between Greek philosophy and later Latin scholasticism.6
A third reason for the “decline” narrative in Islamic studies after its classical period is
not mentioned in Gutas’ article but is highlighted instead by Robert Wisnovsky in “The
4
Dimitri Gutas, “The study of Arabic philosophy in the twentieth century: An essay on the historiography
of Arabic philosophy,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (2002), 29 (l), 5-25, p. 15.
5
Robert Wisnovsky, “Avicennism and exegetical practice in the early commentaries on the Ishārāt,” Oriens
41 (2013) 349–378, p. 351.
6
Gutas, “The study of Arabic philosophy in the twentieth century,” p. 10.
16
nature and scope of Arabic philosophical commentary in post-classical (Ca. 1100-1900
AD) Islamic intellectual history.”7 Wisnovsky argues that because most scholarly
production in the post-classical period took the form of commentaries, glosses, and
superglosses on earlier works, numerous contemporary Western scholars considered
them to be unoriginal and uninteresting. This opinion can be seen in W. Montgomery
Watt’s words: “little originality was shown, and the chief effort of theologians went into
the production of commentaries, super-commentaries and glosses on earlier works.”8 In
general, the “decline” narrative, as El-Rouayheb has pointed out, came most prominently
from Ottomanist, Arabist, and Islamist viewpoints.9
Even fifty years ago, scholars were beginning to challenge this narrative. Marshall
Hodgson, for example, in The Venture of Islam, argues that the traditional notion of a post-
Mongol decline of Islamic civilization does not do justice to the intellectual and cultural
florescence of 16th-and 17th-centuries Ottoman Turkey, Safavid Persia, and Moghul
India.10 More recently, Frank Griffel in Al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology rejects the
accusation levelled against al-Ghazālī, that he was the main contributor to the demise of
philosophy in the Islamic world.11 Griffel argues rather that al-Ghazālī helped to spread
7
Robert Wisnovsky, “The nature and scope of Arabic philosophical commentary in post-classical (CA. 1100-
1900 AD) Islamic intellectual history: Some preliminary observations,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical
Studies, Supplement, no. 83, vol. 2 (2004), pp. 149-191.
8
W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh: 1981), p. 134.
9
Khaled El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century: Scholarly Currents in the Ottoman
Empire and the Maghreb (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 1.
10
Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1974).
11
“Al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) has always played a leading role in Western attempts to explain the assumed
decline of philosophy in Islam. Ernest Renan described al-Ghazālī as an enemy of philosophy who set off
its persecution. “[He] struck a blow against philosophy from which it never recovered in the Orient.” Watt
wrote that al-Ghazālī argued powerfully against the philosophers, “and after this there was no further
philosopher of note in the eastern Islamic world.” See: Frank Griffel, al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology (UK:
Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 5.
17
philosophy and integrate it into Islamic religious studies, “by criticizing a selected
number of teachings in the falāsifa’s metaphysics and the natural sciences.”12 Al-Ghazālī
singled out a limited number of theological or philosophical positions as unbelief,
opening the door for all teachings other than the three condemned topics to be parts of
Islamic religious studies and the religious sciences. Thus, not only did al-Ghazālī promote
philosophy as an integral part of Islamic studies, but - on Griffel’s reading - he also
facilitated the integration of philosophy into other Islamic disciplines as well.
The call to extend the study of Islamic philosophy after al-Ghazālī to include other
disciplines came a few years before Griffel’s book, in Wisnovsky’s aforementioned article.
Wisnovsky argues that scholars should extend their research in post-classical Islamic
philosophy to include, in addition to philosophy and kalām, subjects such as dialectic,
logic, psychology, adāb al-baḥth, and semantic theory (ʿilm al-waḍʿ).13 In his various
writings, Wisnovsky attempts to show the lineage of Islamic philosophy as beginning
with the Greeks and carried on to the present, or as he puts it, from Aristotle to
Muḥammad ʿAbduh (d. 1905).14 In this same vein, in his book Avicenna’s Metaphysics in
Context he attempts to show the continuity of Greek philosophy in Islamic philosophy up
through Ibn Sīnā. In later writings, he attempts to show the continuity up through
Muḥammad ʿAbduh by focusing on Ibn Sīnā’s commentary traditions.15 The fact that
almost one-half of the philosophical activity that took place in post-classical Islamic
intellectual history was expressed in some form of exegetical work including
12
Griffel, al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology, p. 99.
13
Wisnovsky, “The nature and scope of Arabic philosophical commentary,” p. 156.
14
Ibid., p. 150.
15
Robert Wisnovsky, “Towards a genealogy of Avicennism,” Oriens 42 (2014) 323-363; Wisnovsky,
“Avicennism and exegetical practice in the early commentaries on the Ishārāt,” Oriens 41 (2013) 349-378;
Wisnovsky, “Avicenna’s Islamic reception,” in Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays, ed. P. Adamson
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 190-213.
18
commentaries, glosses, and superglosses16 has been understood by some scholars, such
as Watt, as a sign that the work of Islamic philosophers was unoriginal and uninteresting.
Wisnovsky provides his readers with a long list of commentaries to show how much work
will need to be done before such remarks can be justified.17 He argues that the Ancient
Commentators Project has shown that philosophical commentaries can - and often do -
contain innovative and exciting thought.18 Analyzing manuscripts of texts and
commentaries of the post-classical period also “confirms that post-classical
philosophical commentaries, including commentaries by mutakallimūn and
commentaries on kalām texts, do contain serious and sophisticated discussions worthy
of philosophical analysis.”19
One of the most recent academic contributions challenging the narrative of decline is
related directly to this dissertation, since it focuses on the 17th century and discusses
some intellectual activities in the Ḥijāz, as part of its main geographic focus on the
Ottoman and Arab lands. Arguing against the narrative of decline, El-Rouayheb in Islamic
Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century writes that the “rational sciences” were
cultivated vigorously in the Ottoman Empire throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. With
numerous examples from throughout the Ottoman Empire including North Africa, Cairo,
and the Ḥijāz, he convincingly demonstrates that the intellectual history of these regions
during this period needs to be fundamentally re-examined.
16
17
In recent years, Wisnovsky has conducted a project to improve the list of the scholars and their works in
which other researchers and I participated. The initial results of this study have produced a list ten times
longer than the one mentioned in the article.
18
19
Wisnovsky, “Avicennism and exegetical practice,” p. 351.
19
Thus, a growing number of prominent scholars, by exploring the impact and
development of intellectual traditions in the Islamic world after the 13 th century, have
extended the borders of their research to include, in addition to philosophical and
theological texts, works from disciplines such as logic, mathematics, astronomy, and
psychology. In their efforts, these scholars have focused their attention on areas
throughout the Islamic world, such as Ottoman Turkey, Safavid Persia, Mughal India, and
North Africa. And yet, in contrast to these regions, the Ḥijāz, lying at the epicenter of the
Islamic world, remains understudied.
Currently the two cities of Mecca and Medina are part of Saudi Arabia, which is
politically and religiously dominated by the ideology of Wahhabism. Wahhābī scholars
established the legitimacy of their control over the Arabian Peninsula through the claim
that this area before Wahhabism was a land of “ignorance,” a term that not only indicates
the absence of any intellectual activity, but also means that the intellectual environment
before the 18th century was as bad as, if not worse than, that of pre-Islamic Arabia in the
7th century CE. This description was later used to justify branding the opponents of the
founder of the Wahhābī Movement, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (d. 1206/1791), and
his political ally Ibn Saʿūd, as “polytheists” (mushrikūn) or apostates (murtaddūn). As will
be seen below, this Wahhābī description of polytheism and disbelief in Arabia and the
Ḥijāz was mainly applied to Sufis, as the phenomena of polytheism (shirk), innovations
“bidaʿ,” and superstition were held by them to stem from popular Sufi practices and
ideas.20
20
ʿAlī b. Bakhīt al-Zahrānī, al-Inḥirāfāt al-ʿaqadiyyah wa-l-ʿilmiyyah fī al-qarnayn al-thālith ʿashar wa-l-rābiʿ
ʿashar al-hijriyyan wa-āthāruhā fī ḥayāt al-ummah (KSA, Mecca: Dār al-Risālah li-l-Ṭabʿ wa-l-Tawzīʿ), pp. 269-
435.
20
The narrative of “ignorance” (jāhiliyyah) can be traced to the writings of Muḥammad
b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. In a short treatise, al-Qawāʿid al-arbaʿ, he states:
The disbelievers (mushrikīn) of our time are worse in shirk than the previous generations
because the former generations committed shirk during times of ease but they would
become sincere during difficult times, unlike the disbelievers of today, whose shirk is
continuous; at times of ease and of hardship.21
In his commentary, Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān, who is a member of Saudi Arabia’s Committee of
Senior Scholars (hayʾat kibār al-ʿulamāʾ), gives examples of people who lived at the time of
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, saying that “they are never sincere to God, not even
during times of hardship. Rather, whenever their affairs become difficult for them, their
shirk becomes even more severe and also their calling upon al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, Abd al-
Qādir [al-Jīlānī], al-Rifāʿī and others.”22 These examples refer to Shiʿites, who seek
intercession from al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, and to Sufis of the Qādiriyyah and Rifāʿiyyah
orders. Al-Fawzān’s later examples all come from Sufi tales. It seems that for him the
disbelief of the Shiʿite does not need further evidence in order to be made obvious, but
with respect to the Sufis, he adds:
Read, if you wish, Ṭabaqāt al-Shaʿrānī. In it is what causes the skin to shiver. They call
these incidents miracles (karāmāt) of the awliyāʾ. They rescue the people from the sea,
extending their hands to the sea and carrying the whole ship to the shore, and many
other fables of this sort. 23
Al-Fawzān then concludes in the same way as Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, that the
disbelievers of the latter’s time were worse than the disbelievers of pre-Islam Arabia.24
21
Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān, Sharḥ al-Qawāʿid al-arbaʿ (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-
Risālah, 2003), p. 31.
22
Ibid., p. 34.
23
Ibid., p. 34-5.
24
Ibid., p. 35.
21
In another work, entitled Kashf al-shubuhāt, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb states a
similar idea, citing two reasons. The first is the same mentioned in al-Qawāʿid al-arbaʿ,
that the disbelief of polytheists before Islam was only during times of ease, while the
disbelief of polytheists of his time occurs during both times of ease and of hardship. The
second reason is that the previous generations worshipped righteous people from among
the angels, prophets, and awliyāʾ, whereas the disbelievers of his time worship the most
deviant people who do not pray or fast, and who have committed adultery, sodomy, and
other disgraceful deeds.25 Al-Fawzān defines these people as those whom they call al-quṭb
and al-ghawth, and as the vilest people like al-Ḥallāj, Ibn ʿArabī, al-Rifāʿī, al-Badawī, and
others.26
The description of the situation before Wahhabism as a period of ignorance and
disbelief became a common theme among most Wahhābī historians and scholars, who
extended the period of ignorance beyond Arabia to include all of the Muslim world. Ibn
Ghannām (d. 1225/1810), a historian of the Wahhābī movement who lived at the same
time as Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, dedicated the first chapter of his history to clarifying that
shirk and those led astray (ḍalāl) at his time were repeating the same type of disbelief as
the pre-Islamic Arabians, yet the situation now was worse than the old jāhiliyyah.27 Ibn
Ghannām says that at the beginning of 12th/18th century, most people were in fact
engaged (inhamakū) in polytheism (shirk) and had thus returned to the state of ignorance
that obtained before Islam. The lights of Islam and Sunnah were thus erased.28 His
25
Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Kashf al-shubuhāt, ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĀyiḍ al-Qaḥṭānī (KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār
al-Ṣumayʿī, 1998), pp. 77, 79.
26
Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and al-Fawzān, Sharḥ al-Qawāʿid al-arbaʿ, p. 35.
27
Ḥusayn b. Abī Bakr Ibn Ghannām, Tārīkh Ibn Ghannām al-musammā Rawḍat al-afkār wa-l-afhām li-murtādd
ḥāl al-Imām wa-tiʿdādd ghazawāt dhawī al-Islām, ed. Sulaymān b. Ṣāliḥ al-Kharāshī (KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-
Thulūthiyyah li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2010), p. 171 and after.
28
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 171.
22
principal target is the same as that of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: the Sufis. Ibn
Ghannām claims that the people replaced worshipping God with the worship of saints
and pious people, alive or dead, along with many other Sufi practices such as visiting
shrines or calling for the intercession of figures other than God. In Ibn Ghannām’s eyes,
what was happening in the grand mosque (ḥaram) in Mecca was the worst, and he gives
several examples of people visiting the tombs of the Prophet’s Companions and praying
to them. He says that what was happening at the Prophet’s tomb and in the cemetery of
Baqīʿ and at other Companions’ tombs is well known. All these acts may be described as
shirk. Ibn Ghannām mentions not only popular Sufi practices in Arabia, but also refers to
Sufis in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and the Maghrib in order to support his idea that the
situation of Muslims is worse than the situation of polytheists before Islam.29 Another
historian of the Wahhābī movement, Ibn Bishr (d. 1290/1873), has the same narrative of
the spread of shirk in Arabia.30
A similar narrative can also be found in the work of ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd
al-Wahhāb (d. 1242/1826), the son of the founder of the Wahhābī movement. He states
that “the situation of the people before this religion [i.e., the Wahhābī movement], is
largely similar to that of the people of ignorance.”31 We notice here that Ibn ʿAbd al-
Wahhāb’s son calls the new movement a religion that came in the time where the
people’s lives were similar to the first ignorance of the time of the Prophet. We can find
the same narrative in some treatises of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 1292/1876),
29
Ibid., vol. 1, 5-25, 137.
30
ʿUthmān b. ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Bishr, ʿUnwān al-majd fī tārīkh Najd, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Āl al-
Shaykh (KSA, Riyāḍ: Maṭbūʿāt Dārat al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, 4th ed., 1982), vol. 1, p. 6-7.
31
Ibn Ghannām, Tārīkh Ibn Ghannām, p. 110, cf. the editor’s introduction.
23
the grandson of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.32 Over around 50 pages, Ṣāliḥ al-ʿAbbūd’s
ʿAqīdat al-shaykh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-salafiyyah wa-atharuhā fī-l-ʿālam al-Islāmī
collects evidence from Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and historians of his life and
movement, as well as from his followers and other authors, to prove that Arabia
specifically and the Islamic world generally was in a period of “ignorance” worse than
the actual jāhiliyyah before the Prophet Muḥammad.33 This narrative continued to
dominate most of the Wahhābī and Salafī literature of the 20th century,34 including the
work of the late Saudi muftī ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Bāz (d. 1999)35 and other scholars.36
Sulaymān al-Kharāshī, the editor of Ibn Ghannām’s text, which was published in 2010,
explains that the situation before the Wahhābī movement was described as “an age of
decline” (ʿuṣūr al-inḥiṭāṭ), in which Muslim countries (bilād al-Muslimīn) suffered a
complete decline in all aspects of life: religious, political, social, and economic. The most
prominent manifestation of this decline was the resurgence of polytheism and disbelief.37
All the examples he gives are related to popular Sufism, such as visiting tombs and
shrines, and seeking the intercession of figures both dead and alive. After citing the
32
Majmuʿat al-Rasāʾil wa-l-masāʾil al-Najdiyyah (Cairo: Dār al-Manār, 1345/[1927]), vol. 3, pp. 381-388.
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā edited this collection of treatises by Najdī scholars and the publication was
sponsored by King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.
33
In this context it is not my intention to discuss Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb’s attitude towards Sufism. It is
sufficient to note that he repeats Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion of Ibn ʿArabī and Ibn al-Fāriḍ, that their disbelief
is worse than that of Christians and Jews. See Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, al-Rasāʾil al-shakhṣiyyah, ed.
Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān and Muḥammad al-ʿUlayqī (KSA, Riyāḍ: Jāmiʿat al-Imām Muḥammad b. Saʿūd al-
Islāmiyyah, 1976), p. 189.
34
Among those who used this description were ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan Āl al-Shaykh (d. 11 Dhū al-Qaʿdah
1285/1869), the grandson of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. Ibn Ghannām, Tārīkh Ibn Ghannām, p. 110, cf.
the editor’s introduction.
35
Ṣāliḥ al-ʿAbbūd, ʿAqīdat al-shaykh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-salafiyyah wa-atharuhā fī al-ʿālam al-Islāmī
(KSA, Medina, al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, PhD dissertation 1408/1987-8), p. 45.
36
Ibid., pp. 45-61. Pages 21-61 are all citations from different scholars about the situation of jāhiliyyah before
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.
37
Ibn Ghannām, Tārīkh Ibn Ghannām, p. 101.
24
spread of shrines in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Maghrib, the editor mentions that when
Najdīs (i.e., followers of Wahhabism from Najd in central Arabia, its birthplace) entered
Mecca, they destroyed 80 domes built over the tombs of people from the house of the
Prophet (āl bayt al-nubuwwah).38 In general, Wahhābīs consider visiting shrines and tombs
as a form of worship, calling Sufis qubūriyyah or “tomb-worshippers” from the word qabr
“tomb.”
Similar to the narrative of “decline” in Western studies, the Wahhābī narrative of
“ignorance” has also been challenged, in this case by a few studies that tried to show that
Najd, and Arabia more broadly, were actually full of scholars engaged in various
activities. For example, ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿUthaymīn in an article entitled “Najd mundhu al-
qarn al-ʿāshir al-hijrī ḥattā ẓuhūr al-shaykh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb” [Najd from
the 10th century until Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb] tries to demonstrate that there
were numerous such scholars in Najd.39 The book ʿUlamāʾ Najd khilāl thamāniyat qurūn
[Najdī Scholars During Eight Centuries] by Āl Bassām mentions around 100 scholars from the
10th/16th to the 12th/18th century. These and other studies focus mainly on Ḥanbalī
scholars, and were targeted by Wahhābī researchers in an effort to discourage what the
Wahhābīs considered to be a pernicious direction of study. They argued that such works
have the potential to cast doubt on the movement of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and
his role in combating shirk and in guiding people back to the Quran and the Sunnah. They
also argued that these studies would undermine the accounts that speak about the spread
of shirk before the Wahhābī movement, and might suggest that its founder simply sought
38
Ibid., p. 102, cf. the editor’s introduction.
39
ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿUthaymīn, “Najd mundhu al-qarn al-ʿāshir al-hijrī ḥattā ẓuhūr al-shaykh Muḥammad b.
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb,” al-Dārah, September 1978, pp. 32-46.
25
fame and leadership.40 The defenders of the Wahhābī narrative usually list numerous
citations to prove that the Najd was in fact in a period of jāhiliyyah.41
Current academic research may find it difficult to change the Wahhābī perspective by
demonstrating that the Ḥijāz was a center of intellectual activities of philosophy, kalām,
and Sufism, as Wahhābīs actually condemn intellectual activities as factors of decline
rather than of progress and prosperity. Many Wahhābī writers consider the efforts of
Wahhabism to be directed mainly against these disciplines. In ʿAqīdat al-shaykh
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-salafiyyah, the author has a chapter entitled: “[Ibn ʿAbd
al-Wahhāb’s] refutation of the methods of jāhiliyyah and of the theologians (ahl al-
kalām).”42 Another work has a chapter dealing with the role of the Shaykh al-Islām
[Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb] in combating philosophy, logic, and ʿIlm al-kalām.43
As we see from these two narratives, the 17th-century Ḥijāz has historically been
described as a time and place of “decline” or of “ignorance,” with few serious attempts
to explore its actual intellectual life.
If Islamic intellectual history does not mention the Ḥijāz due to the dominant
narratives of decline and ignorance, and more recent studies challenging these
narratives still do not include this geographical zone as a significant subject of study, one
would still expect to find a mention of the Ḥijāz in the works that deal with Sufism. Given
that Sufism was an essential part of religious life in the Ottoman Empire and many
Sultans were inclined towards Ibn ʿArabī’s thought, it is unsurprising that Sufism spread
to the Ḥijāz when it was under the control of Ottomans. In 1887, Alfred Le Chatelier
40
Ibn Ghannām, Tārīkh Ibn Ghannām, p. 108, cf. the editor’s introduction.
41
Other examples of articles that attempted to refute the claim that the Najd had many scholars before
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb can be found in the introduction of Tārīkh Ibn Ghannām, p. 107, fn. 1.
42
Al-ʿAbbūd, ʿAqīdat al-shaykh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-salafiyyah, p. 198.
43
Al-Zahrānī, al-Inḥirāfāt al-ʿaqadiyyah wa-l-ʿilmiyyah, p. 244.
26
published Les confréries musulmanes du Hedjaz, in which he mentioned 18 Sufi orders active
in the Ḥijāz at that time.44 With the increased interest of Western academic studies in
Sufism and Akbarian studies,45 one would expect to find some further interest in the
diffusion of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought in the Ḥijāz, which was known as a center of Sufi orders
before the days of Wahhabism, but, to my knowledge, there is no mention of the spread
and influence of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought in the Ḥijāz in the existing scholarly work on the
region. For example, in a comprehensive study about Ibn ʿArabī and his commentators,
James Morris moves from Jāmī (d. 1492) to the late 19th-century figure ʿAbd al-Qādir al-
Jazāʾirī (d. 1883), who is credited by Morris for reviving the teachings of the Ibn ʿArabī.46
However, Morris acknowledges that more research is needed to bridge the gaps in the
Akbarian tradition:
If the Sufi writings of ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jazāʾirī (d. 1300/1883) discussed in the following
section appear to us today as a sudden, mysterious “renaissance” of the creative study
of Ibn ʿArabī in the Arabic world, that is simply a reminder of how much research
remains to be done in this (and other) areas of later Islamic thought.47
44
Alfred Le Chatelier, Les confréries musulmanes du Hedjaz (Paris: Ernest Leroux Éditeur, 1887). This text
seems to be motivated partly by political consideration, as the author was a soldier who engaged in colonial
projects before becoming a professor of Islamic Sociology at the Collège de France from 1902 to 1925. Le
Chatelier collected his information by interviewing pilgrims who returned from the Ḥijāz to Cairo. He gives
a general overview about each order and was interested if it was independent or still connected to its place
of origin, such as Iraq for the Qādiriyyah and India for the Naqshbandiyyah. In the introduction he refers
to the Tijāniyyah order in North Africa and mentions two zāwiyās, saying that one of them has good
relationships with the colonial powers while the other rejects the French presence in North Africa. Then
he says that he has good knowledge about these orders in North Africa but not in other places in the Islamic
world, and therefore he had decided to interview pilgrims who returned from Mecca to gather information
about Sufi orders in the Ḥijāz.
45
One can mention the contributions of Henry Corbin, Michel Chodkiewicz, Toshihiko Izutzu, Osman
Yahya, William Chittick, Jan Clark, Alexander Knysh, James W. Morris, and Claude Addas.
46
James W. Morris, “Ibn ʿArabī and his interpreters: Part II (Conclusion): Influences and interpretations,”
Journal of the American Oriental Society 107, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar. 1987), pp. 101-119, p. 115.
47
Ibid., p. 114.
27
With the dominance of the anti-Sufi ideology of Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula,
including the Ḥijāz, almost all historical and Sufi sites have been destroyed and most
forms of Sufi activity are currently prohibited. As mentioned above, approximately 80
shrines in Mecca were destroyed the first time Wahhābīs entered the city in 1803, and
although the Wahhābīs were pushed out after a few years, in 1923 they once again began
destroying the remaining historical sites with advent of the third Saʿūdī kingdom, which
still rules the country. The last of these sites - the numerous mausoleums and raised
graves of the Baqīʿ cemetery - were destroyed in 1925. Given that it is forbidden for non-
Muslims to travel in the Ḥijāz and the relative paucity of historical archeology in this
region, the sources for the history of the area are largely limited to literary sources, such
as travel accounts, books of history, bio-bibliographical works (ṭabaqāt), and
manuscripts. However, these literary sources are very rich and are sufficient to construct
a detailed picture of the vibrant intellectual life in the Ḥijāz during the 17th century. A
substantial number of primary sources for the 17th-century Ḥijāz’s history and social life
have been edited and published. There is also an increasing number of secondary studies
based on these primary sources, as well as Western travelers’ accounts, and manuscripts
that have recently became accessible. More important for this research and for
intellectual studies in general are the actual texts produced during the 17th century, most
of which, fortunately, are still extant in various libraries and archives around the world.
After laying out the historical context and the intellectual milieu of the 17th-century
Ḥijāz, this research will then focus on one particular scholar who was active in the
intellectual life in the Ḥijāz and the entire Muslim world in the 17th century: Ibrāhīm b.
Ḥasan al-Kūrānī (d. 1101/1690). Al-Kūrānī is a key figure in Islamic intellectual history
during the 17th century, and was one of the most important scholars of that period. His
28
philosophical contributions are a genuine synthesis of different intellectual traditions of
Islamic history, mainly the philosophy-kalām tradition that extended from Ibn Sīnā until
al-Dawānī and included al-Ṭūsī, al-Ījī, al-Taftāzānī, and al-Jurjānī; and the Akbarian
tradition that extended from Ibn ʿArabī and included al-Qūnawī, al-Qāshānī, al-Qayṣarī,
and Jāmī. Centuries before al-Kūrānī, Sufism had become increasingly philosophical due
to the efforts of al-Qūnawī and his circle, and theologians were also discussing various
Sufi ideas as kalām itself had become increasingly philosophical after al-Ghazālī and al-
Rāzī. With al-Kūrānī, there was little to separate theology from Sufism, and no attempt
was made to reconcile Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas with theology. Rather, Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas became
Islamic theology. Thus, al-Kūrānī can be seen as the culmination of the philosophized
Akbarian tradition, at least in the Sunni world.
Focusing on al-Kūrānī’s efforts does not mean underestimating the efforts of other
scholars at that time. Rather, my aim is to extend research on post-classical Islamic
intellectual life to include other regions and scholars that have received less interest, and
thereby gain a better picture of intellectual life in the Islamic world during the 17 th
century. The limitations of time made it impossible for me to compare al-Kūrānī’s efforts
with those of other scholars who were active during the same period or earlier, such as
Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1640). However, I hope that my work will motivate further comparative
research that can shed more light on the scholarly activities in the 17th century
throughout the Islamic world.
In my research, I attempt to reconstruct al-Kūrānī’s theological-Sufi thought in a
coherent way, working from the 100 treatises that constitute the totality of his work.
Fortunately, almost all of these treatises still exist in manuscript form in different
libraries around the world. I was able to collect, analyze, and study around 80 treatises
29
by al-Kūrānī, as well as dozens of manuscripts by other scholars relevant to this topic.
This effort gave me a clear sense of his engagement in discussions with scholars from
different parts of Islamic world, including Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, Iran,
Yemen, Syria, and North Africa.
I thus explore intellectual developments in the Ḥijāz during the 17th century by
addressing questions related to intellectual life in the Ḥijāz in general, and al-Kūrānī’s
contribution to Islamic intellectual history in particular. Among the questions posed are:
How was the Ḥijāz configured as a center of Islamic intellectual life in the 17th century?
Who were the main figures in the Ḥijāz during this period, and what were their activities?
Which texts did they study or teach, why, and to whom? To what extent were they aware
of, and connected to, contemporary intellectual activities in Ottoman lands, Safavid
Persia, and Mughal India? What were the main influences on al-Kūrānī’s thought? And
what were al-Kūrānī’s main contributions to Islamic intellectual debates?
In order to address these questions in a systematic way, this dissertation is divided
into five chapters. The first two chapters are intended to contextualize and situate al-
Kūrānī’s efforts within a broader historical and intellectual framework, whereas the
remaining three chapters are dedicated to examining his life, works, and thought, in
order to give a precise account of his contributions to various Islamic disciplines, mainly
theology, Sufism, ḥadīth, fiqh, and Arabic grammar.
In Chapter One, I aim to situate the 17th-century Ḥijāz within local and global contexts
in order to explore the factors that contributed to the Ḥijāz’s emergence as a center that
attracted scholars and students from all around the Islamic world. After setting these
historical and political scenes, in Chapter Two I examine intellectual activities in the
Ḥijāz during that century. In this chapter I show that Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, the focus of the
30
remaining chapters, was not an exception in the 17th century. Rather, a consideration of
the wider intellectual framework of the 17th-century Ḥijāz reveals a region full of active
scholars who taught and studied the rational sciences, and in which intellectual
institutions such as madrasas, libraries, and dormitories in the form of ribāṭs and zāwiyās
flourished.
In Chapter Three, I focus on the life, education, teachers, students, and works of al-
Kūrānī. By investigating his teachers and students, I show how rich and diverse the Ḥijāz
was in the 17th century. Keeping in mind that al-Kūrānī never left the Ḥijāz after he
settled in Medina, it is significant that most of these teachers and all of these students
studied with him there. The number of scholars who studied with him in the Ḥijāz thus
exceeds the number of those mentioned in Chapter Two, reaching a total of more than
100. These scholars and students came from almost the entire span of the Islamic world,
a fact that supports the arguments of the first two chapters concerning the centrality of
the Ḥijāz during the 17th century for both intellectual activities and the circulation of
knowledge throughout the Islamic world.
In Chapter Four, I examine in detail the philosophical arguments in al-Kūrānī’s works
in order to explore to what extent philosophical and Sufi ideas were discussed in the
Ḥijāz and the nature of these discussions. This chapter demonstrates the depth and
importance of intellectual discussions in the 17th-century Ḥijāz. In my analysis of al-
Kūrānī’s ideas, I refer to the main sources that al-Kūrānī used in order to contextualize
his thought within the general landscape of Islamic intellectual history. However, my
attempt is limited to pointing out essential background questions involved in al-Kūrānī’s
discussions, since an effort to provide a comprehensive discussion of any philosophical
issue would have to include a long history of arguments interconnected with other
31
philosophical debates. To be clear, if a certain idea is ascribed below to al-Taftāzānī or
Ibn ʿArabī, that does not mean that this idea was their original contribution; rather, it
means that al-Taftāzānī’s or Ibn ʿArabī’s writings were, in my opinion, the direct and
immediate sources of these ideas for al-Kūrānī. The complete narrative of these ideas and
their intellectual contexts cannot be addressed in this limited work.
Chapter Five is dedicated to other topics that al-Kūrānī addressed in his works.
Theology and Sufism were his main interests, but as a scholar, muftī, and Sufi leader he
received questions related to different disciplines. As a result, his works include treatises
on ḥadīth, fiqh, and Arabic grammar. This chapter also challenges the assumption of some
scholars that the Ḥijāz in the 17th century was a center of revival in ḥadīth studies.
Finally, in the conclusion I present the general results of my research and open the
horizon toward further studies on the intellectual life in the Ḥijāz, suggesting that we
sorely need a study that lays out in detail how Ibn ʿArabī’s thought reached the Ḥijāz, a
topic that I hope to investigate further in the future.

32
Chapter One: The 17th-Century Ḥijāz in its Local and Global Context
Despite the special status of Mecca and Medina for Muslims, Western studies of this
region are limited mainly to the formative period of Islam or to the Arab Revolt (1916–
1918) initiated by the Sharīf Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī (d. 1931). A general overview of the history of
Islamic civilization may justify the lack of interest in this region since soon after its
beginnings, the centers of political, cultural, social, and economic activities moved to
Damascus, then Baghdad, Cairo, Isfahan, and ultimately to other cities around the
Muslim world. For almost thirteenth centuries, the Ḥijāz played no essential role in the
political life of the Islamic world, primarily important only to pilgrims or visitors to the
tomb of the Prophet.
Another reason for the scholarly inattention to the Ḥijāz is the fact that it is forbidden
for non-Muslims to enter these two cities, considered holy by all Muslims. Moreover,
given the absence of scientific archeological evidence of their history, due to the
destruction of historical sites by the Wahhabis, the historian is reduced principally to
literary texts based on history, travel, and bibliographical (ṭabaqāt) books.1 Arab scholars
were no more interested in the history of the Ḥijāz than Western scholars. The Ottoman
rule of the Arab World for almost 400 years is ignored or even criticized by Arab
nationalists who consider the Ottomans the oppressors of the Arab people. The non-
1
William Ochsenwald says that “outside the Arabian Peninsula, most Western scholars have also generally
ignored the history of Ottoman Arabia, partially because of the difficulty of research access but also
because as compared to such places as Egypt, Arabia before the era of oil production was deemed not
worthy of attention. It was only the end of Ottoman Arabia during World War I and in particular the
adventures of T. E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia, that captured much attention.” Willaim Ochsenwald,
“Ottoman Arabia and the Holy Hijaz, 1516-1918,” Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective: Vol.
10: No. 1, 2015, pp. 23-34, p. 24.
33
nationalist modern state in Saudi Arabia is ruled by a dynasty that was a historical enemy
of the Ottomans and, as mentioned in the introduction, considers the pre-Wahhābī
movement a period of ignorance.
Due to the lack of studies on the Ḥijāz, I have found it useful to present an overview
of its history by focusing on the fundamental phenomena that contributed, in my
opinion, to transforming the Ḥijāz into a desirable center that would attract scholars and
students from all around the Muslim world in the 17th century. The general outline of the
history of the Ḥijāz is arranged chronologically with special focus on some regional
religious, economic, and political factors that led it to be a center for intellectual life in
the 17th century. The first part of this chapter will deal with these regional factors that
contributed to the prosperity of the Ḥijāz in the 17th century. These factors were to a
great extent a reflection of a larger global context that is presented in the second part of
this chapter, in which the main worldwide changes that occurred in 9th/15th and 10th/16th
centuries and that affected, directly or indirectly, the situation in the Ḥijāz during the
11th/17th century are pointed out. These factors distinguished the success of the Ḥijāz in
attracting scholars and students, which in turn transformed the Ḥijāz into a center of
intellectual activity and of knowledge transmission through the annual season of
pilgrimage.
This chapter aims to situate the 17th century Ḥijāz within these local and global
contexts to show that the Ḥijāz was not isolated from its geographical and historical
milieux. Moreover, as we shall see in Chapter Two, nor was it isolated from the
intellectual and philosophical discussions that were taking place in other regions of the
Islamic world. As an introduction to these matters, a general review of some secondary

34
and primary sources about the history of Mecca and Medina relevant to the current study
will be presented.
[1.1] Literature Review
[1.1.1] The Ḥijāz in Western Literature
Earlier Western studies mostly depended on travelers’ accounts and literary sources in
manuscript form, many of which have now been edited and published.2 Mecca was a
forbidden city for non-Muslims, which encouraged many non-Muslim adventurers to try
to reach the city and write about their experiences. Many of them were scholars who
wrote accurate and valuable accounts that, together with local primary sources, became
the basis for other studies. In the following paragraphs are listed some of the main
English-language studies that present valuable information about the history of the
Ḥijāz.3
Michael Wolfe has compiled many of these travelers’ narratives in the 500-page One
Thousand Roads to Mecca: Ten Centuries of Travelers Writing about the Muslim Pilgrimage. This
book contains a list of 23 voyages to Mecca by Muslims and non-Muslim scholars, from
classical travelers such as Naser-e Khosraw, Ibn Jubayr, and Ibn Baṭṭūṭah to twentieth-
century travels.4 Rulers of Mecca by Gerald de Gaury, first published in 1951, may be one
2
Mecca was chosen in 2005 as Capital of Islamic Culture, celebrating this occasion by editing and publishing
several works about the history of the city; see below for the main sources on the history of the Ḥijāz.
3
Probably the earliest traveler to arrive in Mecca was the Italian Ludovico di Varthema, who visited the
city in 1503. After Varthema, an anonymous Westerner came to Mecca with the ḥajj caravan from Cairo in
1575 and recorded his impressions. In 1678 an Englishman, Joseph Pitts, was captured aboard a ship by
Algerian pirates and sold as a slave, professed Islam, and then accompanied his master on pilgrimage to
Mecca in 1685. John Lewis Burckhardt (1814-15), Sir Richard Burton (1851), Snouck Hurgronje (1885), and
many others of those who reached Mecca and Medina wrote about their adventure. For additional accounts
of travelers who reached the Ḥijāz, see Augustus Ralli, Christians at Mecca (London: W. Heinemann, 1909).
4
Various accounts from different periods in chronological order have been selected to give the reader a
sense of the changing nature of the ḥajj over the centuries. All the accounts are taken from material
35
of the most comprehensive works about the history of Mecca from the perspective of its
rulers and their conflicts and relations with powers outside of the Ḥijāz.5 F.E. Peters in
Mecca: A Literary History of the Muslim Holy Land mentions that travel literature is an
important resource for his enterprise.6 This book covers the history of the Ḥijāz from
pre-Islamic period to 1925, and it is a good reference for Western contact with the Ḥijāz
starting from the 16th century.
One of the main sources for the social life in Mecca among the accounts of western
travelers who reached the Muslim holy cities and wrote about them is C. Snouck’s work
Mekka in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century.7 Snouck lived in Mecca for six months in
1884-1885 and wrote from personal experience of Meccan life.8 This work is volume two
published in or translated into the English language. Michael Wolfe, One Thousand Roads to Mecca: Ten
Centuries of Travelers Writing about the Muslim Pilgrimage (New York: Grove Press, 1997).
5
Gerald De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca (London: George G. Harrap & CO. LTD. [1954]). The author mentions in
the introduction that his account of medieval history is based on a manuscript loaned to him in confidence
in Baghdad. He also used well-known historical works by Ibn Jubayr, Ibn Khaldūn, and al-Jabartī, as well as
accounts of other western travelers who visited Mecca and wrote about their journeys. The manuscript
that he used as the main source is published; see: Raḍī al-Dīn ibn Muḥammad Mūsawī and Mahdī Rajāʾī,
Tanḍīd al-ʿuqūd al-saniyyah bi-tamhīd al-dawlah al-Ḥasaniyyah (Qum: Maʿhad al-Dirāsāt li-Taḥqīq Ansāb al-
Ashrāf, 2010). Gerald de Gaury’s Rulers of Mecca has been translated into Arabic and published, see: Gerald
de Gaury, Ḥukkām Makkah, tr. Muḥammad Shihāb (Cairo: Maktabat Madbūlī, 2000).
6
F.E. Peters, Mecca: A Literary History of the Muslim Holy Land (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994),
xxii. In this volume, Peters focuses on the geography and history of the city. The author has an earlier
(1994) study, The Hajj: The Muslim Pilgrimage to Mecca and the Holy Places, in which he focuses on the
experience of the pilgrimage.
7
The book originally appeared in Germany in two volumes; the first is about the history of the city until
the 19th century, and the second is about the 19th centuary. C. Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka in the Latter Part of
the 19th Century (Leiden: Brill, 2007). The two volumes have been translated into Arabic and according to
the translators, Snouck’s description of the history of the city agrees to a large extent with sources that
have so far been edited and printed. C. Snouck Hurgronje, Ṣafaḥāt min tārīkh Makkah al-mukarramah, tr.
Muḥammad Maḥmūd Suryānī and Miʿrāj Nawwāb Mirzā (KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dārat al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, 1999).
8
The book discusses four topics: daily life in Mecca, family life in Mecca, learning in Mecca, and the
Javanese in Mecca.
36
of the original German text. Volume one covers the history of Mecca from the time of
Muḥammad until 1885.
These, then, are some of the main studies about the history of the two most important
cities in the Ḥijāz.9 Travelers’ narratives, manuscripts, and the works of Arab historians
are the primary sources for those scholars who want to investigate the history of the
changing nature of the Ḥijāz.10 Some primary sources related to the current study are
presented below.
[1.1.2] Some of the Main Primary Sources of the History of the Ḥijāz
As mentioned in the preceding, in the last 30 years numerous Arabic texts on the Ḥijāz
have been edited and published in the Arabic-speaking world.11 Note that these examples
do not include the wide range of literature related to virtues, rituals, or archeological
descriptions of the historical sites in these two cities.
[1.1.2.1] Main Sources of the History of Mecca during the Ottoman Period
1- Al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-amīn, by Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-
Fāsī (d. 832/1429). He was the judge of the Mālikiyyah in Mecca and his work is one of the
most comprehensive works on the history of Mecca. He also wrote Shifāʾ al-gharām bi-
akhbār al-balad al-ḥarām.12
9
More references about different aspects of the Ḥijāz, such as politics, history, geography, customs, rulers,
land, inhabitant, ecology, etc., can be found in William Ochsenwald, Hijaz, Oxford Bibliography.
http://oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/view/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-9780195390155-
0085.xml
10
Other aspects from the history of the Ḥijāz can be found in sources related to Mamlūk, Ottoman, and
Wahhābī studies.
11
For more information about the authors and their other works see: Muḥammad al-Ḥabīb al-Haylah, al-
Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn bi-Makkah min al-qarn al-thālith al-hijrī ilā al-qarn al-thālith ʿashar (London: al-Furqan
Islamic Heritage Foundation, 1994).
12
Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-amīn, ed. Muḥammad Ḥāmid
al-Farī (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2ed, 1986); Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Fāsī, Shifāʾ al-gharām
bi-akhbār al-balad al-ḥarām, ed. ʿAlī ʿUmar (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, 2007).
37
2- Itḥāf al-warā bi-akhbār umm al-qurā13 by al-Najm ʿUmar b. Fahd (d. 885/1480-1). His
full name was Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Najm, Taqī al-Dīn b. Fahd al-Hāshimī al-
Makkī, but he was better known as ʿUmar in all bibliographical works. The book is divided
chronologically from the birth of the Prophet Muḥammad until the death of the author.
It presents a clear image of the political, social, cultural, economic aspects of Meccan life
between 830/1427 and 885/1480-1, and it is the source for all the historical works that
mention this area in this period.14 Ibn Ḥajar, who was one of the author’s teachers, used
to correspond with him to ask about the events in Mecca, the Ḥijāz, and Yemen.15 ʿUmar’s
son wrote a supplement, using his father’s draft, entitled al-Durr al-kamīn bi-dhayl al-ʿIqd
al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-amīn.16
3- Bulūgh al-qirā fī dhayl Itḥāf Umm al-Qurā17 by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Najm ʿUmar b. Fahd
(d. 922/1516) covers the period between 885/1481-922/1516. He also wrote another
supplement entitled Nayl al-munā bi-dhayl Bulūgh al-qirā,18 which deals with the period
from 922/1516 to 946/1540.
13
ʿUmar b. Fahd al-Makkī, Itḥāf al-warā bi-akhbār Umm al-Qurā, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt et al., (KSA:
Maṭābiʿ Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā: 1408/1988). This book is published in five volumes; the first two volumes are
edited by Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt, and the rest are edited by several persons.
14
The editor of the last two volumes mentions numerous later historians who used this work, including
Ibn Tughrī Baradā in al-Nujūm al-zāhirah; al-Maqrīzī in al-Sulūk li-maʿrifat dwual al-mulūl, Ibn Ḥajar, al-
Sakhāwī, and Ibn Iyās. See vol. 4, pp. 10-13.
15
ʿUmar b. Fahd al-Makkī, Itḥāf al-warā bi-akhbār Umm al-Qurā, vol.1, the editor’s introduction, pp. 11, 16.
16
ʿUmar b. Fahd al-Makkī, al-Durr al-kamīn bi-dhayl al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-amīn, ed. ʿAbd al-Malik
b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Duhaysh (Beirut: Dar Khiḍr, 2000).
17
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿUmar b. Fahd, Bulūgh al-qirā fī dhayl Itḥāf Umm al-Qurā, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū al-Khuyūr
(KSA, Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, 2001). “Master Thesis”.
18
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿUmar b. Fahd, Nayl al-munā bi-dhayl bulūgh al-qirā, ed. Muḥammad al-Ḥabīb al-Haylah
(London: al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2000).
38
4- al-Iʿlām bi-aʿlām bayt Allāh al-ḥarām19 by Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Al-Nahrawālī (d.
990/1582). He describes ʿUmar b. Fahd, the previous author, as his shaykh and depends
on him totally for the period covered by ʿUmar b. Fahd.
5- Ṣimṭ al-nujūm al-ʿawālī fī anbāʾ al-awāʾil wa-l-tawālī20 by ʿAbd al-Malik al-ʿĀṣimī al-
Makkī (d. 1111/1699-1700). This is a general history in four volumes. It starts with Adam,
with special concern about the beginning of Islam, leaving the last volume to cover
Ayyubied, Mamlūk, and Ottoman history. The author dedicated a special part at the end
of the book to the history and genealogy of Hashemites until his time.
6- Manāʾiḥ al-karam fī akhbār Makkah wa-l-bayit wa-wilāyat al-ḥaram21 by ʿAlī b. Tāj al-
Dīn al-Khaṭīb al-Sinjārī (d. 1125/1713). This book is a valuable source on political life in
Mecca in the 16th and 17th centuries, around the period in which the author lived. The
book deals with Meccan history up to 1125/1713, the year of the death of the author.
7- Al-Azhār al-ṭayyibah fī dhikr al-aʿyān min kull ʿaṣr22 by ʿAbd al-Sattār b. ʿAbd al-
Wahhāb al-Dahlawī al-Makkī (d. 1355/1936). The importance of this book is that the
author uses many works that are considered missing or are still in manuscript form, such
as Tanzīl al-raḥamāt ʿalā man māt by Aḥmad al-Qaṭṭān (d. 1109/1697-8) and Anbāʾ al-
bariyyah bi-l-akhbār al-Ṭabariyyah by ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad al-Ṭabarī (d. 1033/1624),
both still in manuscript form, and Zahr al-khamāʾil fī dhikr man bi-l-ḥaramayn min ahl al-
faḍāʾil by ʿUmar b. ʿAṭāʾ-Allāh Khūj (d. 1175/1761-2), which is considered missing.
19
Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Nahrawālī, al-Iʿlām bi-aʿlām bayt Allāh al-ḥarām, ed. Hishām ʿAṭā (KSA, Mecca: al-
Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah, 1996).
20
ʿAbd al-Malik al-ʿĀṣimī al-Makkī, Ṣimṭ al-nujūm al-ʿawālī fī anbāʾ al-awāʾil wa-l-tawālī, ed. ʿĀdil ʿAbd al-
Mawjūd & ʿAlī Muʿawwaḍ (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1998).
21
ʿAlī b. Tāj al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb al-Sinjārī, Manāʾiḥ al-karam fī akhbār Makkah wa-l-bayit wa-wilāyat al-ḥaram, ed.
Jamīl ʿAbd Allāh al-Miṣrī (KSA, Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, 1998).
22
Part of the book was presented as a PhD Dissertation at Umm al-Qurā University in Mecca, 1429/2008.
The editor is Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn b. Khalīl b. Ibrāhīm al-Ṣawwāf. The edited part covers the years between 1000
and 1200 AH, which covers the period of this study.
39
8- Ifādat al-anām bi-dhikr akhbār balad Allāh al-ḥarām23 by ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghāzī al-Makkī
(d. Shaʿbān 1365/July 1946).
9- Tārīkh Makkah, by Aḥmad al-Sibāʿī, a modern study that gives a general idea about
political, historical, economic, social, and religious aspects of life in Mecca. The author
used numerous manuscripts of primary sources, most of which have been published.
[1.1.2.2] Main Sources of the History of Medina during the Ottoman Period
1- Al-Tuḥfah al-laṭīfah fī tārīkh al-Madīnah al-sharīfah24 by Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī (d.
902/1497). Al-Sakhāwī mentions scholars who used to live in or visit Medina. Al-Sakhāwī
was an important scholar in transmitted knowledge; he mentions that he studied with
1200 teachers. He was also a student of the prominent scholar Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d.
852/1449).
2- Wafāʾ al-wafā fī akhbār dār al-Muṣṭafā25 by Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Samhūdī (d. 911/1505)
is one of the main sources for the history of Medina; the author finished it in 888/1483.
Al-Samhūdī abridged this book in 891/1486 in a book entitled Khulāṣat al-wafa bi-akhbār
dār al-Muṣṭafā.
3- Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn wa-l-aṣḥāb fī maʿrifat mā li-l-madaniyyīn min ansāb26 by ʿAbd al-
Raḥmān al-Anṣārī (d. 1197/1783). A fascinating description of the famous families of
Medina arranged in alphabetic order, it contains valuable information about intellectual
23
ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghāzī al-Makkī, Ifādat al-anām bi-dhikr akhbār balad Allāh al-ḥarām, ed. ʿAbd al-Malik b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. Duhaysh (KSA, Mecca: Maktabat al-Asadī li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2009).
24
Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Sakhāwī, al-Tuḥfah al-laṭīfah fī tārīkh al-Madīnah al-sharīfah, ed. Asʿad
Ṭarabzūnī al-Ḥusaynī, (n.p: 1979).
25
Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī Al-Samhūdī, Wafāʾ al-wafā fī akhbār dār al-Muṣṭafā, ed. Muḥammad Muḥiyy al-Dīn ʿAbd al-
Ḥamīd (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d).
26
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Anṣārī, Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn wa-l-aṣḥāb fī maʿrifat mā li-l-madaniyyīn min ansāb, ed.
Muḥammad al-ʿArūsī al-Maṭawī (Tunisia: al-Maktabah al-ʿAtīqah, 1970).
40
life in Medina through the genealogy of the families and the activities of their members
for several generations.
4- Tarājim aʿyān al-Madīnah fī al-qarn al-thānī ʿashar al-ḥijrī27 by an unknown author.
5- Al-Tārīkh al-shāmil lil-Madīnah al-munawwarah28 by ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ Badr in three
volumes.
6- Fuṣūl min tārīkh Makkah29 by ʿAlī Ḥāfiẓ.
7- Al-Madīnah bayn al-māḍī wa-l-ḥāḍir30 by Ibrāhīm al-ʿAyyāshī.
8- Mawsūʿat tārīkh al-madīnah al-munawwarah qadīman wa-ḥadīthan31 by ʿAbd Allāh
Faraj al-Khazrajī.
It is clear from these lists that what was written about Mecca was more detailed and
comprehensive, and sequentially without interruption. While we do not find a
comprehensive history of Medina after the 10th/16th century, ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ Badr, the
author of al-Tārīkh al-shāmil lil-Madīnah al-munawwarah, mentions that after Medina
became practically dependent on the Sharīfs of Mecca, the main sources of information
on 11th/17th century Medina were travellers and bio-bibliographical (tarājim) works. The
political importance of Mecca and the continued conflicts among its Sharīfs attracted
more historians than the quiet situation in Medina.32
In addition to the reasons mentioned above, travel narratives about the ḥajj amount
to hundreds if not more, from all parts of Islamic world and in almost every decade. From
27
Anonymous, Tarājim aʿyān al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah fī al-qarn 12 al-Hijrī, ed. Muḥammad Tūnjī (Beirut:
Dār wa-Maktabat al-Hilāl, 2008).
28
ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ Badr, al-Tārīkh al-shāmil li-l-Madīnah al-munawwarah ([KSA: Medina], 1993).
29
ʿAlī Ḥāfiẓ, Fuṣūl min tārīkh Makkah (KSA, Jeddah: Sharikat al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah li-l-Ṭibāʿah, 1985).
30
Ibrāhīm al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Madīnah bayn al-māḍī wa-l-ḥāḍir (KSA, al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, al-Maktabah
al-ʿImiyyah, 1972).
31
ʿAbd Allāh Faraj al-Khazrajī, Mawsūʿat tārīkh al-madīnah al-munawwarah qadīman wa-ḥadīthan (KSA, al-
Madīnah al-Munawwarah: n.d).
32
Badr, al-Tārīkh al-shāmil li-l-Madīnah al-munawwarah, vol. 2, p. 345.
41
the 6th/12th century to the 14th/20th, one book presents one hundred and one journey
(riḥlah) to Mecca from the Maghrib alone.33 There is no doubt that the selection of
travellers’ accounts depend on the authors’ interests, and as a result they reflect
different aspects of history of the Ḥijāz.34
Among the most valuable travel accounts to the present work is al-ʿAyyāshī’s Riḥlah.
Al-ʿAyyāshī was an established scholar when he did his third ḥajj and stayed as a mujāwir
for one year in 1072-1073/1661-1662. In this year, he tried to meet scholars of the Ḥijāz
along with the visiting scholars who came to perform the ḥajj. His intellectual
inclination, alongside his Sufi affiliation, was a vital factor in the recording of all his
intellectual activities in the Ḥijāz and of the encounters with the Sufi shaykhs he met.35
Another important account is that of the Ottoman traveller Evliyā Çelebī, who was
interested in historical and archeological aspects of the two holy cities alongside his
interest in Ottoman administration. He did not mention scholars but he provided us with
valuable information about schools, libraries, and institutions in his descriptions of the
two cities.
The following chapters show numerous historical sources related to the Ḥijāz in the
17th century, but one source deserves to be mentioned here as the most comprehensive
work on the history of 11th/17th century, especially for the Ḥijāz and Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī
since the author was one of his students: the six-volume Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl wa-natāʾij al-
33
ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Tāzī, Riḥlat al-riḥalāt: Makkah fī māʾat riḥlah maghribiyyah wa-riḥlah (London: al-Furqan
Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2005).
34
The other advantage of travel account, is the description of the roads to the Ḥijāz, which provides us
with valuable information about the political, economic, and social situation in different parts of the
Islamic world.
35
Al-ʿAyyāshī also mentions 7 ribāṭs and 21 zāwiyas in his Riḥlah. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-ʿAyyāshī, al-
Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah 1661-1663, ed. Saʿīd al-Fāḍilī and Sulaymān al-Qurashī (UAE: Abū Dhabī, Dār al-Suwaydī
li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2006), vol. 2, p. 637.
42
safar fī akhbār al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar by Muṣṭafā b. Fatḥ Allāh al-Ḥamawī (d. 1123/1711).36
Unfortunately, the currently available edition of this work does not have detailed
indices, hence it requires careful reading in order to collect information about the
intellectual activities in the Ḥijāz in general and about everything related to Ibrāhīm al-
Kūrānī in particular.
[1.2] The 17th Century Ḥijāz in its Local Context
This section will offer a brief overview of the history of the Ḥijāz starting from the
appointing, by the Abbasids, of the first local noble family, the Hashemite Sharīfs, as
rulers the Ḥijāz. This dynasty would be the actual and direct rulers of the Ḥijāz with an
almost unbroken succession from the 4th/10th century until 1925.
The Abbasids claimed legitimacy through their familial connection to Muḥammad, so
most Shiʿites supported the Abbasid revolution of 750/1349. However, once in power, the
Abbasids excluded them from authority, so many Shiʿites returned to the Ḥijāz, the
center of their tribe where they were respected as descendants of the Prophet. The
Hashemites, among them the descendents of the Prophet Muḥammad, remained in the
Ḥijāz after losing their hope to share power with the Abbasids. To secure the season of
ḥajj, after the Qarāmiṭa’s attack on Mecca, the Abbasids found it important to formally
put in place a powerful and respected family. Thus, Kāfūr, an Abbasid vassal and ruler of
Egypt, chose one of the Sharīfs of the Ḥijāz, Jaʿfar al-Mūsawī of the Ḥasanid family, and
appointed him emir of Mecca around the year 353/964. The dynasty of Ḥasanid Sharīfs
thus ruled the Ḥijāz with almost unbroken succession until 1925.37
36
Muṣṭafā b. Fatḥ Allāh al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl wa-natāʾij al-safar fī akhbār al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, ed. ʿAbd
Allāh Muḥammad al-Kandarī (Damascus: Dār al-Nawādir, 2011).
37
G. Rentz, “Hāshimids,” EI2. Rentz starts from al-Ḥasan bin ʿAlī and follows his dependents until they
become the main four branches: the Mūsawyds, the Hawāshim, the Qatādids, and the Sulaymānids. They
43
The Ḥijāz was officially under the patronage of a stronger power, but the Hashemite
Sharīfs were the actual and direct rulers of the Ḥijāz, for most of this period, they were a
“semi independent emirate”38 or “a state within a state.”39 The rulers of the Ḥijāz were
forced to accept this kind of domination because of the scarcity of economic sources in
the Ḥijāz and the need for stronger powers to secure the roads of trade and pilgrimage,
the main sources for the life of the Ḥijāz, and to support the Ḥijāz with almost every kind
of economic resources. When the Abbasid Caliphate disintegrated, the governors of
Syria, Egypt, and Yemen attempted to take control over the Ḥijāz to legitimize their
power through symbolic authority over the most important places for Muslims.
The Sharīfs were Shīʿī; most probably the Ḥasanid Sharīfs of Mecca were Zaydī, while
the Ḥusaynid Sharīfs of Medina were Imamis, or Twelver Shiʿites.40 In spite of the fact
that there is no unequivocal identification of Sharīfs as one or the other, historical
all descended from Mūsā I al-Jawn, a grandson of al-Ḥasan and a younger brother of Muḥammad al-Nafs
al-Zakiyyah.
38
Werner Ends describes the emirs of Medina as “semi-independent Emirate.” Werner Ende, “The
Nakhāwila, a Shiite community in Medina past and present,” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 37, Issue
3, Shiites and Sufis in Saudi Arabia (Nov., 1997), pp. 263-348, p. 272.
39
Joshua Teitelbaum, The Rise and Fall of the Hashimite Kingdom of Arabia (New York: New York University
Press, 2001), p. 11. The same description is in The Ḥijāz under Ottoman Rule 1869-1914: Ottoman Vali, the Sharif
of Mecca, and the Growth of British Influence, where the author, Saleh Muhammad al-Amr, also says that “the
Sharīfs were not merely Arab princes living in the shadow of the Turkish valis; on the contrary the Turkish
valis were fore most of the time living in the shadow of the Sharīfs,” PhD Thesis, University of Leeds, 1974,
p. 11-12.
40
Richard T. Mortel, “The Ḥusaynid Amirate of Madīna during the Mamlūk Period,” Studia Islamica, No. 80
(1994), pp. 97-123. Richard T. Mortel in “Zaydī Shiʿism and the Ḥasanid Sharīfs of Mecca” attempts to
identify the creed of Meccan Sharīfs through their allegiance to Fatimide Shīʿī Caliphs in Cairo instead of
the Sunni Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad. While Mortel argues that Ḥasanid Sharīfs of Mecca were Zaydī, he
confirms in another study that “the Sharīfs of Madina themselves were originally Imamis, or Twelver
Shiʿites.” Richard T. Mortel, “The Ḥusaynid Amirate of Madīna during the Mamlūk period,” Studia Islamica,
No. 80 (1994), pp. 97-123. Werner Ende in “The Nakhāwila” follows Mortel and argues that the Ḥusaynid
emirs of Medina were Twelver Shiite. Ende, “The Nakhāwila, a Shite community in Medina past and
present,” p. 272.
44
evidence supports that possibility. The call for prayer (adhān) was the Shiʿī formulation
of “Hasten to the best of works” (ḥayy ʿalā khayr al-ʿamal).41 Many historians have
mentioned that the Imām of the Friday prayer in the Prophet’s mosque in the Medina
was Shīʿī.42 Al-ʿAyyāshī, in his account of his travel to the Ḥijāz, mentioned that Zayd b.
Muḥsin b. Abū Numayy (1014-1077/1605-1666), who was the emir of Mecca from
1041/1631 until his death, was a Zaydī in ʿaqīdah as was all his family, but he became a
Sunni and followed the religious school (madhhab) of Abū Ḥanīfah.43 Due to this sectarian
aspect, there was a sort of migration of Shiʿites between Egypt and Medina during the
Fatimid period. With the deposition of the last Fatimid caliph in 567/1171 more Shiʿites
moved to the Ḥijāz.
This sectarian side seems significant in later developments of intellectual life in the
Ḥijāz. The Mamlūk Sultanate of Egypt, which lasted from the overthrowing of the
Ayyūbid dynasty in 1250 until the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517, initiated a policy
of sending Sunni scholars to Medina to counter the influence of the local Shiʿite rulers.44
The relationship between Mecca and Cairo was strengthened during the Malmūk period.
The Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars (d. 676/1277) was the first to employ the title “servant of the
two noble sanctuaries” (khādim al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn). Before using this honorific title,
the names and titles of the Mamlūk sultans were beginning to be mentioned in the
sermons delivered during the Friday prayer in the Great Mosque in Mecca and during
41
Ayyūbids and Mamlūks attempted to omit this formulation but it seems that it returned to being
performed after each attempt until the end of the Mamlūk period. Richard T. Mortel, “The Ḥusaynid
Amirate of Madīna during the Mamlūk period,” p. 117-118.
42
Ende in “The Nakhāwila,” mentions Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406) and Qalqashandī (d. 1418),” p. 272.
43
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol.1, p. 326.
44
Ende, “The Nakhāwila,” p. 276.
45
the pilgrimage. The name of al-Ẓāhir Baybars was mentioned in this way as early as
662/1264.45
After the death of Baybars (676/1277), and the later destabilization of the internal
situation in Egypt, the Rasūlid Sultan of Yemen attempted to expand his sphere of
influence to include the Ḥijāz.46 Abū Numayy, the emir of Mecca, shifted his allegiance
from the Mamlūks to the Rasūlids and back again several times, for economic reasons
and possibly because of his concerns about the ever-increasing influence of the Mamlūks
in Meccan affairs.47 Despite the official domination, the Mamlūk presence in Mecca, until
the early 9th/15th century, did not amount to a military occupation.48 The interest of the
Mamlūk, in the Ḥijāz and their generous support made the region flourish and attracted
many scholars and students.49 We shall return to this subject in the next chapter.
The Mamlūk rule came to its end with the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 923/1517.
The emir of Mecca, Barakāt II Ibn Muḥammad b. Barakāt (r. 1495-1524), proclaimed his
allegiance to Sultan Selim. Mecca thereby became part of the Ottoman Empire and it was
known as the Vilayet (Ottoman administrative district) of the Ḥijāz, which extended
from the border of the Vilayet of Syria to the northern border with the Vilayet of
45
Richard T., Mortel, “Prices in Mecca during the Mamluk period,” Journal of the Economic and Social History
of the Orient, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Oct., 1989), pp. 279-334, 281.
46
The Rasūlids took power over Yemen after the end of Ayyūbid control between 569/1173 and 626/1229.
In G. R. Smith’s article “The Ayyūbids and Rasūlids, the transfer of power in 7 th/13th Century Yemen,” he
mentions the conflict between Rasūlides and Ayyūbids around 629/1232 to take control over the Ḥijāz. G.
R. Smith, “The Ayyūbids and Rasūlids, the transfer of power in 7 th/13th Century Yemen,” Islamic Culture,
Vol. XLIII, No. 3, July 1969, (175-188). For more details about Ayyūbid and Rasūlid history, see the first
chapter of Muhammad Ali Aziz, Religion and Mysticism in Early Islam: Theology and Sufism in Yemen: The Legacy
of Aḥmad Ibn ʿAlwān (London: I. B Tauris, 2011).
47
Mortel, “Prices in Mecca during the Mamluk Period,” p. 284.
48
Ibid., p. 285.
49
See Aḥmad Hāshim Badrshīnī, Awqāf al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn fī al-ʿaṣr al-mamlūkī (648-923/1250-1517), (KSA,
Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Kulliyyat al-Sharīʿah wa-l-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyah, PhD Thesis, 2001).
46
Yemen.50 The names of Sultan Selim and his successors were henceforth mentioned in
public prayers in Mecca and Medina. The Sharīfs continued to rule the urban centres in
the Ḥijāz and the appointment of a new emir of Mecca was left to the Sharīfian family.51
When Barakāt II was a child, his father sent him for several years to study in Egypt,
and more importantly to establish connections in the center of power that dominated
the Ḥijāz. This strategy worked. The Mamlūk Sultan of Egypt, Muḥammad b. Kaitbey,
approved Barakāt II as the emir of Mecca after the death of his father.52 As the situation
had always been in the Ḥijāz, the conflicts among Sharīfs never stopped, but Barakāt II
manage to control the Ḥijāz for long time. He sent his son Abū Numayy to Egypt at the
age of eight for education and to prepare him to be his successor. When Sultan Selim
took over Egypt, Barakāt II sent Abū Numayy, now aged thirteen, to the court of Sultan
Selim, who was pleased to receive the homage of the Sharīf of Mecca. Sultan Selim
acknowledged the Sharīf’s position and confirmed his independence in the district of
Mecca.53
Less than a month after the Ottomans ended Mamlūk rule in Egypt, the Portuguese
fleet sailed to the Red Sea. On March 1517, the fleet reached Bāb al-Mandab, and on April
12th they were eight miles from Jeddah.54 The Portuguese threat made the Ottomans, who
were newly-established in Istanbul and Cairo, the best hope for the Sharīfs.55
50
Peters, Mecca: A Literary History, p. 200; De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca, p. 113.
51
Abir M., “The ‘Arab Rebellion’ of Amir Ghālib of Mecca (1788-1813),” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2
(May 1971), pp. 185-200.
52
De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca, p. 114.
53
Ibid., p. 124.
54
See: Peters, Mecca: A Literary History, p. 210 and after; De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca, p. 121.
55
The Turks were driven out of Yemen in 1636 by the independent Zaydī Imamate. This event was a turning
point in the history of the area. Yemenite rulers, in order to take the advantage of the India trade, allowed
British and French ships to enter Yemenite ports and soon they were installed at Mokha. Like most of the
other European trading posts, they attempted to negotiate their way into northerly, Ottoman-controlled
47
In 1525, Sharīf Barakāt II died in Mecca.56 His son Muḥammad Abū Numayy II now
became the ruler of Mecca, and with the strong support of the Ottomans and other
parties throughout Islamic world, the situation in Mecca changed rapidly. De Gaury
describes the situation in the time of Abū Numayy as follows:
Owing to the great wealth and success of Ottoman arms, Mecca had been strikingly
embellished and had otherwise prospered under Abū Numayy […] The history of this
time is largely a tale of new works in Mecca, the building of almshouses, and of pilgrim
khans, of schools and courts built or repaired, of great works inside the temple itself
and on water channels between the hills and Mecca. The city was probably never so
happy as it was under the Sharīf Abū Numayy II, who ruled until he was eighty years of
age.57
Abū Numayy died in 1584. After a period of conflict among Abū Numayy’s sons, Sharīf
Zayd b. Muḥsin became the Sharīf of Mecca.58
The Ottomans tried to distance themselves from the conflicts among Sharīfs of the
Ḥijāz. However, the Ḥijāz was not far from political conflicts outside of its borders. The
confrontation between Sunni Ottomans and Shīʿī Safavids made the Ottomans increase
Red Sea ports. They did not approach the Sultan in Constantinople, however, but various Mamlūk Beys in
Cairo. British commercial companies were increasingly doing business in Indian goods with the Sharīf
through this port of Jeddah. Due to conflicts and competition between the Sharīfs in the Ḥijāz and the
Mamlūks in Egypt, Muḥammad Bey issued a royal decree in February 1773 permitting English ships to sail
to and land at Suez and prescribing an 8 percent custom duty on their goods, in contrast to the 14 percent
being levied at Jeddah. Murād Bey, in 1785, granted to the French what had thirteen years earlier been
given to the British. On 1 July 1798, a French expeditionary force under the command of the twenty-six-
year-old Napoleon Bonaparte appeared off the coast of Alexandria. By the end of July 1798, the French had
crushed the Mamlūk army of the Ottomans at the pyramids and then occupied Cairo. More details about
European trades in the Red Sea and the conflict between the Sharīfs and the Mumlūks can be found in
Peters, Mecca: A Literary History, p. 205-218, and p. 228 and after.
56
For more information about him see: Peters, Mecca: A literary history, p. 200; De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca, p.
114.
57
De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca, p. 131-2.
58
About these conflicts see: Ibid., p. 132 and after.
48
the Mamlūk policy of “Sunnification” through sending scholars from Cairo, Damascus
and Istanbul to the Ḥijāz as muftīs or qāḍīs.59
The first century of Ottoman rule over the Ḥijāz was quite successful and the region
witnessed great stability and improvement. From the 17th century onward, Ottoman
authority in Arabia started to decline after Yemen became fully independent in the
second quarter of the century. By the 18th century, the power of the Ottoman Empire was
rapidly declining. Throughout that century there were a large number of instances in
which the Turkish representatives in the Ḥijāz were either killed, driven out of the
country, or forced to hand over their share of Jeddah’s revenue.60
At the beginning of 19th century, Saʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin Saʿūd I (d. r. 1803-1814),
under the influence and the inspiration of the principles of Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al
Wahhāb, succeeded in occupying the Ḥijāz, Mecca in 1803 and then Medina in 1805.61 Ibn
Saʿūd forbade the mention of the Sultan’s name in the Friday prayer. 62 However, the
59
Ende, “The Nakhāwila,” p. 277-278. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 1567) migrated to Mecca and wrote a
devastating polemic against the Shīʿītes; Ende considers this work in the context of Ottoman-Safavid
conflicts. Twelver clerics in Mecca wrote to the ʿulamāʾ of Isfahan: “You revile their imams (the first three
caliphs) in Isfahan, and we in al-Ḥaramayn are chastised for this cursing and reviling.” Ende, “The
Nakhāwila,” p. 278.
60
Two distinct processes that had begun in the 18 th century greatly influenced the position of the Ḥijāz and
the Sharīfate by the end of the century. The first, and the more important, was the emergence and growth
of Wahhabism in Arabia. The second was the growing interest of European powers in the Red Sea; the Suez
Canal was opened in 1869.
61
Al-Amr, Ḥijāz under Ottoman Rule 1869-1914: Ottoman Vali, the Sharif of Mecca, and the Growth of British Influence,
p. 49. In March 1803, emir Ghālib was forced to evacuate Mecca and the town fell to Ibn Saʿūd, who then
followed Ghālib to Jeddah. Soon afterwards, when Ibn Saʿūd returned to Darʿiyyah, Ghālib reconquered
Mecca, annihilating the small Wahhābī garrison. The enraged Wahhābīs returned to the town and after a
long siege a modus vivendi was reached in 1806 leaving Ghālib in control of the Ḥijāz and Jeddah on
condition that Wahhābī principles would be upheld in those towns.
62
For more information about the contact between the Wahhābī movement and the Ḥijāz see Abir, “The
‘Arab rebellion’ of Amir Ghālib of Mecca (1788-1813),” pp. 185-200; George Rentz and William Facey, The
Birth of the Islamic Reform Movement in Saudi Arabia: Muhammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1703/4-1792) and the
Beginnings of Unitarian Empire in Arabia (London: Arabian Pub, 2004), pp. 139-146.
49
Ottomans managed to drive the Wahhābīs out of the Ḥijāz through the intervention of
the governor of Egypt, Muḥammad ʿAlī Pasha. Egyptian troops had captured Medina, and
one year later they occupied Mecca.63 The Egyptians remained in the Ḥijāz until 1840,
and during Muḥammad ʿAlī’s control over the Ḥijāz the Sharifate became merely an
honorary position. With the Egyptians’ evacuation of the Ḥijāz, the Ottomans attempted
to impose a new policy to have more direct control. The new policy, which made the
Sharīfs’ authority merely nominal,64 motivated the Sharīfs to rise against the Ottomans
at the beginning of 20th century.65
This quick survey of the political history of the Ḥijāz attempts to give an idea about
the developments of the political situation in the Ḥijāz in the 17th century. These
developments cast their shadow on the intellectual situation on these two cities. As
shown in the preceding paragraphs, the history of the Ḥijāz seems mainly to be a history
of Mecca more than of Medina. By the time the Ḥijāz was under the Ottoman control,
Medina had already lost its independence and had become subject to the central
authority of the Ḥijāz in Mecca. Abū Numayy declared his loyalty to the Ottomans in the
name of both cities. Some historical evidence proves that the Ḥusaynī Sharīfs of Medina
lost their actual power and retained only nominal authority. They used to be mentioned
third in the great mosque prayer, after the Ottoman Sultan and the ruler of Mecca.66 On
some occasions, the ruler of Mecca would send some of his relatives to work as his
representatives in Medina and they would have stronger power than the Sharīf of
63
Al-Amr, Ḥijāz under Ottoman Rule 1869-1914, p. 51.
64
They ordered the Ottoman governor to transfer his headquarters from Jeddah to Mecca, they choose an
old and weak Sharīf, and they used intrigues to play one tribe against another and chief against rival. Al-
Amr, Ḥijāz under Ottoman Rule 1869-1914, p. 54.
65
Ibid., pp. 52-55.
66
Badr, al-Tārīkh al-shāmil li-l-Madīnah al-munawwarah, vol. 2, pp. 333, 341.
50
Medina himself. In records of major historical events that occurred in Medina during this
period, the name of the Sharīf of Medina is not mentioned at all, for example the building
of the wall surrounding the city and of the citadel of Medina, both of which happened
under the supervision of Egypt without any mention of the Sharīfs of Medina.67 And when
the Ottomans rebuilt the wall surrounding Medina to protect it from Bedouins, they also
established a citadel and sent an Ottoman officer to be the emir of the citadel.68 He also
had more power than the Sharīf of Medina. Therefore, it has been difficult for historians
to uncover the names of the Sharīfs of Medina since 9th/14th century.69
The loss of its political power actually had positive effects on intellectual activities in
Medina. This political marginalization of the city protected it from the many bloody
conflicts happening in Mecca between competitors over authority, creating a more
stable environment for visitors, students, and scholars. While Mecca was the primary
destination of merchants, Medina became the main destination of mujāwirūn, who
contributed significantly to transforming the city into a center for intellectual studies.
While political reasons participated in making Medina more attractive for some
scholars and students, other scholars mentioned other advantages for Medina over
Mecca that helped to focus intellectual activities in Medina. Several historians from
different periods observed differences between the behavior of the people of Mecca and
the people of Medina. Ibn Farḥūn (d. 799/1396), qāḍī of Medina in 793/1390, said that the
people of Medina respected visitors and mujāwirūn and helped them; they developed
good opinions of them and used to ask them for prayers and blessings. In return, those
67
Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 333, 341.
68
Building the wall and the citadel started in 938/1531 and took seven and a half years. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 335,
342.
69
Ibid., vol. 2, p. 334.
51
visitors usually had pure intentions and demonstrated good behaviour. Another scholar
from Medina, Muḥammad Kabrīt (d. 1070/1659), said that Medina often stood by its
visitors even against its local inhabitants. He describes this behaviour as altruism. This
noble behaviour is the reason for which, in his opinion, the people who came to Medina
preferred to settle there and treat it as their own hometown.70
This opinion of local scholars about the welcoming environment in Medina was a
characteristic that was confirmed by travelers who compared the situations in both
cities. When al-ʿAyyāshī asked his Shaykh, al-Thaʿālibī, why he chose to live in Mecca
instead in Medina, he replied that the people of Medina had become highly
cosmopolitan, dominated by foreign cultural practices, and their tendency leaned
toward luxury and excess. They appeared foreign in their dress as well as in the majority
of their circumstances, as opposed to the people of Mecca, who remained attached to
their Bedouin and Arab roots. Their culture remained dominated by that of the Bedouins
due to their constant interaction with Bedouins and their life in the desert, even on the
part of their Sharīfs, who used to live most of their lives in the desert even if they had
houses in Mecca. And, in general, the people of Mecca had habits that were quite close to
those of the Bedouins, unlike the people of Medina. The domination of Arab-Bedouin
culture is another reason one finds fewer foreigners in Mecca than Medina. Another
reason given by al-ʿAyyāshī is that Mecca, being the residence of the local rulers and
their families and relatives, was dominated by their authority, while the presence of
Ottoman rulers in Medina is more direct, so most foreigners (ʿajam) preferred Medina.71
70
Ibid., vol. 2, p. 346.
71
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 457.
52
The same observation is repeated by Evliyā Çelebī during his trip to the Ḥijāz, almost
ten years after al-ʿAyyāshī’s, where he mentions that the people of Mecca do not like
mujāwirūn from Ottoman lands (rūm) and that the people of rūm find tranquility and
purity in Medina.72 According to Çelebī, the people of Mecca are not friendly with
foreigners because, in his opinion, most of them have a “black temper” due to the harsh
weather that makes it difficult to be cordial with strangers.73 The people of Medina,
according to Evliyā Çelebī’s description are quite different:
This Medina is a very unprofitable place and a haunt of dervishes. There are no
arguments, disagreements or differences of opinion. The inhabitants are all good
tempered, honest people. If there is a legal claim required to be registered by the qadi
it is resolved quickly and easily, then everyone says a Fātiḥa and the parties go their
separate ways.74
The preference of Medina by foreigners may explain the fact that the estimated
population of Medina was higher than that of Mecca. Faroqhi in Pilgrims & Sultans
estimates the population of Mecca in the time of Sultan Salem to amount to 15,000
regular inhabitants at the very least, without the merchants, who were numerous in
Mecca, or their households. In Medina, the Ottoman authority assumed that in 1579-80
8000 people lived in the city in pious retreat (mujāwir). From this number, Faroqhi
estimates the number of the Medinan inhabitants to be around 40,000 people, not
counting merchants and solders.75
With the great support and donations that reached the Ḥijāz, well-being increased
and Medina became more diverse. The Ḥijāz, and mainly Medina, became very
72
Awliyā Jalabī, al-Riḥlah al-ḥijāziyyah, translated from Turkish to Arabic by al-Ṣafṣāfī Aḥmad al-Mursī
(Cairo: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyyah, 1999), p. 276.
73
Ibid., p. 275.
74
Evliya Çelebi, Nurettin Gemici, and Robert Dankoff, Evliya Çelebi in Medina: The Relevant Sections of the
Seyahatname (Leiden: Brill, 2012), p. 37.
75
Faroqhi, Suraiya, Pilgrims & sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans (London: I. B. Tauris, 2014), p. 85.
53
cosmopolitan, with various communities from different parts of the Islamic world. More
schools, ribāṭs (inns for travelers, hospices), which used to work as student residences,
and soup kitchens, features of Ottoman institutions, were established.76 However, Mecca
and the season of ḥajj remained the main site and the main occasion for scholarly
exchanges and knowledge circulation.
[1.3] The 17th Century Ḥijāz in its Global Context
By the end of the 16th century, most of the Islamic world was dominated by three strong
empires: Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal. The Indian Ocean, after ceasing to be controlled
by the Egyptian and Ottoman-Gujarati forces, was dominated by Western powers. These
historical changes in widely separated areas of the Islamic world may look far and
scattered, but they contributed, directly or indirectly, to the formation of the Ḥijāz as a
center of intellectual activity in the 17th century. In the following, some major changes
in the history of the world outside of the Ḥijāz are given, which I argue directly affected
its situation. I shall start with the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope and how the spread
of European navies in the Indian Ocean strengthened the connection of India and
Southeast Asia with Arabia, which in turn increased the number of pilgrims, merchants,
and students who travelled to study in the Arab world. Then I shall mention the effects
of the conversion of Iran to Shiʿism, which forced Sunni scholars to seek refuge outside
of Iran in other parts of the Islamic world, carrying with them their knowledge and
establishing new centers of intellectual activity, the Ḥijāz being the principal of these in
my reading. I shall next discuss the generous support of the Mughals to the Ḥijāz, which
helped to establish many educational institutions and the setting up of endowments to
support these institutions, their teachers, and their students. Finally, I will consider the
76
Ibid., p. 106.
54
Ottoman expansion in the Ḥijāz, as well as into the Levant, Egypt, and most of North
Africa, which facilitated travel across these areas and was supplemented by the
Ottomans’ efforts to secure the roads for pilgrimage and by their generous economic
support of the Ḥijāz.
[1.3.1] European Navies in the Indian Ocean
Europeans rounding Southern Africa and travelling across the Atlantic brought
revolutionary change in world history. But the consequences were slow to appear in the
Arab world in general and the Ḥijāz in particular. The discovery of the Cape of Good Hope
strengthened the connection of the Ḥijāz with the Indian Subcontinent and the
Southeast Asian Islamic world, which in turn encouraged more pilgrims, merchants,
students, and scholars to head toward Arabia. Moreover, this discovery, along with the
rise of the Safavid Empire, which closed the land route to India, pushed the Ottomans to
turn towards Egypt and Arabia to have access to Indian trade through the extended
coastal regions of Arabia from the east, south, and west.
The Indian Ocean has always been a place of movement, circulation, contacts, and
trade over great distance. The great discoveries of the 15th and 16th centuries of the
Europeans of new routes to the East were mainly aimed to link European countries with
other countries known to be of economic importance, mainly in the Indian Subcontinent
and Southeast Asia. For the Portuguese, who were the first to reach India, “direct
maritime trade with India would eliminate Arab, Levantine, and Venetian middlemen
and the profits of the spice trade would accrue to long voyage merchants operating out
of Lisbon and other port cities of Portugal.”77 Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good
77
Ronald E.Seavoy, Origin and Growth of the Global Economy from the Fifteenth Century Onward (Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2003), p. 10.
55
Hope in 1487 and returned in 1488. Later, Vasco de Gama arrived at Calicut in 1498.
Portuguese merchant ships had to have naval protection, so “a secure base meant a
fortified enclave around capacious harbor where there was always a garrison of
European soldiers and a flotilla of armed ships.”78 Before the arrival of Portuguese, there
is very little evidence of a landed state attempting to extend their power to control over
the Indian Ocean. With the Portuguese attempts to monopolize the ocean trading in
some products and directly taxing other trade, the Ocean was transformed from mare
liberum, where all might travel freely, to an arena of conflict between Western powers
attempting to monopolize the trade movement.79
For several years after the arrival of the Portuguese, Indian and Arab navies were still
sailing in the Indian Ocean, but Portuguese ships dominated the sea. 80 The Portuguese
built up their eastern empire speedily using their naval power and by occupying a
number of strategic points. Thirty years after their arrival in India, the Portuguese had
forcibly displaced Arab and Gujarati merchants.81 Until the arrival of the Dutch in 1499,
Portuguese merchants controlled the spice trade. The arrival of Dutch and English ships
diminished Portuguese powers and reduced the Muslim route, from Aceh to the
Mediterranean, to insignificance.82
78
Seavoy, Origin and Growth of the Global Economy, p. 13.
79
M. N. Pearson, “The Indian Ocean and the Red Sea,” in The History of Islam in Africa, ed. Nehemia
Levtzion and Randall L. Pouwels (Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2000), p. 42.
80
Shortly after Portuguese merchants arrived in Southeast Asia, the Spanish arrived. Magellan sailed to
the Philippines in 1519 where he was killed, and only one of his ships returned to Spain in 1522.
81
For the process and the reasons see Seavoy, Origin and Growth of the Global Economy, p. 14; Lindsay, W.
S. History of Merchant Shipping and Ancient Commerce (London: S. Low, Marston, Low, and Searle, 1874), vol.
2.
82
Anthony Reid, “Rum and Jawa: The vicissitudes of documenting a long-distance relationship,” in From
Anatolia to Aceh: Ottomans, Turks, and Southeast Asia (UK, Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford
University Press, 2015), p. 29.
56
With the hostile relations between the Safavids and the Ottomans and Central Asian
Sunni dynasties, the Indian Ocean became more important as a main road for pilgrimages
for Central Asian pilgrims instead of the road through Iran, as “Safavid authorities were
reluctant to allow ‘Tatars’ to pass through Iran on the way to Mecca.”83 Western navies
did not consider transporting Muslim pilgrims a problem; they saw in the transport costs
of the journey a very profitable business enterprise:84
It is true that sometimes pilgrims were occasionally dissuaded from embarking for
Mecca on political grounds, but more often than not, the VOC (Vereenigde Oost-
Indische Compagnie/Dutch East India Company) stated that Hajjis were welcome,
partially because the sums of money they spent on such voyages helped out the
company’s exchequer in increasingly lean times.85
While the Portuguese extended their influence over the sea routes taken by pilgrims in
the Indian Ocean, the Mughal empire conquered the province of Gujarat in 1573, which
included Surat, the main port used by South Asian pilgrims. Surat’s capture led to an
increased interest in the ḥajj among the Mughal ruling class.86 Portuguese records note
in March 1663 the sailing of a ship carrying the Queen Mother of Bijapur, who wanted to
go to Mecca.87 The Queen Mother undertook a series of ḥajjs; English records tell us that
she went off through the Red Sea on a small Dutch vessel in 1661, reaching Mocha in
March. The sea became the main road from India even for trips to Iran. In 1640, the ruler
83
Thomas Welsford, “The re-opening of Iran to Central Asian pilgrimage traffic, 1600-1650,” in Central Asian
Pilgrims: Hajj Routes and Pious Visits between Central Asia and the Hijaz, ed. Alexandre Papas, Thomas Welsford,
and Thierry Zarcone (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2012), p. 154.
84
Eric Tagliacozzo, The Longest Journey: Southeast Asians and the Pilgrimage to Mecca (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013), p. 29 and after.
85
Tagliacozzo, The Longest Journey, p. 43. For an opposing account of the idea that Portuguese did not
interfere in the “religious” ḥajj affairs see Mahmood Kooria, “‘Killed the pilgrims and persecuted them’:
Portuguese estado da India’s encounters with the hajj in the Sixteenth century,” in The Hajj and Europe in
the Age of Empire, ed. Umar Ryad (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2017).
86
Welsford, “The re-opening of Iran to Central Asian pilgrimage traffic, 1600-1650,” p. 155.
87
Michael N.Pearson, Pious Passengers, the Hajj in Early Times (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1994), p. 116.
57
of Golconda88 sent the ladies of his court to Iran to see the Shiʿite shrines and then to go
on to Mecca. They traveled by sea from Golconda to Bandar Abbas.89 Aurangzeb appeared
in the Dutch documents when he informed them he was going to commence his own ḥajj
as a ninety-year-old man with fifty-seven ships in attendance upon him, and he was in
need of a Dutch sea-pass to make the journey.90 Not only the ruling class was increasingly
interested in pilgrimage; due to improved shipping facilities, the number of pilgrims
from the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia steadily increased. By the 17th century,
the Ḥijāz had a considerable Javanese community; an estimate of the population of
Javanese students in the Ḥijāz will be discussed in the third chapter.
A description of a journey from Mecca to the Indian Subcontinent in the middle of the
11th/17th century is presented by Ibn Maʿṣūm, who documented his trip from Mecca to
join his father in Gujarat. It was almost three months between his leaving Mecca and his
arrival in India. He mentions that he left Mecca on Shaʿbān 24, 1066/June 17, 1656 and
that he arrived at the first port, Jaitapur, on Dhū al-Qaʿdah 27 of the same
year/September 16.91 Another trip from Singapore to Mecca that happened in 1854 took
almost the same time, three months. The journey by sea was made in sailing vessels
before the changes brought about in pilgrim transport by the international steamboat
companies, which allows us to expect that Ibn Maʿṣūm’s trip represents those of many
generations of pilgrims from Southeast Asia before this date.92
88
The kingdom of Golconda in the southeastern Deccan of India was the capital of the medieval sultanate
of the Quṭb Shāhī dynasty (c.1518–1687).
89
Pearson, Pious Passengers, p.115.
90
Tagliacozzo, The Longest Journey, p. 29.
91
See his departure in p. 37, and his arrive to the first port, he called it Jaitapur, in p. 142. ʿAlī Ṣadr al-Dīn
Ibn Maʿṣūm al-Madanī, Riḥlat Ibn Maʿṣūm al-Madanī, or Salawat al-gharīb wa-uswat al-arīb, ed. Shākir Hādī
Shākir (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub/Maktabat al-Nahḍah al-ʿArabiyyah, 1988).
92
Jan Just Witkam, “The Islamic pilgrimage in the manuscript literatures of Southeast Asia,” in The Hajj:
Collected Essays, ed. Venetia Porter and Lians Saif (London: The British Museum, 2013), p. 216. This long trip
58
It is worth mentioning that Southeast Asia from the 14th and 15th centuries considered
Mecca as a source of legitimacy rather than Baghdad or Istanbul. Generous gifts and
tribute used to be sent to the Sharīfs of the Ḥijāz and “the attachment to Mecca as a
source of Islamic legitimacy for Southeast Asia did not go away in the sixteenth century,
but resurfaced to play a significant role in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”93
Tagliacozzo suggests several changes in navigating the Indian Ocean that directly
affected the situation in the Ḥijāz. The first change was that the danger of “piracy”
reduced, due to cartaz system adopted by the Portuguese, meaning that passports were
needed for certain parts of the Indian Ocean that allowed heavily laden pilgrimage ships
to navigate toward the Red Sea safely. The second change that made the long water-
voyage safe and easier was the increase of knowledge about Indian Ocean weather,
currents, and wind systems. The third change was the improving commercial conditions
along vast stretches of the sea, a boon for everyone that allowed people to earn money
to pay, often along the way, for their journeys to the Ḥijāz. However, wars, rivalry,
coercion, and outright extortion still happened on the routes, but the gradual upturn in
trade conditions all along the Indian Ocean sea-lanes made the pilgrimage certainly
better than it once had been.94
The reasons mentioned above may justify the expectation of increasing numbers of
pilgrims after the 16th century. Much earlier than the 16th century, the Indian Ocean was
includes several lengthy stays ashore: Allepey (5 days), Calicut (8 days), al-Mukha (13 days), al-Hudayda (7
days), and finally Jeddah (9 days). Some of these stays were to change ship or to pick up more pilgrims or
to do business matters. Ibid.
93
A. C. S. Peacock and Annabel Teh Gallop, “Introduction, Islam, trade and politics across the Indian Ocean:
Imagination and reality,” in From Anatolia to Aceh, p. 26-27.
94
Tagliacozzo, The Longest Journey, p. 24-25.
59
a networked place,95 where Muslims from the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia
found their way by sea to the Ḥijāz. However, extant records about pilgrims from the
Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia are so fragmentary, in larger works of
geographers and travelers,96 and so incomplete that it is difficult to give any reasonable
estimate of the number of pilgrims or travelers from either region. There are no marine
records, nor any mention of Indian or Southeast Asian communities in the Ḥijāz. By the
later 16th century, Western historical records mention the flow across the Indian Ocean,97
and Arabic sources from the Ḥijāz and southern Arabia provide us valuable information.
By the 17th century, al-Kūrānī talks about Jāwī students in the Ḥijāz, which suggests that
they were large in number. The names of some scholars from Southeast Asia, including
Ḥamza Fanṣūrī (d. 1590), ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Singkilī (d. 1693), al-Maqassarī (d. 1699), will come
up later in the chapter about al-Kūrānī and his students. By the 19th century, the Javanes
community was so extensive as to earn a substantial consideration in C.
Snouck Hurgonje’s work Mekka in the latter part of the 19th century.
The economic factors that attracted Europeans to the Indian Ocean played an
essential role in attracting the Ottomans as well. The extent of Portuguese influence in
the Red Sea made the Ottomans more interested in western Arabia, so their army arrived
in Yemen where they prevented Portuguese navies from entering the Red Sea. The
Ottomans tried to re-establish the old trade route from India through the Near East. The
95
Kenneth McPherson, The Indian Ocean: A History of People and the Sea (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993);
Chaudhuri, K. N. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); George Fadlo Hourani and John Carswell, Arab Seafaring in
the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
96
See some names before 16th century in Tagliacozzo, The Longest Journey, p. 26-27.
97
Tagliacozzo, The Longest Journey, p. 22. The most important and compulsive keepers of records about the
early history of ḥajj were the Dutch through the correspondence and detailed bookkeeping of the VOC.
Ibid.
60
campaign, which was originally directed against the Safavids, eventually resulted in the
conquest of Syria and Egypt. Behind the political factors that brought the Ottomans to
Egypt there were, no doubt, economic activities and links.98 The Indian ports, however,
were under the control of the Portuguese, who were also controlling the Red Sea and the
Persian Gulf. It was necessary then for the Ottomans to combat the Portuguese; the
monarchs of India had been repeatedly sending embassies to the Ottoman Sultans for aid
against them.99
[1.3.2] Iran’s Conversion to Shiʿism
Iran’s conversion to Shiʿism played a role in the journey of some important texts from
Iran to the Ḥijāz through Ottoman lands and the Indian Subcontinent. It also forced
Sunni scholars to find alternative centers for scholarly activities and exchange, the Ḥijāz
being one of these centers.100 Tracing scattered scholars from Safavid Iran is not part of
this study, yet some examples are offered below to represent those Sunni scholars who
moved outside of Iran to other Islamic centers, carrying with them their intellectual
heritage. Eventually the texts they carried would reach the Ḥijāz through connectable
chains to great intellectual scholars in 14th and 15th century Iran and Central Asia.
98
Salih Özbaran, The Ottoman Response to European Expansion: Studies on Ottoman-Portuguese Relations in the
Indian Ocean and Ottoman Administration in the Arab Lands during the Sixteenth Century (Istanbul: Isis Press,
1994), p. 90.
99
About Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts in Indian Ocean see Özbaran, The Ottoman Response to European
Expansion, chapters VIII, IX, X and XIII; George William Frederick Stripling, The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs,
1511-1574 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1942), chapter IV. About the correspondence between Indian
Subcontinent rulers and Ottomans concerning the Portuguese see Naimur Rahman Farooqi, Mughal-
Ottoman Relations: A Study of Political and Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, 1556-
1748 (University of Wisconsin-Madson, Ph.D Thesis, 1987), p. 22 and after.
100
Robert Wisnovsky, “Avicenna’s Islamic reception,” in Interpreting Avicenna, ed. Peter Adamson (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 209.
61
After entering Tabriz in 1501, Shāh Ismāʿil (d. 1524) had announced that the official
religion of his kingdom would be Shiʿism. The application of this policy meant replacing
the Sunni ʿulamāʾ with Shiʿite ones, which forced Sunni scholars either to convert or to
migrate to the neighbouring Ottoman lands, Central Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent.
The hostility toward Sunni scholars had become even more ruthless at the time of Shāh
Ismāʿil’s successor, Shāh Ṭahmāsb (r. 930/1524-984/1576),101 who forced even more
scholars to flee from Iran. These migrations helped spread Sunni theology outside of the
famous centers of Shiraz, Tabriz, and Isfahan.
Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī (d. 979/1572) is one of the scholars who left Iran and settled
finally in Ottoman lands. He studied with the famous scholars Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr
Dashtakī (d. 949/1542) and Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī (d. 942/1535-6). Al-Lārī’s life sheds
light on one way that knowledge circulated from Shiraz and Central Asia to the Indian
Subcontinent and Ottoman lands. It seems that the hostile environment toward Sunni
scholars was the reason behind his decision to leave Iran.102 At first Lārī went to India,
where he spent more than a decade. Then on 11 Rabīʿ II 963/22 February 1556, he left
India, and after making the pilgrimage and some months’ stay in Aleppo, moved on to
Istanbul.103 While al-Lārī eventually decided to head toward Istanbul, many scholars
settled permanently in the Indian Subcontinent. Two of al-Dawānī’s students, Mīr Shams
al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Jurjānī (the great-grandson of al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī) and a certain Mīr
101
Reza Pourjavady and Asad Q. Ahmad, “Theology in the Indian Subcontinent,” in The Oxford handbook of
Islamic Theology, ed. Sabine Schmidtke (UK, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 608.
102
Pourjavady writes: “the discrimination of Sunnī scholars during the reign of Shāh Ṭahmāsp I [r. 929/1524
to 984/1576] conforms to the account of Mīrzā Makhdūm Sharīfī (d. 995/1587) in his Nawāqiḍ li-bunyān al-
rawāfiḍ. The latter points to a number of royal policies at this time meant to pressure the Sunnī population,
including scholars, to accept Twelver Shīʿism. Therefore, it seems to be safe to assume that such religious
intolerance was one of the reasons, if not the only one, for Lārī to leave Safavid Iran.” Reza Pourjavady,
“Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī and His Samples of the Sciences,” Oriens. 42 (3-4): 292-322, p. 295.
103
Pourjavady, “Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī and his samples of the sciences,” p. 296.
62
Muʿīn al-Dīn, headed to India and eventually were present at Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh Sindī’s
(r. 866/1461-914/1508) court.
The two other main Iranian scholars who were principal sources for the transmission
of scholastic theology into the Indian Subcontinent were Mirzā-Jān Ḥabīb Allāh
Baghnawī (d. 995/1587) and Fatḥ Allāh al-Shirāzī (d. 998/1590), the latter a student of
Ghiyāth al-Dīn Dashtakī who moved from Shiraz to teach theology in India.104 The
following is the chain of transmission that connects the prominent Indian Scholar al-
Siyālkūtī (d. 1067/1656-7) with Ghiyāth al-Dīn Dashtakī. Later, we will find some of al-
Siyālkūtī’s direct students in the Ḥijāz.105
In spite of the fact that after the emergence of the Safavid Empire the interacting
scholarship between Ottoman and Safavid empires quickly declined, some scholars argue
that interactions between scholars of the Safavid Empire and the Indian Subcontinent
became more frequent and intense.106 As Francis Robinson suggests, “if the Safavid state
was an obstacle across the paths of international scholarship, it was also a stimulus to
it.”107 The travels of scholars between Iran and the Indian Subcontinent were not
negatively affected by the conversion of Iran; on the contrary, it seems that the
migration of scholars increased.108 It is worthy of mention that in the Indian
104
Pourjavady and Ahmad, “Theology in the Indian Subcontinent,” p. 612.
105
Ibid., p. 613.
106
Francis Robinson, “Ottomans-Safavids-Mughals: shared knowledge and connective systems,” Journal of
Islamic Studies 8: 2 (1997) pp. 151-184, p. 156-7.
107
Ibid., p. 157.
108
Ibid., p. 157 and after; and Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, A Socio-Intellectual History of the Isnā ʿAsharī Shīʾīs in
India (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1986).
63
Subcontinent, the texts that received the attention of many scholars and several
commentaries and glosses were al-Taftazānī’s commentary on al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah, al-
Dawānī’s commentary on al-ʿAḍudiyyah, and al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s commentary on al-
Mawāqif.109 Later, we will see that these same texts were the most studied and taught in
the Ḥijāz in the 17th century.
While these scholars decided to move to the Indian Subcontinent, others headed
directly toward Ottoman lands. In fact, the Ottomans had established connections with
some prominent scholars in Iran starting in the late 15th century. The two most eminent
philosophers of Shiraz in the late 9th/15th century, Jalāl al-Dīn Dawānī (d. 908/1502) and
Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī (d. 903/1498), enjoyed the patronage of the Ottoman court during
the reign of Sultan Bayezid II (re. 886/1481-918/1512). Dawānī dedicated three of his
works to the Sultan and Dashtakī dedicated one.110
Alongside al-Lārī mentioned above, three native Ottoman scholars played a
significant role in promoting the thought of these two philosophers in Istanbul:
Muʾayyadzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendī (d. 922/1516), Katkhudāzāde Girmiyānī (d. c.
940/1533-4), and Sinān al-Dīn Yūsuf al-Āydīnī (d. c. 935/1528-9). Moreover, in the early
Safavid era, two outstanding students of Dawānī, Ḥakīm Shāh Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī (d.
after 926/1520) and Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Shīrāzī (d. 922/1516), al-Dawānī’s son-in-law
and his successor as the head of his madrasa in Shiraz, left Safavid Iran to live under
Ottoman rule.111 As a result, the works of eminent philosophers of Shiraz were well
known to the scholars of the Ottoman Empire.
109
Pourjavady and Ahmad, “Theology in the Indian Subcontinent,” p. 611 and after.
110
Pourjavady, “Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī and his samples of the sciences,” p. 293.
111
Ibid., p. 293. Also: Judith Pfeiffer, “Teaching the learned: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāda
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi and the circulation of knowledge between Fārs and the Ottoman Empire at the turn
64
Among the scholars who moved from the Safavid court to Ottoman lands and
eventually settled in Mecca was Mīrzā Makhdūm Sharīfī (d. 995/1587). Mīrzā Makhdūm,
as he was known, entered Safavid politics in about 975-76/1568-69 and served as vizier
under Ṭahmāsb until the death of the latter in 984/1576, and during the short period of
the reign of Ismāʿīl II, who ruled for fourteen months and died in November 985/1577.
After Ismāʿīl’s death in 985/1577, Mīrzā Makhdūm, who had been imprisoned twice,
escaped Iran with his life. He subsequently settled in Ottoman territory. Later he moved
to Mecca, where he became a judge and shaykh of the ḥaram until his death in 995/1587.112
Mīrzā Makhdūm represents an example of the transmission of scholarly tradition. His
family, on his father’s side, boasted of descent from the famous 15th century theologian
Sayyid al-Sharīf ʿAlī al-Jurjānī (816/1413).113 On his mother’s side, Mīrzā Makhdūm tells
us that “the mother of his grandmother” was a daughter of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr, the
son of Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī.114 Mīrzā Makhdūm wrote a polemic treatise against Shiʿism
entitled al-Nawāqiḍ li-bunyān al-rawāfiḍ. Later, one of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s prominent
students, Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī (d. 1103/1691), wrote an abridgment of this
work against Shiʿism, entitled al-Nawāfiḍ li-l-rawāfiḍ.115 Mīrzā Makhdūm also wrote
several other works, among them a commentary on al-Jurjānī’s Risālat al-manṭiq.116 Thus,
of the Sixteenth Century,” in The Heritage of Arabo-Islamic Learning: Studies Presented to Wadad Kadi, ed. Wadād
Qāḍī, Maurice A. Pomerantz, and Aram A. Shahin (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016), p. 291.
112
Rosemary Stanfield Johnson, “Sunni survival in Safavid Iran; anti-Sunni activities during the reign of
Tahmasp I,” Iranian Studies, 27 1–4 (1994), 123–133, p. 124.
113
Rosemary Stanfield, Mirza Makhdum Sharifi: A 16th Century Sunni Sadr at the Safavid Court (Ph.D Thesis, New
York University, Department of Near Eastern Language and Literature, 1993), p. 32.
114
Ibid., p. 39; also: Ismāʿīl Bāshā al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn asmāʾ al-muʾallifīn wa-l-muṣannifīn (Beirut:
Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, [re-print of Istanbul 1950 edition])., vol.1, p. 258.
115
Edited by Muḥammad Hidāyat Nūr Waḥīd as part of his PhD Thesis in al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah, Medina,
KSA, 1412-13/[1991-2].
116
Al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, vol.1, p. 224.
65
he himself was a means of intellectual transmission from Iran to Ottoman lands, and
eventually to the Ḥijāz.
Converting Iran not only forced Sunni scholars to leave Iran, it also prevented them
from heading toward what had been main centers of intellectual activity for the last few
centuries. Iran was no longer a destination for Sunni scholars who wanted to study
Islamic theology and philosophy in an open atmosphere where commentaries on al-Ṭusī,
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and Ibn Sīnā and glosses and super glosses had been produced by
Sunni and Shīʿī scholars for several centuries. Now, Shīʿī tendencies dominated
intellectual activity in Iran, with official support. As we have shown in the preceding,
this new situation forced Sunni scholars to find alternative centers in which to gather,
teach, study, and exchange knowledge, which in turn contributed to the flourishing of
other Islamic cities after the 16th century. The famous traditional intellectual centers
such as Cairo and Damascus attracted scholars, but the Ḥijāz in the 17th century had some
advantages over these traditional intellectual centers. The location of the Ḥijāz in the
growth of Indian Ocean trade coupled with the special interest of two of the greatest
Islamic empires, Ottoman and Mughal, in supporting the holy cities of Mecca and Medina
helped establish the Ḥijāz as an attractive center for scholars and students.
[1.3.3] Mughal Empire
The huge economic support produced by numerous rulers from the Indian Subcontinent,
especially the Mughals,117 to the Ḥijāz during 10th/16th and 11th/17th centuries contributed
directly to the transformation of the Ḥijāz into a hub for students and scholars from all
117
Muslims reached India long before the Mughals. In the late 16 th and 17th centuries, the Mughal Empire
grew out of descendants of the Mongol Empire who were living in Turkestan in the 15 th century. For a
general overview of Islam in India see: Barbara D. Metcalf, “A historical overview of Islam in South Asia,”
in Islam in South Asia in Practice, ed. Barbara D. Metcalf (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
66
around the Islamic world. In this dissertation, I do not intend to investigate the entirety
of Mughal relations with the Ḥijāz, but rather to focus on the nature of this support and
how it helped the Ḥijāz to attract more students and scholars.
The rulers of India carefully gave attention to the Ḥijāz. All Mughal emperors were
generous in their donations to the Ḥijāz. They established close links with the two holy
cities without interruption, except for a short period in Akbar’s time when he lost
interest in the affairs of Ḥijāz altogether due to his own religious policies.118 Mughal
relations with the Ḥijāz show a mix of piety as well as economic, political, and cultural
interests. Copying the Quran in one’s own hand and sending the copy to Mecca was a
popular practice.119 Sultan Muẓaffar II of Gujarat (r. 1511-26) used to transcribe the Quran
every year and send copies to Mecca and Medina.120 He appointed the Ḥanafī Imām of the
grand mosque of Mecca to recite this Quran; the Imām was generously paid by the
Sultan.121 Babur (d. 1530), the first Mughal emperor, sent to Mecca a copy of the Quran,
transcribed by himself in the script that he invented called khaṭṭ-Bābūrī (Bābūrī Script).122
The practice of copying the Quran in one’s own hand and sending the copies to Mecca
and Medina may have been a pious act that did not have much of a direct effect on the
life of the Ḥijāz; however, other aspects of Mughal involvement in the area had more
direct consequences. The economic aspects of Indian support of the Ḥijāz can be seen in
the sponsoring of ḥajj travel; constructions of schools, ribāṭs, and different charitable
118
See some aspects of Akbar’s relation to religion in J.F. Richards, “The formulation of imperial authority
under Akbar and Jahangir,” in The Mughal State 1526-1750, ed. Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam
(India: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 132 and after.
119
Aurangzeb also did the same thing. Pearson, Pious Passengers, p.113-114.
120
Pearson, Pious Passengers, p. 114.
121
Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 229, fn. 25.
122
Ibid., p. 191; also: M. N. Pearson, Pilgrimage to Mecca: The Indian Experience, 1500-1800 (Princeton: Markus
Wiener Publishers, 1996), p. 107.
67
institutions in the Ḥijāz; and the distribution of large amounts of goods and cash
donations among the residents of Mecca and Medina.123
Support of the Ḥijāz by Indian rulers started earlier than the Mughal Empire. Several
charitable institutions were built in the holy cities by these earlier Sultans. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn
Ḥasan Bahmān Shāh (1347-1358), the founder of the Bahmani kingdom, is reported to
have built a ribāṭ in Mecca in 1354.124 A hospice, to which a madrasa was also attached,
was built by Sultan Aḥmad I (1410-1441) in Mecca.125 Sultan Muẓaffar II of Gujarat (r. 1511-
26) constructed a hospital complex in Mecca, consisting of a school, a place for the
distribution of water to pilgrims, and other buildings, and he set aside endowments for
the maintenance of teachers and students.126 Many more institutions were built in the
Ḥijāz by rulers of the Indian Subcontinent.127 The list of people who built and endowed
ribāṭs, schools, or other institutions to help students, scholars, and poor people extends
to include rich people and even many scholars. As we will see in the next chapter, the
ribāṭs in Mecca alone in the Ottoman period numbered 156, and many of these ribāṭs were
established by Indians.128
123
A large portion of the donations was directed to the Sharīfs of the Ḥijāz. Alongside their spiritual and
religious position as descendants of the Prophet, the Sharīfs played a major role in guaranteeing the
security of the pilgrims.
124
Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 189.
125
Ibid., p. 188.
126
Pearson, Pious Passengers, p. 114.
127
Muẓaffar Shāh II also allotted a fixed sum for the poor of Mecca and Medina, and occasionally he
dispatched a shipload of costly cloth for distribution among the residents of these cities. His son Bahādūr
Shāh (1526-1537) is reported to have sent to Mecca in 1536 his harem (seraglio) along with his treasure,
consisting of 700 chests of gold and jewels. Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 189. For more examples
see Ibid., p. 188-9; Z. A Desai, “India and the Near East during 13 th-15th centuries,” in A Quest for Truth: A
Collection of Research Articles of Dr. Z. A. Desai (Ahmadabad: Hazrat Pir Mohammed Shah Dargah Sharif Trust),
pp. 114-115.
128
See Ḥusayn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Shāfiʿī, al-Arbiṭah bi-Makkah al-mukarramah fī al-ʿahd al-ʿUthmānī (London: al-
Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2005), for example: pp. 58, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 98, 108, 116, 117, 119, 124,
180, 182, 183,198.
68
Beside, the institution of buildings, goods, presents, and cash were frequently sent to
the Ḥijāz. For instance, “the Sultans of Gujarat used to send 70,000 mithqāls (a gold coin,
equal to one and a half drachm) annually for the residents of Mecca and Medina; out of
this 25,000 mithqāls were given to the Sharif of Mecca.”129 Bahādur’s successor, Maḥmūd
III (1537-1553), excelled his predecessors in displaying benevolence to the people of the
Ḥijāz. He had reserved the income of Gandhara, a village near the port of Cambay, as an
endowment for the Ḥijāz. According to Haji al-Dabir,130 the income of this village was
invested in indigo and textiles and the merchandise transported to Jeddah on royal boats
and sold in Jeddah’s market at considerable profit, its proceeds then being distributed in
the holy cities. Haji al-Dabir writes:
During his [Maḥmūd III’s] regime, the residents of Mecca and Medina enjoyed extensive
means of livelihood. They were free from debts. The Usmani (Ottoman) endowments
came with the Egyptian Amir of Hajis to help them at the time of Hajj and some months
of the year; while the Maḥmūdi endowment freed them from debt for the remaining
months.131
The Mughal Empire was richer in resources and more benevolent than their
predecessors. The Mughals would organize annual ḥajj caravans to Mecca, and on many
occasions the government would sponsor all the pilgrims. The first Mughal ḥajj caravan
left the imperial capital Fatehpur Sikri in 1576, with 600,000-rupees in cash and 12,000
khilʿats (dresses of honour) for distribution among the deserving people of Mecca and
Medina; the Emperor also gave a substantial amount of money for the construction of a
129
130
The author of the most detailed history of Gujarat, entitled Ẓafr al-wālih bi-Muẓaffar wa-ālih. It was
published under the title A History of Gujarat, ed. E. Denison Ross (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal,1909).
131
Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 190. Moreover, the Sultan ordered that two poor-houses be set up
at Mecca. In 1553 he sent 1000 sacks of indigo to Jeddah for sale; the income from this sale was to be spent
on digging wells along the road to Medina. Ibid.
69
khānqāh (dervish convent) in Mecca.132 Moreover, the Mir Haj (ḥajj leader) was instructed
to prepare a list of the needy and the poor of the holy Cities and present it, upon his
return, to the Emperor.133 Babur would send nudhūr (vows) to the Sufi men of Mecca and
Medina and solicited them to pray for his well-being.134
When Akbar conquered Gujarat in 1573 and dominated the port of Surat, which was
known as the gateway to Mecca, he approved the continuance of the previous waqf
properties dedicated to the ḥaramayn by Sultan Maḥmūd III. Akbar also added a few more
villages to the waqf.135 When members of royal houses or their households went on
pilgrimage to Mecca, they were usually provided with lavish supplies, and in some cases
expenses and provisions were supplied from the State exchequer for all men and soldiers
who had the intention of making the pilgrimage.136 The sultans would appoint a man,
designated by the title “Mir Haj” to serve as their personal representative in the
pilgrimage. The Mir Haj was entrusted with enormous amounts of money for
apportionment among the inhabitants of the ḥaramayn. In 1577, the Mir Haj was
entrusted with 500,000 rupees and 10,000 khilʿats; for the Sharīf of Mecca, a cash award
of 100,000 rupees and several splendid gifts were also dispatched.137
In general, all Mughal Emperors were very generous in their donations to the Ḥijāz,
despite some political tensions. Even when Akbar lost interest in the affairs of the Ḥijāz
altogether and his successor Empire Jahangir showed no inclination to resume relations
132
Robert Irwin, “Journey to Mecca: A history (Part 2),” in Hajj Journey to the Heart of Islam, ed. Venetia Porter
(UK: The British Museum Press, 2012), p. 171; Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 193.
133
134
Ibid., p. 191.
135
Ibid., p. 192.
136
Ibid., p. 193. Besides Muslims from Indian Subcontinent, many Central Asians and Khurasanis were also
given provisions and expenses for the journey from the public treasury. A special royal ship, the ‘Ilahi,’
was arranged for carrying the pilgrims to their destination. Ibid. Also: Pearson, Pious Passengers, p. 115.
137
70
with the region, Indian Muslims continued to go on pilgrimage to Mecca and Jahangir
occasionally sent donations.138 The donations that arrived to the Ḥijāz from Shahjahan,
who became emperor in 1628, and Aurangzeb (r. 1658-1707) exceeded those from all their
predecessors.139 The money would be sent as cash, or goods that were supposed to be sold
in Jeddah or in the Ḥijāz; the profits from these sales together with the cash would be
distributed among the Sharīfs, the poor, and the pious men living in retreat in Mecca and
Medina.140 A large number of these pious men were permanently employed on daily
stipends to act as the Emperor’s deputies in walking around the kaʿbah, bowing to the
Prophet’s tomb, and reading the two copies of the Quran written by his own hand and
presented to Medina. The Emperor had also appointed a special officer to take care of the
endowments sanctioned for the holy sanctuaries.141
By 1694, Aurangzeb’s enthusiasm for the Sharīfs of Mecca had begun to fade when he
received several reports that the current Sharīf had appropriated all the money sent to
the Ḥijāz for his own use. Aurangzeb expressed his disgust at the unethical behavior of
the Sharīf, who was depriving the needy and the poor of their due share in the royal
endowments.142 In this same year, the Sharīf of Mecca sent one of the Ḥijāz’s scholars,
Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī, on a mission to Aurangzeb. Probably the issue of
economic support was his main concern, but al-Barzanjī’s own motivation was to
intervene in debates over al-Sirhindī’s thought raised in the Ḥijāz by some of al-Sirhindī’s
students in which al-Barzanjī and his teachers al-Qushāshī and al-Kūrānī engaged as we
138
In 1622, he sent 200,000 rupees to Cambay, a famous port of Gujarat. The money was to be invested in
the Red Sea trade; its proceeds were to be distributed among the poor of Mecca. Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman
relations, pp. 203-205.
139
Ibid., pp. 205-214.
140
Ibid., pp. 205-208.
141
Ibid., pp. 210-211.
142
Ibid., p. 214.
71
shall see in the coming chapters. Unfortunately, the emperor refused to meet the
delegation, and al-Barzanjī returned through Yemen to the Ḥijāz.143 After Aurangzeb,
donations and presents continued to be sent to the Ḥijāz.144 In return, the Sharīfs of
Mecca used to send missions and presents to Mughal emperors, mainly Arab horses,
fancy swords, and some sacred relics.145
Not only cash was sent to the Ḥijāz, but various goods, alms, and presents as well. Once
among the gifts was a candlestick studded with diamonds, which weighed 100 carats
according to some historians. Among the gifts which Shahjahan sent to the Hijāz were
amber candlesticks that he had amongst his private property, “the largest of them all
which weighed 700 tolas (unit of weight, about 12 grams), and was worth 10,000 rupees,
it was covered with a network of gold, ornamented on all sides with flowers, and studded
with gems.”146 Aḥmad I of Gujarat dispatched a large, beautiful red-colored canopied tent
to provide shadow to the pilgrims performing circumambulation of the kaʿbah.147 Al-
ʿAyyāshī in his account of his travel to the Ḥijāz says that the carpets and most of the
furniture of the Prophet’s mosque in Medina, very luxurious furniture one otherwise
cannot see except in King’s houses, had come from India and its kings.148
143
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 307.
144
“In November 1709, Emperor Bahadur Shah I sent gifts worth of 500,000 rupees to Mecca and Medina.
An annual subsidy of 100,000 rupees was also sanctioned for the Sharif.” “In 1717 Farrukhsiyar dispatched
Muhammad Hafiz Khan to Mecca; he was entrusted with 500,000 rupees for disbursement among the
destitute and recluses of the Haramayn.” Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman relations, p. 215-16. According to Haji a-
Dabir “Every year, he [Asaf Khan] distributed one hundred and fifty boxes of gold, so much so that residents
of Mekka and their women and servants were dressed in gold. He gave them sumptuous feasts on a very
grand scale.” Ibid., 229, fn. 26.
145
146
Ibid., p. 207.
147
Desai, “India and the Near East during 13 th-15th centuries,” p. 114.
148
72
Alongside pious and economic elements, patronage of the Ḥijāz had a political
significance for the Mughals, which in turn had economic consequences for life in the
Ḥijāz, as the ḥajj was often an acceptable method to move a person out of the way for a
time, or to punish him.149 This politically-motivated practice was used by the Mughals,
and earlier rulers, to exile some unfortunate members of royal families, court persons,
and elites.150
The policy of using the Ḥijāz as an exile place for political reasons increased with the
Mughals, as “Emperor Humayun exiled two of his own brothers, Mirza Kamran and Mirza
Askari to Mecca; the Mirzas had incurred the Emperor’s displeasure for treasonable
conduct.”151 Many leading nobles of Akbar’s court had gone into voluntary exile in Mecca
owing to their differences with the Emperor. Mirza Aziz Koka, Akbar’s foster brother and
the Governor of Gujarat, was one of them.152 Akbar also deported several other grandees
of his court to the Ḥijāz. They were charged with opposing the Emperor's religious
policies.153 Aurangzeb had likewise expelled many undesirable persons to the holy land.
On many occasions, the selection of some famous name as representative of the empire
to Mecca or as a leader of ḥajj caravans was actually a respected way to expel them from
149
Similar incidents can be found in several Central Asian dynasties, see some examples in Welsford, “The
re-opening of Iran to Central Asian pilgrimage traffic, 1600-1650,” p. 153, 158.
150
Among the exiled people was Ilhamullah, the son of the Bahmani Sultan Kalimullah (1526-1538), who
probably died in Mecca. Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 189.
151
152
Ibid., p. 218.
153
Ibid., p. 218
73
India.154 Usually the emperors also instructed the Ḥijāz’s authorities to keep an eye on
them and detain them in Mecca.155
A major consequence of this behavior is, given that these people were very wealthy,
they consequently spent a great deal of money in the Ḥijāz. Such was the case of Mirza
Aziz Koka, who was very generous with the charitable organizations of the holy cities, as
well as donating to the Sharīf of Mecca.156 Likewise, when ʿAbd al-Azīz Asraf Khān, the
Prime Minister of Sultan Bahadur of Gujarat, was sent to Mecca, he was accompanied by
1,000 knights and soldiers and an equally sized retinue and attendants in ten vessels,
along with the royal Seraglio and royal treasures in hundreds of chests full of cash,
textiles and like material, and jewels; he stayed there for over a decade before he
returned to Ahmadabad in A.H. 955. Asaf Khān’s stay in Mecca was marked by his piety
and religiosity, and his lavish patronage of learned men, grants to scholarly
establishments, and by assistance to the deserving and the needy, which was unheard of
in the history of the holy city. 157
Another interesting aspect of Mughal relations with the Ḥijāz is the exchange of
scholars and ideas. People from the Indian Subcontinent visited Muslim countries in the
154
ʿAbd al-Nabī and Mullā ʿAbd Allāh Sultanpuri, the leading scholars of the court, were chosen as Akbar’s
permanent representatives in Mecca; the proper disbursement of the royal sadagat was to be the main duty
of the imperial agent. The selection of these men was based on their being leaders of the orthodox group
at the court; due to their opposition to Akbar’s religious aberrations, they had fallen from imperial grace.
Hakimul Hulk Gilani, a distinguished physician and scholar, was commissioned as the royal Mir Haj for the
year 1580. The Hakim had also incurred Akbar’s displeasure for his outspoken criticism of the Emperor's
religious innovations; he was therefore conveniently exiled to Mecca. Jahangir deported Abdul Aziz Khan,
the Governor of Qandahar, for having surrendered a coveted fort to Shah Abbas I of Persia. Sheikh Adam
Bannoori, a leading Sufi of the 17th century, was banished, along with his many followers, by Shahjahn; the
Sheikh died at Medina in 1643. Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, pp. 196-7-8
155
Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 217. This policy seems to have been abandoned by Aurangzeb’s
successors. Ibid., p. 218.
156
Ibid., p. 218.
157
Desai, “Relations of India with Middle-Eastern countries during the 16th-17th centuries,” p. 145.
74
Middle East for religious reasons, some of them becoming very distinguished scholars in
the Arab World.158 Several names of Indian scholars will appear in the next chapter,
including ʿAbd Allāh al-Lāhūrī, one of al-Kūrānī’s teachers; al-Sayyid Ghaḍanfar al-
Naqshbandī; Ṣibghat Allāh al-Hindī; Ādam Bannūrī; Muḥammad al-Ḥindī al-Shaṭṭārī;159
Jamāl al-Dīn al-Hindī al-Naqshbanī; and Muḥammad Maʿṣūm, the son of al-Sirhindī.160 In
the other direction, numerous Arab scholars selected to move to and settle under the
patronage of different rulers of the Indian Subcontinent. The most famous of these is
Shaykh al-ʿAydarūs, Aḥmad b. Ḥusayn (d. 1048/1639), the author of al-Nūr al-sāfir ʿan
akhbār al-qarn al-ʿāshir, in which he mentions many Arab scholars who lived in the Indian
Subcontinent.161
In the next section, I will mention the contribution of the Ottomans to the situation
in the Ḥijāz. It is interesting to note that the Ottoman traveler Evliyā Çelebī, in his
account of his trip to the Ḥijāz, after describing the generosity of the Ottoman Sultans in
their donations to the Ḥijāz, says that ṣurra arriving from India exceeded that which
arrived from Ottoman rulers, except for the food supplies (ghilāl).162
158
For the names of several of these visitors see Desai, “India and the Near East during 13th-15th centuries,”
p. 117 and after. Desai includes special sections for those who went to Mecca to study with its scholars such
as al-Sakhāwī and Ibn Fahd. Ibid., p. 120.
159
Muḥammas Ḥasan Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Zawāyā al-taṣawwuf wa-l-ṣūfiyyah al-musammā Khabāyā al-zawāyā, ed.
Aḥmad al-Sāyiḥ and Tawfīq Wahbah (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, 2009), p. 293.
160
For names of other Indian scholars who studied, learned and lived in the Middle East see Desai,
“Relations of India with Middle-Eastern countries during the 16th-17th centuries,” p. 138 and after. The main
destinations of these scholars were Mecca, Medina, Damascus, and Cairo. Some well-known names include
Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Nahrawālī (d. 990/1583), who wrote a history of Mecca entitled al-Iʿlām bi-aʿlām
bayt Allāh al-ḥarām; ʿAlī al-Muttaqī, famous as al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, who wrote Kanz al-ʿummāl fī sunan al-aqal
wa-l-afꜤāl; and Ibrāhīm al-Manikpur, who studied in Baghdad, Cairo, and the Ḥijāz and taught finally in
Cairo for 24 years.
161
Many names of Arab scholars who settle and worked in Indian courts can be found in Desai, “Relations
of India with Middle-Eastern countries during the 16th-17th centuries,” p. 133
162
Jalabī, al-Riḥlah al-ḥijāziyyah, p. 276.
75
[1.3.4] Ottomans and the Ḥijāz
The Ḥijāz was constantly receiving supplies and support from surrounding countries,
mainly Egypt, but also Yemen and Syria. The Ottomans increased the finances of the
Ḥijāz, and numerous pilgrimage-related projects were supported by many Ottoman
sultans, princes, wealthy people, scholars, and even women of the court.163 Much of this
funding was directed toward educational institutions that supported students and
scholars. Some of these institutions, including schools, libraries, ribāṭs, and even soup
kitchens, will be mentioned in the next chapter. For now, other aspects of Ottoman
support to the Ḥijāz will be presented, mainly the Ottoman securing of the pilgrimage
routes; the direct support of the people such as Sharīfs, scholars, students, and poor
people; and large-scale construction projects.
The Ḥijāz was crucial to the Ottomans for several reasons. From a religious
perspective, by the 16th century the Ottoman empire had expanded into Christian Europe
and was fighting against Safavid Shīʿī Iran, so they strove to establish their legitimacy as
representatives of Sunni Muslims. From a political and economic perspective, it was
important for the Ottomans to reach the Indian Subcontinent by sea, since the
establishment of the Safavid dynasty closed the way by land. At the same time, the
Portuguese ambition to extend their domination to the Red Sea in order to reach the
closest point to the Mediterranean Sea was critical in Ottoman strategic calculations.
One of the Sultan’s obligations as “Servant of the Holy Places” was to protect the
pilgrims during the session of the ḥajj and through their long journey. The Ottomans in
163
Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 10, 79. According to the Ottoman system, the expenditures of the budget
of Egypt were divided into four categories: 1- Salaries, wages and pensions; 2- Expenditures for purposes
in Egypt; 3- Expenditures for purposes in Mecca and Medina and for the pilgrimage to the holy cities; 4-
Expenditures for purposes elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. Stanford J. Shaw, The Budget of Ottoman Egypt
1005-1006/1596-1597 (The Hague: Mouton,1968), pp. 7, 13.
76
the 17th century controlled Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, the main gates of pilgrims from most
of the Islamic world, except for Indian and Southeast Asian pilgrims who would arrive
through Yemen. The pilgrims’ caravans had to cross the desert in which the Ottoman
Sultans had only limited control.164 Many caravans, especially those from Syria, were
accompanied by soldiers and cavalrymen, but this protection was not enough to guard
them from Bedouin attacks.165 To ensure the safety of pilgrims and to secure the roads,
the Ottomans offered official subsides, the ṣurra,166 to the Bedouins living along the ḥajj
route.167 The ṣurra was offered as a token in recognition of the food and water that the
Bedouins delivered to the caravans, but actually it was a means of protecting the
caravans from Bedouin attacks. The money that was used to pay the Bedouins came with
almost every caravan passing through the desert, and “between 1596-7 and 1614, 5100-
5800 Ottoman gold coins were assigned every year from Egyptian provincial revenues as
ṣurre payment to Bedouins.”168 In spite of gaps in the sources, Suraiya Faroqhi suggests
164
The interior of Arabia was desert with a small population consisting mostly of nomadic or semi-nomadic
Bedouins and few natural resources. Before the discovery of oil, neither the Ottomans nor preceding
empires had been very interested in ruling this desert, which remained mainly under the control of the
Bedouin. See Ochsenwald, “Ottoman Arabia and the Holy Hijaz, 1516-1918,” pp. 23-34. P. 25.
165
In the 13th century, political divisions within the Islamic world and the threats posed to it by the Mongols
and Crusaders were severe. This made performing the ḥajj difficult. Under the Ottomans the bounderies
between different regions were lifted, thus facilitating the move from one place to another. Robert Irwin,
“Journey to Mecca: A history (Part 2),” p. 137.
166
Ṣurra or ṣurre means traditional purse or money bag. It used to be sent to the Ḥijāz with a procession
ceremony. The name ṣurra used to be used for the money paid to the Bedouin as well as the money and
gifts sent to Sharīfs, scholars, and needy people in Mecca and Medina. See Syed Tanvir Wasti, “The Ottoman
ceremony of the royal purse,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Mar., 2005), pp. 193-200.
167
For more information about the recipients, the amounts paid in certain years, and the source of these
monies see Suraiya Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 55 and after. A document from Ottoman archive records
the ṣurra of 1192/1778 for Bedouin, including lists of names of the tribesmen and the amount they received.
This is discussed in Suheyl Sapan’s study, “Mukhaṣṣaṣāt al-qabāʾil al-ʿArabiyyah min wāqiʿ al-ṣurrah al-
ʿUthmāniyyah li-ʿām 1192/1778,” Majallat Kulliyat al-Ādāb, Jamiʿat al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, n. 20, 1428-1429
[2007-2008].
168
Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 56.
77
that payments from Syrian revenues were usually higher than those derived from Egypt.
Securing the routes was but one aspect of Ottoman interest in the Ḥijāz; other aspects
included supporting the Sharīfs, scholars, students, and the poor of the Ḥijāz as well as
constructing mosques, schools, ribāṭs, kitchens, libraries, water supplies, and other
infrastructural works.
Ottoman support of the Ḥijāz started before the establishment of the Ottoman Empire.
Bāyazīd I (r. 792/1389-805/1402) and then his son Muḥammad (r. 816/1413-824/1421)
started to send the ṣurra, although irregularly and without specific amounts. In the time
of Murād II (r. 824/1421-848/1444), the ṣurra became regulated; in 855/1451 he sent the
equivalent of 3500 florin.169 After Sharīf Barkāt II (1497-1525) acknowledged the authority
of the Ottoman Sultan over the Ḥijāz, he was duly confirmed in his position and was given
the honorary rank of wazīr in the Ottoman government, an annual salary of 25,000 kurush
(a Turkish piaster) being assigned to him.170
Tables of amounts show the increase of the payment almost every year.171 In 1517,
Selim I is reported to have sent 200,000 gold coins to Mecca and Medina for distribution
among the residents of these cities. The ṣurra was sent annually with the Amīr al-ḥajj and
was distributed under his supervision. At the same year, a sum of 450,000 paras (a Turkish
coin of the value of one fortieth of a piaster or 1/100 of a pound) was sanctioned for the
ḥajj expenses. In 1533-34, the ṣurra sent to the holy cities amounted to 560,000 paras. In
169
Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Huraydī, Shuʾūn al-ḥaramayn fī al-ʿahd al-ʿuthmānī fī ḍawʾ al-wathāʾiq al-Turkiyyah
al-ʿUthmāniyyah (Cairo: Dār al-Zahrāʾ, 1989), p. 11. The Florentine florin was a coin struck from 1252 to
1533. It had 54 grains of nominally pure or ‘fine’ gold (3.5 grams, 0.1125 troy ounce) worth approximately
140 modern US dollars. Richard A. Goldthwaite, The Economy of Renaissance (Johns Hopkins University Press,
2009), p. 48.
170
Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations, p. 185. Rulers based in Baghdad, Cairo, and Istanbul could not control
the Ḥijāz and guarantee the safety of their pilgrims without the cooperation of the Sharīfs.
171
Ibid.
78
1595-96 the total expenditures for the ḥajj at the holy cities was estimated to be 4,358,025
paras. By 1798, it had increased to 29,956,017 paras a year.172 Shaw’s work in The Budget of
Ottoman Egypt 1005-1006/1596-1597 indicates that the total revenues amounted to
66,180,576 paras and the total expenditures 44,702,421 paras, of which the expenditures
of the holy cities amounted to 1,327,240 paras.173 According to Faroqhi, “of the 300,000-
385,000 gold pieces sent to the Hejaz every year, at least 120,000 or about one third were
derived directly from Egyptian sources.”174 For example: “according to the budget of
1596-7, subsidies sent to Mecca and Medina out of official Egyptian revenues amounted
to at least 903,892 pārā or 22,597 gold pieces… almost 10 per cent of the Egyptian budget
of these years.”175 Other amounts from the central administration’s budget for 1527-8,
1653, 1660-1, and 1690-1, and expenditures on behalf of the holy cities in the early 17th
century from the Egyptian budget can be found in Faroqhi’s book.176 Among the
recipients of the donations were the Sharīfs, imāms of the ḥarams, muftīs, judges,
scholars, students, mujāwirūn, pilgrims, and the poor.177 Worthy of mention is that the
imperial ṣurra continued to be sent to the Ḥijāz until 1334/1915, one year before Sharīf
Ḥusayn’s revolution.178
172
S.J. Shaw, The Financial Administrative Organization and Development of Ottoman Egypt 1517-1798 (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962), pp. 239-271.
173
Shaw, The Budget of Ottoman Egypt 1005-1006/1596-1597, p. 21.
174
175
Ibid., p. 79. More detail on subsides that were sent to the Ḥijāz can be found in Suraiya Faroqhi’s Pilgrims
and Sultans and Huraydī’s Shuʾūn al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn fī al-ʿahd al-ʿuthmānī.
176
Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, pp. 78, 81. Faroqhi, based on Ottoman archives, has written the most
comprehensive account of the political and socio-economic aspects of the Ḥijāz during the 17th century.
177
For lists of some names and their allowances see Muḥammad ʿAlī Fahīm Bayyūmī, Mukhaṣṣaṣāt al-
ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn fī Miṣr ibbān al-ʿaṣr al-ʿUthmānī bayn 923-1220/1517-1805 (Cairo: Azhar University, Master
thesis, 1999).
178
Huraydī, Shuʾūn al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn fī al-ʿahd al-ʿUthmānī, p. 36.
79
The direct donations of Sultans or government revenues were not the only ways of
supporting the Ḥijāz under Ottoman control. One of the most important methods of
funding the Ḥijāz was waqf, which existed in every Islamic country. With the expansion
of Islam, donations would arrive from all parts of Islamic world. In almost every country
there were what are known as waqf al-ḥaramayn, consisting of public endowments
designed to support schools, scholars, students, institutions, buildings, and the poor in
the two holy cities.179 A French officer in Algiers claimed that the poor of the holy cities
of Islam were the beneficiaries of no less than three-quarters of the town’s
endowments.180
More important than monetary donations were food supplies. The scarcity of natural
resources in the Ḥijāz made it depend entirely on support from foreign rulers. Ottoman
administrators did not deviate radically from the Mamlūk-established system of
supplying the Ḥijāz. Faroqhi describes how the Ottomans reformed and expanded on
Mamlūk foundations, ultimately subsuming them under the overall heading of the
Greater Deshīshe foundation. Usually Egyptian foundations had been assigned to villages
whose taxes constituted their yearly revenues. Many Sultans used to enlarge these
foundations by the addition of new villages.181
179
An excellent study of waqf al-ḥaramayn in one region is Miriam Hoexter, Endowments, Rulers, and
Community: Waqf al-Ḥaramayn in Ottoman Algiers (Leiden: Brill. 1998).
180
Hoexter, Endowments, Rulers, and Community, p. 88. However, the author thinks the amount is somewhat
exaggerated and she provides other amounts with which to compare; for example, in Aleppo they
constituted 9.6 % of all the khayrī beneficiaries; in a pilot quantitative project comprising 104 endowments
deeds collected from Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Istanbul and Anatolia, ranging in date from 1340 to 1947, the
ḥaramayn were 5% of the primary and 17% of the subsequent charitable beneficiaries. Ibid. Algerian annual
allocation varied between 1,100 and 1,500 gold dīnār, this for the years between 1667-1780. Ibid, p. 145-6.
181
80
Egypt was the source of most subsidies remitted to the holy cities, including grain and
other foodstuffs.182 Evliyā Çelebī in his visit to the Ḥijāz in 1082/1671 gives valuable
information about some administration expenses. For example, he states:
When it is not the pilgrimage season, 14,000 men—great and small, rich and poor—
reside here as listed in the court register. The supply of food and drink for this
population is covered by the endowments of Sultan Salem, the conqueror of Egypt,
Sultan Sulaymān, Sultan Mūrad III and Sultan Aḥmed. The endowments known as the
Great Dashīsha and the Little Dashīsha, Murādiyya, Meḥemmediyye and Khāṣṣakiyya
provide annually 14,000×100,000 ardebs of wheat. The grain is brought from Cairo to
Suez, thence to Yanbūʿ and from there by camel to Medina. Everyone receives his share
according to the imperial warrant (berāt-i pādishāhī) in his possession and in return
prays for the Sultan.183
According to Çelebī, “1,000 gold pieces from the imperial ṣurre (the sultan’s annual gift
to the holy cities) and 200 bushels of wheat from Egypt are set aside for the Molla and
the same for the shaykh al-ḥaram.”184
Along with direct money support and food supplies, unique gifts would also be sent to
the two great mosques in Mecca and Medina. Evliyā Çelebī gives a description of a prayer
niche and golden candles in the room of the Prophet’s tomb, saying: 185
The tomb is also adorned with many valuable chandeliers, each the memento of a
sultan. Only God knows how much each one is worth. There are thousands of jewel-
encrusted lamps, golden balls, seals of Solomon and decanter-shaped jewelled lamps
that dumbfound the viewer. Since there is no room for all the many chandeliers under
this high dome, some of them are hanging by jewelled chains in seventy or eighty places
in the various corners of the nine-arched dome and they have been adorned with even
more gifts that were brought in later.186
182
Ibid., p. 79. For more detail concerning the Ḥijāz’s subsidies and their recipients, see Ibid., p. 74 and after.
183
Çelebī, Evliyā Çelebī in Medina, pp. 119-121.
184
Ibid., p. 37.
185
Records of gifts and donations from Ottoman Sultan to Mecca and Medina in 1503-4 can be found in
Faroqhi’s Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 77.
186
Çelebī, Evliyā Çelebī in Medina, p. 107. More description can be found on p. 105.
81
Along with sending money, food supplies, and gifts to rulers, scholars, and to the two
great mosques, the establishment of schools, ribāṭs, and various institutions increased
due to the generous support of many sultans, princes, the wealthy, and even court
women. Construction in the Ḥijāz was quite expensive. Apart from building stones,
everything else, i.e., timber, iron, bricks, and marble, had to be imported from distant
provinces.187 Qualified workers on Ottoman construction sites in the Ḥijāz often came
from Syria or Egypt.188 The renovation of the great mosques of Mecca and Medina was
especially costly due to special decorations and the materials used.189
The Ottomans maintained the numerous already established Mamlūk waqf
foundations in Mecca and Medina, and added many more to them.190 Some of these
foundations were ruined when the Ottomans took power, and others were functioning
or reparable.191 Water supplies, public baths, and soup kitchens were among common
projects.192 In these charitable projects several women of the court played an important
role. For example, Hurrem Sultan (d. 965/1558), the wife of Sultan Sulayman the
Magnificent (d. 1566), built two institutions in Mecca and Medina, each one consisting of
a mosque, school, kitchen, and ribāṭ, and attached to them many endowments that
covered all their expenses.193
187
About the sources of these materials see Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 94.
188
189
For some data concerning the construction expenditures see Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 97. She also
offers some comparison with the building expenses of two major Istanbul mosques, the Sulaymaniyya
complex and the Sultan Aḥmad mosque. Ibid., p. 98.
190
For a detailed study of Mamlūk waqfs for the Ḥijāz see the doctoral thesis of Aḥmad Hāshim Aḥmad
Badrshīnī, Awqāf al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn fī al-ʿaṣr al-Mamlūkī (648-923/1250-1517) (KSA, Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm
al-Qurā, Kulliyyat al-Sharīʿah wa-l-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyah, PhD Thesis, 2001).
191
See some examples in Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 106.
192
Ibid., p. 106-112.
193
See the waqf conditions in Majidā Makhlūf, Awqāf nisāʾ al-salāṭīn al-ʿuthmāniyyin, waqfiyyat zawjat al-Sulṭān
Sulaymān al-Qānūnī ʿalā al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn (Beirut: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyyah, 2006).
82
Among the institutions that received donations from Egypt in the Ottoman period
were primary schools (kuttābs), schools, libraries, ribāṭs, zāwiyās, hospitals, and water
supplies. These institutions were usually established by sultans or rulers and took their
names, as in the case of such establishments as maktab al-Sultan Murad,194 the schools of
Sultan Sulaymān al-Qānūnī,195 Madrasat Dāwwud Bāshā,196 and al-madrasah al-
Ḥamīdiyyah established by ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Awwal (r. 1773-1788), and many other
schools, libraries, and ribāṭs. Moreover, there were seven primary schools established in
Mecca and three in Medina; four regular schools in Mecca and six in Medina are
mentioned by Bayyūmī in his Mukhaṣṣaṣāt al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn. Bayyūmī likewise
mentions the libraries attached to schools or zāwiyās. He also mentions three takiyyahs
(hospices) in Mecca and three in Medina, three ribāṭs in Mecca and four in Medina, one
zāwiya, one hospital (bīmāristān), water supplies, and even specific amounts for two parks,
one in Mecca and one in Medina.197 Bayyūmī also mentions the institutions about whose
endowments he found documents in Egyptian Archives. Discussion of the many other
educational institutions in the Ḥijāz is reserved for the following chapter.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have tried to show that several seemingly scattered and separated
events, such as the conversion of Iran to Shiʿism and the discovery of the Cape of Good
Hope, contributed to transforming the Ḥijāz into a centre of intellectual life in the 17th
century. As shown above, local factors played a very limited role in this transformation;
the impetus for the Ḥijāz’s development during the 17th century was primarily external.
194
Bayyūmī, Mukhaṣṣaṣāt al-Ḥaramayn al-Sharīfayn, p. 343.
195
Ibid., p. 346.
196
Ibid., p. 346.
197
Ibid., p. 337 and after.
83
The Sharīfs had a long history of dealing with foreign powers striving for dominance
in the two most important centres for Muslims in the world. This competition enabled
the Sharīfs to receive substantial economic support for the Ḥijāz. However, this two-way
relationship depended on the willingness and the ability of the other side to offer
support. As of the 16th century, the Ḥijāz served as a focus of interest for two great and
wealthy empires, the Moghul and the Ottoman. The interest and support of these two
empires were factors contributing to the growing importance of the Ḥijāz. Others include
global changes that resulted in an increasing number of scholars and intellectual texts
circulating outside of Iran and facilitating transportation between different regions
around the Indian ocean, as well as increasing the number of pilgrims and students
visiting the Ḥijāz.
During the 17th century, scholars from all over the Islamic world settled in the Ḥijāz,
sometimes for a short period, and other times for longer. As a centre for the annual
meeting of pilgrims from all around the world, the Ḥijāz played an essential role in
gathering scholars and in spreading and circulating knowledge. Pilgrims, students and
scholars brought with them their particular scholarly traditions, and later these students
and scholars carried these scholarly experiences back to their regions. As we will see in
the next chapter, some scholars describe this movement as one from the centre to the
periphery. Some of these students became distinguished scholars and leaders of Islamic
movements. In fact, “the Hajj acted as the perfect vehicle for building Muslim networks
across the Indian Ocean and even beyond. The History of Islam spilled out from Mecca
and also came back to the same place.”198 To show the significant role the Ḥijāz began to
play in the circulation of knowledge among different parts of Islamic world, one can
198
Tagliacozzo, The Longest Journey, p. 29.
84
mention the controversial work of Mīrzā Makhdūm entitled Nawāqiḍ al-rawāfiḍ, the anti-
Shiʿite work, which was completed in 988/1580 in the Ottoman Empire, had become
popular in India soon after its completion, when about a hundred copies of it were taken
to India by those who had gone on pilgrimage to Mecca.199
In the following chapter, I shall demonstrate that the Ḥijāz was one of the main
centres for intellectual life in the 17th century by examining a number of examples of
scholars, texts, educational institutions, and intellectual activities in the Ḥijāz during
that period.
199
Pourjavady and Ahmed, “Theology in the Indian Subcontinent,” p. 610.
85
Chapter Two: Intellectual Life in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century
The previous chapter has shown some of the main changes in the 10th/16th century that
impacted life in the Ḥijāz, either directly or indirectly. The discovery of the Cape of Good
Hope and the spread of European navies in the Indian Ocean strengthened the
connection of the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia with Arabia. These changes
increased the number of pilgrims, merchants, and students who travelled to study in the
Arab world. The rise of a powerful and wealthy Islamic dynasty, the Mughals, and their
massive donations to the Ḥijāz helped establish numerous educational institutions and
maintain endowments to provide for them, their teachers, and their students. The
Ottoman expansion into the Ḥijāz, as well as to all of the Levant, Egypt, and most of North
Africa, also facilitated travel across these areas. Alongside facilating travel, the Ottomans
made numerous efforts to secure pilgrimage routes and provided generous economic
support for pilgrims. Finally, the conversion of Iran to Shiʿism and the persecution of
Sunni scholars there forced them to disperse to other parts of the Islamic world, carrying
with them their knowledge and establishing new centers of intellectual activity.
Moreover, Iran was no longer a destination for Sunni scholars who sought to pursue
the intellectual sciences. During this period, the Ḥijāz, Cairo, and Damascus replaced
many previous centers of intellectual activity in Iran such as Shiraz and Isfahan. In
addition to these new centers, Sunni scholars were also attracted to the Indian
Subcontinent and Anatolia. The stable situation in the Ḥijāz, increasing investments in
its educational institutions, and the relative ease of travel to Mecca encouraged more
Muslims to come to the area and spend time studying with scholars there. Some of them
86
even made it their home and integrated into local society. These reasons made the Ḥijāz
a central scholarly community for intellectual exchange in the 11th/17th century.
This chapter takes a step further by exploring these activities and the scholars who
contributed to this transformation, and how these sciences and texts reached the Ḥijāz.
It begins with a short review of the secondary literature that has speculated about
intellectual activities in the Ḥijāz during the 17th century, with a focus on the educational
institutions found there during this period. These institutions formed the infrastructure
that offered scholars and students support during their time in the Ḥijāz. Lodging, food
supplies, and even fixed stipends from the sources mentioned in the previous chapter
allowed increasing numbers of students and scholars to spend time studying and
teaching in the Ḥijāz. Madrasas, libraries, ribāṭs, and zāwiyyahs are therefore mentioned
in order to shed light on the diversity of these institutions, which were associated with
crafts such as book binding and manuscript copying.
To gain a better idea of the intellectual life in the Ḥijāz, I am focusing on the following
theoretical and practical intellectual activities that existed in Mecca and Medina:
medicine, agriculture, astronomy, chemistry, and music theory. Then I discuss twenty-
three scholars from 17th century Ḥijāz who taught intellectual sciences, mainly kalām,
logic, and philosophy. In both cases I have excluded the intellectual circle around
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, which will be discussed in detail in the subsequent chapters. In this
one century and in the one small geographical zone of Mecca and Medina, approximately
50 scholars taught intellectual sciences, including the works of Ibn Sīnā, al-Suhrawardī,
al-Dawānī, al-Taftazānī, al-Jurjānī, and many others. How the texts of these philosophers
and scholars reached the Ḥijāz will be explored by analysing a source that is usually not
associated with intellectual sciences: the isnād “chain of transmission”. This science is
87
used with the intention of drawing attention to isnāds as an important source for the
study of post-classical Islamic philosophy.
[2.1] Speculation about Intellectual Activities in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century
As mentioned above, until the rise of the Arab Revolution of Sharīf Ḥusayn (d. 1350/
1931), the Ḥijāz had always been mentioned in academic studies in relation to some more
important authority. The recent interest in some aspects of the history of pre-Wahhabi
Ḥijāz, mainly in the 11-12th/17-18th centuries, has come as a side interest to other studies.
Here, I will mention two fields of study that led scholars to speculate about intellectual
activities in the Ḥijāz in the 11th/17th century.
[2.1.1] Southeast Asian Studies
Probably the first mention of the Ḥijāz as a center of intellectual activity in the 17 th
century came from Southeast Asian studies. Scholarly studies of Sufism in Indonesia
started with Dutch colonialism in the second half of the 19th century, as Sufi orders played
a significant role among resistance movements against the Dutch. 1 This interest in
Sufism and Sufi orders in Indonesia led scholars to the prominent Sufi ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-
Singkili (1620-1695). A PhD thesis from Leiden University was written about al-Singkili
in 1909 by D. A. Rinkes, who reconstructs the man’s life, especially his period of study in
Medina with its scholars.2
1
Martin Van Bruinessen, “Studies of Sufism and the Sufi Orders in Indonesia,” Die Welt des Islams, New
Series, Vol. 38, Issue 2 (Jul., 1998), pp. 192-219. Van Bruinessen notices that all the earliest titles deal with
politically suspect Sufi orders or actual rebellions; he describes the first studies as: “made by civil servants
(and an occasional missionary) and primarily inspired by security concerns.” Ibid., p.192. The early studies
were in Dutch, which prevented their wide publication. After Indonesia’s independence in 1949,
publications in English increased, but most works were done in Indonesian.
2
D.A. Rinkes, Abdoerraoef van Singkel. Bijdrage tot de kennis van de mystiek op Sumatra en Java. Heerenveen:
“Hepkema” (Leiden: doctorate dissertation, 1909).
88
Studying al-Singkili and other Javanese and Malay Sufis resulted in expanding the
study to include their connections with Middle Eastern and Indian-subcontinent Sufism
in the 16th and 17th centuries. For example, A.H. Johns, in writing his thesis at University
of London entitled Malay Sufism as Illustrated in an Anonymous Collection of 17th Century Tracts
(1957) discovered al-Tuḥfah al-mursalah by the Indian Sufi al-Burhānbūrī (d. 1620), which
Johns published in 1965. In the introduction to his edition of al-Burhānbūrī’s text, Johns
mentions nothing about the Ḥijāz; the only note is that the text became so popular in
Jāwā that al-Kūrānī in Medina composed a commentary on it for the Indonesian students
some time before 1661.3 Later, in 1978, Johns attempted to clarify the relationship
between al-Kūrānī and al-Singkili in order to explain the connection between an
Indonesian Sufi and a scholar from the Ḥijāz.4 However, Johns did not consult any sources
about the Ḥijāz, and his sources about al-Kūrānī are from the Maghrib, India, and
Southeast Asia.5
Azyumardi Azra, in his book The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia, Network of
Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern ʿUlamāʾ in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century,6
examines the connections between Southeast Asia and the Middle East, especially the
3
Muḥammad ibn Faḍl Allāh Burhānpūrī and Anthony H. Johns, The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet
(Canberra: Australian National University, 1965).
4
A. H. Johns, “Friends in grace: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkeli,” in Spectrum: Essay presented
to Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. S. Udin (Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 1978), pp. 469-485.
Other sources which the author used were in manuscript form but many of them were printed later.
5
The main sources about al-Kūrānī’s life and thought in this article are two Maghribī scholars, Ibn al-
Ṭayyib and al-Ifrānī, and the Indian Dictionary Abjad al-ʿulūm. The Maghribī account is significant because
it mentions theological disputes about several topics such as kasb, the material character of non-existence,
and the faith of Pharaoh. Ibid., p. 474. The rest of the article is about al-Tuḥfah al-Mursalah.
6
Azyumardi Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia: Networks of Malay-Indonesian and Middle
Eastern ꜤUlamāʾ in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Australia: Asian Studies Association of Australia
in association with Allen & Unwin), 2004. Originally a PhD dissertation at Columbia University in New York
City, defended in 1992.
89
Ḥijāz, in order to clarify the transmission of religious ideas from centers of Islamic
learning to other parts of the Muslim world. Azra, following Voll’s assumptions, which
will be mentioned below, argues that the 17th and 18th centuries constituted one of the
most dynamic periods in the socio-intellectual history of Islam, and that “the origins of
Islamic dynamic impulses in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were networks of
Muslim scholars (ʿulamāʾ), centered in Mecca and Medina.”7
[2.1.2] Reform Movements of the 18th Century
In the 18th century, numerous reform movements burst across the Muslim world.8 The
rise of all these movements during the same century in different parts of the Islamic
world has made some scholars question whether a connection between them existed. In
The Cambridge History of Islam, published in 1970, Fazlur Rahman wrote a chapter entitled
“Revival and reform in Islam.”9 In this chapter he listed many of these intellectual and
militant movements as pre-modernist reform movements.10 Rahman mentions some
common characteristics among them, such as a concern with socio-moral
reconstruction, reform of society on the basis of a “return” to pristine Islam in terms of
the Quran and the Sunna, and proclaimation of the right of ijtihād. However, Rahman did
not try to establish connections between these movements and scholars.
7
Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia, p. 1.
8
Among the leaders and movements that arose in this century are Wahhabism, the movement led by
Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, (d. 1792); al-Sanūsiyyah in North Africa led by ʿAlī al-Sanūsī (1787-1859);
al-Tijāniyyah led by Aḥmad al-Tijānī (d.1815); the Mahdist movement in the Sudan; as well as reformist
figures such as Shāh Walī Allāh Dihlawī (1703-1762) in India, and ʿUthmān Ibn Fūdī (1754-1817) in West
Africa.
9
Fazlur Rahman, “Revival and reform in Islam,” in The Cambridge History of Islam, ed. Holt, P. M., Ann K. S.
Lambton and Bernard Lewis (UK: University Press, 1970).
10
He presented the same ideas in Islam, chapter 12, “Pre-Modern Islam reform,” where he talked about
“orthodox Sufism” based on the Quran and Islamic doctrine. Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979), p. 194.
90
Since many of the reform movements were in Africa, Africanists have been attracted
to study these movements. As in the case of Southeast Asia, resistance movements
against colonialism were the first motivation for these studies.11 John Voll, a historian of
the Islamic world with special interest in African history and the 18 th century, was the
first to connect these movements with other figures and movements in different parts
of the Islamic world. He suggested that a scholarly community in Mecca and Medina
played a critical role in these movements. This group and their connections came to be
known as the al-Ḥaramayn circle or network. Per Voll, Mecca and Medina as centers for
the annual meeting of pilgrims from all around the world provided a basis for revivalism
in the 18th century. Students and pilgrims carried a spirit of Islamic revivalism back to
their homelands and some of them became leaders of Islamic movements. Voll describes
this direction as “from the center to the frontiers of Islam.”12 These movements, in Voll’s
words, “represent a climax of developments in earlier centuries.”13
Voll pursued his thesis about the Ḥijāz network in several articles that sought to link
several reform movements and intellectual figures in the Muslim world with the Ḥijāz in
the 17th and 18th centuries. In 1975, he wrote an article about Muḥammad Ḥayāt al-Sindī
(d. 1750), the common teacher of Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in Arabia and Shāh
11
In “Neo-Sufism reconsidered,” the authors mention that the early studies about these movements came
from French administrators and appeared in missionary reviews. R. S. O’Fahey and Bernd Radtke, “Neo-
Sufism Reconsidered,” Der Islam 70 (1) (1993): 52-87, p. 61 and after.
12
Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll (eds.), Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam (NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1987), p. 8. This description of knowledge circulation from the center to the frontiers is
close to Suraiya Faroqhi’s description of study of ḥajj as part of the history of human communication. She
discusses different levels of this connection. One of these levels, which is less visible than the religious and
economic levels, is the communication between returning pilgrims and their neighbors. It is a kind of
transformation of immaterial resources. See: Faroqhi, Pilgrims & Sultans, p. 3.
13
Levtzion and Voll (eds.), Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, p. 6.
91
Walī Allāh Dihlawī in India.14 In this article, he focuses on the spread of ḥadīth studies in
the Ḥijāz which formed an intellectual community through patterns of student-teacher
relationships. Besides the interest in ḥadīth studies, most of the teachers and students
were affiliated with Sufi orders.15 In 1980, Voll published “Hadith scholars and Tariqah:
an ulama group in the 18th century Ḥaramayn and their impact in the Islamic world.”16 In
this article he argues that the activist style of Sufism in the 18th century can conveniently
be called “Neo-Sufism,”17 and that the scholars of the Ḥaramayn formed a cosmopolitan
core for the development of ḥadīth studies and neo-Sufism.18 It seems that Voll wanted
14
John Voll, “Muḥammad Ḥayāt al-Sindī and Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: an analysis of an intellectual
group in Eighteenth-Century Madīna,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London, Vol. 38, No. 1 (1975), pp. 32-39. Ḥayāt al-Sindī studied with one of the keenest Ḥanbalī shaykhs
against Wahhabism, Muḥammad Ibn Fayrūz al-Aḥsāʾī (1729-1801), who was the subject of several Wahhabi
assassination attempts. See: David Commins, “Traditional anti-Wahhabi Ḥanbalism in Nineteenth Century
Arabia,” in Ottoman Reform and Muslim Regeneration: Studies in Honour of Butrus Abu Manneh, ed. Itzchak
Weismann and Fruma Zachs (London & NY: I.B. Tauris, 2005); Muḥammed bin ʿAbdullāh bin Ḥamīd al-Najdī
al-Makkī, al-Suḥub al-wābilah ʿalā ḍarā’iḥ al-Ḥanābilah, ed. Bakr Abū Zayd and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿUthaymīn
(Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1996), vol. 3, p. 972.
15
Through tracing 27 of al-Sindī’s teachers and 20 of his students Voll tried to show that there was a
cosmopolitan network of scholars and students from all parts of the Islamic World. The main interests of
this intellectual community were ḥadith studies and Sufism.
16
John Voll, “Hadith scholars and Tariqah: an ulamā group in the 18 th century haramayn and their impact
in the Islamic world,” Journal of Asian and African Studies, Jul 1, XV, 3-4 (1980), pp. 264-273.
17
The term is very controversial; it became widespread without clarification or examination of its meaning.
Some scholars refute the term and its usage except with clear and strict definition. See: R. S. O’Fahey, and
Bernd Radtke, “Neo-Sufism reconsidered,” and John Voll, “Neo-Sufism: Reconsidered again,” Canadian
Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines, Vol. 42, No. 2/3, Engaging with a Legacy:
Nehemia Levtzion (1935-2003) (2008), pp. 314-330.
18
For more studies in the same vein, see Voll’s 1987 “Linking groups in the networks of Eighteenth-Century
revivalist scholars: The Mizjājī family in Yemen,” in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam. All the
articles in the book are along the same lines; they present different reform movements in the Islamic world
during the 18th century. In his 2002 article, “ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Sālim al-Baṣrī and 18th Century Ḥadīth
scholarship,” Die Welt des Islam 42:3 (2002), Voll sees in these activities support for his thesis that ḥadīth
studies reached a particular climax in the 18 th century. The article is about a ḥadīth scholar and Sufi in the
Ḥijāz and his wide range of students from different regions of the Islamic world. Voll also wrote “Scholarly
Interrelations between South Asia and the Middle East in the 18 th Century,” in The Countries of South Asia:
Boundaries, Extensions and Interrelations, Peter Gaeffke and David A. Utz (eds.), (USA, Philadelphia: 1980), pp.
92
to challenge the idea of a Wahhābī influence on later movements in various parts of the
Islamic world by considering the environments from which Wahhabism as well as these
other movements emerged.19
These scholarly studies soon shifted focus to activist involvement in revivalism
through neo-Sufi organizations.20 Many scholars from North Africa, the Eastern
49-59. In 2002 he also wrote “ʿUthmān B. Muḥammad Fūdī’s Sanad to al-Bukhārī as Presented in Tazyīn al-
Waraqāt,” Sudanic Africa, Vo. 13, (2002), pp. 111-115. In this article he examines an isnad of a scholar and
activist in Central Africa to demonstrate his connection with the Ḥaramayn group.
19
Aḥmad Dallal begins his article “The origin and objectives of Islamic revivalist thought, 1750-1850”
(Journal of the American Oriental Society 113 (3) 1993, 341-359, p. 341) by mentioning some studies that
emphasize the Wahhābī influence over later movements. Dallal also refuses to consider teacher-student
relationships as a sign of similarities reflected in the results. Thus, Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and
Walī Allāh Dihlawī studying with the same teacher of ḥadīth in Medina does not signify any similarity
between the two movements. Dallal emphasizes reading these movements within their specific social and
political contexts. Through analyzing four movements he shows the differences between their programs
which arose from different contexts and objectives. Mainly, he focuses on topics of takfīr, Sufism, and social
reforms, to show that each movement has a different ideology. Bernard Haykel in his study on al-Shawkānī
agrees with Dallal’s view that the substantive content of the ideology of Islamic revival needs to be
thoroughly researched before any broad generalization can be made about the nature of Islamic thought
in a given period or across a vast expanse of geographic space. Haykel emphasizes the importance of
viewing al-Shawkānī’s life and work “within his local context and intellectual tradition.” Bernard Haykel,
Revival and Reform in Islam: the Legacy of Muḥammad al-Shawkānī (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
20
O’Fahey, in Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad Ibn Idris and Idrisi Tradition (Illinois: Northwestern University Press,
1990), presents the life and works one of the most influential scholars in North Africa. To situate him in
the context of the al-Ḥaramayn network, Aḥmad Ibn Idrīs al-Fāsī spent 30 years of his life in the Ḥijāz (from
1799 to 1827-8) where he was in contact with most of the Ḥaramayn scholars, he even engaged in debates
with some Wahhabi ʿulama. Ibid. 65. Aḥmad b. Idrīs is a key figure in the “Neo-Sufi” reform Sufi orders
among whom were the Tijāniyyah, Khatmiyyah, Sanūsiyyah, Rashīdiyyah, Ṣāliḥiyyah, and Dandarāwiyyah,
to name only a few. His main students were ʿAlī al-Sanūsī (1787-1859), the founder of the Sanūsiyyah order
in North Africa, and ʿUthmān Marghānī (1793-1853), the founder of the Khatmiyyah order in Sudan. Both
orders played a significant role in political life in Libya and Sudan. The influences of ḥadīth studies on
African activist movements can be seen in the title of sheikh ʿUthmān Ibn Fūdī’s book Iḥyāʾ al-Sunnah wa
Ikhmād al-Bidʿah in 1793. See Louis Bernner, “Muslim thought in Eighteenth-Century Africa: The case of
shaykh ʿUthmān b. Fūdī,” in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, pp. 39-58. Studying the
developments of Ibn Fūdī’s thought reveals an important link between ḥadīth studies and militant
movements. After a period of tolerant writings, the shaykh’s teaching shifted from “commanding the right
and forbidding the wrong” and criticizing the ʿulamāʾ to inciting criticism of state leaders. Government
reactions to the activities of these reformists occasionally forced them to resist, sometimes through
militant action. For example, when the number of Ibn Fūdī’s followers increased, the rulers of the state of
93
Mediterranean, and the Indian Subcontinent settled in the Ḥijāz and brought with them
their scholarly traditions. Later, students and pilgrims brought these studies back to
their regions. The ḥadīth studies, according to Voll, “provided the basis for socio-
religious purification programs and were undertaken within a clearly fundamentalist
spirit.”21
Another important source that examines some aspects of the intellectual activities in
the 17th century Ḥijāz is the recent work by Khaled El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History
in the Seventeenth Century: Scholarly Currents in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb,
published in 2015. El-Rouayheb’s work is the most detailed work that attempts to
challenge the narrative of “decline” in the 17th century in the region of the Ottomans and
in Arab lands. El-Rouayheb argues that “rational sciences” were cultivated vigorously in
the Ottoman Empire throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. These sciences were actually
reinvigorated by an infusion of books and scholars from the Persian, Azeri, and Kurdish
regions in the east. In North Africa, the rational sciences in Cairo were stimulated by
incoming scholars from the Maghreb; these scholars were known by local students for
their mastery of especially logic and rational theology (kalām).
Part III of the book is related to intellectual life in the Ḥijāz. According to El-Rouayheb,
the spread of Sufi orders from India and Central Asia into the Arab-speaking areas of the
Near East in the 17th century strengthened the influence of Ibn ʿArabī, which led
eventually to the weakening of the hold of Ashʿarī and Māturīdī theology in these areas
and to the reassertion of more “traditionalist,” near-Ḥanbalī positions on a range of core
Gobri considered them a political threat and sought to limit their growing influence despite the fact that
Ibn Fūdī’s activities were apolitical and he made no mention of the state in his discourse. The shaykh
committed to jihād against the State, but, when the ruler changed a few years later, shaykh ʿUthmān’s
writings resumed their former tolerant tone. Ibid., 40-41.
21
Voll, “Hadith scholars and tariqah,” p. 265.
94
theological issues. El-Rouayheb discusses two main aspects of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s
thought in the Ḥijāz. In theology, El-Rouayheb examines al-Kūrānī’s criticism of later
Ashʿarī radical occasionalism in the creation of human acts in favor of giving human
power an effect on their acts. This position of al-Kūrānī was inspired by Ibn ʿArabī’s
thought, according to El-Rouayheb, and weakened the Ashʿarī position and played an
essential role in rehabilitating the ideas of the Ḥanbalī thinker Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328).
The other aspect that El-Rouayheb examines is al-Kūrānī’s attitude toward the idea of
waḥdat al-wujūd; he refutes some studies that suggest that al-Kūrānī’s attitude toward
the concept of waḥdat al-wujūd was less “pantheistic” and more “orthodox” than those of
earlier mystics, arguing that al-Kūrānī’s interpretation of waḥdat al-wujūd agreed with
defending the Qūnawī-inspired interpretation of Ibn ʿArabī, including its most
controversial aspects such as waḥdat al-wujūd, the Faith of Pharoah, and the end torments
of infidels in Hell.22
Apart from the work of El-Rouayheb, interest in the intellectual activities in the 17th
century Ḥijāz has come as side interest to other studies, mainly Southeast Asian studies
and studies of the reform movements of the 18th century. These studies were interested
in the Ḥijāz in as much as it influenced other regions. Scholars of these two fields have
supposed that intellectual activities were happening in the Ḥijāz in the 17th century, but
their works consist in mere insights and suggestions, since hardly any of the texts and
scholars of the Ḥijāz in the 17th century have been studied. In order to bridge this gap,
the following section will mention educational institutions in the Ḥijāz in the 17th
century, mainly madrasas, ribāṭs, zāwiyās, libraries, and some professions that are usually
associated with intellectual activities, such as book-binders and book scribes. Some
22
El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 320.
95
theoretical and practical sciences in the Ḥijāz will be mentioned in order to shed more
light on the intellectual environments in general.
[2.2] Educational Institutions in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century
[2.2.1] Madrasas, Ribāṭs, and Zāwiyās
From the late 6th/12th century, individual Muslim rulers, as well as representatives of the
wealthy elite, began to endow madrasas in the holiest of all Muslim cities: Mecca. These
schools played a central rode in the transmission of knowledge. 23 Richard T. Mortel
studied 23 madrasas founded in Mecca prior to the Ottoman takeover of the Ḥijāz in
923/1517. Through surviving literary sources, he attempted to describe their character,
physical appearance, location, the conditions attached to the endowment, their purpose,
function, and, in a limited number of cases, subsequent development over time.24 These
Pre-Ottoman Meccan madrasas generally were centralized around the ḥaram and taught
all four schools of fiqh.
Alongside the madrasas, numerous ribāṭs were associated with these schools to
provide students and teachers a residence and the means of living. Some of these ribāṭs
provided special places for Sufis to gather and recite the Quran. 25 Ribāṭs in Mecca were
the subject of another article by Mortel. In this article, he argues that the ribāṭs of Mecca
23
Richard T. Mortel, “Madrasas in Mecca during the medieval period: A descriptive study based on literary
sources,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 60, No. 2 (1997), pp.
236-252, 236. The author uses mainly the writings of the 9 th/15th century historians of Mecca, Taqī al-Dīn
Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Fāsī and Najm al-Dīn ʿUmar b. Fahd. They are regarded as the pillars of medieval
Meccan historiography. Both works are published. Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Fāsī, Shifāʾ al-
gharām bi-akhbār al-Balad al-Ḥarām (Beirut: 1985). Al-Najm b. Fahd, Itḥāf al-warā fi akhbār Umm al-Qurā, ed.
Fahīm Shaltūt and others (Mecca: Maṭābiʿ Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, 1988).
24
The 23 madrasas that are known to have been founded in Mecca during the medieval period are dealt
with in chronological order. The list starts with “the madrasa of al-Arsūfī (571/1175-76),” which is regarded
as the earliest madrasa known to have been founded in Mecca.
25
Mortel, “Madrasas in Mecca during the medieval period,” p. 247-8.
96
from as early as the year 529/1134-35, during the Fatimid period, were founded solely to
provide lodging for Sufis.26 He mentions 59 ribāṭs that are known to have been founded
in Mecca before the Ottoman takeover of the Ḥijāz.
The 59 ribāṭs in medieval Mecca are discussed in chronological sequence. The earliest
ribāṭ for which literary evidence exists is the ribāṭ of Ibn Mandā. It was established by
Muḥammad b. Isḥāq b. Muḥammad b. Mandā of Isfahan sometime before 395/1004-5. The
ribāṭ of al-Dimashqiyyah (529/1135) is the oldest ribāṭ in Mecca known to have been
dedicated, at least in part, to Sufis. In the same year (529/1135), the ribāṭ of Rāmisht was
founded exclusively for Sufis.27 Worthy of mention is that several Meccan ribāṭs were
established by women. Many of these ribāṭs were founded in order to make free
accommodations available to people coming to Mecca to perform the pilgrimage. Outside
of pilgrimage season, they were occupied by scholars and students who decided to stay
as mujāwirūn.
Ribāṭs in Mecca were the subject of two academic studies by Ḥusayn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz
Shāfiʿī, who dedicated his Master’s thesis to the ribāṭs in pre-Ottoman Mecca and his PhD
dissertation to ribāṭs in Mecca during the Ottoman period.28 Ḥusayn A. Shāfiʿī counted 80
26
He mentions a distinction between the khānqāh and the ribāṭ; the former was a mosque combined with a
Sufi hospice, whereas the latter was simply a hospice for poor people in general, whether or not they were
members of Sufi orders. Later, the ribāṭ metamorphosed into a miniature khānqāh. He argues that this may
be accepted as valid for the specific case of Mamlūk Cairo, it cannot be applied with certainty to other
Muslim lands nor other time periods.
27
Richard T. Mortel, “Ribāṭs in Mecca during the medieval period: A descriptive study based on literary
sources,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 61, No. 1 (1998), pp.
29-50, p.33.
28
The two studies try to be comprehensive in collecting all the historical information and archival
materials related to ribāṭs in Mecca. Unfortunately, he ignored any information about Sufi activities in
these ribāṭs even though some of his sources, such as Khabāyā al-zawāyā, exclusively talk about ribāṭs and
zāwiyās of Sufis. Additionally, Mortel’s description of Sufi aspects of ribāṭs in Mecca, alongside the Sufi
names of numerous ribāṭs, leaves no doubt that most of these ribāṭs were centers of Sufi practices.
97
ribāṭs in Mecca before the Ottomans took over control of the Ḥijāz, 39 of them still open
and working at the beginning of Ottoman era.29 During the Ottoman period, Shāfiʿī
counted 156 ribāṭs in Mecca alone.30 These ribāṭs were established by rulers, scholars, and
wealthy people from all around the Islamic world. They were dedicated to use by various
groups: students, pilgrims from certain places, women, and poor people. Unfortunately,
there are no similar academic studies about madrasas, ribāṭs, and zāwiyās in Medina; such
a study would require more research into works of history and travelers’ accounts to
collect information about these institutions.
Evliyā Çelebī, the Ottoman traveler, in recounting his trip to the Ḥijāz in 1082/1671,
says that in Mecca there were 40 great schools, and he gives the names of more that 20
of them.31 Also mentioned are more than 78 takiyyahs; the greatest one is that of the
Mūlawiyyah.32 Moreover, he says that there were 150 primary schools (katātīb), 40
schools teaching the Quran, and 40 schools teaching ḥadīth.33 He mentions that despite
these many institutions the people of Mecca do not care much for science, since they are
mainly occupied with commerce and building high houses, and that most of the people
who are busy with knowledge are the mujāwirūn from outside of the Ḥijāz.34 Alongside
these educational institutions, there were 53 commercial agencies (wakālah tijāriyyah)
and each one consised of between 100 and 200 shops.35
29
Ḥusayn A. Shāfiʿī, al-Arbiṭah fī Makkah al-mukarramah mundhu al-bidāyāt ḥattā nihāyat al-ʿaṣr al-
Mamlūkī: dirāsah tārīkhiyyah ḥaḍāriyyah (London: al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2005).
30
Ḥusayn A. Shāfiʿī, al-Arbiṭah bi-Makkah fī al-ʿahd al-ʿuthmānī: Dirāsah tārikhiyyah ḥaḍāriyyah 923-1334H/1517-
1915 (London: al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2005).
31
Jalabī, al-Riḥlah al-ḥijāziyyah, p. 265.
32
Ibid., p. 265.
33
Ibid., p. 278.
34
Ibid., p. 278-279.
35
Ibid., p. 266.
98
Regarding Medina, Evliyā Çelebī says that inside and outside the walled city there are
118 madrasas.36 He describes these schools saying that “there are 20 primary schools; 7
Quran schools […] and 7 ḥadīth schools.”37 Then he turns to the schools outside of the
wall, saying that “some of the 46 madrasas here have been turned into homes. There are
6 Quranic schools, 11 ḥadīth schools and 20 schools for abecedarians. The annual ṣurre
provides all of them with specified gifts and clothing.”38 We have to take into
consideration that Evliyā Çelebī also estimates the population of Medina in his trip as
14,000 outside of the pilgrimage season, “as listed in the court register.”39
In Waṣf al-Madīnah al-munawwarah (“Description of Medina”), written in the year
1303/1885, ʿAlī b. Mūsā, an administrative employee in Medina, paints a picture of
Medina in his time from social, geographical, and generic descriptions of the important
historical sites.40 This work also includes some information about the educational
institutions of Medina at the author’s time. In his talk about makātib al-ṣubyān, which can
be considered elementary schools, we find that there were 24 in Medina, without
mentioning girls’ schools.41 When the author talks about libraries (kutubkhānāt), he
mentions 8, then he says there are many more in different schools, but compared to these
larger ones, their collections are small.42 Then he mentions 11 schools and says that there
36
Çelebī, Evliyā Çelebi in Medina, p. 112-113.
37
Ibid., p. 113.
38
Ibid., p. 117.
39
Ibid., p. 120.
40
The editor of the book says that the description of Medina does not differ from its subsequent situation
until almost the time of the Ḥijāz railway. This allows us to assume that the situation earlier would not
have been much different.
41
He says, “except the schools of girls.” ʿAlī b. Mūsā, Waṣf al-Madīnah al-munawwarah fī sanat 1303/1885, in
Rasāʾil fī tārīkh al-Madīnah, ed. Ḥamad al-Jāsir (KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Manshūrāt Dār al-Yamāmah, [1392/1972]), p.
51.
42
Ibid., p. 52.
99
are many others but that these are the most famous and well-organized.43 He also
mentioned 12 zāwiyās and says “and other zawāyā for Shādhilī groups and others, if I
mention them it will be too long.”44 Most of the names of these zāwiyās belong to Sufi
shaykhs such as ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jilānī, al-Qushāshī, al-Badawī, al-Dusūqī, al-Mulawiyyah,
al-Rifāʿī, and al-Junayd. When he came to ribāṭs, he said “About ribāṭs, they are many and
there is no need to mention them.”45 However, we can find mention of several in the
same text, including ribāṭ al-shaykh Maẓhar al-Naqshbandī (p. 46, 53), which he describes
as the greatest ribāṭ in Medina (p. 46); a ribāṭ close to the mosque of Sayyidunā ʿAlī (p. 41);
the ribāṭs of zāwiyat al-Sammān (p. 47); ribāṭ ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān (p. 47); ribāṭ al-ʿajam (p.
47); a ribāṭ in Qibā’ (p. 45); and ribāṭ Ibn al-Zamān (p. 55).
What I have mentioned are only a few examples of the schools, ribāṭs, and zāwiyās in
Medina during the 11th/17th century. Further detailed studies are needed to have a more
comprehensive picture. However, in my estimation the number of schools, ribāṭs, and
zāwiyās in Medina was higher than that in Mecca. In Chapter One I mentioned two
testimonies from the 17th century, al-ʿAyyāshī and Jalabī, that explicitly mention that
most mujawirūn, who were mainly scholars and students, preferred to stay of in Medina.
[2.2.2] Libraries, Book-Binders, and Book Scribes in Medina
Almost every scholar in Medina used to have his own private library alongside the public
libraries in schools, ribāṭs, and mosques. Most of the books in these institutions were
donated as waqf by Medinan scholars or by scholars from outside the Ḥijāz. One such
scholar was Dāwūd Āghā (d. 1102/1690) who was the Imām of the ḥaram in Medina and
43
Ibid., p. 52.
44
Ibid., p. 53.
45
Ibid., p. 53.
100
gave all his books as waqf for students in Medina.46 Another scholar who collected
numerous books and then donated them as waqf to the ḥaram in Medina was ʿAbd Allāh
al-Jawharī al-Miṣrī (1155/1742)47 and another was Muḥammad al-Sammān.48 Al-ʿAyyāshī
mentions that a scholar from Morocco named Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl (d. 1064/1653)49 left
behind around 1,500 books upon his death and in his will mentioned that these books
should be moved to the Prophet’s mosque in Medina. These books were collected by
Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl mainly from Istanbul. Al-ʿAyyāshī says that he saw some of them
(around 170 only) in Medina.50 Al-Ḥamawī in Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl mentions that some waqf
libraries in Medina were sent there from far away, mentioning the library of Muḥammad
Ismāʿīl, which was under the supervision of Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Fazārī.51
In al-ʿAyyāshī’s Riḥlah we notice that almost every scholar in the Ḥijāz had his own
library. He specifically mentioned the khizānat kutub of Abū ʿIsā al-Thaʿālibī in Mecca,
which contained around 80 volumes. Unfortunately, it was kept in the mosque and one
year a flood destroyed it. Al-ʿAyyāshī also mentions the library of Ṣibghat Allāh, which
was under the supervision of al-Qushāshī in the Prophet’s mosque in Medina. When he
discusses the season of the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday in Rabiʿ I, he describes
how they began cleaning the mosque and cleaned out the libraries (khazāʾin al-kutub) that
were endowments to the mosque.
46
ʿAbdl-Raḥmān al-Anṣārī, Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn wa-l-aṣḥāb fī maʿrifat mā li-l-madaniyyin min al-ansāb, ed.
Muḥammad al-ʿArūsī al-Maṭawī (Tunisia: al-Maktabah al-ʿAtīqah, 1970). p. 63.
47
Al-Anṣārī, Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn, p. 147.
48
Ibid., p. 279.
49
About him see al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar, p. 221.
50
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol.1, p. 108.
51
101
In al-Anṣārī’s book about the families of Medina we can find names of book-binders
(mujallid al-kutub) in Medina. He mentioned four names: Ibrāhīm Awliyāʾ (d. 1150/1737),52
Muṣṭafā al-Qalʿī,53 ʿAbd Allāh al-Dāghistānī (d. 1178/1764),54 and Muṣṭafā al-Sarāylī (d.
1187/1773). Al-Anṣārī also mentioned some people who worked as scribes (nāsikh al-
kutub). Among the people who did this work in Medina were Aḥmad al-Bukhārī
(1136/1723),55 Abū al-ʿIzz al-Ḥanbalī (d. 1133/1720),56 and one of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s
grandsons, Abū al-Barakāt b. Abī al-Ḥasan b. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1168/1754).57
Collecting, copying, and binding books are clear indications of the great interest in
education and an increased demand for these tools thereof. This interest in books also
indicates the growth in the number of students and scholars in the Ḥijāz. Before
mentioning some of these scholars who were active in the Ḥijāz in the 17th century, a
short review of some theoretical and practical sciences in the Ḥijāz in the same period
can shed more light on the flourishing of intellectual activities in this geographical zone
during this specific period.
[2.2.3] Some Theoretical and Practical Sciences in the Ḥijāz
The following are some of the sciences that were studied in Medina during the 11 th/17th
and 12th/18th centuries, excluding philosophy, logic, theology, and Sufism, which will be
mentioned later in accounts of al-Kūrānī’s teachers and students and through the
discussions of intellectual currents in the coming chapters. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Al-Anṣārī’s
(d. 1197) Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn wa-l-aṣḥāb fī maʿrifat mā li-l-madaniyyīn min ansāb is one of the
52
53
Ibid., p. 401.
54
Ibid., p. 230
55
Ibid., p. 108.
56
Ibid., p. 170.
57
Ibid., p. 457.
102
most valuable sources for information about Medina’s families and the profession of each
person. Al-Anṣārī tried to follow the genealogy of each family in Medina for several
generations with some information on the name and profession and a short biography
of each person in each family. Al-Anṣārī was himself from a scholarly family; both he and
his father were teachers in the great mosque in Medina.58 The information in the book is
from his direct connection with the people of Medina in the 12th/18th century. What he
mentioned about scholars of 11th/17th century is most probably from the sons and
grandsons of these scholars.
Medicine
1. Ṣafī al-Dīn b. Muḥammad al-Kaylānī (1016/1607).59 Al-Muḥibbī in Khulāṣat al-athar
describes him as al-Kaylānī al-ṭabīb, “the physician.” He moved to Mecca where
he became famous for his work in medicine and many people studied with him.
He was also famous for his work in logic.
2. Ibrāhīm Awliyāʾ al-Rūmī (d. 1150/1737)60 was a mujāwir in Medina, then traveled
to Yemen and worked as a physician (taʿāṭā ṣanʿat al-ṭibb). Later, he returned to
Medina and stayed there until his death.
3. Muḥammad al-Baytī Bā-ʿAlawī (d. 1135/1722).61 Al-Anṣārī says that he was
interested in medicine.
58
Al-Anṣārī, Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn, p. 27-28.
59
Al-Dihlawī, al-Azhār al-ṭayyibah, p. 101; Muḥammad Amīn al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar fī aʿyān al-qarn al-
ḥādī ʿashar (Egypt: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Wahbīyah, [1868]), vol. 2, p. 244; ʿAbd Allāh Mirdād b. Abī al-Khayr, al-
Mukhtaṣar min kitāb nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar fī tarājim afāḍil Makkah min al-qarn al-ʿāshir ilā al-qarn al-rābiʿ
ʿashar, ed. Muḥammad Saʿīd al-ʿĀmūdī and Aḥmad ʿAlī (KSA, Jeddah: ʿĀlam al-Maʿrifah, 1986), p. 221; ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʿallimī, Aʿlām al-makkiyyin min al-qarn al-tāsiʿ ilā al-qarn al-rābiʿ ʿashar al-hijrī
(London: Muʾassasat al-Furqān li-l-Turāth al-Islāmī, 2000), vol. 2, p. 816.
60
61
Ibid., p. 123.
103
4. Jaʿfar b. al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Baytī Bā-ʿAlawī (d. 1182/1768-9).62 Al-Anṣārī
describes him as excellent in medicine (baraʿa fī ʿilm al-ṭibb).
5. ʿAlawī b. ʿAlī b. Jaʿfar b. al-Sayyid Muḥammad Bā-ʿAlawī63 became very good in
medicine, probably the best in Medina.
6. Muḥammad al-Shāmī (d. 1170/1756-7)64 was working in medicine.
Agriculture (ʿIlm al-filāḥah)
1. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Sindī, known as “Kibrīt” (d. 1070/1659).65 Al-Anṣārī
describes him as a scholar who wrote many useful books, among them one
entitled Kitāb al-filāḥah.
2. Khayr al-Dīn b. Tāj al-Dīn b. Ilyās al-Rūmī (d. 1113/1701)66 composed many
treatises, among them one in ʿilm al-filāḥah.
Astronomy
1. Muḥammad Abū al-Nūr al-Hindī (d. 1144/1731).67 Al-Anṣārī says that he had
complete knowledge of astronomy (ʿIlm al-falak wa-l-aḥkām).
2. Ibrāhīm al-Mināstīrly (attribution to Mināstir in Bilād al-Rūm) (d. 1150/1737)68
had complete knowledge of astronomy.
3. Muḥammah al-Shirwānī (d. 1186/1772).69 He worked in ʿilm al-falak wa-l-nujūm.
4. Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Shirwānī (the previous).70 He worked in ʿilm al-falak wa-
l-aḥkām.
62
Ibid., p. 123.
63
Ibid., p. 124.
64
Ibid., p. 363.
65
Ibid., p. 412.
66
Ibid., p. 42.
67
Ibid., p. 478.
68
Ibid., p. 462.
69
Ibid., p. 302.
70
Ibid., p. 304.
104
5. Munajjim Bāshī (1113/1702). More information about him will be mentioned
below.
6. Al-Rūdānī al-Fāsī (d. 1094/1683), who invented a tool to be used in observation.
He will be mentioned among al-Kūrānī’s teachers.
Chemistry (ṣanʿat al-kīmyāʾ)
1. ʿAbd Allāh al-Lublubī (d. 1187/1773).71
2. Aḥmad al-Mughayrabī (d. 1186/1772).72
Music theory and practice
1. Ṣiddīq b. Hishām al-Hindī (his father died 1160/1747),73 who learned ʿūd,
kamanjah, and ṭanbūr, and became famous for his work with these instruments.
2. Muḥammad al-Rūmī (d. 1172/1758)74 from the family of shaykh al-qurrāʾ. Al-Anṣārī
describes him as perfect in ʿilm al-musīqā.
3. ʿAlī al-Dāniq al-Yamanī (d. 1140/1727)75 was perfect in nāy, and wherever there
was a concert you would find him.
4. Muṣṭafā al-Makkī al-Sindī (d. 1186/1772)76 learned the science of music and
became incomparable in this science in Medina.
5. Abū al-Ḥasan Ḥammād, who used to play ṭanbūr in the sessions of amusements.77
71
Ibid., p. 422.
72
Ibid., p. 467.
73
Ibid., p. 323.
74
Ibid., p. 317.
75
Ibid., p. 239.
76
Ibid., p. 237.
77
Ibid., p. 193.
105
Al-Anṣārī also mentions a person who was working in ṣanʿat al-sāʿāt (clock making or
reparation).78 In addition, there were others who worked in traditional crafts that existed
in every city such as dressmakers, jewelers, wax makers, etc.
The purpose of this information is to explain how intellectual life evolved within a
stable and prosperous society, with all the requirements not only for knowledge, but for
entertainment as well.
[2.3] Scholars in the Ḥijāz
Sources on the history of the Ḥijāz during 11th/17th century contain numerous names of
scholars who used to teach the intellectual sciences. The following list is not a
comprehensive survey of the sources or the scholars, nor does it contain any scholars
from al-Kūrānī’s circle, i.e., none of his teachers or students. I have arranged the names
chronologically according to the date of death and included only the scholars who lived
in the Ḥijāz, for a short or long period, and who had some kind of intellectual activity
and exchange while there. The list contains the scholars who died in the 11th/17th century
and the first half of the 12th/18th century, since they spent part of their life in the Ḥijāz
during 11th/17th century.
1. ʿAlī b. Ṣadr al-Dīn b. Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. ʿIṣām al-Dīn al-Isfrāyyinī (Ibn ʿArab-
shāh), known as al-ḥafīd (d. 1007/1599 in Mecca).79 He was the grandson of the famous
scholar ʿIṣām al-Dīn al-Isfrāyyinī. He wrote a gloss on his grandfather’s Sharḥ al-Istiʿārāt.
2. Dāwūd al-Anṭākī (d. 1008/1600), known as the philosopher.80 Al-Ḥamawī
describes him as a specialist in the sciences of the ancient (ʿulūm al-awāʾil), especially
78
Ibid., p. 302.
79
80
Darwīsh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Ṭālawī al-Dimashqī, Sāniḥāt dumā al-qaṣr fī muṭāraḥāt banī al-ʿaṣr, ed.
Muḥammad Mursī al-Khūlī (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1983), vol. 2, p. 32.
106
philosophy, al-ʿulūm al-ḥikamiyyah, and physiology (ʿilm al-abdān). He was born in a village
in the north of Syria, then his family moved to Anṭākiyyah. Later, he moved to Damascus
and finally to Cairo. Even though he was blind, it seems that he was the most important
physician of his time. He used to say that “If Ibn Sīnā meets me he will stand in front of
my door.”81 Several historians describe him as a philosopher (ʿalā madhhab al-ḥukamāʾ)
and mostly with a negative connotation.82 Darwīsh al-Ṭālawī (d. 1014/1605), who
accompanied him and studied with him for several years, mentions some of his early life
and his early education as al-Anṭākī told him. He was disabled when he was born and
could not move. His father used to take him every morning and put him close to a shrine
in his region. One time a foreign gentleman (afāḍil al-ʿajam) called Muḥammad Sharīf
stayed in that shrine and started to teach some theology and metaphysics (ʿulūm
ilāhiyyah) to visitors. When he noticed the intelligence of this boy, he treated him until
he was healed and was able to move again. Then he started to teach him logic,
mathematics and natural philosophy. Al-Anṭākī said that he wanted to learn Persian
from him but this teacher told him that Persian is easy and anyone could learn it. Instead
of Persian, he offered to teach him Greek, and said that he does not know anyone on the
earth who currently knew it. Al-Anṭākī claims that he is in the position of his teacher
concerning this language. This information is all that al-Anṭākī mentioned about this
mysterious scholar.83 Al-Anṭākī wrote several works in medicine, the most famous of
which was the Tadhkirat al-Anṭākī. He also wrote a commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s poem on the
soul, and another poem in which he presents his theory of the soul.84 Al-Ṭālawī says that
81
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4, 135. This idiom means that Ibn Sīnā would be among his students
who wait for him to leave his house so they can learn from him.
82
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, Ibid, (illā annahu ʿalā madhhab al-ḥukamāʾ).
83
Al-Ṭālawī, Sāniḥāt dumā al-qaṣr, vol. 2, p. 36.
84
Some of its verses can be found in al-Ṭālawī, Sāniḥāt dumā al-qaṣr, vol. 2, p. 39.
107
in Cairo he studied with Dāwūd al-Anṭākī the books of peripatetic and illuminationist
philosophy, the Rasāʾil ikhwān al-ṣafā, and then works of al-Majrīṭī. He read with him as
well the works of Ibn Sīnā, and he lists the following: al-Shifāʾ, al-Qānūn, al-Najāh, al-
Ḥikmah al-mashriqiyyah, al-Taʿlīqāt, Risālat al-ajrām al-samāwiyyah, al-Risālah al-nadhiriyyah,
al-Risālah al-ʿalāʾiyyah in Persian, al-Ishārāt with the commentaries of al-Ṭūsī and al-Rāzī,
and the Muḥākamāt of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī and its glosses by al-Jurjānī.85 Among the works
of al-Suhrawardī he mentions al-Mashāriʿ wa-l-muṭāraḥāt, al-Talwīḥāt with Ibn
Kammunah’s commentary, al-Alwāḥ al-ʿimādiyyah, al-Rumūz al-lāhūtiyyah, Ḥikmat al-ishrāq
with Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shirāzī’s commentary, and Hayākil al-Nūr with al-Dawānī’s
commentary.86 Beside these works that al-Ṭālawī studied with al-Anṭākī, al-Ḥamawī
mentioned some of his other works, from which we can mention al-Tadhkirah, in which
he compiled medicine and wisdom, Sharḥ al-Qānūn of Ibn Sīnā, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥukamāʾ, Ghāyat
al-marām fī taḥqīq al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, Zīnat al-ṭurūs fī aḥkām al-ʿuqūl wa-l-nufūs, a
commentary on a poem by al-Suhrawardī (khalaʿat hayākilihā bi-jarʿāʾ al-ḥimā), a treatise
in Astronomy (hayʾah), and a commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s poem on the soul entitled al-Kuḥl
al-nafīs li-jalāʾ ʿayn al-Ra’īs. Al-Anṭākī finally moved to Mecca, where he spent less than
one year before he died in 1008/1600. Al-ʿAyyāshī mentions in his Riḥlah that al-Anṭākī
had a prestigious position among the princes of Mecca.
3. Muḥammad Amīn b. Muḥammad al-Jurjānī al-Astarābādhī (d. 1033/1623-4). Al-
Ḥamawī in Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl describes him as one of the greatest scholars of ʿajam (not
Arab). He came to Mecca as a mujāwir and stayed there until the end of his life. His famous
85
86
al-Ṭālawī, Sāniḥāt dumā al-qaṣr, vol. 2, p. 44 and after; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 140.
108
work is al-Fawāʾid al-madaniyyah.87 Al-Astarābādhī was a scholar of uṣūl and ḥadīth and is
considered the founder of the Shiʿi Akhbārī school.
4. ʿAbd al-Qādir, Muḥyī al-Dīn b. Muḥammad al-Ṭabarī al-Makkī (d. Ramaḍān,
1033/July 1624).88 During his education, he memorized al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah. He studied
with ʿAlī al-ʿIṣāmī89 parts of Sharḥ al-Fanārī on al-Abharī’s Īsāghūjī, known as al-Fawāʾid al-
Fanāriyyah, and parts of al-Shamsiyyah, as well as the Sharḥ ādāb al-baḥth of Mullā Ḥanafī.90
Later, at a more advanced level, he was interested in [Qāḍīzādah’s?] Sharḥ al-Jaghmīnī in
astronomy, and he read parts of al-Qūshjī’s Sharḥ al-Tajrīd. He studied these works with
al-Sayyīd Naṣīr al-Dīn b. Muḥammad Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr, son of Ghiyāth al-Dīn
Dashtakī.91 Additionally, he studied with him parts of a treatise on the astrolabe. He also
read parts of Sharḥ Kulliyāt al-Mūjaz fī al-ṭibb of Ibn al-Nafīs with Yūsuf al-Kaylānī al-Ṭabīb,
the physician. He also read parts of Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥikmah of Mīr Qāḍī Ḥusayn with
Sayyid Ghaḍanfar.92
5. Muḥammad Ḥijāzī known as al-Wāʿiẓ al-Anṣārī al-Shaʿrānī al-Shāfiʿī (d. 16 Rabīʿ I,
1035/16 December 1625).93 Al-Ḥamawī says that he performed the ḥajj in 1018/1610 and
87
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 125. Muḥammad Amīn ibn Muḥammad Sharīf Astarābādhī, al-
Fawāʾid al-madaniyyah ed. ʿAlī ibn ʿAlī ʿĀmilī (Iran, Qum: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 2003). Introduction.
88
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 5, p. 45; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 2, p. 457.
89
ʿAlī al-ʿIṣāmī was the grandson of ʿIṣām al-Dīn al-Isfarāyyinī, known as Ibn ʿArabshāh. ʿAlī wrote a
commentary on his grandfather’s Risālat al-istiʿārāt. He died in Mecca in 1070/1659. Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-
irtiḥāl, vol. 5, p. 392. Among the scholars of the al-ʿIṣāmī family was ʿAbd al-Malik al-ꜤĀṣimī (d. 1111/1699),
the author of a history of Mecca entitled Samṭ al-nujūm al-ʿawālī fī anbāʾ al-awāʾil wa-l-tawālī.
90
91
Ibn Maʿṣūm, Ṣadr al-Dīn ʿAlī (d. 1120/1709) b. Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥmad (d. 1086/1675) b. Muḥammad Maʿṣūm
al-Madanī, in his account of his trip to India entitled Salwat al-gharīb wa-uswat al-arīb, says that his
grandfather Muḥammad Maʿṣūm moved from Shirāz. Ibn Maʿṣūm, Ṣadr al-Dīn ʿAlī, Riḥlat Ibn Maʿṣūm al-
Madanī aww Salwat al-gharīb wa-uswat al-arīb, ed. Shākir Hādī Shukr (Beirut: al-Dār al-ʿArabiyyah li-l-
Mawsūʿāt, 2006), p. 72, 74.
92
93
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 116.
109
that many people studied with him on this occasion, among them Muḥammad b. ʿAllān.
The importance of al-Wāʿiẓ is that he is a link between the generation of al-Kūrānī’s
teachers, i.e., al-Bābilī, al-Shabramallisī and al-Mazzāhī, and the great scholars of the
9th/15th century. Al-Wāʿiẓ studied with Muḥammad b. Arkumās, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī’s
student, and additionally he studied with Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Sunbāṭī, one of the
main links in the intellectual sciences, as we will see below in the isnād chains. He also
studied with the great Sufi ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī, Muḥammad al-Ramlī, Jamāl al-
Dīn b. Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī, and many other scholars.94
6. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Jamāl al-Dīn b. Ṣadr al-Dīn b. ʿIṣām al-Dīn al-Isfrāyyinī (d.
1037/1628).95 Al-Ḥamawī describes him as an imām in ʿaqlī and naqlī sciences. He was born
in Mecca in 978/1571 and studied with scholars there. During his life ʿAbd al-Mālik
composed around 60 treatises, mainly on language. He also wrote a commentary on
Īsāghūjī and two commentaries on Risālat al-istiʿārat by al-Samarqandī.
7. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿĪsā b. Murshid al-Makkī al-Ḥanafī, known as al-Murshidī (d. 11
Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1037/12 August 1628).96 His grandfather was shaykh Murshid al-ʿUmarī, a
student of al-Dawānī. He studied ādab al-baḥth with Mullā ʿAbd Allāh al-Sindī and read
Sharḥ Īsāghūjī in logic and Sharḥ al-Shamsiyyah with Sayyid Ghaḍanfar. He was a teacher
in the grand mosque in Mecca (al-ḥaram), and later became the imām and the preacher of
that mosque.
8. Al-Qāḍī Tāj al-Dīn b. Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīm al-Mālikī al-Madanī, then al-Makkī, known
as IBN YAʿQŪB (d. Rabīʿ I 1066/January 1656).97 Even though he is famous in the field of
94
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 116.
95
Ibid., vol. 5, p. 253; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 3, p. 87.
96
97
Al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 1, p. 457.
110
adab (literature), he also wrote on Sufism and ʿaqīdah. He wrote a commentary on one of
ʿAfīf al-Dīn al-Tilmisānī’s poems entitled Taṭbīq al-maḥw baʿd al-ṣaḥw ʿalā qawāʿid al-
sharīʿah wa-l-naḥw. He also wrote a reply to a letter that arrived from Java containing
questions about wujūd and God’s eternal power, as well as a treatise on doctrine entitled
Bayān al-taṣdīq. Al-Ḥamawī describes it as very useful.98
9. Muḥammad b. ʿAllān (d. 11 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1058/27 December 1648 in Mecca),99 He
was born in Mecca in the month of Ṣafar 996/January 1588 and studied with the scholars
of the Ḥijāz as well as with those who visited this region until he became a teacher in the
Grand Mosque (al-ḥaram). He is famous as a mufassir, a faqīh, and a scholar of ḥadīth. He
also wrote many texts on doctrine in versified form (naẓm) and then commented on these
poems. Among these texts are a versification (naẓm) of al-Sanūsī’s Umm al-barāhīn and a
commentary on this naẓm, a versification of al-Nasafī’s ʿaqīdah and a commentary on it,
and a versification on Īsāghūjī and a commentary on it. He also wrote a versification of
al-Istiʿārāt and commented on it.
10. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-Ṭabarī al-Makkī al-Shāfiʿī (d. 27
Jumādā II 1070/10 March 1660).100 Imām of the ḥaram, he studied with his father and the
scholars of the Ḥijāz, including Aḥmad b. ʿAllān with whom he studied jurisprudence and
logic; he read parts of al-Taftāzānī’s al-Tahdhīb and al-Yazdī’s commentary with Mullā
Ḥusayn al-Kurdī, the resident of Mecca.
11. Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn b. ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-Ṭabarī al-Makkī al-
Shāfiʿī (d. 14 Ramaḍān 1078/27 February 1668).101 Imām of the ḥaram in Mecca, he came
98
99
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 157.
100
Ibid., vol. 5, p. 334.
101
Ibid., vol. 4, p. 196.
111
from a distinguished family. He studied with his father and other scholars in the Ḥijāz.
At the time of his education and preparation, he studied with Mullā Qāsim al-ʿAjamī Sharḥ
Īsāghūjī and parts of Sharḥ Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī on al-Shamsiyyah. He also read logic with
Ibn ʿAllān and all of the Sharḥ ʿaqā’id al-Nasafī by al-Taftazānī. Among the people who
studied with him are Muḥammad al-Shullī, Ḥasan al-ʿUjaymī and ʿĪsā al-Maghribī.
12. Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad, known as Ibn. al-Tāj (d. 1081/1670).102 He held the position
of raʾīs al-muwaqqitīn in the Prophet’s mosque (ḥaram) and he was famous in the fields of
ḥisāb, tawqīt, and astrology (tanjīm). Among his works are al-Sirāj al-wahhāj fī aʿmāl al-azyāj
and al-Jafr al-kabīr.103 Badr al-Dīn al-Hindī studied with him a book in algebra and
muqābalah.104
13. Muḥammad Mīrzā b. Muḥammad al-Surūjī al-Dimashqī al-Shāfiʿī (d.
1088/1677).105 He was born in Damascus and studied with scholars there such as al-Shams
al-Maydānī and the Maghribī scholar Muḥammad al-Muqrī al-Tilmisānī al-Fāsī when the
latter came to Damascus. He studied as well with the famous scholar and historian al-
Najm al-Ghazzī. Interestingly, he studied with ʿAbd Allāh al-Būsnawī, the commentator
on Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam and read with him most of his works. He also collected the books of Ibn
ʿArabī. Then, he traveled to the Ḥijāz and lived there for a long time,106 mainly in Medina
where he studied with most of its scholars, including Tāj al-Dīn al-Naqshbandī, Sālim b.
102
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 632; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 1, p. 178; al-Ḥamawī,
Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 363; al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1731.
103
A short description of this book is in al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1732.
104
105
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 69; Al-Shullī, ʿAqd al-jawāhir wa-l-durar, p. 364; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat
al-athar, vol. 4, p. 202.
106
Al-Shullī says that he stayed in Medina forty years then a few years in Mecca where he died.
112
Aḥmad Shaykhān, and al-Qushāshī. Al-Ḥamawī read with al-Surūjī parts of al-Futūḥāt al-
makkiyyah and other Sufi commentaries in Medina in 1083/1673.107
14. Muḥammad b. Abū Bakr al-Shullī (d. 19 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1093/19 December 1682, in
Mecca).108 He is the author of ʿAqd al-jawāhir wa-l-durar fī akhbār al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, one
of the main sources for the history of the 11th/17th century, especially for scholars in the
Ḥijāz, Yemen, and the Indian Subcontinent. He was born and studied in Yemen, then he
moved to India where he studied Arabic and Sufism with several teachers. Later, he
moved to the Ḥijāz and studied with its scholars, including al-Bābilī, ʿIsā al-Thaʿālibī, Ṣafī
al-Dīn al-Qushāshī, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, and many others. He studied ʿilm al-mīqāt and ḥisāb
with al-Rūdānī and he composed a work in ʿilm al-mīqāt and commented on it for
students. He also wrote Risālatayn muṭawwalatayn fī ʿilm al-mīqāt bilā ālah, Risālah fī maʿrifat
ẓil al-zawāl kull yawm li-ʿarḍ Makkah al-musharrafah, Risālah fī ittifāq al-maṭāliʿ wa-ikhtilāfihā,
Risālah fī al-muqanṭar, Risālah fī al-asṭurlāb and a commentary on al-Suyūṭī’s treatise on
logic, as well as several texts in the disciplines of language, ḥadīth, fiqh and tafsīr.
15. Muḥammad Shafīʿ b. Muḥammad ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn b.
Muḥammad al-Astarābādhī (d. 1106/1695).109 Originally from Astarābādh, he was born
and raised in Iṣfahān. He studied with many scholars, among them his father and Āghā
Ḥusayn al-Khwansārī.110 He wrote several works including a gloss on al-Ṭusī’s
107
108
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 175.
109
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 172; ʿUmar Riḍā Kaḥḥālah, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn: Tarājim muṣannifī
al-kutub al-ʿarabiyyah (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1993), vol. 3, p. 345.
110
Āghā Ḥusayn b. Āghā Jamāl al-Khwansārī (d. Jumādā II, 1098/April 1687) studied with Mīr Dāmād, Jaʿfar
b. Luṭf Allāh al-ʿĀmilī, and Abū al-Qāsim al-Findariskī. He wrote Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Ḥāshiyah al-qadīma ʿalā
Sharḥ al-Tajrīd, Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Ishārāt, from natural philosophy (al-ṭabīʿī) to the end of the book, and
Ḥāshiyah on Ilāhiyyat al-Shifā’. Among his students are Jamal al-Dīn Muḥammad Shāfīʿ, his son Āghā Jamāl
and Mullā Mirzā al-Sharwānī. His son Āghā Jamāl arrived in Mecca in 1114/1702 and al-Ḥamawī met him.
113
commentary on al-Ishārāt, Risālah fī ithbāt iʿādat al-maʿdūm, Risālah fī ṣifāt Allāh Taʿālā,
Risālah fī taḥqīq al-dalālāt, Risālah fī ithbāt al-Wājib, and others. He came to Mecca to
perform the ḥajj in 1104/1692 and stayed one year as mujāwir. Al-Ḥamawī read with him
parts of Sharḥ hidāyat al-ḥikmah by al-Maybudī, and he attended Muḥammad Sharīf’s
lessons on al-Ṭusī’s Sharḥ al-Ishārāt. In his lessons, he used to mention the opinions of
other commentators alongside al-Quṭb al-Rāzī’s ideas in al-Muḥākamāt and he used to
answer all the questions and the problems. He wanted to return to his home, but he
became sick and he died along the way, in Baḥrayn.
16. Muḥammad Bayk b. Yār Muḥammad b. Khwājah Muḥammad b. Mīr Mawahīb al-
Burhānbūrī al-Naqshbandī (d. 1110/1698-9).111 He was one of the great scholars from the
Indian Subcontinent who studied intellectual works alongside his Sufi activities. Al-
Ḥamawī dedicated almost ten pages to him, mainly quoting from an autobiography by
the shaykh himself. He studied with numerous scholars, among whom were ʿAbd al-
Ḥakīm Siyālkūtī’s students and Muḥibb Allāh al-Ilāhābādī, the commentator on Fuṣūṣ al-
ḥikam.112 Among the works he studied, al-Ḥamawī mentions Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, Tafsīr al-
Bayḍāwī, Sharḥ Ḥikmat al-ʿayn, Sharḥ al-Jaghmīnī, Sharḥ al-Tadhkirah fī ʿilm al-hayʾah, Taḥrīr
Iqlīdis fī ʿilm al-handasah, Sharḥ al-ʿaḍudī (not specified whether Risālat al-waḍʿ or on
ʿaqīdah) with al-Jurjānī’s commentary, Zīj of Ulugh Beg, parts of Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ, Sharḥ
al-Ishārāt, and parts of al-Iṣfahānī’s al-Ḥāshiyah al-qadīmah ʿalā Sharḥ al-Tajrīd. He studied
these works alongside Sufi texts, mainly Ibn ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt and al-Fuṣūṣ, which he
studied with Muḥibb Allāh al-Ilāhābādī. He arrived in Mecca in 1075/1665, and then he
Among his works are Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Mukhtaṣar Ibn al-Ḥājib and Muḥākamah bayn al-Sayyid al-Sharīf and
Mirzājān. Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4, p. 19-20.
111
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 104; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, vol. 2, p. 306.
112
114
travelled to Medina. In the Ḥijāz, he mainly studied ḥadīth. He returned again to the Ḥijāz
in 1084/1674; this time, he settled there until the end of his life and wrote many works,
among them a commentary on the last two parts of al-Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-
kalām, entitled Zubdat ʿaqāʾid al-Islām fī sharḥ Tahdhīb al-kalām, Sharḥ Ashkāl al-taʾsīs of al-
Samarqandī in the discipline of handasah, Risālah fī al-isṭurlāb, Risālah fī sayr al-shams wa-l-
qamar wa-taqwimihimā, and many other works in different disciplines.113
17. Munajjim Bāshī, Aḥmad b. Luṭfullāh, (d. 1113/1702).114 He achieved the position of
chief court astrologer (müneccimbaşi) in 1667-8, and became close to Sultan Mehmet IV (r.
1648–87). Later, he was dismissed and banished to Egypt in Muḥarram 1099/November
1687. After some years in Egypt, he migrated to Mecca, where he became the Shaykh of
the Mawlawī order. In 1105/1693-94 he moved to Medina for seven years. Soon after his
return to Mecca, he died on 29 Ramadan 1113/27 February 1702.
18. Badr al-Dīn al-Hindī.115 Al-ʿAyyāshī describes him as Imām in the two aṣlayn (al-
fiqh and al-dīn), and excellent in the intellectual sciences (maʿqūlāt). He arrived in Medina
in the year 1068/1658 with shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindīs’s son, Muḥammad Maʿṣūm, after the
debate about al-Sirhindī in the Ḥijāz. He was considered one of al-Sirhindī’s greatest
students and played an important role in spreading the Naqshbandiyyah in the Ḥijāz.
Badr al-Dīn studied with ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm al-Hindī al-Siyālkūtī (d. 18 Rabīʿ I, 1067/4 January,
1657) 116 and said that al-Siyālkūtī wrote a commentary on al-Bayḍāwī’s tafsīr in four
113
Ibid., vol. 2, p. 113-114.
114
S. A. Hasan, “Münejjim Bas̱hī: Turkish Historian of the Saljūqids of Īrān,” Islamic Studies. 2 (4): 1963, 457-
466. Kramers, J.H. (1993). “Müned̲jd̲̲ jim
̲ Bas̲h̲i ̊,” in The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume VII: Mif–Naz.
Leiden and New York: BRILL. pp. 572–573. See also the introduction of Hatice Arslan-Sözüdoğru, and
Aḥmad ibn Luṭf Allāh Munajjim Bāshī, Müneccimbașı als Historiker: arabische Historiographie bei einem
osmanischen Universalgelehrten des 17. Jahrhunderts: Ğāmiʻ ad-duwal (Teiledition 982/1574-1082/1672) (Berlin: K.
Schwarz, 2009); al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 383.
115
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 231; al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1731.
116
115
volumes full of taḥqīqāt.117 Badr al-Dīn was well-versed in ʿulūm al-munāẓarah, “the science
of debate.” Al-ʿAyyāshī attended his lessons on the following works: al-Fanārī’s
commentary on Īsāghūjī, Mukhtaṣar al-Saʿd on Talkhīṣ al-Miftāḥ, and Sharḥ al-Manār in
Ḥanafī uṣūl al-fiqh by Ibn al-Mulk. Moreover, al-ʿAyyāshī read with him the beginning of
Sharḥ al-Mawāqif by al-Jurjānī and he was encouraged by al-Hindī to focus on this book.
Also, he started to read with him Sharḥ al-Quṭb on al-Shamsiyyah. Al-ʿAyyashī mentions
that he asked Badr al-Dīn to teach him al-Abharī’s al-Hidāyah fī al-ḥikmah,118 and Sharḥ al-
Shamsiyyah by Quṭb al-Dīn, and to give him the dhikr of the Naqshbandiyyah. Badr al-Dīn
agreed and suggested that he read Sharḥ al-Mawāqif by al-Jurjānī instead of al-Hidāyah.
Some people told al-ʿAyyāshī that shaykh Badr al-Dīn was a famous scholar in India and
he had a great position among its scholars.119 In the course of talking about Badr al-Dīn
al-Hindī, al-ʿAyyāshī mentions an interesting story about a dispute that happened
between Badr al-Dīn and shaykh Abū Mahdī al-Thaʿālibī al-Maghribī about a question of
logic related to the hypothetical syllogism raised by Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-
Rūdānī.120 Later, another scholar, Aḥmad b. al-Tāj, wrote a treatise on this topic with a
kind of arbitration (muḥākamah) between the two scholars.121
117
Al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1731.
118
Al-Hidāyah fī al-ḥikmah was one of the most popular texts in Ottoman intellectual circules. See El-
Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 22.
119
120
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 631.
121
El-Rouayheb mentions this anecdote to support his argument that North African logician had a different
tradition from that which was current in the Ottoman and Mughal empires. The two main texts that were
widely used in the Islamic East (but not in the Maghrib) were al-Abharī’s Īsāghūjī with the commentary by
Mullā Fanārī and al-Risālah al-Shamsiyyah by Kātibī with the commentary by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī. The
treatment of hypothetical syllogism in both is perfunctory, whereas the North African commentaries on
Khūnajī’s al-Jumal deal at great length with the topic. El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the
Seventeenth Century, p. 157.
116
19. Muḥammad Shafīʿ b. Faḍl Allāh al-Shāh-bāzī al-Hindī,122 was born and studied in
India then moved to the Ḥijāz. He taught Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī in the ḥaram, as well as logic.
Ibn al-ʿUjaymī mentions that he studied with him the Ashkāl al-taʾsīs fī ʿilm al-handasah by
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī and of Qāḍī-zādah al-Rūmī’s commentary. He also studied
with him large parts of Qāḍī-zādah’s commentary on Jaghminī’s work on astronomy, and
while studying they used to check Birjandī’s gloss and al-Jurjānī’s commentary.
20. Mullā Iskandar al-ʿAjamī,123 studied with Mullā Yūsuf al-Qarabāghī, the great
student of the prominent scholar Mullā Ḥabīb Allāh Mirzājān. In Medina, he studied with
Ṣibghāt Allāh al-Hindī. Al-Ḥamawī mentions that he wrote treatises in logic and ḥikmah,
but he does not specify any titles. Al-ʿAjamī died in Medina and was buried in the baqīʿ.
21. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Muḥammad al-Sijlmāsī al-Mālikī al-Maghribī (1118/1706)124
studied with the scholars of the Maghrib then traveled to perform the ḥajj in 1083/1673,
spending one year in the Ḥijāz as a mujāwir. Al-Ḥamawī attended his lessons in al-
Taftazānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq.
22. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Al-Ḥakamī, Muṭayr. He was the teacher of Mullā Sharīf al-
Kūrānī and was connected to Ibn Ḥajar.125 His name appears frequently as a teacher of
logic and other intellectual sciences.
23. Sayyid Ghaḍanfar b. Jaʿfar al-Kujarātī al-Nahrawālī126 studied with Muḥammad
Amīn, the nephew of Jāmī. He was a teacher of prominent scholars in the Ḥijāz such as
122
Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 290.
123
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 190. Al-Ḥamawī does not mention the date of his death.
124
125
Al-Kūrānī’s chain of transmission will be mentioned later.
126
ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī, al-Iʿlām bi-man fī tārīkh al-Hind min Aʿlām al-musammā bi-Nuzhat
al-khawāṭir wa-bahjat al-masāmiʿ wa-l-nawāẓir (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1999), vol. 5, p. 599; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid
al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 144.
117
al-Shinnāwī and Ṣibghat Allāh al-Ḥusaynī al-Hindī. As we can see in these entries, many
scholars studied philosophical and logic texts with him.
The names mentioned above do not include al-Kūrānī’s circle of teachers, students,
and peers, which comprise a larger number than those mentioned above. These names
will be mentioned in the next chapter, which deals with al-Kūranī’s life, works, teachers,
and students.
From the works these scholars composed or taught we notice that al-Shamsiyyah,
Īsāghūjī, and their commentaries were the most popular texts in logic. Al-Shamsiyyah is
mentioned five times while Īsāghūjī is mentioned four. Tahdhīb al-manṭiq is repeated
twice. We will see later that many of al-Kūrānī’s students and colleagues were from the
Maghrib and that they taught Mukhtaṣar al-Sanūsī in logic and al-Khunajī’s al-Jumal. As in
the Ottoman and Mughal empires, in theology the works of Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftazānī (d.
1389) and Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 1413) were the most prominent.127 Ibn Sīnā’s name
is mentioned 6 times, al-Samarqandī 3 times, and there is also mention of al-Dawānī, al-
Fanārī, al-Jaghmīnī, al-Qushjī, al-Ṭūsī, and almost all the previous theologians and
philosophers. However, the popularity of some names and texts in the Ḥijāz during the
17th century cannot be comprehensively covered before including al-Kūrānī and his
circle, who were more inclined to intellectual sciences.
Another note is that although some scholars were originally from the Ḥijāz, the
majority were emigrants who settled in the Ḥijāz and made it their home. To keep the
research limited to the period under investigation, it is useful to mention some scholars
from the 16th century who moved to and settled in the Ḥijāz. These scholars played a
About the spread of these two authors’ text see Francis Robinson, “Ottomans-Safawids-Mughals,” pp.
127
151-184; Wisnovsky, “The nature and scope of Arabic philosophical commentary in post classical (ca. 1100-
1900 ad) Islamic intellectual history.”
118
significant role in attracting other scholars and students to the Ḥijāz and in transforming
it into a center of intellectual activities that attracted more and more scholars. Among
the most famous of these were Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 973/1567), who moved to Mecca
in (940/1534); ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī, known as, al-Muttaqī al-Hindī (d. 975/1567), who moved
from Burhānpūr and settled in the Ḥijāz for the rest of his life; ʿAlī al-Qārī al-Harawī
(1014/1606), who moved from Herat and settled in Mecca to the end of his life; and ʿAbd
al-Haqq al-Dihlawī (d. 1052/1642), who went for ḥajj in 996/1587 and spent four years in
the Ḥijāz. Later, we will see the names of Aḥmad al-Shinnāwī, the teacher of al-Qūshāshī,
as well as al-Qushāshī’s family, besides al-Kūrānī, al-Barzanjī, al-Bābilī, ʿIsā al-Maghribī
and many of al-Kūrānī’s teachers, students, and peers originally from outside of the Ḥijāz.
In the following section, I will try to trace these texts from the scholars who taught
them in the Ḥijāz to their authors in Central Asia in order to construct an image of the
transmission of knowledge from different parts of the Islamic world between the 14th and
17th centuries. In order to draw the lines of knowledge transmission, I am using a science
that usually has nothing to do with the intellectual sciences but rather is one of the main
features of transmitted knowledge, namely isnād. I therefore begin with an introduction
to this science and how it became relevant to the rational sciences.
[2.4] Isnād as a Source for Intellectual Life in 17th Century Ḥijāz
Isnād is an essential term of art in the science of transmitted knowledge (manqūlāt) and
refers to the chain of authorities going back to the source of the tradition. It started as
part of ḥadīth studies, but later became an independent science that newly adapted many
of the rules originally pertaining to ḥadīth. Later, Sufis became very interested in
connecting their chains with their masters in order to extend these chains back in time
to the Prophet. Studying the works of isnād reveals that scholars throughout the course
119
of Islamic history slowly began to integrate new fields into works of isnād. By the 11th/17th
century, one can notice that isnād works contain chains of transmission for the
intellectual sciences, including kalām, philosophy, and logic, alongside the traditional
sciences. Studying the developments of this specific genre of literature is not a part of
this current study. However, some remarks may shed light on this valuable source for
studying knowledge transmission and may reveal a number of new scholars who studied
and taught these texts.
From the outset, it is necessary to define some essential technical terms in this
science. There are two types of isnād, isnād ʿālī or “high isnād,” and isnād nāzil or “low
isnād.” The former, or “high isnād,” is a term used when there are very few links between
the transmitter and a certain source of authority, i.e. the Prophet in the case of ḥadīth, or
the author of a certain book or the founder of a specific order. The “low isnād” is the term
used when there are many links between the transmitter and a certain source of
authority.128 Teachers with whom a certain scholar met and the books that he studied
with them would be organized in different ways. [1] A mashyakhah is the work in which a
person mentions the names of his teachers and what he learned from them. After
traveling to study and meet teachers, and upon returning home, scholars would be asked
by community members to mention the people they had met and which texts they had
studied. [2] A thabat mainly refers to the curriculum vitae of a person, with whom and
what they studied. In many cases, the author offers some information about his teacher’s
life and those of the teachers of his teacher to link the chain. In the Maghrib, they call
128
As is the situation in ḥadīth studies, the quality of the mediators is important; fewer links means fewer
chances of error. Also, proximity to the source of knowledge is more important, particularly if the source
is the Prophet himself.
120
such a work fahrasah.129 [3] A muʿjam is a term used if the author arranged the collection
of biographical accounts of his teachers, students, friends, or colleagues in alphabetical
order. In Andalusia, they used the term barnāmaj. The early type of muʿjams were mainly
collections of ḥadiths arranged according to the names of shaykhs with whom the person
studied these ḥadīths.130 We can also consider ijāzah as a kind of isnād since it links the
student to the teacher, who may mention his own teachers in order to establish his
authority.
These terms are not exclusive and many scholars used them interchangeably. 131
However, in general mashyakhah and muʿjam are ordered according to the name of the
shaykhs while a fahrasah is ordered according to the books the author studied. The term
thabat can be used for all of the above, since it served as proof for the knowledge that the
scholar acquired. Isnād literature usually starts with an introduction in which the author
expresses his esteem and even affection for the persons from whom he learned. Then he
starts to mention the names of his teachers and what he studied with them, along with
some information about their lives and their intellectual activities.
To gain a more precise idea about the corpus of this genre of literature, we can turn
to ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Kittānī (d. 1382/1962), whose work Fahras al-fahāris wa-l-athbāt wa-
129
ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris wa-l-athbāt wa-muʿjam al-maʿājim wa-l-mashyakhyāt wa-l-
musalsalāt, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2ed, 1982), p.67.
130
For example, Muʿjam shuyūkh Abū Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī (d. 307/919-20), al-Muʿjam al-ṣagīr by al-Ṭabarānī (d.
360/970-71), and Mashyakhat Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200-01).
131
Some scholars write different kinds of isnāds. For example, Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Yūsuf b. Yaʿqūb al-Fihrī
al-Lublī (d. 691) wrote a mashyakhah that contains his teachers’ names and their biographies. He also wrote
a barnāmaj that contains the works he studied during his trip to meet new teachers. See: Aḥmad b. Yūsuf
al-Fihrī, Barnāmaj Abī Jaʿfar al-Lublī al-Andalusī, ed. Muḥammad Būzayyān BinʿAlī (Ṭanjah: Maṭbaʿat Isbārṭīl,
2011); Aḥmad b. Yūsuf al-Fihrī, Fahrasat al-Lublī, ed. Yāsīn Yūsuf ʿAyyāsh and ʿAwwād ʿAbd Rabbuh Abū
Zaynah (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1988). Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī wrote a muʿjam of his teachers and
then extracted the books he studied from his muʿjam and mentioned them separately in a fahrasah, which
is ordered according to the books. See below.
121
muʿjam al-maʿājim wa-l-mashyakhāt wa-l-musalsalāt mentions 1200 thabats.132 These thabats
are only his isnāds of these works. He mentions that he received al-ḥadīth al-musalsal bi-l-
awwaliyyah, “the first ḥadīth to be transmitted from a certain scholar,” from 70 shaykhs,
but he recorded only some of them, mostly the high isnāds.133
A short introduction of the development of isnād as a scholarly tool up to the 11th/17th
century may exaplain how it became a means to understand the transmission of
intellectual sciences. Ḥadīths in the 1st/7th century existed without the supporting isnād.
By the 3rd/9th century, the ḥadīths had been collected, systemized, and classified. By the
end of the 3rd/beginning of the 10th century, several collections had been produced, six
of which were regarded as being especially authoritative and are known as “the six
authentic ones” (al-ṣiḥāh al-sittah). These collections were presented with their complete
chains of transmission. Ḥadīth works continued to be transmitted with their full isnāds.
The only change that happened in these later centuries is that a certain author no longer
needed to continue his isnād until the Prophet; it was enough now to connect his own
isnād to these works that were already connected to the Prophet. It became sufficient to
connect the chain of transmissions with al-Bukhārī or Muslim, as the rest of the chain
was already well-established. This creation of milestones in the chains would be repeated
later, after a few centuries, with other generally accepted and fully connected chains.
Alongside this continuing interest in ḥadīth, studying this type of literature reveals
that the works of isnād started to contain more varied sciences. By the 7th/13th century,
alongside ḥadīth works, other works related to ḥadīth studies started to be included in
isnād works, such as works of linguistics and even some Sufi texts, including the works of
132
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 51.
133
Al-Kittānī’s works cover the period from the middle of the 9 th/15th century until his time. He ordered it
alphabetically, not chronologically, which makes it difficult to follow the development of this science.
122
Sībawayh, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Ghazāli, and al-Qushayrī.134 Obviously, scholars mention
what they studied according to their own interests. In the 8 th/14th century, I found the
works of al-Qushayrī and al-Suhrawardī’s ʿAwārif al-maʿārif, in addition to Abū Ṭālib al-
Makkī’s Qūt al-qulūb and al-Ghazālī’s Iḥiyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, mentioned among the books in
many muʿjams. Works of linguistics and many dīwāns continued to be mentioned
alongside the other sciences such as tafsīr, fiqh, and uṣūl.
The 9th/15th century was one of the richest periods of the production of isnād works.
Scholars of later centuries often tried to connect their chains to one of the famous 9th/15th
century scholars who became widely accepted and considered “authentic.” The main
isnāds in the 9-10th/15-16th centuries are the chains of Ibn Ḥajar ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449),
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī (d. 926/1520), and Ibn Ḥajar al-
Haytamī (d. 973/1566). Al-ʿAsqalānī’s muʿjam contains the names of 730 teachers, making
it one of the biggest muʿjams. Any scholar who can connect his chains to al-ʿAsqalānī
thereby connects himself to most of the scholars before him. Al-ʿAsqalānī wrote another
fahrasah ordered alphabetically by works studied. However, he mentions that he
extracted it from his muʿjam of his teachers.135 In this muʿjam, he mentions many texts of
ʿaqīdah,136 a section on Sufism and books on asceticism,137 and uṣūl al-dīn works. Among
the texts of kalām that he mentions with their isnāds are Abkār al-afkār by al-Āmidī; al-
Burhān, al-Talkhīṣ, and al-Shāmil by al-Juwaynī; and Sharḥ al-Muḥaṣṣal and Sharḥ al-
134
The works I examined were: Thabat masmūʿāt al-Ḥāfiẓ Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Maqdisī (d. 643/1245-6), Mashyakhat
al-Naʿʿāl al-Baghdādī (d. 659/1261), Barnāmaj shuyūkh al-Ruʿaynī (d. 666/1267-8), and Barnāmaj al-Lublī (d.
691/1292).
135
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Majmaʿ al-mūʾassis li-l-muʿjam al-mufahris: Mashyakhat Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773-
852), ed. Yūsuf ʿAbd al-Raḥman al-Marʿashī (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1992), pp. 11, 12.
136
Ibid., pp. 54-57.
137
Ibid., pp. 401-403.
123
Mulakhkhaṣ by al-Kātibī al-Qazwinī. Works by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, al-Ghazālī, al-
Qarāfī, Ibn al-Ḥājib, Ibn ʿAqīl, and other theologians are also mentioned.138
[2.4.1] The Isnād of Intellectual Texts
Chains of transmission for the intellectual sciences were not an innovation of the
11th/17th century, but it was during this time that they increased in prevalence and
became more widespread. Al-Ṣafadī (d. 764/1363) mentions that he read part of al-Ishārat
by Ibn Sīnā with Ibn al-Akfānī (d. 749/1348) and he lists Ibn al-Akfānī’s isnād of Ibn Sīnā’s
al-Ishārāt.139 Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī (d. 949/1542) also mentions his isnād
going back to Ibn Sīnā.140 Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī (d. 979/1572) mentions his isnād in the
intellectual sciences. Among the five teachers with whom he studied, he traced back the
isnāds of three of them to: 1) al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, through al-Dawānī; 2) Saʿd al-
Dīn al-Taftazānī; and 3) al-Ījī, through Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī.141
However, one can notice a tone of hesitation from al-Dawānī’s (d. 908/1502) ijāzah to
Muʾayyadzadah, in which he mentions the isnāds of intellectual works, probably one of
the oldest mentions of the isnāds of intellectuals. After establishing his own genealogy
and authority in the naqlī sciences, he says: “and about ʿaqliyyāt even the riwāyah is not
very relevant to them but I studied them with my father, etc.” 142 Dawānī ends his chains
of transmission for the rational sciences with Ibn Sīnā (d. 428/1037) and al-Jurjānī (d.
816/1413).
138
Ibid., pp. 408-409.
139
Gerhard Endress, “Reading Avicenna in the madrasa,” in Arabic Theology Arabic Philosophy from the Many
to the One, Essays in Celebrations of Richard M. Frank, ed. James E. Montgomery (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), p. 411
and after. See also Wisnovsky, “Avicenna’s Islamic reception,” p.196.
140
See: Ghiyāth al-Dīn Dashtakī, Muṣannafāt Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr Husienī Dashtakī Shirāzī, ed. Abdollah
Nourānī (Tehran: Tehran University: 2007), vol. 1, p. 69-70.
141
Pourjavady, “Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī,” pp. 303-304, 318-319.
142
Pfeiffer, “Teaching the learned,” p. 322.
124
A significant change can be found in the works of isnād by the 11th/17th century. Most
of the scholars in the Ḥijāz mentione their isnāds of maʿqūlāt (intellectual) works beside
the manqūlāt (transmitted) ones. They included everything they studied with chains of
transmission going back to the author. With this information, we can map the
transmission of knowledge through time and across geographic regions. This will help
us to trace scholars and texts from across Islamic world to the Ḥijāz.
Among the isnād works that are relevant to the Ḥijāz and which I have consulted for
this project are:143
1. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s thabat entitled al-Amām li-Īqāẓ al-himam. One of the most
comprehensive isnāds of works of the intellectual sciences, it is particularly useful
in following the path of intellectual texts from Central Asia to the Ḥijāz.
2. Shams al-Dīn al-Bābilī’s fahrasah contains chains of transmission of many kalām
and Sufi texts, including those by Ibn ʿArabī, al-Taftazānī, al-Ījī, and other
scholars. These two disciplines came after the regular chains of ḥadīth, tafsīr, and
adab. Al-Bābilī moved to the Ḥijāz and many scholars studied intellectual texts
with him.
3. Abū al-Mawāhib al-Baʿlī’s mashyakhah, which contains 35 teachers, all of whom
were contemporary with al-Kūrānī and many of whom were in contact with him.
Even though Abū al-Mawāhib is a Ḥanbalī shaykh, he mentions at the end of his
mashyakhah his isnāds of works of Ibn ʿArabī.144
4. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī’s mashyakhah contains the chains of transmission of many
kalām texts, such as the works of al-Ījī, al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, and al-Sanūsī. ʿAbd
143
More information about each author will be presented in the following chapter.
144
Abū al-Mawāhib Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī
(1044-1126), ed. Muḥammad Muṭīʿ al-Ḥāfiẓ (Syria, Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1990).
125
al-Qādir moved from the Maghrib to Egypt and then to the Ḥijāz, which may offer
alternative routes of circulation for these texts.
5. Al-Rūdānī’s thabat, known as Ṣilat al-khalaf bi-mawṣūl al-salaf. His interest in the
intellectual sciences makes this thabat valuable in tracing many different
disciplines, including logic, mathematics, astronomy, kalām, and philosophy. He
lived half of his life in the Maghrib and the other half in the Ḥijāz and serves as a
unique source on the scholars of the 17th century.145
6. Salim al-Baṣrī’s thabat, known as al-Imdād bi-maʿrifat ʿuluw al-isnād. Al-Baṣrī
mentions individual works and sometimes all the works of certain author. We can
find in his thabat works of al-Saʿd al-Taftazānī, al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, and
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, as well as works of al-Ghazālī, Ibn ʿArabī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-
Rāzī, Mullā Jāmī, and ʿIṣām al-Dīn b. ʿArabshāh, among others. With his shaykh,
Muḥammad al-Bābilī, he studied Tafsīr al-Rāzī, and his shaykh studied it with
Aḥmad al-Sanhūrī, who studied it with Ibn Ḥajar.146 Moreover, in this thabat we
can find works such as Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, al-Mawāqif by al-
Ījī, Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid by al-Taftazānī, Sharḥ al-Mawāqif by al-Jurjānī, al-Musāyarah
by Ibn al-Humām, and Sharḥ Jawharat al-tawḥīd, which he studied with al-Bābilī,
who had studied it with its author, Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī.147
These are some examples of works of isnād in the Ḥijāz during the 11th/17th century, and
more works containing chains of transmission in the intellectual sciences will appear
145
Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-Rūdānī, Ṣilat al-khalaf bi-mawṣūl al-salaf, ed. Muḥammad Ḥajjī (Beirut: Dār al-
Gharb al-Islāmī, 1988).
146
Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim al-Baṣrī, al-Imdād b-maʿrifat ʿuluw al-isnād, e. al-ʿArabī al-Dāyiz al-Firyāṭī
(KSA, Riyāḍ: Dār al-Tawḥīd, 2006), p. 82.
147
Al-Baṣrī, Al-Imdād bi-maʿrifat ʿuluw al-isnād, p. 85-86.
126
below.148 It is important to mention that many isnāds repeat the same chains so there is
no need to mention the isnāds of the teacher and the student again, except when the
student had more chains and from different teachers, such as in the case of al-Bābilī and
his student Sālim al-Baṣrī.
[2.5] How the Rational Sciences Reached the Ḥijāz
Based on the previously mentioned works of isnād, the following is an attempt to draw
the main lines of transmission of some rationalist works.
[2.5.1] Al-Taftāzānī’s (d. 793/1390) Works
Al-Kūrānī in his thabat mentions the following works by al-Taftazānī: Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-
Nasafiyyah, and al-Taftazānī’s abridgment (al-mukhtaṣar aka al-ṣaghīr) of al-Kātibī al-
Qazwīnī’s (d. 739/1339) Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Talkhīṣ of Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm by al-Sakkākī (d.
626/1229), with a gloss by Mullā Zādah ʿUthmān al-Khaṭṭāʾī, and super glosses of Mullā
ʿAbd Allāh al-Yazadī, Mullā Mīrzājān, and Mullā Yūsuf b. al-Qāḍī Maḥmūd al-Kūrānī (the
father of Mullā Sharīf, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s teacher). His chain for these works to al-
Taftazānī passes through Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī in the following manner:
From this chain of transmission, we know that Mullā ʿAbd al-Karīm, about whom we have
scarce information outside of al-Kūrānī’s thabat, studied with the Egyptian scholar al-
Ramlī. Mullā ʿAbd al-Karīm was from Kurdistan and his father studied in Iran, but he
chose to go to Egypt instead of following in the path of his father. As Iran was much closer
to Kurdistan, and a center of intellectual sciences in the Safavid period, this supports my
148
Al-Kūrānī’s isnāds and contributions in the science of ḥadīth will be discussed in Chapter Five.
127
claim from the first chapter that the conversion of Iran to Shiʿism forced Sunni scholars
to change their direction toward other Sunni intellectual centers.
Al-Kūrānī also read parts of Sharḥ al-Mukhtaṣar with Mullā Sharīf at the end of
Ramaḍān in 1050/1640. He studied with al-Qushāshī other works of al-Taftazānī such as
the Ḥāshiyat al-Kashshāf of al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1143), al-Talwīḥ, al-Muṭawwāl, Sharḥ al-
Shamsiyyah of al-Qazwīnī, al-Irshād fī al-naḥw, al-Tahdhīb, and Sharḥ Taṣrīḥ, for all of which
the chain of transmission extended to Ḥusām al-Abyurdī.149 Another chain of
transmission for al-Taftazānī’s Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, through Ibn Ḥajar, is mentioned in al-
Bābilī’s and al-Baṣrī’s thabats:150
Al-Baṣrī also has an isnād in al-Tafazānī’s commentaries al-Muṭawwal and al-Mukhtaṣar151
on Talkhīṣ al-Miftāḥ.
149
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 102.
150
Al-Thaʿālibī al-Maghribī, Thabat al-Bābilī, p. 99. Al-Baṣrī, Thabat Sālim al-Baṣrī entitled al-Imdād bi-maʿrifat
ʿuluw al-isnād, p. 86.
151
Al-Baṣrī, al-Imdād, p. 93.
128
[2.5.2] Al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) Works
Al-Kūrānī has two chains of transmission to al-Jurjānī: one through Mullā Sharīf and the
other through al-Qushāshī. With Mullā Sharīf he read parts of Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ al-
Maṭāliʿ, Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ Ḥikmat al-ʿayn, and Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ al-Shamsiyyah, with
Mullā Dāwūd al-Harawī’s gloss on the latter two. This reading occurred in Muḥarram
1052/1642. Additionally, he read with him parts of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif. With al-Qushāshī, he
read parts of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, as well parts of al-Jurjānī’s Ḥāshiyah on al-Iṣfahānī’s al-
Sharḥ al-qadīm on al-Tajrīd, with an ijāzah for all of al-Jurjānī’s works, including Ḥāshiyat
al-Kashshāf, Ḥāshiyat Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Muntahā, Ḥāshiyat Sharḥ al-Ishārāt of al-Ṭūsī,
Ḥāshiyat al-Muṭawwal, Sharḥ al-Miftāḥ, and others (wa-ghayruhā).152
His chains of transmission through these two teachers are the following:
(1) Al-Kūrānī’s isnād through Mullā Sharīf
152
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 102-103.
129
Two aspects of the above isnād are worth highlighting. First, Mullā Sharīf al-Kūrānī
studied with ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī, which makes a Ḥanbalī scholar one of the
main sources of transmission of Ashʿarī texts. This scholarly relationship requires more
study regarding the Ḥanbalite-Ashʿarite relationship, and an investigation as to the
existence of any commentaries on Ashʿarī texts by Ḥanbalī scholars. In Abū al-Mawāhib
b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī’s thabat we find that his father, ʿAbd al-Bāqī, studied with al-
Bābilī and scholars of the Ḥijāz at the beginning of 11th/17th century, such as Muḥammad
b. ʿAllān al-Ṣiddīqī, and that his isnāds reach al-ʿAsqalānī, Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī, and Ibn
Ḥajar.153 As all of them are Ashʿarites in doctrine and none Ḥanbalī in fiqh, it is unclear
what he studied with them. Since all these scholars were famous as scholars of ḥadīth, I
suggest that they were his teachers in this science. Second, there are two links between
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and al-Bābilī in receiving al-Jurjānī’s works even though al-Kūrānī
studied directly with al-Bābilī, but it seems that al-Kūrānī did not study al-Jurjānī’s works
with al-Bābilī directly.
153
Al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib, p. 34-35.
130
(2) Al-Kūrānī’s isnād through al-Qushāshī

131
Several aspects of the chains above deserve to be mentioned. Firstly, most of the isnāds
go through Jārullāh b. Fahd, the historian of Mecca and student of al-Sakhāwī (d.
902/1497). He had four teachers: three from Yemen (ʿAdanī, Zabīdī, and Taʿzī) and one
from Cairo. However, the latter moved to Medina, and this isnād is the only one available
through someone from Cairo. Secondly, from these Yemeni scholars the chains go back
to Central Asia. Did these authors study in Central Asia or were their teachers in Yemen?
132
Thirdly, based on what I have mentioned in Chapter One about the relationship between
the Indian Subcontinent and Arabia in the 16th and 17th centuries, most probably these
works arrived in the Ḥijāz through Indian Subcontinent and Yemen. By the 10th/16th
century, al-Jurjānī’s works were well known in the Indian Subcontinent, and al-Jurjānī’s
Sharḥ al-Mawāqif was one of the most studied and commented on texts.154 The popularity
of this work appears to be reflected in the anecdote mentioned above in which al-
ʿAyyāshī asks Badr al-Dīn al-Hindī to teach him al-Abharī’s al-Hidāyah fī al-ḥikmah;155 Badr
al-Dīn agrees, but nevertheless suggests he read Sharḥ al-Mawāqif by al-Jurjānī instead of
al-Hidāyah.156 Fourthly, these students of al-Jurjāni, al-Dawānī, etc. are supposed to have
been established scholars. They did not transmit ḥadīths that they memorized, they were
instead teaching the most sophisticated theological and philosophical texts. Their lives
and intellectual activities, including the possibilities of commenting or glossing on the
texts they taught, need more research.
More Chains of Transmissions of al-Jurjānī’s Works to the Ḥijāz
What I have mentioned above are Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s chains of transmission of al-
Jurjānī’s works. Here I will mention more chains of transmission through other scholars
in the Ḥijāz, beginning with al-Bābilī.157
154
Al-Jurjānī’s Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, al-Dawānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, and al-Taftazānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid
al-Nasafiyyah were the most popular works in the Indian Subcontinent in the 16 th century; see Ahmad and
Pourjavady, “Theology in the Indian Subcontinent,” pp. 607-624.
155
Al-Abharī’s al-Hidāyah fī al-ḥikmah was one of the most popular texts in the Ottoman empire. El-
Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 22.
156
157
ʿĪsā al-Maghribī was a student of a Bābilī, and the one who collected the isnāds of his teachers, so his
thabat always starts with the statement: “I read with him…”. This means that al-Maghribī read with al-
Bābilī, then continues the chain until reaching the author of the work. Al-Thaʿālibī al-Maghribī, Thabat al-
Bābilī, p. 99. Also, al-Baṣrī, Sālim, al-Imdād, p. 86. Sālim al-Baṣrī also has isnāds of al-Kūrānī. See al-Baṣrī, al-
Imdād, p. 140. He also lists his isnāds in works of al-Dawānī, Jāmī, ʿIṣām al-Dīn, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and
others from al-Kūrānī’s isnāds.
133
Shams al-Dīn al-Shirwānī158 studied the works of al-Jurjānī with Muḥammad b. Shihāb al-
Khawāfī al-Ḥanafī (d. 852/1448), one of al-Jurjānī’s students. Al-Khawāfī studied with al-
Jurjānī some of his own works, including the Sharḥ al-Miftāḥ of al-Sakkākī, Sharḥ al-
Mawāqif of al-Ījī, Ḥāshiyat Sharḥ al-Maṭāliʿ of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī al-Taḥtānī on al-Urmawī’s
Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, and Sharḥ al-Tadhkirah of al-Ṭūsī. And he, al-Khawāfī, wrote works in
Arabic and logic, as well as glosses on unspecified work by ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī, Sharḥ al-
Miftāḥ by al-Taftazānī, al-Bayḍāwī’s Ṭawāliʿ al-anwār, and al-Minhāj by al-Bayḍāwī.159
[2.5.3] Al-Ījī’s (d. 756/1355) Works
158
He is different from Shams al-Dīn al-Shirwānī (d. 699/1299), al-Ṭūsī’s student, who was a Sufi and
astronomer with interest in philosophy and the intellectual sciences. Al-Ṭusī’s student is already
mentioned in the chain of Ibn al-Akfānī in al-Ishārāt. Al-Ṣafadī in al-Wāfī bi-l-wafāyāt says that Ibn al-Akfānī
told him about the place and the date of his studying with al-Shirwānī. It was in the Khanqāh Saʿīd al-
Suʿadāʾ in Cairo at the end of [6]98/[1299] and the beginning of [6]99/[1299-1300]. See Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-
Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī bi-l-wafāyāt, ed. Aḥmad al-Arnaʾūṭ and Turkī Muṣṭafā (Beirut: Dār al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 2000),
vol. 2, p. 101.
159
Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn, Naẓm al-ʿiqyān fī aʿyān al-aʿyān, ed. Philip Hitti (Beirut: al-Maktabah al-ʿIlmiyyah,
1927), p. 149.
134
Two aspects of the isnād above are worth mentioning. Firstly, the chain through al-
Qushāshī goes back to Jārullāh b. Fahd, the historian of Mecca, and to his teacher, the
famous historian al-Sakhāwī. Secondly, al-Sakhāwī’s chain of transmission of al-Mawāqif
is through a Ḥanbalī scholar, who connects him to al-Kirmānī, the student of al-Ījī.
[2.5.4] Al-Dawānī’s (d. 908/1502) Works
I will start with al-Kūrānī’s chain of transmission of al-Dawānī’s works and then
determine whether these works reached the Ḥijāz through other chains of transmissions
as well. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī studied some of al-Dawānī’s works with Mullā Sharīf al-Kūrānī
135
and others with al-Qushāshī.160 With Mullā Sharīf, al-Kūrānī read all al-Zawrāʾ with al-
Dawānī’s own gloss, most of Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah (in 1045/1635) with Mullā Yūsuf
b. Muḥammad al-Qarabāghī’s and al-Khalkhālī’s glosses, parts of al-Dawānī’s gloss on
Sharḥ al-Shamsiyyah by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī, parts of al-Dawānī’s gloss on al-Taftazāni’s al-
Tahdhīb, and parts of al-Risālah al-jadīdah fī ithbāt al-wājib (in 1053/1643). With al-
Qushāshī, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī read parts of Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah and parts of al-
Zawrāʾ with an ijāzah for the rest of al-Dawānī’s books that he transmited.
Several aspects of the isnād above deserve to be highlighted. Firstly, many links to
Ashʿarī texts were through Ḥanbalī scholars. Secondly, al-Jurjānī’s and al-Ījī’s texts were
known in the Ḥijāz probably one or two centuries before al-Kūrānī. Jārullāh b. Fahd al-
160
136
Makkī (d. 15 jumādā II, 954/2 August 1547)161 is the main link for both. Jārullāh, a Shāfiʿī
Sufi scholar, studied with his father, as well as with ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Sunbāṭī, the historian
of Medina ʿAlī al-Samhūdī, al-Suyuṭī, and with Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497). He
traveled to Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and the Ottoman lands (bilād al-rūm) and wrote about 50
works. Thirdly, al-Ḥakamī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Ibrāhīm b. Abī al-Qāsim b.
Muṭayr al-Ḥakamī al-Yamanī (950/1543-1041/1632),162 was a Yemeni scholar who studied
with al-Amīn b. Ibrāhīm Muṭayr, ʿAbd al-Salām al-Nazīlī, and others. Among his works
are al-Ījḥāf, an abridgment of Ibn Ḥajar’s Tuḥfat al-Minhāj; al-Dībāj ʿalā al-Minhāj in Shāfiʿī
fiqh; and Sharḥ Minhāj al-Nawawī. Ibn Muṭayr al-Ḥakamī is one of the main and high links
between Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī, thus:
More chains of transmission can be established for the works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān Jāmī, ʿIṣām al-Dīn b. ʿArabshāh, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn ʿArabī, and other
prominent authors depending on thabats and works of isnāds, some of which were
mentioned above.
To conclude this section on chains of transmission, I would like to mention additional
types of information that can be obtained through this genre of literature. Isnād works
not only help to establish the routes through which knowledge was transmitted, they
can also provide information on other historical issues. Obviously, this genre is a crucial
161
See Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1992), vol. 3, p. 52; Ibn
al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, vol. 8, p. 301; al-ʿAydarūs, al-Nūr al-sāfir, p. 241-242; al-Ghazzī, al-Kawākib al-
sāʾirah, vol 2, p. 131; Muḥammad al-Ḥabīb al-Hīlah, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn bi-Makkah min al-qarn al-thālith
al-hijrī ilā al-qarn al-thālith ʿashar (London: al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, 1994), p. 195.
162
Al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 3, p. 189. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-Ṣanʿānī, Mulḥaq al-
Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-maḥāsin man baʿd al-qarn al-sābiʿ (Cairo: Dār al-Saʿādah, 1348), p. 176. [Printed after the second
volume of al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ].
137
source for establishing the names of authors and the titles of their works, since the
author was writing about his direct teachers. This tool can help researchers to discover
the names of scholars who were interested in these intellectual texts and who studied
and taught them. With this information in hand, we can begin to draw a map of
knowledge circulation through geographical zones and from one century to another. For
example, as we have seen above, some Ḥanbalī scholars participated in the transmission
of Ashʿarite texts, and some were even interested in Ibn ʿArabī’s writing. Studying these
surprising connections may change our perception of the relations between different
scholars of theology and Sufism. In addition, detailed information concerning some
scholars can only be found in this kind of literature, since the entries were written by
direct students who strove to establish their own authority through the chains of their
teachers. Some of these works also contain theological and philosophical discussions,
similar to bibliographical (ṭabaqāt) works that contain theological discussions. Moreover,
some non-extant works are mentioned in some of these texts. For example, Jalāl al-Dīn
al-Dawānī’s ijāzah to his student ʿAfīf al-Dīn al-Ījī is mentioned by Judeth Pfeiffer without
any further information about it, and Reza Pourjavadi did not even mention it. Although
the actual ijāzah or its copies are missing, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī quotes all of it in his thabat
entitled al-Amam.163 As a result, the study of isnād is critical to the construction of
intellectual history, and it is hoped that in the future this genre of literature can be used
by scholars to discover more, particularly with relation to post-classical Islamic
philosophy.
El-Rouayheb, by tracing the chains of transmission of several Ottoman scholars from
the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, notes that their intellectual lineage extended to Persian
163
138
scholars such as al-Dawānī, ʿIsām al-Dīn Isfarāʾiynī, and Mīrzā Jān Bāghnawī. However,
the ethnicity of the scholars shifts in the course of the 17th century. The 15th and 16th
century scholars are Persian; in the early 17th century they are Kurdish or Azeri; and in
the second half of the 17th century scholars of Ottoman Turkish background begin to
appear.164 As we have seen in this chapter, most of philosophical texts in the Ḥijāz arrived
through India, Cairo, and Damascus. In the chains of transmission of these philosophical
texts we noticed that the direct teachers of al-Kūrānī studied with scholars from the Arab
world, mainly from the Ḥijāz, Yemen, Syria, and Egypt. One generation earlier, the
teachers of al-Kūrānī’s teachers most likely received their intellectual preparation in
Iran, particularly for teachers from his hometown in Kurdistan. Many other chains move
to India after two or three generations. This supports my assertion that the conversion
of Iran to Shiʿism moved the centres of intellectual sciences outside of Iran. The Indian
Subcontinent and Ottoman lands were the first recipients of these scholars. From there,
these texts found their way to the Ḥijāz alongside numerous scholars, some of whom
were mentioned above.
Conclusion
The presence of more than 50 scholars in a small region of the Ḥijāz during the 17th
century is clear evidence that support the speculations of researchers in the past few
decades regarding intellectual activities in the 17th century Ḥijāz, and allows us to argue
for the prominent place of the Ḥijāz in post-classical Islamic thought. Until recent years,
the intellectual life of the 17th century Ḥijāz was unexplored territory. The two fields of
studies mentioned above, i.e Southeast Asian Studies and the study of reform movements
of the 18th century, have speculated about some activities in the Ḥijāz at that time, yet
164
El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 52, 56.
139
mostly they refer to ḥadīth and Sufi movements. Recently, Khaled El-Rouayheb’s Islamic
Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century explored some aspects of intellectual life in
the Ḥijāz. These were approached within the context of comparing some theological
topics between North Africa and the Ottoman Empire. El-Rouayheb mentions that even
older studies that perpetuated the image of 17th century intellectual stagnation or
decline were sometimes prepared to admit that there were “exceptions.” El-Rouayheb
gives several examples to show that the list of “exceptions” has simply become too long
for the idea to be taken seriously,165 mentioning as specific examples Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī
and his student Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī. In this chapter I gave more examples to
show that al-Kūrānī and his circle were not exceptions in the Ḥijāz itself. Interestingly,
to counter the idea of decline of interest in “rational sciences,” El-Rouayheb cites a
Meccan scholar from 17th century, Muḥammad ʿAlī b. ʿAllān al-Ṣiddīqī (d. 1648), who was
complaining that in his time the people who are innocent of wisdom (ḥikmah) are
considered as ignorant.166 The number of schools, ribāṭs, libraries, and the scholars
mentioned show the extent of activity in the Ḥijāz during that period. Each scholar needs
to be investigated in detail to show his education, teachers, students, works, and
influence, to allow us to have a complete picture of intellectual life in the Ḥijāz.
This chapter also introduced a valuable source for studying post-classical intellectual
activities in some parts of Islamic world where the isnād tradition was common. This
source has rarely been used by Western scholars to investigate intellectual history.
However, this study has shown that isnād works are a promising source that may change
our perspective about the transmission of knowledge between different parts of the
165
Ibid., p. 5.
166
Ibid., p. 19.
140
Islamic world. I should also mention that isnād was valuable for this research because of
its relationship to ḥadīth studies. As I mentioned above, some scholars considered the
scholars from the Ḥijāz in the 17th century as revivers of ḥadīth studies. Yet, scholars in
some regions, such as the Indian Subcontinent, were more interested in a different
aspect of ḥadīth studies, namely contemplation (dirāyah), i.e. considering the meaning of
the matn, instead of chains of transmission (riwāyah.) As a result, this source is generally
confined to areas where chains of transmission were popular and where intellectual
sciences appear in these chains.
Another important set of sources that can reveal information about intellectual
activities in the Ḥijāz is the manuscripts that are contained in several collections in
Mecca and Medina and other libraries around the world. For example, the manuscripts
of Umm al-Qurā University in Mecca are catalogued in six volumes.167 This collection
contains numerous works in philosophy, kalām, logic, astronomy, and medicine.
Unfortunately, the catalogue does not mention the places where the works were copied.
Many of these works are from the 11th/17th century and earlier, but without examining
the actual copies it is difficult to determine whether they were copied in the Ḥijāz or
simply brought to the Ḥijāz by scholars who visited the region or who moved there and
made it their home. The libraries of Medina contain numerous collections of
manuscripts; 34 collections of them are located in the library of King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz alone.
This library contains 15,722 manuscripts, according to the municipal authority’s
website;168 but unfortunately there is no complete catalogue for this library to date.169
167
Fahras makhṭūṭāt Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā (Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, al-Maktabah al-Markaziyyah, Qism
al-Makhṭūṭāt, 1983).
168
http://www.amana-md.gov.sa/Pages/AboutMadinah/ReligiousTourism/KingAbdulAzizLibrary.aspx
169
Manuscript catalogues in general can provide valuable information about works that were copied or
possessed by scholars in the Ḥijāz. For example, there is a copy of Tuḥfa al-shāhiyya fī (ʿilm) al-hayʾa by Quṭb
141
However, scholars’ names and books’ titles are not enough to gain a precise idea of
the intellectual debates without examining these scholars’ works in detail. In order to
explore this understudied period and geographical zone, this thesis now turns to an
examination of the life and thought of one of the most prominent scholars of the Ḥijāz
in the 17th century, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.
al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī in Istanbul’s Kandilli Collection that was possessed by the Qāḍī of Mecca Muḥammad ʿĀrif.
The manuscript was copied on 9 Dhū-Ḥijja 1073 (15 July 1663). See: Kandilli Rasathanesi el yazmaları: Boğaziçi
Üniversitesi, Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü, astronomi, astroloji, matematik yazmaları
kataloğu, vol. 2, p. 136-137.
142
Chapter Three: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s Life, Teachers, Students, and Works
As mentioned in the previous chapter, some of the main sources for speculation on
intellectual activities in the Ḥijāz during the 17th century come from the study of
Southeast Asia. Al-Kūrānī’s role in these activities is highlighted by some scholars in
particular. Antony Johns, who wrote to clarify the relationship between Ibrāhīm al-
Kūrānī and the Jawi scholar ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkeli, is one of the most prominent of
these voices.1 In “Friends in grace: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkeli,” Johns
provides basic information about al-Kūrānī’s life and focuses on his relationship with
Jawi students, introducing the text that al-Kūrānī wrote at the request of Jawi students
in Medina, Itḥāf al-dhakī. In “Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and new directions,”2
Johns offers an outline of Itḥāf al-dhakī, mentioning that he is preparing a critical edition
of this text, but this promise was never actualized.3 Johns also wrote a short entry on al-
Kūrānī in EI2, less than one page, in which he mistakenly said that al-Kūrānī studied in
Turkey and Persia.4
The notices that Johns collected in order to prepare his edition of Itḥāf al-dhakī were
given to Omen Fathurahman, who published al-Kūrānī’s text in 2012.5 During the
preparation of this edition and after its publication, Fathurrahman published several
1
Anthony. H. Johns, “Friends in Grace: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkeli,”in Spectrum. Essays
presented to Sutan Takdir Alisjah-bana, ed. S. Udin (Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 1978), pp. 469-485.
2
Anthony H. Johns, “Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and new directions,” Indonesia, No. 19 (Apr., 1975),
pp. 33-55.
3
Johns, “Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and new directions,” p. 51.
4
Johns, Anthony. “Al-Kurani.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., vol. V. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
5
Oman Fathurahman, Itḥāf al-dhaki: tafsir wahdatul wujud bagi Muslim Nusantara (Sheffield, Eng: Society of
Glass Technology, 2012).
143
articles to clarify different aspects of the text and its manuscripts.6 Fathurahman’s
interest at this point seems to be focused on al-Kūrānī’s connection with Southeast Asia.
Itḥāf al-dhakī, in his reading, appears to play an important role in the conflict over Ibn
ʿArabī’s thought in Ache, a role that I will analyse in Chapter Four.
Scholars have approached different aspects of al-Kūrānī’s works; some of these
scholars are mentioned here. Alfred Guillaume’s article “al-Lumʿat al-sanīya fī taḥqīq al-
ilqāʾ fī-l-umnīya”7 was one of the earliest publications of a text by al-Kūrānī with a
summary of the arguments. Guillaume gives a brief introduction to the incident of the
Satanic verses, then he summarizes the arguments of al-Kūrānī’s text with the Arabic
edition from one manuscript. Guillaume’s interest in this text will be discussed later.
Alexander Knysh’s “Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1101/1690), an Apologist for ‘waḥdat al-
wujūd’,”8 is a short study that emerged in the context of Knysh’s interest in the reception
of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought in later centuries. Knysh uses one manuscript from the Yahuda
Collection to present some aspects of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s dealing with the problematic
doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd, without any further interest in al-Kūrānī’s thought. Basheer
Nafi’s article “Taṣawwuf and reform in pre-modern Islamic culture: in search of Ibrāhīm
6
Oman Fathurahman, “Ithaf al-dhaki Ibrahim al-Kurani: a commentary of wahdat al-wujud for Jawi
audiences,” Archipel: Études Iinterdisciplinaires sur le Monde Insulindien, n. 81, (2011), pp. 177-198;
Fathurahman, “New textual evidence for intellectual and religious connections between the Ottomans and
Aceh,” in From Anatolia to Aceh: Ottomans, Turks, and Southeast Asia, ed. Peacock, A. C. S. and Annabel Teh
Gallop (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Fathurahman, “Further research on Itḥāf al-dhakī
manuscripts by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī,” in From Codicology to Technology: Islamic Manuscripts and their Place in
Scholarship, ed. Stefanie Brinkmann and Beate Wiesmüller (Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2009), pp. 47-58.
7
Alfred Guillaume and Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī, “Al-Lumʿat al-sanīya fī taḥqīq al-ilqāʾ fī-l-umnīya,” Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 20, No. 1/3, Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph
Turner, Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1937-57 (1957), pp. 291-303.
8
Alexander Knysh, “Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1101/1690), an apologist for ‘waḥdat al-wujūd’,” Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, Third Series, vol. 5, No. 1 (Apr., 1995), pp. 39-47.
144
al-Kūrānī”9 was the first attempt to examine some of al-Kūrānī’s theological ideas. Nafi
elaborates on the issues of kalām nafsī, God’s attributes, and waḥdat al-wujūd. He also tries
to shed some light on intellectual life in the Ḥijāz by mentioning four scholars active
there in the 17th century.10 Nafi studies al-Kūrānī through the current of “neo-Sufism”
studies and the posited connection between Sufism and reform, an interpretation that is
refuted by Khaled El-Rouayheb.
El-Rouayheb’s project to reject the narrative of “decline” and “decadence” (inḥiṭāṭ) in
Arab and Ottoman history was mentioned in the previous chapter. Al-Kūrānī’s place in
this project occupies a substantial portion in part III, almost one third of Islamic
Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, in which El-Rouayheb discusses some of the
essential theological and Sufi aspects of al-Kūrānī’s thought. With regard to theology, he
discusses al-Kūrānī’s contribution to the theories of God’s attributes, kasb, and kalām
nafsī, while in the field of Sufism he focuses on the doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd. El-
Rouayheb explains clearly that the suggestion made by Fazlur Rahman in the 1960s, and
repeated by several scholars, that neo-Sufism was more restrained and less
“pantheistic,” and that these neo-Sufis quietly abandoning the controversial aspects of
the monistic worldview of Ibn ʿArabī and his disciples, is not correct.11 El-Rouayheb
9
Basheer Nafi, “Taṣawwuf and reform in pre-modern Islamic culture: In search of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī,” Die
Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 42, issue 3, Arabic Literature and Islamic Scholarship in the 17/18 Century:
Topics and Biographies (2002), pp. 307-355.
10
These scholars are al-Qushāshī, al-Bābilī, al-Rūdānī, and ʿIsā al-Thaʿālibī. More information about each
one will be offered in this chapter.
11
O’Fahey and Radtke survey the main characteristics of the movements which are described as neo-Sufi
before they refute the term “neo-Sufism” without clarification or examination of its meaning. Among
these characteristics is the rejection of Ibn ʿArabī’s teachings, especially his doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd. R.
S. O’Fahey and Bernd Radtke, “Neo-Sufism reconsidered,” Der Islam. 70 (1), 1993: 52-87.
145
argues that al-Kūrānī stood firmly in the tradition of Ibn ʿArabī, al-Qūnawī, and the later
Fūṣūṣ commentators.12
Alongside these articles and studies, a number of dissertations have been written
about al-Kūrānī or related to his thought. Probably the first doctoral dissertation
dedicated to Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s thought is Atallah Copty’s dissertation from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem in 2004 entitled Ibrāhīm Ibn Ḥasan al-Kūrānī al-Shahrazūrī (1025-
1101/1616-1690) and his intellectual heritage: ḥadīth and Sufism in Medina in the 17th Century.13
Unfortunately, I was not able to examine this dissertation.
Two other doctoral dissertations about different aspects of al-Kūrānī’s thought were
written in Turkey. Omer Yilmaz wrote a dissertation entitled Ibrahim Kurani: Hayati, Eseri
Ve Tasavvuf Anlayişi (“Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s life, works, and analysis of his Sufism”). In it,
he mentions 5 teachers and 6 students. He mentions 74 works by al-Kūrānī and classifies
them according to their topic (26 Sufism, 24 kalām, 6 tafsīr, 8 ḥadīth, 6 linguistic, and 4
other topics), in addition to 5 works attributed to al-Kūrānī, and gives a short description
of all these works. Then, he lists 22 works to which he did not have access; ten of these
works are described in this current work. Yilmaz’s classification of al-Kūrānī’s works
according to their topics can be very misleading, since he combines theological
discussions with Sufi thought based on the Quran and the Sunnah. Nevertheless, Yilmaz’s
descriptions of al-Kūrānī’s works and his attempt to mention the libraries that contain
copies of these works are a valuable contribution to al-Kūrānī studies. The other
dissertation is Ahmet Gami’s editing of al-Kūrānī’s main grammar text Inbāh al-anbāh ʿalā
taḥqīq iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh. This dissertation did not contain a study or an analysis of the
El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 312 and after.
12
13
17/11-‫ חדית' וצופיות באלמדינה במאה ה‬: (1690-1616/1101-1025) ‫ אבראהים אבן חסן אלכוראני אלשהרזורי‬/ Ph.D. the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004.
146
text. The author offered instead a short introduction of 35 pages for al-Kūrānī’s life,
teachers, students, and works.14
Another work related to al-Kūrānī is Saʿīd al-Sarrāj’s dissertation, entitled Maslak al-
sadād li-l-Kūrānī wa-rudūd ʿulamāʾ al-maghrib ʿalayhi: Dirāsah wa-taḥqīq.15 The work is
primarily about al-Kūrānī’s main text on the theory of kasb and the refutation of
Maghribī scholars. This work consists of two parts, the first part being the study and the
second part the editions of three texts: al-Kūranī’s Maslak al-sadād and two refutations by
Maghribī scholars, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Mahdī al-Fāsī’s al-Nubdhah al-yasīrah wa-l-
lumʿah al-khaṭīrah and Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī’s response. However, the
author had limited access to manuscripts, which resulted in his editing of al-Kūrānī’s text
from only two manuscripts and led him to ignore more refutations from Maghribī
scholars such as Yaḥyā al-Shāwī, a refutation that will be mentioned in chapter four.16
Al-Sarrāj did not try to be comprehensive in listing al-Kūrānī’s students, teachers, or
even his works.
These are the main contributions to al-Kūrānī studies. Except for the articles
mentioned above and the parts of El-Rouayheb’s book, there is no academic work in any
western language that attempts to offer a comprehensive study of al-Kūrānī’s life,
teachers, students, and thought. These are gaps that this present work aims to address.
[3.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Life
14
Ahmet Gemī, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī: Inbāh al-anbāh ʿalā taḥqīq iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh, Ph.D. thesis, Ataturk
University in Erzurum, 2013. Gemī mentioned 8 teachers but he mistakenly included al-Shinnāwī (who
died in Medina 1028/1619), among al-Kūrānī’s teachers. He also mentioned 6 students and a list of 79 works
by al-Kūrānī without any descriptions.
15
The dissertation was submitted to The University of ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Saʿdī in Taṭwān, Morocco, in the
academic year 2010-2011.
16
Many thanks to Mohamed Outaher who provided me with parts of this thesis.
147
The previous chapter displayed how the Ḥijāz was very active intellectually in the 17th
century. This chapter is dedicated to the life, teachers, students, and works of one of the
the leading representative of a scholarly life in the Ḥijāz, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. His full name
is Mullā Ibrāhīm b. Ḥasan b. Shihāb al-Dīn al-Kūrānī al-Shahrazūrī al-Kurdī al-Shāfiʿī al-
Madanī, Abū Isḥāq, also known as Abū al-ʿIrfān.17 His life and a number of his works are
mentioned by several scholars and in various historical, travel, and bio-bibliographical
(ṭabaqāt) works.18 Several of the historians and travelers who mentioned him were his
direct students; these provide us with relatively reliable information about his life. The
most important sources from which other historians draw their material are al-
ʿAyyāshī’s Riḥlah and al-Ḥamawī’s Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl. Moreover, al-Kūrānī’s thabat, entitled
al-Amam li-īqāẓ al-himam, in which he mentions some of the works he studied as well as
some of his teachers, provides us with a more detailed picture of his life and works.
17
About Shahrazūr see Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, Muʿjam al-buldān (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1977), vol. 3, p. 375. About
Kūrān see V. Minorsky, “The Guran,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 11 (1943), pp. 75-103.
See also Martin Van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan (London:
Zed Books, 1992), p. 109.
18
See al-Kūrānī’s life and works in: Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Aḥmad al-Shullī Bā-ʿAlawī, ʿAqd al-jawāhir wa-
l-durar fī akhbār al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, ed. Ibrāhīm Aḥmad al-Maqḥafī (Yamen, Ṣanʿāʾ: Maktabat al-Irshād,
2003), p. 384; Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-maḥāsin man baʿd al-qarn al-sābiʿ (Cairo: Dār
al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, n. d), vol. 1, p. 11; Muḥammad Khalīl b. ʿAlī al-Murādī, Silk al-durar fī aʿyān al-qarn al-thānī
ʿashar (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, n. d), vol. 1, p. 5; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan al-Jabartī, ʿAjāʾib al-āthār fī
al-tarājim wa-l-akhbār, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Raḥīm (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub al-
Miṣriyyah bi-l-Qāhirah, 1997), vol. 1, p. 125; Ismāʿīl Bāshā al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, asmāʾ al-muʾallifīn
wa-āthār al-muṣannifīn (Istanbul: Wakālat al-Maʿārīf al-Jalīlah, 1951), vol. 1, p. 35; Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-
Ḥuḍaykī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, ed. Aḥmad Būmizkū (Morocco, al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: Maṭbaʿat al-Najāḥ al-Jadīd,
2006), vol. 1, p. 141; Muḥammad b. al-Tayyib al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī li-ahl al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar wa-l-thānī,
ed. Muḥammad Ḥajjī & Aḥmad Tawfīq, in Mawsūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib, vol. 3 (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī,
1996), p. 1787. This Encyclopedia, i.e., Mawsūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib, contains nine books of Moroccan
biographies, Nashr al-mathanī is in volumes 3-6. The entry about al-Kūrānī is in vol. 5. Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid
al-irṭiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 54; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 99; al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol.1, p.
478.
148
Al-Kūrānī’s life can be divided into four phases: his early life and studies in his
homeland, his work teaching in Baghdad for one year and a half, his residence in
Damascus for four years, and finally his move to the Ḥijāz passing through Jerusalem and
Cairo, before settling in Medina for the rest of his life.
[3.1.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Early Life and Studies in his Homeland

Al-Kūrānī was born in Shawwāl 1025/October 1616 in the town of Shahrān in the Kurdish
mountains. His initial studies with local teachers were relatively broad and
comprehensive. He studied most of the intellectual sciences in his hometown, mainly
from Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf al-Kūrānī (d. 1078/1667) and ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abī Bakr b.
Hidāyat Allāh al-Kūrānī (d. 1050/1640).19
Al-Kūrānī states that he studied all the sciences of his time during this period except
two: Prophetic Tradition (ḥadīth) and Sufism. He studied the Arabic language and the
intellectual disceplines of kalām, logic, and philosophy, along with geometry (handasah)
and astronomy (hayʾah). He then read lexicology, principles of jurisprudence, and Shāfiʿī
fiqh. According to al-Ḥamawī and al-ʿAyyāshī, he studied all of these sciences in his
homeland, then learned tafsīr from the scholars of his country without mentioning
where or with whom.20 However, in his thabat he mentions that he studied part of Anwār
al-tanzīl by al-Bayḍāwī with Mullā Sharīf in Baghdad in 1055/1645. Later, he obtained
another, higher isnād of this work through al-Qushāshī in Medina.21
Concerning the sciences of ḥadīth and Sufism, al-Ḥamawī and al-ʿAyyāshī report that
al-Kūrānī did not think that studying hadīth in the traditional way through a chain of
transmission still existed, stating that “I did not think that there is on earth anyone says:
19
For more information about these two scholars see the section about his teachers.
20
21
149
[someone] told us and recounted (ḥaddathanā wa-akhbaranā).”22 Later, in Syria, Egypt, and
the Ḥijāz, al-Kūrānī found that this science was still alive and taught with the traditional
method of transmission. He says the same about Sufism: “I thought there was no one still
reading, composing, and actually practicing it; I thought there are only the books which
we have or some isolated people on mountaintops.”23 (mā kunt aẓunn aḥadan yatadāwaluhu
bi-l-qirāʾah wa-l-taṣnīf wa-l-munāzalah bi-l-fiʿl illā mā fī buṭūn al-dafātir aw ʿinda al-munqaṭiʿīn
fī ruʾūs al-jibāl).
[3.1.2] Al-Kūrānī in Baghdad
After the death of his father and the completion of his studies in his homeland, al-Kūrānī
left with the intention of performing the pilgrimage and visiting the Prophet’s tomb in
Medina. During this time, he married and had a son. Upon arriving in Baghdad, he waited
for several days with his brother ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 12th/18th C.),24 intending to join the
ḥajj caravan. On the way to Mecca, his brother became very sick and could not continue
the trip, so Ibrāhīm returned with him to Baghdad without performing the ḥajj that
year.25
While taking care of his brother, al-Kūrānī extended his stay in Baghdad for two years.
The people of Baghdad asked him to teach and he obliged, albeit with initial troubles
teaching in Arabic. After much effort, he was able to teach in Arabic without difficulty.
At this point of his life he was able to teach in Kurdish, Persian, and Arabic. Later, some
Turkish students asked him to teach them in Turkish and using their own books, so he
22
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol.1, p. 479-480.
23
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 55; al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 480
24
Also a scholar in his own right, see Mirdād, al-Mukhtaṣar min kitāb nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar, p. 246; Ibn al-
ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 206.
25
150
learned yet another foreign language in a short time.26 Learning these languages would
enable him to compose all his works in Arabic during his life in the Ḥijāz, and to translate
one text from Persian to Arabic alongside using the Persian texts that he mentioned in
various works.27
Alongside his teaching, he continued to study in Baghdad. In al-Amam he mentions
that he studied parts of al-Bayḍāwī’s Quranic commentary Anwār al-tanzīl with Mullā
Muḥammad Sharīf al-Ṣiddīqī in both his hometown and in Baghdad in 1055 AH.28 During
his time in Baghdad, he became interested in Sufism due to his proximity to one of the
most famous Sufi shrines, that of ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (d. 561/1166). One night, al-
Kūrānī was contemplating his situation and his lack of knowledge about Sufism and his
need for a master who could guide him. In front of the tomb of shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir, he
asked God to lead him and direct him to the best path. In a dream, he saw shaykh ʿAbd
al-Qādir pointing in the direction of the West. When he awoke, he prepared himself to
travel to Damascus. Al-Kūrānī states in Masālik al-abrār that he remained in Baghdad for
almost a year and a half.29 As mentioned above, he was in Baghdad in 1055. Probably he
left Baghdad at the end of 1056/1647, because he mentions that he spent around four
years in Damascus and another three months in Cairo before he arrived in Mecca in the
season of ḥajj 1061. That means he left his hometown in 1054-55/1644-5, when he was
around 30 years old.
26
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 56; al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 480.
27
For example, he used Dānish-nāme ʿAlāʾī of Ibn Sīnā in Qaṣd al-sabīl, Ms: KSA, Medina: ʿĀif Ḥikmat 231, fol.
27b.
28
Al-Kūrānī, Amam, p. 73.
29
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-nabī al-mukhtār (Ms: Istanbul: Koprulu 279), fol. 106b.
151
[3.1.3] Al-Kūrānī in Damascus
While in Damascus, al-Kūrānī lived in al-Madrasah al-Bādrāʾiyyah30 in a khalwah that
belonged to shaykh ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī (d. 1071/1661).31 Shaykh ʿAbd al-Bāqī mentions
in his ijāzah to al-Kūrānī that the latter was teaching in Damascus, and that numerous
people studied with him.32 Al-Kūrānī’s thabat mentions that he studied with some
distinguished scholars in Damascus, including ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī and the famous
historian Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī (d. 1061/1651),33 between 1059 and 1060 AH.
Alongside his teaching in Damascus, he showed a special interest in Ibn ʿArabī’s works,
and frequently visited his tomb. In a discussion with a friend about some of Ibn ʿArabī’s
ideas, the friend mentioned that a contemporary scholar discussed this topic, and he
brought up some of al-Qushāshī’s (d. 1071/1661) treatises. Al-Kūrānī seemed interested,
but he doubted that any of his contemporaries would be able to write such words, even
suggesting that al-Qushāshī might have plagiarized them from earlier writers. Al-Kūrānī
confessed his doubts to his friend, who brought him another treatise by al-Qushāshī
entitled al-Hālah fī dhikr huwa wa-l-jalālah. This treatise shocked him and convinced him
that this person was the teacher for whom he had been looking, the one to whom shaykh
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī had been referring in his dream.34 While al-Kūrānī was in
Damascus, he began to correspond with al-Qushāshī in Medina and received his books,
30
Established by the Baghdadi judge Najm al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī al-Wafāʾ Muḥammad
b. al-Ḥasan al-Bādrāʾī (d. Dhū al-Qaʿdah 655/November 1257). For more about this school and its history
see ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad al-Nuʿaymī al-Dimashqī, al-Dāris fī tārīkh al-madāris (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1990), vol. 1, p. 154.
31
See ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī’s ijāzah to al-Kūrānī: Ms. Jāmiʿat al-Malik Saʿūd 4849. [3a]; and
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī, p. 103.
32
Ms. Jāmiʿat al-Malik Saʿūd 4849. [3a].
33
More information about these scholars and other names that appear in his life will be provided in the
section about his teachers and his students.
34
152
all of which increased his confidence and certainty that this person was the person for
whom he was looking. After four years in Damascus, al-Qushāshī requested that he move
to Medina, so he prepared himself and left Damascus for Egypt through Jerusalem and
Hebron.35
[3.1.4] Through Cairo to the Ḥijāz
In Egypt, al-Kūrānī was preoccupied with his ultimate destination, so he did not intend
to meet any scholars. Eventually, he needed to check some books that existed in some
private libraries, so he met and studied with two Egyptian scholars: Shihāb al-Din al-
Khafājī (d. 1069/1659) and Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī (d. 1075/1665). In al-Amam al-Kūrānī
mentions that he read al-Tirmidhī’s ḥadīth with Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī in 1061/1651. In
Masālik al-abrār he says that he studied with al-Mazzāḥī works in ḥadīth and fiqh, without
specifying any titles, and that he attended his lessons in al-Qasṭalānī’s al-Mawāhib al-
ladunniyyah.36 Al-Ḥamawī added that al-Kūrānī read with al-Mazzāḥī parts of al-Ṣaḥīḥayn
ḥadīth collections and some of al-Minhāj.37 Al-Kūrānī mentioned also that he attended the
celebration of completing reading the Quran (khatm al-Qurʾān) in al-Azhar with shaykh
Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Shabrāmallisī.38 In Masālik al-abrār, he specified that he remained in
Egypt for three months minus three days. Since he left directly to Mecca to perform the
ḥajj, we can assume that he left Cairo at the end of Shawwāl 1061/September 1651.39 He
travelled by sea from Suez to Jeddah and finally to Mecca where he performed the ḥajj
and ʿumrah before heading to Medina.
35
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 478 and after.
36
Al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-nabī al-mukhtār, fol. 105b.
37
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 60. Al-Minhāj is al-Nawāwī’s commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
38
Al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-nabī al-mukhtār, fol. 125a.
39
Ibn Iyās in his history entitled Badāʾiʿ al-zuḥūr describes the celebration for the departure of the Egyptian
ḥajj caravan in the middle of Shawwāl; see Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuḥūr fī waqāʾiʿ al-duhūr
(Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Ḥalabī, 1986), vol. 5, p. 278.
153
In Medina, he spent most of his time in the company of his teacher and spiritual guide
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī. He married his shaykh’s daughter and became his khalīfah in
several Sufi orders. He had three sons, all of them named Muḥammad: Muḥammad Abū
Saʿīd, Muḥammad Abū al-Ḥasan, and Muḥammad Abū Ṭāhir.40 Al-Kūrānī died on
Wednesday 18 Jumādā I 1101/27 February 1690, and was buried in the famous cemetery
of al-Baqīʿ.41
[3.2] Al-Kūrānī’s Education
Al-Kūrānī was well-versed in the intellectual sciences before leaving his hometown. He
taught wherever he lived, first in Baghdad, then in Damascus, and finally in Medina.
During the first period of his time in Baghdad and Damascus he was also looking to
augment his spiritual education, which came to revolve around the person of al-
Qushāshī.
His studies in his hometown were comprehensive, and he attempted to master every
science related to the texts that he was studying. For example,42 when he read al-Hidāyah
al-athīriyyah by al-Abharī he studied with it geometry (handasah) and did not continue
reading until he had consumed all that he could on the science of geometry and mastered
it. During his readings in geometry, whenever he came across a reference to an
astronomical idea, he would begin to study astronomy. Thus, he did not leave any science
until he mastered it and verified it (yūḥaqqiqahu).43 Al-Ḥamawī reports a statement by his
40
41
42
This is just an example of a text that he studied in his hometown. The texts that he read as well as his
teachers will be mentioned later in the relevant chapters.
43
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vo.3, p. 55; al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 479. For the
concept of taḥqīq in intellectual sciences see Khaled El-Rouayheb, “Opening the gate of verification: The
forgotten Arab-Islamic florescence of the 17th century,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 38,
No. 2 (May., 2006), pp. 263-281, p. 267; Robert. Wisnovsky, “Avicennism and exegetical practice in the early
commentaries on the Ishārāt,” Oriens 41 (2013), 349-378, p. 354; and Wisnovsky, “Towards a genealogy of
154
teacher Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf in which he says that al-Kūrānī’s memory was strong
so that if he read about a topic in a book and someone would ask him about it seven years
later, he would tell him about the book with the exact page number.44
It seems that the formative period in his hometown was essential for his intellectual
foundation, even though he mentioned reading some theological and philosophical texts
with his teacher Mullā Sharīf in Medina. However, in my opinion his reading with his
teacher Mullā Sharīf in Medina, and with al-Qushāshī, should be understood as a practice
of the tradition of student-teacher relations out of respect for his teachers more than as
a real learning activity. Its purpose may also have been to have higher isnād, as he
mentioned in al-Amam that he read parts of al-Bayḍāwī’s Anwār al-tanzīl with Mullā Sharīf
in Baghdad, and again by a higher isnād with al-Qushāshī in Medina.45
In Baghdad, his interest in Sufism increased and he started reading Sufi texts on his
own. It also seems that the idea of a spiritual guide (murshid) was important to him, and
he began looking for a spiritual guide at an early stage, which led him to al-Qushāshī. In
Damascus, he continued to teach and to read Sufi texts. His proximity to Ibn ʿArabī’s
tomb made him more interested in Akbarian thought. He also became more interested
in ḥadīth studies while in Damascus. Al-Kūrānī admitted several times that he lacked
knowledge in ḥadīth and Sufism. He would continue studying these two sciences until the
Avicennism,” Oriens 42 (2014) 323-363, p. 326. For the concept of taḥqīq in Sufism see Eric Geoffroy,
“Spiritual realization (al-tahqiq) through daily awakening,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 53
(2013), pp. 37-47; William Chittick, Ibn ʿArabi: Heir to the Prophets (Oxford: Oneworld, 2005), pp. 69, 78;
Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Cosmology (State University of New York Press,
1998), in several places, see the index of Arabic words, p. 452; Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-
ʿArabī’s Metaphasic of Imagination (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), see (ḥaqq) in the index
of names and terms, p. 452; Chittick, Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul: The Pertinence of Islamic Cosmology
in the Modern World (Oxford: Oneworld 2007), chapter three.
44
45
155
end of his life. It also appears that he began to be interested in collecting ijāzahs during
his time in Damascus. In Cairo he met just two scholars of ḥadīth, most probably to ask
them for ijāzahs since he read with them parts of ḥadīth works.
Al-Qushāshī’s task to lead al-Kūrānī along the spiritual path was not easy, since the
latter was already an established scholar in the intellectual sciences. Al-Qushāshī began
by preventing al-Kūrānī from teaching the exoteric sciences (al-ʿulūm al-ẓāhirah). He also
prevented him from attending lessons in these subjects. Teaching intellectual sciences
was al-Kūrānī’s main career and he was a talented teacher, but al-Qushāshī wanted to
train him to control his desires. Next, he encouraged him to enter khalwah (seclusion for
spiritual contemplation) in ribāṭ al-sulṭān close to bāb al-raḥmah, one of the doors of the
Prophet’s mosque.46 Al-Kūrānī told al-ʿAyyāshī that when he entered in the khalwah, al-
Qushāshī sent another person in with him. This person was allowed to leave after 40 days,
but al-Kūrānī was not allowed to leave until he had completed 70 days, which upset him
greatly.47 Al-Qushāshī later told him that educated people need more time because their
minds are preoccupied by the intellectual sciences, while simple, ignorant people have
clearer and purer minds on which it is easier to imprint divine knowledge.48 Al-Ḥamawī
mentions that al-Kūrānī entered the khalwah forty times, each time for forty days!49 Even
if this number is an exaggeration, it reveals al-Kūrānī’s desire to follow the path of Sufism
and his seriousness in following the teachings of his teacher.
This new direction was not easy for al-Kūrānī. From his writings, it seems that he was
frustrated with waḥdat al-wujūd, waḥdat al-ṣifāt, and other topics that were not structured
46
47
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 486.
48
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 485.
49
156
as intellectual proofs. Al-Qushāshī encouraged him to be patient, with a promise that God
would illuminate his heart. Al-Qushāshī described these efforts as a conversion from one
religion to another, because conviction is a very high level of belief; no one would leave
his conviction unless it were for a more convincing one,50 and the new conviction should
not contradict the first. In al-Kūrānī’s case, he was moving within the various beliefs of
the people of Sunnah and Jamāʿah, which are established in decisive proofs. The
difference now was that the new conviction was higher, clearer, and more perfect.51 After
this period of training, al-Qushāshī allowed al-Kūrānī to teach and give fatwās again. His
ḥadīth and Sufi training appear clearly in all his works; Ibn ʿArabī and other Sufis such as
al-Ghazālī and al-Qushayrī are mentioned frequently and almost all his works end with
citations of several ḥadīths that fit the topic he is discussing, and he supports his
arguments through prophetic statements.
Al-Kūrānī now had the advantage of having mastered the intellectual sciences in
addition to gaining Sufi knowledge. His talent in the intellectual sciences allowed him to
present Sufi ideas in a more convincing way. Al-ʿAyyāshī describes the great efforts al-
Kūrānī made to present the ideas of Sufi scholars (ʿārifīn) in a way that was compatable
with the view of the Mutakallimūn form (qālib ārāʾ al-mutakallimīn).52 He compares the
different styles in which al-Qushāshī and al-Kūrānī wrote by saying that the works of al-
Kūrānī are more comprehensible because al-Qushāshī mainly depended on kashf and the
ideas of Ibn ʿArabī alongside the evidence in the Quran and the Sunnah, and he rarely
mentioned the proofs of the theologians. By contrast, al-Kūrānī was well established in
intellectual topics and acquainted with the ideas of the theologians, and easily
50
51
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 531.
52
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 533.
157
distinguished the true from the false. He was therefore able to present topics in the form
of kalām discussions and to use the proofs of the theologians; his writings were thus
understandable by exoteric scholars.53
Al-Kūrānī’s style differs from that of his teacher al-Qushāshī in a way similar to the
diference between the writings of al-Qūnawī and those of Ibn ʿArabī, as described by
Chittick:
Ibn ʿArabī’s style resembles the stringing together of flashing jewels of inspiration far
more than purely reasoned and logical discourse. But Qunawi from first to last is
precise, orderly and logical in his argumentation, and his style often resembles that of
a systematic philosopher much more than that of a visionary mystic.54
Al-Kūrānī’s clear style of writing may explain why, a few years before al-Qushāshī’s
death, al-Kūrānī was responsible for answering the letters al-Qushāshī received. Still, the
latter edited them by adding or deleting material, although sometimes he simply
approved them without any change. Close to al-Qushāshī’s death, he presented al-Kūrānī
as his khalīfah and appointed him to teach in his place, to lead the sessions of dhikr, and
to perform other duties of a Sufi leader such as to give guidance, to provide
companionship (ṣuḥbah), or to dress the cloak (al-khirqah).55
Alongside his interest in Sufism, al-Kūrānī continued to teach the intellectual
sciences. Several reports mention his teaching philosophical and theological books in
Medina. In an ijāzah al-ʿAyyāshī obtained from al-Kūrānī56 (dated 2 Muḥarram, 1074/6
August 1663), al-ʿAyyāshī lists many intellectual and Sufi texts that he studied with al-
Kūrānī. Among these are parts of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif by al-Jurjānī, al-Tuḥfah al-mursalah by
53
54
William Chittich, “The last will and testament of Ibn ʿArabī’s foremost disciple, Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī,”
Sophia Perennis, Volume IV, number 1, 1978, pp. 43‐58, p. 43.
55
56
Abū Sālim ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-ʿAyyāshī, Itḥāf al-akhillāʾ bi-ījāzāt al-mashāyikh al-ajillāʾ, ed.
Muḥammad al-Zāhī (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1999), p. 122.
158
Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh al-Burhānbūrī, parts of al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah and Fuṣūṣ al-
ḥikam57 by Ibn ʿArabī,58 and parts of Anwār al-tanzīl by al-Bayḍāwī.59 In addition, he read
with al-Kūrānī the ijāzah of Ibn ʿArabī to al-Malik al-Muẓaffar Bahāʾ al-Din Ghāzī and he
listed all the ijāzah.60 In many cases, he mentions his isnād of these works, going back to
their authors.61 Elsewhere, al-ʿAyyāshī mentions that he read al-Hidāyah al-athīriyyah
with al-Kūrānī during his year in Medina62 and describes his study with al-Kūrānī as a
reading for the purpose of verification and contemplation.63
By the time of al-Kūrānī, Sufi texts were suffused with philosophical and theological
discussions. Jāmī’s style in al-Durrah al-fākhirah, in which he discussed each idea from the
point of view of philosophers (ḥukamāʾ), theologians, and Sufis, became a model for
future works. Al-Kūrānī went a step further and attempted to show the fundamental
agreement of these three directions in seeking the truth. Al-ʿAyyāshī in his Riḥlah
dedicated a few pages to discussing the differing methodologies of philosophers,
theologians, and Sufis. He explains that he attended to this topic because some ignorant
person may object to his including the ideas of philosophers with those of Sufis. He says
that reading the works of ḥukamāʾ helps us to understand truths. Such reading is
especially helpful with a shaykh like al-Kūrānī, who surpasses his companions and
contemporaries because of his companionship with the great Sufi of his time (ʿārif
zamānihi) after he mastered the intellectual sciences and grasped the ideas of the
57
Al-ʿAyyāshī says that the best commentary on this book is Jāmi’s commentary. Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-
ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 524.
58
Al-ʿAyyāshī, Itḥāf al-akhillāʾ, pp. 123-124.
59
60
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 505.
61
See his isnād in al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya to Ibn ʿArabī in al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 513.
62
63
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 493.
159
ḥukamāʾ.64 Al-ʿAyyāshī compares al-Kūrānī’s path to that of al-Ghazālī, who mastered the
intellectual sciences and then moved to the Sufi path.65
Beside his later interest in Sufism, and his resumption of teaching the intellectual
sciences, al-Kūrānī continued to study ḥadīth by looking for possessors of ijāzahs in ḥadīth
to study with them and obtain their ijāzahs. When al-ʿAyyāshī met al-Kūrānī in 1072-1073,
al-Kūrānī himself asked al-ʿAyyāshī to guarantee him an ijāzah in his isnāds.66 Al-ʿAyyāshī
was originally from Morocco and had isnāds of the scholars of that region that al-Kūrānī
did not have from his Mashriqī shaykhs. Al-Kittānī says that through al-Kūrānī the
sciences of ḥadīth, riwāyah, and isnād were disseminated throughout the Islamic World.
He used to ask for ijāzahs from the visitors to the Ḥijāz and from its residents. He also
used to correspond with scholars in India and the Maghrib and other places to ask for
their ijāzahs.67 Abū al-Ḥasan al-Nadawī in his thabat entitled Nafaḥāt al-Hind wa-l-Yaman
bi-asānīd al-shaykh Abī al-Ḥasan repeats al-Kittānī’s idea about al-Kūrānī’s role in
spreading the science of ḥadīth and isnād and described al-Kūrānī as the musnid of the
11th/17th century.68 Al-Kūrānī’s contribution to ḥadīth studies will be discussed in Chapter
Five.
Al-Kūrānī’s most famous thabat is al-Amam, but he also mentions his isnāds in other
works, including his Janāḥ al-najāḥ (also called Lawāmiʿ al-laʾālī fī al-arbaʿīn al-ʿawālī) and
Masālik al-abrār min aḥādīth al-Nabī al-mukhtār. His student al-Shams al-Dakdakjī al-
Dimashqī mentions that al-Kūrānī also had al-thabat al-awsaṭ and al-kabīr.69 Al-Kūrānī
64
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, 496.
65
Ibid., vol. 1, 496.
66
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 489.
67
68
Muḥammad Akram al-Nadawī, Nafaḥāt al-Hind wa-l-Yaman bi-asānīd al-shaykh Abī al-Ḥasan (KSA, Riyāḍ:
Maktabat al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 1998), p. 20.
69
160
wrote all these works on ḥadīth and isnād motiviated by the conviction that this science
is distinct in the Islamic World.
Al-Kūrānī taught in Arabic for most of his life, and he composed several treatises on
grammar and linguistics. In fact, the first work he composed was a linguistic treatise,
even though he was not a native speaker of Arabic. It seems that he continued to have
some difficulties with pronunciation, and al-ʿAyyāshī in the course of mentioning some
notices on Quran readings (qirāʾāt) mentions how al-Kūrānī was happy to know that
pronunciation of (hāʾ) can be different between a pure hāʾ and slant to hamzah (hamzah
musahhalah). Al-ʿAyyāshī then comments that because of the dominance of the ʿujmah on
al-Kūrānī’s tongue, he could not pronounce hamzah musahhalah.70
As a teacher, he did not try to impose his thought in a domineering way. On the
contrary, he preferred that a person not accept his ideas if he was not convinced. 71 He
was humble in his teaching, and used to teach through discussion and to present his ideas
by saying “maybe this,” “this can be understood in this way,” and “probably that
means.”72 When al-Kūrānī was trying to explain to al-ʿAyyāshī the idea of shayʾiyyat al-
maʿdūm (thingness of the nonexistent) in order to explain waḥdat al-wujūd, al-ʿAyyāshī
felt upset with this idea because it looked similar to that of the Muʿtazilite school. Al-
ʿAyyāshī in answer mentioned that al-Qushāshī had written a treatise to explain the
difference between the Sufi idea of reality in knowledge (lahu ḥaqīqah ʿilmiyyah) as a level
of existence and the idea of the Muʿtazilites. Al-Qushāshī’s work on this topic is entitled
Nafḥat al-yaqīn wa-zulfat al-tamkīn li-l-muwaffaqīn.73
70
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 472-473.
71
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 533.
72
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vo. 3, p. 62.
73
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 536. For detailed discussion of this topic see Chapter Four.
161
Al-Kūrānī used to wear clothes like those of ordinary people in the Ḥijāz, and did not
insist on wearing clothes that distinguished him as a scholar or Sufi.74 Nor was he
insistent upon occupying a special place while teaching, so if a stranger were to enter his
circle it was difficult to know who was the teacher. His student al-Budayrī described him
as one of the most generous people of his time, comparing him with Ḥātim al-Ṭāʾī and
other persons who are famous in Arabic tradition for their generosity. He says that al-
Kūrānī used to receive enormous gifts and donations from Sultans, viziers, and princes,
and that he used to spend everything on mujāwirūn, poor people, and visitors to Medina.
He even used to borrow money to help others, so he was always in debt because of his
generosity. Alongside his generosity to others he himself was an ascetic in his food and
clothing.75 Al-Barzanjī similarly records that during his 30 years in the Ḥijāz al-Kūrānī
never went to a Ruler to ask him anything. He received huge numbers of presents and
donations, which he used to distribute among needy people, and he never changed his
way of clothing himself to use more expensive garments.76 Al-Kūrānī used to read the
books in the waqf of the Prophet’s mosque and the books in the khalwah of Ṣibghat Allāh,
a khalwah that later belonged to al-Shinnāwī and then to al-Shinnāwī’s student Asʿad al-
Balkhī.77
Al-Kūrānī did not travel too much, and he never studied in Turkey or Persia as A. H.
Johns erroneously suggested.78 Most of his intellectual preparation was in his homeland,
and then in Medina with al-Qushāshī. Nevertheless, his humble personality made him
74
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vo. 3, p. 61-62.
75
Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Budayrī, Bulghat al-murād fī al-taḥdhīr min al-iftitān bi-l-amwāl
wa-l-awlād (Egypt, Ṭanṭā: Dār al-Ṣaḥābah, 1992), p. 84.
76
Al-Barzanjī, al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī ʿalā al-thaʿlab al-ghāwī (MS: Istanbul: Laleli 3744), fol. 36a.
77
78
A. H. Johns, “al-Kūrānī,” EI, 2nd. Vol. v, pp. 432-3.
162
continue reading and asking scholars and visitors of the Ḥijāz for ijāzahs. He also received
questions from a scholar from Yemen, and in his reply he described the questioner as his
teacher. When a scholar famous in Quranic reading (qirāʾāt) came to the Ḥijāz, al-Kūrānī
was keen to meet him and study with him, as we will see in the list of his teachers.
[3.3] Al-Kūrānī’s Teachers79
1-Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf al-Ṣiddīqī,80 (d. 18 Ṣafar 1078/9 August 1667) b. Mullā Yūsuf81
al-Qāḍī b. al-qāḍī Maḥmūd b. Mullā Kamāl al-Dīn al-Kurdī al-Kūrānī al-Dawānī was the
most influential person in the formative period of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s intellectual life.
Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf was a Shāfiʿī scholar distinguished in the rational sciences. He
was also interested in tafsīr, mainly al-Bayḍāwī, which had a clear rationalist tendency.82
Later in life, Mullā Sharīf seems to have followed the path of Sufism, probably after his
ḥajj in 1055 AH. What al-Kūrānī says about the lack of Sufi interest in his own hometown
may explain why he became interested in Sufism in a later period of his life. When Ibn
al-ʿUjaymī asked him about his Sufi shaykh, Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf replied that he
followed this path through knowledge (sulūkī bi-l-ʿilm).83
Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf wrote two superglosses on al-Bayḍāwī’s tafsīr, one of which
discusses some of Saʿdī Afandī’s gloss and the other some of Maẓhar al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb al-
79
I begin with his main teachers in the rational sciences: Mullā Sharīf and Mullā ʿAbd al-Karīm; then I
mention the most influential scholar in al-Kūrānī’s life, al-Qushāshī. The rest of his teachers are arranged
alphabetically.
80
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 128; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 271; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol.
4, p. 280; al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī li-ahl al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar wa-l-thānī, p. 1788; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-
zawāyā, p. 325; Kaḥḥālah, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, vol. 10, p. 68; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, vol. 2, p. 291.
81
Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf’s father Mullā Yūsuf was a scholar as well, writing glosses on al-Khayālī, al-
Khaṭāʾī, and al-Bayḍāwī’s tafsīr as well as a treatise on logic. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 326. Al-
Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 128.
82
El-Rouayheb mentions al-Bayḍāwī as the one of the most widely studied Quran commentaries in Ottoman
scholarly. El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 118.
83
163
Kazarūnī’s glosses. He also wrote a gloss on al-Ṭūsī’s Sharḥ al-Ishārāt as an arbitration
(muḥākamah) between al-Ṭūsī and al-Fakhr al-Rāzī, as well as another gloss on Tahāfut al-
falāsifah by Khawājah Zādah al-Rūmī,84 as an arbitration between him and al-Ghazālī.85
Detailed information about his life and his intellectual preparation is lacking. We
know only that he lived for a period of time in Damascus, and that he performed the ḥajj
twice: the first time through Baghdad in 1055 AH, where he stayed in the Ḥijāz as a
mujāwir for two years, and then returned to his home. The second time, he stayed in the
Ḥijāz for a short period, then after the ḥajj he left for Yemen, where he traveled according
to the Sufi way of siyāḥah until his death in the Yemeni town of Abb, on the 18th of Ṣafar
1078/9 August 1667.86
In Khabāyā al-zawāyā, Ibn al-ʿUjaymī mentions that al-Kūrānī studied the following
works with Mullā Sharīf: Sharḥ Ādāb al-baḥth, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥikmah with parts of Mullā
Zādah’s and al-Maybudī’s commentaries, parts of Tahāfūt al-falāsifah by Khwājah Zādah,
Ashkāl al-taʾsīs by al-Samarqandī, parts of al-Jaghmīnī’s commentary, all al-Zawrā’ and its
commentary by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, all of al-Fanārī’s commentary on Īsāghūjī, the
Ḥāshiyah of al-Burhān, Sharḥ al-Shamsiyyah by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shirāzī and the glosses of al-
Jurjānī as well as those of others, part of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, parts of al-Iḥyāʾ of al-Ghazālī,
and parts of al-Futūḥāt of Ibn ʿArabī.87 During Mullā Sharīf’s mujāwarah, we know that al-
Kūrānī read with him parts of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, parts of al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah,88 and
84
About Khawājah Zādah al-Rūmī see: International Symposium on Khojazāda Bursa, Turkey, Yücedoğru
Tevfik, Koloğlu Orhan Ş, U. Murat Kılavuz, Gömbeyaz Kadir, Uludağ Üniversitesi. İlâhiyat Fakültesi, and
Bursa (Turkey). Uluslararası Hocazâde Sempozyumu (22-24 Ekim 2010 Bursa) Bildiriler, 2011.
85
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 128; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 272.
86
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 272; al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 129.
87
88
Ibid., p. 325.
164
parts of Fatḥ al-bārī by Ibn Ḥajar.89 These texts represent the extent of Mullā Sharīf’s
interest in Medina. One text is in intellectual theology, another is by Ibn ʿArabī in Sufism,
and the third is a ḥadīth text. His interest in Sufism in the later period of his life prompted
him to ask for the ijāzah from al-ʿAyyāshī, who was a student of al-Kūrānī.90 As mentioned
above, it seems that the transmitted sciences were not popular in his region, so he tried
to acquire isnāds from people who possessed more.
2. ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abū Bakr b. Hidāyat Allāh al-Ḥusaynī al-Kūrānī (d. 1050/1640).91 He was
one of al-Kūrānī’s early teachers. Al-Kūrānī studied the Arabic language, rhetoric, logic,
principles of religion, and principles of jurisprudence with him.92 ʿAbd al-Karīm’s father
Mullā Abū Bakr (d. 1014/1605), known as al-muṣannif (the author), wrote a commentary
on al-Muḥarrar by al-Rāfiʿī.93 He also wrote two works in Persian: Sirāj al-ṭarīq94 and Riyāḍ
al-khulūd.95 Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī describes Mullā Abū Bakr as the scholar and the saint (al-
ʿālim al-walī).96 After studying with his father, ʿAbd al-Karīm traveled to study with Mullā
Aḥmad al-Kurdī al-Mujalī, with whom he studied Ithbāt al-wājib, Sharḥ Ḥikmat al-ʿayn, and
Sharḥ al-ʿAḍud on Mukhtaṣar of Ibn al-Ḥājib. Mullā Aḥmad al-Kurdī al-Mujalī was the
student of Mirzājān al-Shirāzī, the student of Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shirāzī, the
89
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 271; al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 129.
90
Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 326,
91
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 129; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 2, p. 474; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol.
5, p. 222; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-Zawāyā, p. 99; al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib, 103. All these works
repeat al-Amam without any additional information.
92
Ibn-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 99.
93
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 129; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 1, p. 110; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol.
3, p. 263.
94
See: Muṣṭafá Dirāyatī and Mujtabá Dirāyatī, Fihristgān: nuskhahʹhā-yi khaṭṭī-i Īrān (Fankhā) = Union catalogue
of Iran manuscripts = Fihris al-muwaḥḥad li-l-makhṭūṭāt al-Īrānīyah. 2011, vol. 17, p. 1000.
95
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 129. One of his books in Arabic is published without any further information about
him in the introduction. See Abū Bakr b. Hidāyat Allāh al-Ḥusaynī, Ṭabaqāt al-shafiʿiyyah, ed. ʿĀdil Nuwayhiḍ
(Beirut: Dār al-āfāq al-Jadīdah, 3ed, 1983).
96
165
student of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī. ʿAbd al-Karīm wrote a commentary on the Quran in
three volumes in which he reached sūrat al-naḥl, as well as a book of sermons (fī al-
mawāʿiẓ). Among his best-known students were Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and ʿAbd al-Qādir al-
Ṣaffūrī al-Shāmī.97
One of al-Kūrānī’s rational sciences isnād that traces back to al-Dawānī is through ʿAbd
al-Karīm:
3. Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī (12 Rabīʿ I, 991-19 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1071/5 April 1583-15 August
1661),98 Aḥmad b. al-Sayyid Muḥammad b. Yūnus b. Aḥmad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Badrī al-
Dajānī, was from a distinguished scholarly family: his brother,99 father, grandfather, and
97
98
See: Ṣīddīq b. Ḥasan al-Qannūjī, Abjad al-ʿulūm, al-Washī al-marqūm fī bayān aḥwāl al-ʿulūm (Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah), vol. 3, p. 165. The first volume of this book was edited by Suhayl Zakkār and published
in Syria, Damascus, Wazārat al-Thaqāfah wa-l-Irshad al-Qawmī, 1978. Then Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah
published the second and the third volumes without a date of publication. Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 125; al-
Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, vol. 4, in Mausūʿat Aʿlām al-Maghrib and in vol. 2 in Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1492; al-
Ifrānī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥājj b. Muḥammad, Ṣafwat man intashar min akhbār ṣulaḥāʾ al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, ed.
ʿAbd al-Majīd Khayālī (Morocco, al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: Markaz al-Turāth al-Thaqāfī al-Maghribī, 2004), p. 217;
al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 578; al-ʿAyyāshī, Iqtifāʾ al-athar baʿda dhahāb al-athar: Fahras
Abī Sālim al-ʿAyyāshī (11th/17thCentury), ed. Nufaysah al-Dhahabī (Morocco, al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: Maṭbaʿat al-
Najāḥ al-Jadīdah, 1996), p. 158; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 970; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 1, p.
343.
99
Muḥammad b. Yūnus al-Dajānī al-Qushāshī was born in Medina where he started as a Mālikī student with
his teacher Muḥammad b. ʿIsā al-Tilmisānī. In 1011/1592 he traveled to Yemen to study with scholars who
included al-Amīn b. al-Sīddīq al-Mirwāḥī, al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-ʿAzib, Aḥmad al-Saṭīḥah al-Zaylaʿī, al-
Sayyid ʿAlī al-Qabʿ, and ʿAlī b. Muṭayr. Among his works are a commentary on Ibn ʿAṭā’ Allāh’s Ḥikam in
two volumes and a Sufi commentary on al-Ajrūmiyyah, similar to Naḥw al-qulūb by al-Qushayrī. Among his
students are al-Ṭāhir b. Muḥammad al-Ahdal and Muḥammad al-Farawī from Yemen. After studying with
several scholars, he settled in Ṣanʿāʾ until his death on 1044 AH. See al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p.
300.
166
great-grandfather were all prominent scholars. His great-grandfather Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b.
Yāsīn (d. Jumādā I, 969/January 1562)100 left the suburb of al-Dajāniyyah and moved to
Jerusalem. Henceforth, al-Dajānī became the surname of his descendants. Aḥmad al-
Dajānī, also known as Shihāb al-Dīn, was a Shāfiʿī scholar and was described as the pole
(al-quṭb).101 He studied with two distinguished Sufis, Muhammad Ibn ʿArrāq of Damascus
(878-933 / 1473-1526)102 and Ibn ʿArraq’s own shaykh ʿAlī b. Maymūn al-Fāsī (854-
917/1450-1511),103 both of whom were known as defenders of Ibn ʿArabī in the 16th
century.
One of Shihāb al-Dīn’s many sons, Yūnus, left Jerusalem and traveled to the Ḥijāz and
Yemen and finally settled in Medina, where he came to be known as ʿAbd al-Nabī. In
Medina, he sold second-hand wares known as qushāshah (old shoes, used clothing, and so
on), which is why he became known as al-Qushāshī. His son Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Nabī,
known as Muḥammad al-Madanī,104 (i.e., Ṣafī al-Dīn’s father), studied with his father and
other scholars in the Ḥijāz and then traveled to Yemen to study with Sufi scholars there
such as Bā-ʿAlawī, al-ʿAydarūs, and al-Jabartī.105 Ṣafī al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Qushāshī was born
100
See: Najm al-Dīn Muḥamad al-Ghazzī, al-Kawākib al-sāʾirah bi-aʿyān al-māʾah al-ʿāshirah (Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1997), vol. 3, p. 108; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab,
ed. Maḥmūd al-Arnāʾūṭ (Damascus: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1993), vol. 10, p. 518; Yūsuf b. Ismāʿīl al-Nabhānī, Jāmiʿ
karāmat al-awliyāʾ, ed. Ibrāhīm ʿAṭwah ʿAwaḍ (India, Gujarat: Markaz-e ahl-e Sunnat Barakat-e Reza), vol. 1,
p. 547.
101
102
Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī was born in Damascus and died in Mecca where his descendants
continued to live until the time of al-Kūrānī. For more information, see: Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī, al-Kawākib
al-sāʾirah, vol.1, 59. Al-Ghazzī mentions his birth in 898/1492, vol. 1, p. 60.
103
For more information about his life and works see Raḍī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Ḥanbalī,
Durr al-ḥabab fī tārīkh aʿyān Ḥalab, ed. Maḥmūd Ḥamad al-Fākhūrī and Yaḥyā Zakarīyā ʿAbbārah (Damascus:
Wazarat al-Thaqāfah, 1972), vol. 1, p. 951. Also see the introduction of the edition of his book Bayān ghurbat
al-Islām, ed. Ḥakīmah Shāmī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2007). Alongside Ibn ʿArraq, the other
famous student is Shaykh ʿAlwān al-Ḥamawī (d. 936/1530), Ibid., p. 24.
104
See: al-Nabhānī, Jāmiʿ karāmat al-awliyāʾ, vol. 1, p. 330.
105
167
on 12 Rabīʿ I 991/5 April 1583. First, he studied with his father and with several Yemeni
scholars. After the death of his father in Ṣanʿāʾ in 1044, he returned to the Ḥijāz and
accompanied his teacher Abū al-Mawāhib al-Shinnāwī.106 He married al-Shinnāwī’s
daughter and became his khalīfah in the Shaṭṭāriyyah order.107
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī was, like his forefathers, Qādirī in ṭarīqah and Mālikī in fiqh.
When he met his shaykh, al-Shinnāwī, and followed him in the Shāṭṭariyyah ṭarīqah, he
followed him also with the legal school of the Shāfiʿites.108 Henceforth, he would give
fatwās in Mālikī and Shāfiʿī fiqh. Ṣafī al-Dīn became muftī of both the Mālikī and Shāfiʿī
madhāhib in Medina, and the shaykh of the Naqshbandī and Shaṭṭārī orders.
Among the important shaykhs of al-Qushāshī were: (1) Aḥmad b. al-Faḍl b. ʿAbd al-
Nāfiʿ b. (the famous Sufi) Muḥammad b. ʿArrāq; (2) ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Kujarātī, the student
of al-Ghawth, the author of al-Jawāhir al-khams; and (3) al-Sayyid Ghaḍanfar al-Nahrawālī
al-Sīrāwī, who studied with Muḥammad Amīn, the nephew of the great Sufi Mullā ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān Jāmī.109 Another important teacher of Ṣafī al-Dīn in the Ḥijāz was Ṣibghat
Allāh al-Hindī al-Barrūjī (d. 1015/1606),110 who studied with Wajīh al-Dīn al-ʿAlawī al-
106
Abū al-Mawāhib Al-Shinnāwī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Quddūs (d. 1028/1619) studied with the scholars
of Egypt of his time such as al-Shams Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Ramlī, Muḥammad b. Abī al-Ḥasan al-Bakrī,
and Aḥmad b. Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī, Ḥasan al-Danjīhī (al-Suyūṭī’s student). His father studied with the famous
scholars Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī and ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī, both of whom studied with Shaykh al-Islām
Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī. Al-Shinnāwī also studied with Ṣibghat Allāh al-Hindī (d. 1015/1606) and through him
became affiliated to Sufism and wore the khirqah. Al-Shinnāwī was buried in the famous cemetery of al-
Baqīʿ in Medina. He wrote numerous books in uṣūl, ḥadīth, and Sufism such as: Naẓm al-zawrāʾ of al-Dawānī,
Minhāj al-taʾṣīl, Manẓūmah entitled Ṣādiḥat al-azal and its Sharḥ, a Diwān of poems, Risālah fī waḥdat al-wujūd,
and a gloss on al-Jawāhir al-khams by al-Ghawth. About al-Shinnāwī see: Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah, vol. 1, p. 588;
al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 127; al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar, p. 216; al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1244; al-
Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 221; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 1, p. 243; Al-Shullī, ʿAqd al-jawāhir
wa-l-durar, p. 148; al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1244.
107
108
109
110
About Ṣibghat Allāh see: al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1245; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4, p. 336.
168
Aḥmadābādī and who was also the direct connection to the Shaṭṭāriyyah order and its
leader. He had in turn studied with al-Sayyid Muḥammad b. Khaṭīr al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī
from India, known as al-Ghawth, the author of the main text in the Shaṭṭāriyyah order,
al-Jawāhir al-khams. Ṣibghat Allāh arrived in Medina in 1005/1596 and built a ribāṭ that
became a major Sufi center. He attracted a number of remarkable disciples, the foremost
of whom was Aḥmad al-Shinnāwī, and through him the prominent scholars of the Ḥijāz
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī and Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.111
Al-Qushāshī was a prolific author with more than 50 works in ḥadīth, uṣūl, and
Sufism.112 Among his works are the Sharḥ al-Ḥikam al-ʿaṭāʾiyyah of Ibn ʿAṭāʾ Allāh al-
Iskandarī, Sharḥ ʿaqīdat Ibn Khafīf al-Shīrāzī, Sharḥ ʿaqāʾid al-Nasafī, a gloss on al-Mawāhib al-
laduniyyah by al-Qasṭalānī, a gloss on al-Insān al-kāmil by ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī, and a dīwān
of poetry.113 Moreover, he is the author of the Kalimat al-jūd fī al-qawl bi-waḥdat al-wujūd;
al-Durrah al-thamīnah fī-mā li-zāʾir al-Madīnah;114 al-Samṭ al-majīd;115 al-Ifāḍah al-
raḥmāniyyah ʿalā al-Kamālāt al-ilāhiyyah, a gloss on ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jilī’s work al-Kamālāt
al-ilāhiyyah; and a poem in doctrine on which al-Kūrānī wrote an extended commentary,
and which the latter then abridged.116
His students were most of the promenint scholars of the Ḥijāz in the 17th century, and
most of the scholars who visited Mecca or Medina were interested in meeting him or
111
See: Itzchak Weismann, The Naqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Sufi Tradition (NY:
Routledge, 2007), pp. 14, 69, 70.
112
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, 126; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 122; al-Ifrānī in Ṣafwat man intashar says
that his works total around 70, p. 219.
113
114
Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Qushāshī, al-Durrah al-thamīnah fī-mā li-zāʾir al-Nabī ilā al-Madīnah al-
munawwarah, ed. Muḥammad Zaynahum Muḥammad ʿAzab (Cairo: Maktabat Madbūlī, 2000).
115
Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Qushāshī, al-Samṭ al-majīd fī shaʾn al-bayʿah wa-l-dhikr wa-talqīnihi wa-salāsil ahl
al-tawḥīd (India, Ḥaydarābād al-Dakan: Maṭbaʿat Majlis Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiiyyah, 1910).
116
For more information, see al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 597.
169
obtaining ijāzah from him. Al-Kūrānī studied with him, and attended readings of his
lessons on more than one hundred works in various sciences.117 Other distinguished
students of al-Qushāshī were Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī, Ibn al-ʿUjaymī (the author
of Khabāyā al-zawāyā), and al-Ḥamawī (the author of Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl). As a Sufi, al-
Qushāshī and his student al-Kūrānī would become pivotal links between Sufi groups in
India, Southeast Asia, and Arabia, as we will see in Chapter Four.
Al-Qushāshī is also described as ṣāḥib al-zāwiyah, because he had a zāwiyah in Medina.118
Al-Ḥamawī described him as al-ghawth and al-quṭb.119 There was a correspondence
between al-Qushāshī and the famous Sufi Ayyūb al-Khalwatī (d. Ṣafar, 1071/1660), the
founder of the Khalwatī order.120
As mentioned above, al-Kūrānī composed responses to the letters that al-Qushāshī
received in the last years of his life, and then al-Qushāshī would approve them. Al-
ʿAyyāshī mentions that most of these letters were questions and istiftāʾ (requests for legal
opinions) from different parts of the Islamic World. Responding to questions from all
around the Muslim world resulted in the spread of his works to Syria, Yemen, and many
other parts of Muslim world. Al-ʿAyyashī says that some of these works were unknown
to the people of the Ḥijāz, which is why al-Kūrānī later tried to collect them.121
4. ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Muṭayr al-Ḥakamī. Al-Kūrānī
mentioned that he studied ḥadīth with him in Medina in 1082/1672.122
117
118
Al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1492.
119
120
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 579; al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib, p. 88.
121
122
Al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār, fol. 109b.
170
5. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Fāsī (d. 1096/1685). He wrote an ijāzah to al-Kūrānī and al-
Kūrānī’s son Abū Ṭāhir. In the ijazah he listed the isnāds of Mahgribī scholars.123
6. Aḥmad b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-ʿAjamī al-Shāfiʿī al-Azharī (1014-1086/1606-
1675).124 Al-Kūrānī mentioned in al-Amam that he studied with him.
7. Abū al-ʿAbbās b. Nāṣir.125
8. Al-Bābilī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qāhirī al-Azharī al-Shāfiʿī (d.
1079/1668)126 was from Bābil, a town in Egypt. He was a scholar of ḥadīth and fiqh and
studied with al-Nūr al-Zayādī, ʿAlī al-Ḥalabī, al-Burhān al-Laqqānī, Sālim al-Sanhūrī, ʿAlī
al-Ajhūrī, ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Mināwī, Ṣāliḥ al-Balqīnī, and other scholars.127 He performed
the ḥajj several times, and once he stayed as a mujāwir for ten years when numerous
scholars from the Ḥijāz and elsewhere studied with him.128 His student ʿIsā b. Muḥammad
al-Thaʿālibī al-Maghribī al-Makkī (d. 1080/1669-70) collected his isnāds and Muḥammad
Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī (d. 1205/1790) collected the names of his students.129 Al-Bābilī is an
essential link between numerous scholars of the Ḥijāz and the scholars of Cairo.
9. Al-Baʿlī, ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī (18 Rabīʿ II 1005/9 December 1596 -17 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
1071/13 August 1661)130 was known as Ibn Faqīh Fiṣṣah (a town in Baʿalbak). He studied
123
124
Ibid., pp.148, 166.
125
Ibd., p. 166.
126
See: al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 4, p. 39; al-Qannūjī, Abjad al-ʿulūm, vol. 3, p. 166; al-Shawkānī, al-
Badr al-ṭāliʿ, vol. 2, p. 208; al-Shullī, ʿAqd al-Jawāhir wa-l-durar, p. 323; al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib al-
Ḥanbalī, p. 58; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, 296; Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 210.
127
More names can be found in Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 4, p. 40.
128
See some of them in Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 4, p. 40.
129
Both of them are published; see ʿIsā b. Muḥammad al-Thaʿālibī al-Maghribī al-Makkī, Thabat Shams al-
Dīn al-Bābilī al-musammā: Muntakhab al-asānīd fī waṣl al-muṣannafāt wa-l-ajzāʾ wa-l-masānīd, and Muḥammad
Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, al-Murābbā al-Kābulī fī-man rawā ʿan al-Shams al-Bābilī, ed. Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-ʿAjamī
(Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir, 2004).
130
For further information about al-Baʿlī see Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī, p. 32 as well as the
introduction of the edition of this work: ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī, al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqāʾid ahl al-athar, ed.
171
with his father, and then moved to Damascus to study with scholars there such as Najm
al-Dīn al-Ghazzī and al-Shams al-Maydānī. In Damascus he wore the Sufi khirqah. In
1029/1619, he travelled to Cairo where he studied with the famous Ḥanbalī scholars
Manṣūr al-Buhūtī, Yūsuf al-Fattūḥī, and Mirʿī al-Karmī. He also studied with Ibrāhīm al-
Laqqānī, Muḥammad al-Bābilī, and other scholars.
ʿAbd al-Bāqī was one of al-Kūrānī’s teachers in Damascus and, as was mentioned in
his biography, it seems that al-Kūrānī stayed at a khalwah dedicated to shaykh ʿAbd al-
Bāqī during his residence in Damascus.131 ʿAbd al-Bāqī was also the teacher and foster
father of the famous Sufi ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī.
10. Al-Daybaʿ, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Shaybānī al-Shāfiʿī
al-Ashʿarī al-Zabīdī (d. 1076/1665).132 He was well-known for his expertise in Quranic
variant readings (qirāʾāt). Al-Kūrānī used to read with him during his visits to Medina.133
11. Al-Fāsī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿAlī (2 Ramaḍān 1007 - 8 Ramaḍān 1091/29 March 1599 - 2
October 1680).134 His isnād is the most important among the Maghribī isnāds; it links him
to most of the of 10th/16th century Maghribī scholars.135 Al-Kūrānī obtained an ijāzah from
him by a request (istidʿāʾ) through Abū Sālim al-ʿAyyāshī.
ʿIṣām Rawwās Qalʿajī (Damascus: Dār al-Maʾmūn li-l-Turāth, 1987), p. 16; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā,
p. 99; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4, p. 482; al-Najdī al-Ḥanbalī, al-Suḥub al-wābilah, vol. 1, p. 183.
131
Al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib, p. 103.
132
This is his name as listed in his ijāzah to al-ʿAyyāshī; after it are mentioned his chains in qirāʾat. Al-
ʿAyyāshī, Al-Riḥlah, vol. 1, p. 476.
133
Al-ʿAyyāshī, Al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 473.
134
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, 166.
135
See: ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī, Fahrasat ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī wa-tusammā bi-l-ijāzah al-kubrā wa-maʿahā ijāzāt
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī li-Abī Sālim al-ʿAyyāshī wa-tusammā bi-l-ijāzah al-ṣughrā, ed. Muḥammad bin ʿAzūz (Beirut:
Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2003), p. 15. This edition contains valuable information about ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī written
by his son and edited from a manuscript, see pp. 17-70. The Algerian scholar Muḥammad Abī Shanab
studied this ijazah; see Etudes sur les personnages dans l’Idjaza du cheikh Abde-El Quadir El Fassy (Paris: Ernest
Leroux, 1907).
172
12. Al-Ghazzī, Najm al-Dīn Muḥammad (977-1061/1570-1651).136 From a distinguished
scholarly family, his father Badr al-Dīn al-Ghazzī (d. 984/1577) was a student of Ibn Ḥajar,
and all his brothers were scholars.137 Najm al-Dīn studied with the scholars of Damascus
such as Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Yūnus al-ʿĪthāwī, Zayn al-Dīn ʿUmar b. Sulṭān, Muḥibb
al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Ḥamawī, and others.138 He wrote around 80 books
including al-Kawākib al-zāhirah fī akhbār al-miʾah al-ʿāshirah, Sharḥ lāmiyyat Ibn al-Wardī,
Sharḥ alfiyyat Ibn Mālik, and Luṭf al-samar wa-qaṭf al-thamar min tarājim aʿyān al-ṭabaqah al-
ūlā min al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar.139
13. Isḥāq b. Muḥammad b. Jamʿān al-Zabīdī (d. 1076/1665).140 In al-Kūrānī’s works we
will see that Isḥāq b. Jamʿān wrote several questions to al-Kūrānī and that the latter
described him in his responses as his teacher. Also, al-Kūrānī mentioned him in Masālik
al-abrār several times as his teacher.141
136
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, 129; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 148, vol. 2, p. 144; ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-
zawāyā, p. 99. Al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 4, p. 189. See also Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī’s introduction of
Luṭf al-samar wa-qaṭf al-thamar min tarājim aʿyān al-ṭabaqah al-ūlā min al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, ed. Maḥmūd al-
Shaykh (Damascus: Ministry of Culture, n.d), vol.1, p. 11; al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī, p.
63; Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 669.
137
For his brothers see al-Ghazzī, Luṭf al-samar, vol. 1, p. 92.
138
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 31.
139
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 104.
140
141
173
14. Al-Lāhūrī, ʿAbd Allāh b. Mullā Saʿd Allāh (d. 3 Ṣafar 1083/31 May 1672).142 Al-Kūrānī
mentioned him among his teachers in al-Amam. 143 Al-Lāhurī studied with the great Indian
scholar Quṭb al-Dīn al-Nahrawālī.144 Al-Kittānī mentioned his birth year as 985/1577.145
15. Al-Maghribī, ʿIsā al-Shādhilī (d. Rajab 1080/December 1669)146 was born in Morocco
where he studied language, fiqh, and logic with scholars of that region. He then traveled
to Algeria to study with its muftī Saʿīd Qaddūrah. He accompanied Abū al-Ṣalāḥ ʿAlī b.
ʿAbd al-Waḥīd al-Sijilmāsī for more than ten years and studied ḥadīth, fiqh, uṣūl, and
ʿaqīdah with him. Among the texts he studied are Ūṣūl Ibn al-Ḥājib and al-Ījī’s commentary
with al-Taftazānī’s gloss on Ibn al-Ḥājib; Umm al-Barāhīn and its commentary by al-
Sanūsī, and his al-Kubrā; and the abridgment of Ṭawāliʿ al-Anwār by al-Bayḍāwī. He also
studied al-Jumal by al-Khūnajī with its commentaries by al-Tilmisānī, Ibn Marzūq, and
Ibn al-Khaṭīb al-Qusanṭīnī.147 In 1062/1652, he completed the ḥajj and stayed as mujāwir
for three years. He then traveled to Cairo where he studied with scholars there such as
ʿAlī al-Ajhūrī, Aḥmad al-Khafājī, Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī, and al-Shabrāmallisī. Then he
returned to Mecca where he studied with scholars such as Tāj al-Dīn al-Mālikī, Zayn al-
ʿĀbidīn al-Ṭabarī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Zamzamī, and ʿAlī Bā-Jamāl. He accompanied al-Bābilī
and wrote his thabat. He also studied in Medina with al-Qushāshī. The literature of the
17th century in general and on the Ḥijāz in particular shows that many people studied
142
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 496; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4, p. 424; al-Kūrānī, Janāḥ al-najāḥ
(Ms. Koprulu 279), fol. 6b .
143
Al-Kūrānī, Amam, p. 4.
144
For more on al-Nahrawālī, see al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 944; al-Nahrawālī al-Makkī, Quṭb al-Dīn
Muḥammad, al-Barq al-yamānī fī al-fatḥ al-ʿUthmānī, ed. Ḥamad al-Jāsir (KSA, Riyāḍ: Dār al-Yamāmah, 1967),
the introduction.
145
al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 949.
146
Al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 3, p. 240; al-Qannūjī, Abjad al-ʿulūm, vol. 3, p. 166; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid
al-irtiḥāl, vol. 5, p. 564; al-Qādirī, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1561.
147
174
logic with him.148 Many of the scholars of the Ḥijāz were his students, including Ibrāhīm
al-Kūrānī, Aḥmad al-Nakhlī, and Ḥasan al-ʿUjaymī.149 ʿIsā al-Maghribī was the main
shaykh of this last, who was the author of Khabāyā al-zawāyā.
16. Al-Mazzāḥī, Sulṭān b. Aḥmad, Abū al-ʿAzāʾim al-Qāhirī (d. 17 Jumādā II
1075/January 1665)150 was an Azharī Shāfiʿī and Shaykh al-Qurrāʾ in Egypt. Among his
teachers were the famous Egyptian Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī, Sālim al-Sanhūrī, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī
al-Zayādī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Khalīl al-Subkī, and Sālim al-Shabshīrī. Al-Muḥibbī
mentions that al-Mazzāḥī studied the rational sciences (al-ʿulūm al-ʿaqliyyah) with more
than 30 scholars before he started the iftāʾ and teaching in al-Azhar.151 Many famous
scholars studied with him, including al-Shams al-Bābilī, al-Shabrāmallisī, ʿAbd al-Qādir
al-Ṣaffūrī, Manṣūr al-Ṭūkhī, Muḥammad al-Buhūtī al-Ḥanbalī, and most of the Shafiʿī
scholars in Egypt during his lifetime.152 He wrote a gloss on Sharḥ Manhaj al-ṭullāb, a Shāfiʿī
fiqh text by Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī, and a treatise on four readings of the Quran in addition
to the ten famous readings. Al-Kūrānī read with him parts of al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī,
parts of al-Rawḍah, and Sharḥ al-Minhāj of al-Muḥallī.
17. Mubārakah al-Ṭabariyyah, the sister of Quraysh al-Ṭabariyyah.153
18. Muḥammad b. Mḥammad al-Dimashqī.154
19. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Murābiṭ al-Dalāʾī.155
148
See, for example: al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 3, p. 241; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, pp. 254,
378.
149
Al-Muḥibī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 3, p. 242.
150
Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 130; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-Athar, vol. 2, p. 210; al-Shullī, ʿAqd al-jawāhir wa-l-durar,
315; al-Ḥamawī, Fawʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4, p. 237.
151
152
Ibid., vol. 2, p. 211.
153
154
155
175
20. Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Mirghanī al-Sūsī.156
21. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Sawdah al-Fāsī.157
22. Nūr al-Dīn b. Muṭayr.158
23. Quraysh bint ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ṭabariyyah (d. 1107/1696).159 She was the daughter of
Imām ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-Ṭabarī al-Makkī, a scholar of ḥadīth.
Moreover, she was considered one of the seven Ḥijāzī scholars who revived ḥadīth studies
in the 11th/17th century.160
24. Al-Rūdānī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-Fāsī al-Makkī (1037-1094)161
was born in Tarūdānat in the Maghrib and traveled in North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Istanbul,
and finally settled in the Ḥijāz. He studied with ʿAlī al-Ajhūrī, Khayr al-Dīn al-Ramlī, al-
Bābilī, Aḥmad al-ʿAjamī, Abū Mahdī al-Thaʿālibī, Saʿīd Qaddūrah al-Jazāʾirī, Aḥmad al-
ʿAjamī, and other scholars. Among his students were Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Ḥasan al-
ʿUjaymī, Ilyās al-Kūrānī, Abū al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī, and Sālim al-Baṣrī. He wrote a book
to combine the six ḥadīth works entitled Jamʿ al-fawāʾid li-jāmiʿ al-uṣūl wa-majmaʿ al-
zawāʾid.162 His thabat, entitled Ṣilat al-khalaf bi-mawṣūl al-salaf, has been edited and
published. He was famous for his work in astronomy and invented a special astrolabe,
and wrote a treatise to explain his invention, entitled al-Nāqiʿah ʿalā al-ālah al-jāmiʿah.163
156
Ibd., p. 166.
157
Ibid., p. 166.
158
Ibid., p. 167.
159
Ibid., p. 941.
160
Ibid., p. 941.
161
Al-Nadawī, Nafaḥāt al-Hind wa-l-Yaman, p. 81; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 425.
162
Khālid al-Kurdī al-Naqshbandī wrote a gloss on it.
163
The text has been published and translated into French. See: Charles Pellat, « L’astrolabe sphérique d’al-
Rūdānī, » Bulletin d'études orientales, T. 26 (1973), pp. 7-10, 12-80, 82; Charles Pellat, « L’astrolabe sphérique
d’al-Rūdānī, » Bulletin d'études orientales, T. 28 (1975), pp. 83-165.
176
25. Al-Ṣaffūrī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muṣṭafā al-Dimashqī (d. Ramaḍān 1082/January 1672).164
Al-Muḥibbī describes him as the great muḥaqqiq and as one of the best scholars of his
time, faqīh, muḥaddith, uṣūlī, and naḥawī.165 He studied the Quran and tajwīd with his
father, and then he travelled to al-Azhar where he accompanied ʿAlī al-Ḥalabī. He also
attended the lessons of Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī, Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī, Aḥmad al-Muqrīʾ, Aḥmad
ʿAbd al-Wārith al-Bakrī, Shams al-Dīn al-Maydānī, Ismāʿīl al-Sanjīdī, ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid
al-Anṣārī al-Maghribī, and ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Kūrānī. He wrote ijāzas to Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī,
Muḥammad al-Barzanjī, and Ibn al-ʿUjaymī.166 Al-Muḥibbī mentions that he wrote many
treatises, but only listed by name a commentary on al-Ghazālī’s statement “laysa fī al-
imkān abdaʿ mimmā kān.” Kaḥḥālah, in Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, adds to this list Nashr al-aʿlām
bi-bayān ishārāt al-aʿlām, and Nuzhat al-nufūs.167
26. Zayn al-Sharaf al-Ṭabariyyah, the sister of Quraysh al-Ṭabariyyah.168
Al-Kūrānī’s contacts with other scholars of his time
Alongside the above-mentioned scholars, al-Kūrānī was in contact with other
distinguished scholars of his time, but without having a student-teacher relationship. He
is said to have met Muḥammad al-Khalwatī, although intellectual exchange was said to
have taken place.169 He also was in correspondence with the famous Sufi ʿAbd al-Ghanī
al-Nābulusī about some theological issues that will be mentioned in Chapter Four.
Another important scholar with whom al-Kūrānī met and had intellectual discussions
is Muḥammad Ismāʿīl Khātūnābādī (d. 1116/1704), who commented on al-Kūrānī’s gloss
164
165
Ibid., vol. 2, p. 467.
166
167
Kaḥḥālah, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, vol. 2, p. 199.
168
169
177
on al-Dawānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah.170 Khātūnābādī mentions at the beginning of
his work, entitled Sharḥ Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, that he met al-Kūrānī in Medina
when he went for pilgrimage and that they had discussions that motivated him later to
comment on al-Kūrānī’s gloss. It seems that al-Kūrānī’s influence extended to other
topics, for Khātūnābādī wrote two works on determination and free well (al-jabr wa-l-
ikhtiyār), the topic that brought al-Kūrānī much criticism. Khātūnābādī also wrote a
treatise on a topic that al-Kūrānī addressed in several works: anthropomorphism (tajsīm).
From the title of the work, it seems that Khātūnābādī wrote it as a response to a question
from al-Kūrānī; it is entitled Risālah fī jawāb al-Kūrānī fī nafy luzūm al-tajassum wa-l-ittiḥād
wa-l-ḥulūl.
This wide list of teachers reveals al-Kūrānī’s excellent preparation in various
intellectual and transmitted fields. In his homeland, Kurdistan, al-Kūrānī received
training in most of the intellectual sciences. Kurdistan, as explained by El-Rouayheb, was
an important center of intellectual activity in the 16th century and played a significant
role in reviving intellectual life in the Ottoman Empire, the Ḥijāz, and Southeast Asia.171
In Damascus and Cairo, al-Kūrānī began to pay more attention to the transmitted
sciences, especially jurisprudence and ḥadīth. In the Ḥijāz, al-Kūrānī received his main
Sufi training and preparation, although his interest in Sufism had begun many years
earlier. His interests in the Ḥijāz were not limited to Sufism; he continued his interest in
ḥadīth, along with pursuing intellectual and transmitted sciences through several
scholars mentioned above. This great knowledge brought him numerous students from
all over the Islamic world, as we will see now.
170
MS. Daneshgah-2386 M.
171
El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 13 and after.
178
[3.4] al-Kūrānī’s Students
ʿAbd Allāh Mirdād b. Abī al-Khayr in Nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar fī tarājim afāḍil Makkah min
al-qarn al-ʿāshir ilā al-qarn al-rābiʿ ʿashar says that most of the isnāds of the scholars in Syria,
Egypt, Yemen, and the Ḥijāz return back to three persons: ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim al-Baṣrī,
Aḥmad al-Nakhlī, and Ḥasan al-ʿUjaymī.172 All of them were students of al-Kūrānī and
numerous of their isnāds go through him. Al-Kittānī in Fahras al-fahāris repeats the same
claim and attributes it to Abū al-Fayḍ al-Zabīdī in one of his ijāzahs.173 He says that al-
Nakhlī and al-Baṣrī are the sources of the isnād in the 12th/18th century.174 One can also
include India in the influenced areas, since most of the isnāds in India go back to Shāh
Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī, who gained his isnāds through Abū Ṭāhir b. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.175
Numerous scholars studied with al-Kūrānī for short periods of time during the ḥajj
season in order to obtain an ijāzah. Thus, many scholars mention al-Kūrānī in their isnāds
as their teacher. It is difficult to list all of them, since almost any scholar who passed
through the Ḥijāz for the ḥajj probably met al-Kūrānī or attended his lessons and later
mentioned him in their ijāzahs. For example, his name appears about 90 times in al-
Kittānī’s book Fahras al-fahāris wa-l-athbāt.176 Therfore, I will mention his most prominent
students, who met him and studied with him at some length. I will then mention other
students who obtained an ijāzah from al-Kūrānī but for whom we do not have a clear idea
regarding the nature of their studies with him. Both groups will be ordered
172
Mirdād, al-Mukhtaṣar min kitāb nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar, p. 167.
173
174
Ibid., p. 251.
175
Shāh Walī Allāh Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Dihlawī, al-Irshād ilā muhimmāt al-isnād, ed. Badr b. ʿAlī b.
Ṭāmī al-ʿUtaybī (N.P: Dār al-Āfāq, 2009), p. 25.
176
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, vol.3, p. 8. The book is published in three volumes, but the first two volumes
that contain the text have continuous pagination so I have not mentioned the volume, while the third
volume contains the indices and its pagination starts from the beginning so it is necessary to mention
volume number.
179
alphabetically. In cases where a person has a well-known nickname, I mention it at the
beginning for ease of reference.
His Prominent Students:
1. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkīlī (d. 1104/1693). He spent about 20 years in the Ḥijāz. In his
work ʿUmdat al-muḥtājīn he provides glimpses of life in the holy cities, names the teachers
with whom he studied, and lists the Sufi orders with which he became acquainted. He
first studied the Shaṭṭāriyyah with the nominal head of the order, Aḥmad al-Qushāshī, in
Medina, and continued under his successor Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. It was especially with the
latter, to whom he owed his ijāzah to teach the ṭarīqah, that ʿAbd al-Raʾūf established a
close relationship.177 Rinkes says that al-Kūrānī sent ʿAbd al-Raʾūf his Kashf al-muntadhir
limā yarāhu al-muḥtaḍir, which the Malay duly adapted to correct the beliefs of the
Sumatrans with relation to death.178
2. ʿAbd al-Ghanī b. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Khānī al-Ḥalabī al-Ḥanafī (d. 1095/1684) was born in
Aleppo and studied with scholars there. Then he traveled as a trader to Egypt, Yemen,
Iraq, Syria, Turkey (al-Rūm), and the Ḥijāz. Later, he left the world of business and
returned to study with his brother, the scholar Qāsim al-Khānī.179 He moved to the Ḥijāz
for mujāwarah and settled there until the end of his life. In Medina, he accompanied
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī until he became a famous scholar in his own right and obtained some
177
Martin Van Bruinessen, “Kurdish ʿulama and their Indonesian disciples,” in De Turcicis aliisque rebus
commentarii Henry Hofman dedicati [= Utrecht Turcological Series, vol. 3]. Utrecht: Instituut voor Oosterse
Talen en Culturen, 1992, pp. 205-227. The citation is from an e-copy on the author website. It is a revised
version also published in Les Annales de l’Autre Islam 5 (1998), 83-106.
178
Douwe Adolf Rinkes, “Abdoerraoef van singkel; bijdraqe tot de kennis van de mystiek op Sumatra en
Java,” Directrische Drukkerij Nieuwsblad van Friesland, 1909. From Elizabeth Anne Todd, Sullam al-
Mustafidīn, Master’s thesis at The Australian National University, 1975, xxi.
179
See El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 235.
180
official positions.180 Before his death on 12 Ṣafar 1095/30 January 1684 in Medina, he
spent several years in Egypt as a representative of Medina in the Ottoman Empire. Al-
Ḥamawī says that he corresponded with him on many occasions and that they even
exchanged poetry, but he mentions only one book, entitled al-Risālah al-laṭīfah fī al-funūn
al-munīfah.181
3. ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim al-Baṣrī al-Makkī, Abū Sālim (d. 4 Rajab, 1134/20 April 1722)182 was
one of the main ḥadīth scholars in the Ḥijāz. He studied with 70 different scholars; among
the most famous were ʿIsā al-Maghribī al-Thaʿālibī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bābilī, ʿAbd Allāh Bā-
Qashīr al-Makkī, and Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. His thabat is entitled al-Imdād fī maʿrifat ʿulū al-
isnād.183
4. Abū al-Mawāhib al-Baʿlī, Muḥammad al-Ḥanbalī (d. 28 Shawwāl 1126/6 November
1714)184 was the son of shaykh ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī, who was listed among al-Kūrānī’s
teachers. He wrote a treatise on Qirāʾat Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, and completed some commentaries
on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that his father had begun. Abū al-Mawāhib studied with numerous
180
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 436; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar, vol. 2, p. 434; al-Ḥamawī,
Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 5, p. 156.
181
182
For more information about him, see al-ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz al-Faryāṭī, al-Imām ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim al-Baṣrī al-
Makkī, Imām ahl al-ḥadīth bi-l-masjid al-ḥarām (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 1426/2005). Also his
thabat entitled al-Imdā fī maʿrifat ʿulū al-isnād, ed. Al-ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz al-Faryāṭī (KSA, Riyāḍ: Dār al-Tawḥīd li-
l-Nashr, 2006); Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad al-ʿAjlūnī, Ḥulyat ahl al-faḍl wa-l-kamāl bi-ittiṣāl al-asānīd bi-kummal al-
rijāl, ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Ḥusayn (Jordan, ʿAmmān: Dār al-Fatḥ li-l-Dirāsāt wa-l-Nashr, 2009), p. 104;
al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 193; al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4, p. 440; Mirdād, al-Mukhtaṣar min kitāb
nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar, p. 290; Voll, “ʿAbdullah ibn Salim al-Basri and 18th century hadith
scholarship,” pp. 356-372. See also the introduction of Muḥammad Muḥammadī al-Nūristānī of al-Baṣrī’s’
book Khatm Sunan al-Imām Abī Dāwūd (KSA, Riyād: Dār Aḍwāʾ al-Salaf, 2004), p. 4 and after.
183
Al-Baṣrī, al-Imdā fī maʿrifat ʿulū al-isnād, p. 122.
184
For his life, teachers, and study, see al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib; al-ʿAjlūnī, Ḥulyat ahl al-faḍl wa-l-
kamāl, p. 52; al-Najdī, al-Suḥub al-wābilah, vol. 1, p. 333; al-Murādī, Silk al-durar, vol. 1, p. 67; al-Jabartī, ʿAjāʾib
al-āthār, vol. 1, p. 135; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 505.
181
scholars in Syria, Egypt, and the Ḥijāz, some of whom are mentioned in his thabat.185
Among his teachers were Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī, Ismāʿīl al-Nābulusī (ʿAbd al-Ghanī’s
father), Ayyūb al-Khalwatī, al-Shams al-Bābilī, Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī, ʿAbd al-Salām al-
Laqqānī, and Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.
5. Abū Ṭāhir, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Samīʿ b. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1081-4 Ramaḍān
1145/1671-18 February 1733)186 was born in Medina and studied with his father, along
with Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī, and numerous scholars of the Ḥijāz such as al-
Nakhlī and Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-ʿUjaymī.187 Al-Kittānī mentions that Abū Ṭāhir copied more
than 70 books by his own hand, and that he – al-Kittānī – has a majmūʿ written in Abū
Ṭāhir’s hand containing collections of al-Fuṣūṣ commentaries. Abū Ṭāḥir played an
essential role in spreading the ḥadīth isnād in India and Indonesia. Shāh Walī Allāh (d.
1176/1762) studied with him in Medina and then returned to India charged with a vision
of reviving Islam in that region.188
6. Al-ʿAyyāshī, Abū Sālim,189 ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-ʿAyyāshī al-
Maghribī (d. 1090/1679),190 studied in Fās with his brother ʿAbd al-Karīm and many other
scholars, including Aḥmad b. Mūsā al-Abbār, shaykh Mayyārah, Abū Zayd b. al-Qāḍī, and
Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī. Then he traveled to the East and studied in Egypt
with most of its distinguished scholars, including al-Nūr al-Ajhūrī, al-Shihāb al-Khafājī,
ʿAlī al-Shabrāmallisī, al-Shams al-Bābilī, and Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī. In 1072/1661 he
185
Al-Baʿlī, Mashyakhat Abī al-Mawāhib.
186
Anonymous, Tarājim aʿyān al-madīnah al-munawwarah fī al-qarn al-thānī ʿashar, p. 105; al-Murādī, Silk al-
durar, vol. 4, p. 27; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 495. In Tarājim aʿyān al-madīnah there are entries for three
grandsons of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī
187
See al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 496.
188
Ibid., 136; also, al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, vol. 2, p. 321.
189
Even though Al-ʿAyyāshī was one of al-Kūrānī’s students, al-Kūrānī asked him to guarantee him his
ijāzahs.
190
Al-Ḥuḍaykī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, p. 396; al-Jabartī, ʿAjāʾib al-āthār, vol. 1, p. 123.
182
performed the ḥajj and stayed for one year in the Ḥijāz as mujāwir.191 He visited Damascus,
Jerusalem, Hebron, and Egypt and collected a vast number of ijāzahs and isnāds. In his
travels for the ḥajj, when the caravan entered Cairo, al-ʿAyyāshī attended the lessons of
ʿAbd al-Salām b. Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī192 and Mūsā al-Qulaybī al-Mālikī, who was one of the
greatest students of al-Ajhūrī.193 Shaykh Mūsā was affiliated with the Shaṭṭārī order
through al-Shabrāmallisī, who took it from al-Shinnāwī.194
7. Al-Barzanjī, Muḥammad b. Rasūl, (d. 1103/1691).195 Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b.
Rasūl al-Barzanjī al-Ḥusaynī al-Mūsawī was born on Friday night, 12 Rabīʿ I 1040/19
October 1630. He received his early education from his father and other ʿulamāʾ of
Shahrazūr such as Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf al-Kūrānī. He traveled to Hamadan, Baghdad,
Damascus, Constantinople, and Egypt, where he learned from renowned scholars. He
arrived in Medina around 1068/1658 and studied there with Mullā Ibrāhīm, and was
initiated into Sufism by Ṣafī al- Dīn al-Qushāshī. Al-ʿAyyāshī describes him as al-Kūrānī’s
most outstanding student.196 Al-Barzanjī wrote around 80 treatises, the most famous of
which is al-Ishāʿah fī ashrāṭ al-sāʿah, which has been printed several times. Among his
other printed works are Sadād al-dayn wa-sidād al-dīn fī ithbāt al-najāt wa-l-darajāt li-l-
wālidayn,197 al-Sanā wa-l-sunūt fī-mā yataʿallaq bi-l-qunūt,198 al-Ṣāfī ʿan al-kadar fī-mā jāʾa ʿan
191
This was not his first visit to the Ḥijāz, but it was the one during which he wrote all the details of the
trip and his life.
192
193
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 242.
194
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 243.
195
Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 286; al-ʿAjlūnī, Ḥulyat ahl al-faḍl wa-l-kamāl, p. 128; al-Ḥamawī,
Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 479.
196
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥla al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol.2, p. 77.
197
Published in Egypt by Maṭbaʿat al-Liwāʾ in the year 1323/1905, and more recently in Lebanon by Dār al-
Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2006.
198
Published in Beirut by Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2004.
183
sayyid al-bashar fī al-qaḍāʾ wa-l-qadar,199 al-Qawl al-mukhtār fī ḥadīth: “taḥājjat al-jannah wa-l-
nār,”200 Al-Nawāfiḍ li-l-rawāfiḍ (Mukhtaṣar al-Nawāqiḍ ʿalā al-rawāfiḍ by Mīrzā Makhdūm),201
and Najāt al-hulk fī fahm maʿnā “mālik al-mūlk.”202 To date, only the above works have been
studied or published.203 Another important book that should be mentioned is al-Jādhib al-
ghaybī ilā al-Jānib al-gharbī fī ḥall mushkilāt Ibn ʿArabī. The basis of this work is al-Kāzarūnī
al-Makkī’s al-Jānib al-gharbī fī ḥall mushkilāt Ibn ʿArabī (“The Western Approach to Solving
the Problems of Ibn ʿArabī”). Al-Jābnib was written in Persian at the request of the Sultan
Selim. Al-Barzanjī translated the book into Arabic and provided it with various additional
explanations and comments. The influence of al-Kūrānī is evident in the frequent
citations and references to his opinions. Al-Barzanjī died in Muḥarram, 1103/September
1691, and was buried in the famous cemetery of al-Baqīʿ in Medina.
8. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Muḥammmad Ḥasan al-Ṣūfī, (d. 1113/1702).204 He was the author of
one of the most important Sufi bio-bibliographies about Sufi centers and Sufis of the
Ḥijāz in the 17th century, entitled Khabāyā al-zawāyā, in which he describes 15 Sufi
zāwiyahs in Mecca along with their sheikhs and their activities. He also mentions the
chains of transmission of the leaders of these zāwiyahs and gives us a clear idea about the
transmission of these Sufi orders and their arrival in the Ḥijāz. Moreover, the book
199
A critical edition of this book was prepared as part of a Master’s thesis in the department of ʿAqīdah, al-
Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah in Medina, Saudi Arabia, in the year 1415/1994.
200
Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī, Al-Qawl al-mukhtār fī ḥadīth: “taḥājjat al-jannah wa-l-nār,” published with
other works as a collection entitled Liqāʾ al-ʿashr al-awākhir bi-l-masjid al-ḥarām, ed. Al-ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz al-
Firyāṭī (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2003).
201
A critical edition of this book was prepared as part of a PhD dissertation in the department of ʿAqīdah,
al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah in Medina, Saudi Arabia, in the year 1412/1991.
202
Beirut, Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2005.
203
For a list of his other works see: al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, p. 303.
204
See Mirdād, al-Mukhtaṣar min kitāb nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar, p. 167.
184
contains about 120 names of sheikhs who lived in Mecca and with whom the author met
personally and studied.205
9. Ilyās b. Ibrāhīm b. Khiḍr b. Dāwūd al-Kūrdī al-Kūrānī (1138/1726).206 A Sufī and Shāfiʿī
by law. He studied in his homeland and then moved to Damascus after 1070/1660. In
Damascus he studied with several distinguished scholars such as Najm al-Dīn al-Faraḍī,
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ṣaffūrī, Muḥammad al-Balbānī, and ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī. He then
traveled to the Ḥijāz and studied with Aḥmad al-Nakhlī al-Makkī, Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-
Barzanjī, Sulaymān al-Maghribī, and Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. Most of his works are in the
rational sciences. Al-Murādī in Silk al-durar mentions the following works by him: a
supergloss on ʿIṣām al-Dīn al-Isfarāyinī, up to the chapter about Istiʿārāt; a gloss on Sharḥ
al-Istiʿārāt; a commentary on al-Dawānī’s Sharḥ a-ʿaqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah207 and a gloss on it;
a supergloss on Mullā Yūsuf al-Qarābāghī; a gloss on Sharḥ al-ʿawāmīl al-Jurjāniyyah by
Saʿdullāh; a gloss on Sharḥ jamʿ al-jawāmiʿ;208 a gloss on al-Fanārī’s Shraḥ Īsāghūjī; a gloss
on ʿIṣām’s Sharḥ on Risālat al-waḍʿ; a gloss on al-Tafazānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid; a gloss on al-
Qayrawānī’s Sharḥ al-Sanūsiyyah; and others.209
205
His entry about al-Kūrānī is relatively short, but he mentions some of al-Kūrānī’s teachers and what he
studied with them. The names which he mentions are ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abī Bakr b. Hidāyat Allāh al-Kūrānī,
Muḥammad Sharīf al-Ṣiddīqī, and al-Qushāshī.
206
Al-ʿAjlūnī, Ḥulyat ahl al-faḍl wa-l-kamāl, p. 85; al-Murādī, Silk al-durar, vol. 1, p. 272; Samer Akkach, Intimate
Invocations: al-Ghazzī’s Biography of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī (1641-1731) (Leiden: Brill: 2012), p. 224.
207
In the margin of the edited copy of Silk al-durar he mentions that another copy says: “probably [al-
ʿAqāʾid] al-ʿAḍudiyyah,” vol. 1, p. 272.
208
Jamʿ al-jawāmiʿ is a book in uṣūl al-fiqh by Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771/1370) that received numerous
commentaries. One of the main commentaries is Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī’s (d. 864/1459) al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ fī ḥall
Jamʿ al-jawāmiʿ, on which Ilyās al-Kūrānī wrote his gloss.
209
Al-Murādī, Silk al-durar, vol. 1, p. 272-273.
185
10. Al-Nakhlī, Aḥmad, (1044-1130/1635-1718).210 “Al-Nakhlī” refers to Nakhlah, a town in
Yemen. He was born and raised in Mecca and studied with ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿīd Bā-Qashīr
al-Makkī al-Shāfiʿī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Sayyid Aḥmad al-Ḥasanī al-Maghribī al-Miknāsī
(known as al-Maḥjūb), Muḥammad al-Rūdānī al-Maghribī, al-Bābilī, ʿIsā b. Muḥammad
al-Thaʿālibī, Muḥammad b. ʿAllān al-Ṣiddīqī, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, and others,211 and later
became a teacher in the ḥaram. Al-Nakhlī was affiliated with the Naqshbandiyyah
through Mīr Kulāl b. Maḥmūd al-Balkhī.212
11. Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Qalʿī al-Ḥanafī al-Makkī (d.
1149/1737).213 The judge of Mecca, he studied with ʿIsā al-Maghribī, Muḥammad b.
Sulaymān al-Rūdānī, Ḥasan al-ʿUjaymī, ʿAbd Allāh al-Baṣrī, Ibrāḥīm al-Kūrānī, and
others.
12. Muḥammad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Qāḍī-Jān al-Dihlawī. Born circa
1020/1612. He studied with his father, his uncle, and other scholars in India. He arrived
in the Ḥijāz for ḥajj in 1090/1679 and stayed the year after as a mujāwir. In the Ḥijāz, he
studied with Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-Maghribī al-Rūdānī, and
attended the lessons of Ibn al-ʿUjaymī. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī says that he left after that year for
India and he has no further information about him.214
13. Muṣṭafā b. Fatḥ Allāh al-Ḥamawī al-Ḥanafī al-Makkī (d. 1123/1711).215 The author of
the most comprehensive bibliographical book on the 11th/17th century, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl.
210
Mirdād, al-Mukhtaṣar min kitāb nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar, p. 120; al-Murādī, Silk al-durar, vol. 1, p. 171; al-
Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 528; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 251.
211
See: Mirdād, al-Mukhtaṣar min kitāb nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar, p. 120-121.
212
Ibid., p. 120-121.
213
Ibid., 148; al-Kattānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 97.
214
215
Al-Jabartī, ʿAjāʾib al-āthār, vol. 1, p. 134; al-Murādī, Silk al-durar, vol. 4, p. 178. Also see the introduction of
the edition of his work Fawāʾd al-irtiḥāl by ʿAbd Allāh al-Kandarī.
186
He was born in Ḥamāh in Syria, then moved to Damascus where he studied with its
scholars, and later he moved to Mecca, where he settled and studied with the scholars in
the Ḥijāz: Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, al-Bābilī, al-Nakhlī, al-Baṣrī, al-Thaʿālibī, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, and
others.
14. Yūsuf al-Tāj b. ʿAfīf al-Dīn b. Abī al-Khayr al-Jāwī al-Maqassarī al-Khalwatī (d.
1110/1699).216 Born on 18 Shawwāl 1135/ 3rd of July 1626 in the town of Makassar in south
Celebes in the Malay Archipelago. In 1054/1644 he left Makassar to pursue his Islamic
education and to perform the pilgrimage. In Acheh he was initiated into the Qādiriyyah
order by shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Rānīrī. Then he traveled from Banten to Arabia via Ceylon
and Yemen. He is primarily known in Indonesia as the propagator of the Khalwatiyyah
order. In his Safīnat al-najāh, he lists the orders into which he was initiated, including the
Shaṭṭāriyyah, for which he also received an ijāzah from Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. He also studied
al-Durrah al-fākhirah by Jāmī with al-Kūrānī and copied it in his own hand.217 Al-Maqassarī
led military resistance against Dutch authority for almost two years. He was arrested and
sent to the Cape of Good Hope in 1693, after spending 9 years in exile in Ceylon, and
arrived there in 1694. Al-Kūrānī’s thought thus found its way to South Africa through al-
Maqassarī and his students.
Other Students:
15. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī (d. 1096/1685).218
216
Mustapha Keraan and Muhammed Haron, “Selected Sufi texts of Shaykh Yusuf: Translations and
commentaries,” Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 45 (1), 2008. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 383.
217
See Rudolf Mach, Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection (Princeton:
Princeton University Library, 1977), p. 205, No. 2393, 1(3872), No. 2394, 1(3872), and p. 267, No. 3123,
1(3872). The collection contains three treatises: al-Durrah al-fākhirah, Risalah fi al-wūjūd both by Jāmī, and
al-Lārī’s Commentary on al-Durrah al-fākhirah. All are dated 1075/1664-5.
218
Al-Ḥuḍaykī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, p. 402; al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar min akhbār ṣulaḥāʾ al-qarn al-ḥādī
ʿashar, p. 338.
187
16. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Maynbārī.219
17. ʿAbd Allāh b. Munlā Saʿd Allāh al-Lāhūrī, Jārullāh (d. 1083/1672).220
18. ʿAbd Allāh Al-Tajmūʿatī al-Sijlimāsī (d. 1118/1706).221
19. ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿAbd al-Hādī al-ʿUmarī al-Shāfiʿī al-Dimashqī.222 He studied with
ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī, Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-Maghribī, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, and
Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī. He wrote Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Ibn al-Ḥājib, Alfiyyah fī ʿilm al-
kalām, and Naẓm Risālat al-waḍʿ of al-Ījī.
20. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī read with al-Kūrānī parts of Ṣaḥīḥayn and some
dhikrs.223
21. ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿUmar al-Taghlibī al-Dimashqī, Abū al-Tuqā (d. 1135/1723).224 A Sufi
Ḥanbalī from Damascus, he studied with ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī and his son Abū al-
Mawāhib, as well as with al-Kūrānī.
22. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū al-Mawāhīb b. Muḥammad Abī al-Suʿūd al-Kazarūnī al-Madanī
(1044-1114/1634-1703 in Medina and buried in the cemetery of al-Baqīʿ).225 He was born
in Medina and studied with its scholars. With al-Kūrānī he studied the Kifāyat al-ʿābid by
his grandfather al-Ṣafī al-Kazarūnī, al-Muntaqā, al-Mawārid al-haniyyah, and al-Arbaʿīn al-
nawawiyyah. Al-Kūrānī gave him the khirqah and ijāzah with some prayers.
219
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 208. Al-Kittānī mentions that he has a copy of al-Kūrānī’s work Īqāẓ al-
qawābil li-l-taqarrub bi-l-nawāfīl in the handwriting of al-Kūrānī’s student ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-
Maynbārī.
220
Al-Ḥuḍaykī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, p. 503.
221
222
Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 5, p. 191.
223
Ms. Princeton: Yahuda, Garrett, 2514. Al-Kūrānī’s autograph at the front page of this work mentions this
reading.
224
Al-Najdī, Al-Suḥub al-wābilah, vol.2, p. 564.
225
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 4. P. 560.
188
23. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan al-Kūrānī,226 the brother of Mullā Ibrāhīm. He studied
with his brother and Mullā Sharīf, and traveled to Syria and Egypt where he studied with
their scholars.
24. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad al-Dhahabī.227
25. ʿAbd al-Shakūr al-Bānitnī. Al-Kūrānī wrote Kashf al-mastūr fī jawāb suʾāl ʿAbd al-
Shakūr, probably at the request of this student. At the end of one of his other works, Janāḥ
al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣiḥāḥ,228 there is a reading by ʿAbd al-Shakūr al-Bānitnī.
26. Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. al-ʿArabī, known as Ibn al-Ḥājj al-Fāsī (d. 1109/1697).229
27. Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-Dirʿī (d. Rabīʿ II, 1128/March
1716).230
28. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī (d. Shaʿbān
1134/1722).231
29. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Dallāʾī, known as al-
Murābiṭ (d. 1089/1678).232
30. Abū al-Ḥasan Nūr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Tatawī al-Madanī (d.
1139/1727).233
226
Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 145; al-Mirdād, Mukhtaṣar min kitāb nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar, p. 246;
al-Muʿallimī, Aʿlām al-Makkiyyīn, vol. 1, p. 578; ʿAbd al-Sattār b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Dihlawī, al-Azhār al-
ṭayyibāt al-nashr fī dhikr al-aʿyān min kull ʿaṣr, ed. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn b. Khalīl b. Ibrāhīm al-Ṣawwāf (KSA, Mecca,
Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Kulliyyat al-Sharīʿah wa-l-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyah, 1429 [2008], PhD Thesis), p. 105.
227
228
Ms. Aḥqāf, Yemen, Tarīm, majāmīʿ 132, n. 11.
229
Al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar, p. 353; al-Ḥuḍaykī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, p. 91; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p.
117.
230
Al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar, p. 351, 364; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, 677; al-Ifrānī mentions his date of
death as 1128, and al-Kittānī as 1129.
231
Al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar, p. 369; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 183.
232
Al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar, p. 309; al-Ḥuḍaykī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, p. 305.
233
189
31. Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Budayrī al-Ḥusaynī al-Dumyāṭī
al-Shāfiʿī, (known as Ibn al-Mayyit and al-Burhān al-Shāmī), (d. 1140/1728).234
32. Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Darʿī, (known as al-Sibāʿī), (d.
1155/1742).235
33. Abū Marwān al-Sijlimāsī.236
34. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Gharbī al-Ribāṭī.237
35. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-Ḥakamī.238
36. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Dumyāṭī al-
Shāfiʿī, known as al-Bannā (d. 1116/1704).239
37. Aḥmad b. Saʿīd al-Majlīdī (1094/1682).240
38. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad (known al-Ṣaghīr) b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qādir
al-Fāsī (d. 1134/1722).241
39. Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-Darʿī al-Tamagarūtī (d. 18 Rabīʿ II,
1129/1 April 1717).
40. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlwān al-Shāfiʿī, known as al-Sharābātī (d. 1136/1723-4).242
234
Ibid., 216-217. See his fahrasah entitled al-Jawāhir al-ghawālī fī al-asānīd al-ʿawālī. Ms. Azhariyya 317819.
235
236
Al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar, p. 351.
237
238
239
See his isnād entitled Kifāyat al-ṭālib al-qanūʿ bi-badāʾiʿ ʿawālī al-isnād al-marfūʿ. Ms. Azhariyyah 309791,
(4a). Also: al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 240.
240
241
Ibid., p. 595.
242
Al-Murādī, Silk al-durar, vol. 1, p. 171.
190
41. Aḥmad b. Saʿīd al-Makīldī243 was the judge of Fās for forty years. He traveled to
Egypt and the Ḥijāz and studied with their scholars. Among his students is Abū ʿAlī al-
Ḥasan al-Yūsī (d. 1102).
42. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥasanī.244
43. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Daybaʿ al-Shaybānī al-Shāfiʿī (d.
1072/1661-2) studied in Medina with al-Qushāshī and al-Kūrānī. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī
mentioned that he read Īsāghūjī with al-Kūrānī.245
44. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-ʿUqaybī al-Anṣārī al-Taʿzī al-Shāfiʿī (born around 1030/1621).
He met al-Kūrānī and each learned from the other.246
45. Al-Dakdakjī, al-Shams Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Dimashqī (d. 1131/1719).247 A Sufi
Ḥanafī from Damascus. He studied with Abū al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī and Muḥammad al-
Maydānī, then he became a student of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī and copied many of the
latter’s works.
46. Al-Hashtūkī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Dāwūd al-Jazūlī al-Tamlī (d.
1127/1715).248
47. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Dirʿī (1155/1742).249
48. Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad Kamāl al-Dīn known as Ibn Ḥamzah al-Ḥusaynī al-Ḥanafī al-
Dimashqī (d. 1120/1708).250 He was born in Damascus in 1054/1644 and studied with its
243
244
Ibid., p. 208.
245
Ibn ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-zawāyā, p. 242.
246
Ibid., p. 244.
247
Akkach, Intimate Invocations: al-Ghazzī’s Biography of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī (1641-1731), p. 159; al-Murādī,
Silk al-durar, vol. 4, p. 25; al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 493.
248
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 167. More information can be found in El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual
History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 135.
249
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 416-419.
250
Al-Dihlawī, al-Azhār al-ṭayyibāt al-nashr, p. 70.
191
scholars, including ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Ḥaṣkafī, ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī, and Muḥammad b.
Sulaymān al-Maghribī. Then he traveled to Egypt where he studied with its scholars
before he headed to the Ḥaramayn where he studied with al-Nakhlī, Sālim al-Baṣrī, Ibn al-
ʿUjaymī, and Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.
49. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Fāsī (d. 1110/1698-9).251
50. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Fāsī (d. 1134/1722).252
51. Muḥammad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Mizjājī.253
52. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Maktabī al-Dimashqī al-Shāfiʿī (d. 12 jumadā II, 1096/16 May
1685).254
53. Muḥammad al-Khalīfatī (d. 1130/1718). He studied with al-Kūrānī and al-Barzanjī.
ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī mentioned him in the report of his journey to the Ḥijāz.255
54. Muḥammad b. ʿIsā Al-Kinānī al-Khalwatī (d. 1153/1740).256
55. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Jāwī al-Bantanī. He copied some of al-Kūrānī’s works
in Medina during the latter’s life, such as al-Isfār ʿan aṣl istikhārat aʿmāl al-layl wa-l-nahār.
The date of the copy is 15 Dhū al-Qaʿdah, 1093. The copy is collated in the house of al-
Kūrānī by Mūsā b. Ibrāḥīm al-Baṣrī al-Madanī, who can also be considered a student of
al-Kūranī.257
251
Al-Ḥuḍaykī, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, P. 312.
252
Ibid., P. 360.
253
254
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 1, p. 144, 559.
255
Ibid., vol.4, 59.
256
257
ʿAbd al-Ṣamad Muḥammad Jān Muḥammad Ẓāhir, “al-Makhṭūṭāt al-mansūkhah fī al-Madīnah al-
munawwarah al-maḥfūẓah fī maktabat ʿĀrif Ḥikmat, part I,” Majallat al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, n. 19, 1427
[2006]), p. 72. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf copied other works in the Medina, for example al-Kūrānī’s
treatise al-Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī, ibid., (part II, n. 21, 1428 [2007]), p. 70. He also copied al-Barzanjī’s work
al-Jādhib al-ghaybī ilā al-Jānib al-gharbī, Ms. Manisa 45HK6230 in 1097.
192
56. Muḥammad b. Abd al-Hādī al-Sindī, Abū al-Ḥasan, (d. 1138 or 1139/ 1726-7), a
Ḥanafī scholar and a renowned Madinan scholar of ḥadīth. Al-Sindī had studied with
some of the most influential ʿulamāʾ of Madina, including Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. Ibn ʿAbd al-
Hādī al-Sindī emerged as the principal teacher of ḥadīth at the Prophet’s mosque,
attracting a large number of students from various parts of the Muslim world.258
57. Mūsā b. Ibrāḥīm al-Baṣrī al-Madanī was a copyist of some of al-Kūrānī’s works. He
copied them and collated them in Medina and in some cases in the home of al-Kūrānī.
The main work by al-Kūrānī that he copied is al-Ilmām bi-taḥrīr qawlaī Saʿdī wa-l-ʿIṣām in
Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1093/December 1682.259 Additionally, he collected al-Kūrānī’s gloss on al-
Durrah al-fākhirah, as is mentioned in Princeton’s copy.260
58. Al-Sayyid ʿAlī b. Sulaymān b. Aḥmad al-Ḥusaynī al-Mūsawī.261 He traveled to the
Ḥijāz and studied with al-Kūrānī, among other scholars. Al-Ḥamawī met him in
1094/1683.
59. Walī al-Dīn Muṣṭafā Jārullāh al-Rūmī (1151/1738).262 In the front page of ms.
Carullah 2102, Jārullāh says that he is the last person who studied with Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.
Jārullāh spent seven years in the Ḥijāz as mujāwir. Among his works are a gloss on al-
Taftazānī’s Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, a gloss on Ādāb al-baḥth by al-Burkawī, a gloss of al-Fawāʾid
al-Fanāriyyah, and a gloss on Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī.263
258
Basheer Nafi, “A teacher of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: Muhammad Hayāt al-Sindī and the revival of aṣhāb al-
ḥadīth’s methodology,” Islamic Law and Society, 2006,13 (2): 208-241, p. 213. Al-Murādī, Silk al-durar, vol. 4,
p. 66.
259
Jān Muḥammad Ẓāhir, “al-Makhṭūṭāt al-mansūkhah fī al-Madīnah,” Part I, p. 73. Another work by al-
Kūrānī copied by Mūsā al-Baṣrī is Niẓām al-zabarjad fī al-arbaʿīn al-musalsal bi-Aḥmad, ibid., part II, p. 79.
260
See the section about al-Kūrānī’s works.
261
262
Berat Açıl, Osmanlı kitap kültürü: Cârullah Efendi Kütüphanesi ve derkenar notları (Ankara: Ilem kitapliği:
Nobel), 2015.
263
Khayr al-Dīn al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām (Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-malayyīn, 2012, ed. 15), vol. 8, p. 118.
193
These are some of al-Kūrānī’s students. More names can be found in ijāzahs and isnāds
works,264 and many others can be found in Fahras al-fahāris, some of them through ijāzah
ʿāmmah (general ijāzah) that may not refer to personal study with al-Kūrānī but could be
an ijāzah for a person and his family, or in some cases an ijāzah for anyone who wants to
transmit the work with its chain of transmission.265 ʿAbd al-Khāliq b. ʿAlī b. al-Zayn al-
Mizjājī (d. 1201/1787), in his chain of transmission of aḥādīth al-Bukhārī, mentioned two
teachers: his father Shams al-Islām ʿAlī b. al-Zayn al-Mizjājī and his teacher Muḥammad
b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Mizjājī. Both had ijāzahs from al-Kūrānī.266 Al-Mizjājī said in his thabat
that the people who studied with al-Kūrānī are countless, most of them great scholars.267
Later, after about one century, we find that isnāds of most of the scholars, whether in
manqūlāt or maʿqūlāt, go back to al-Kūrānī and his students, mainly al-Nakhlī, al-Baṣrī,
and Ibn al-ʿUjaymī. The following are some distinguished scholars and their links to al-
Kūrānī. Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī (d. 1205/1791), in his poem (manẓūmah) of his isnāds, entitled
Alfiyyat al-sanad, mentions his isnāds. Among his teachers were Muḥammad b. ʿIsā b.
Yūsuf al-Dinjāwī and Muṣṭafā b. ʿAbd al-Salām al-Manzilī, with whom he studied in the
town of Dimyāṭ; both of them studied with Abū Ḥāmid b. Muḥammad al-Budayrī, who
studied with al-Kūrānī.268 Actually, al-Zabīdī considers that the first level (al-ṭabaqah al-
ūlā) of his teachers were Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ b. Yūsuf al-Majarī al-Malawī, Ḥamad b.
264
See for example some names in an ijāzah al-Kūrānī gave for some Damascene scholars in Fahras al-fahāris,
p. 167.
265
About different kinds of ijāzahs see Pfeiffer, “Teaching the learned,” p.302, fn. 71.
266
ʿAbd al-Khāliq b. ʿAlī b. al-Zayn al-Mizjājī, Nuzhat riyāḍ al-ijāzah al-mustaṭābah bi-dhikr manāqib al-
mashāyikh ahl al-riwāyah wa-l-iṣābah, ed. Muṣṭafā ʿAbd Allāh al-Khaṭīb and ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad al-
Ḥabashī al-Yamanī (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1997), p. 29. Also p. 183.
267
Al-Mizjājī, Nuzhat riyāḍ al-ijāzah, p. 147.
268
Muḥammad Murtaḍā Al-Zabīdī, Alfiyyat al-sanad, ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAzūz (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2006),
p. 32.
194
Ḥasan b. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khālidī al-Jawharī, and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmir al-Shibrāwī;269 these
studied with al-Kūrānī’s students, especially al-Baṣrī, al-Nakhlī and Ibn al-ʿUjaymī.270 Al-
Zabīdī has also a direct link to al-Kūrānī through the latter’s grandson, Ḥasan b.
Muḥammad Saʿīd b. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. This person studied with his uncle Abū Ṭāhir, as
well as the distinguished scholars of the Ḥijāz and Mullā Ibrāhīm’s students Ibn al-
ʿUjaymī, al-Baṣrī, and al-Nakhlī.271
Al-Shawkānī’s chains of transmission pass through al-Nakhlī and al-Baṣrī.272 He always
mentions the isnād to these two scholars and then to al-Bābilī instead of al-Kūrānī.
Although most of what he mentions about al-Nakhlī and al-Baṣrī is traced through al-
Kūrānī, tracing his chain of transmission directly to al-Bābilī makes his isnād higher.
Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Sanūsī, the founder of Sanūsiyyah order (d. 1276/1859), mentions
al-Kūrānī in many of his chains of transmission.273
[3.5] Al-Kūrānī’s Works
Al-Kūrānī was a prolific author. He wrote more than 100 works, most of them still in
manuscript form and dispersed in libraries around the world. Al-Shawkānī in al-Badr al-
269
See more names in al-Zabīdī, Alfiyyat al-sanad, p. 22.
270
Al-Zabīdī, Alfiyyat al-Sanad, p. 21.
271
Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, al-Muʿjam al-mukhtaṣṣ, ed. Niẓām Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Yaʿqūbī and Muḥammad b. Nāṣir
al-ʿAjamī (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2006), p. 202.
272
Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Shawkānī, Itḥāf al-akābir bi-isnād al-dafātir, ed. Khalīl b. ʿUthmān al-Subayʿī (Beirut:
Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1999), for example, pp. 63, 65, 84, 109, 110, 116. In many isnāds he just says: “by the same
isnād to al-Bābilī,” e.g., pp. 65, 89, 106, 107
273
Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Sanūsī al-Idrīsī, al-Manhal al-rawī al-rāʾiq fī asānīd al-ʿulūm wa-uṣūl al-ṭarāʾiq (Algeria:
Dār al-Tawfiqīyyah, 2011). pp. 19, 20, 27, 31, 33, 34, 46, 49. Later, he says several times bi-l-isnād al-sābiq (by
the same previous isnād).
195
ṭāliʿ reported that his works number around 80.274 Brockelmann lists 42 titles,275 while
Anthony H. Johns mentions that 100 works are attributed to al-Kūrānī.276 A short
description of the works that I have been able to access will be presented below, followed
by a list of the works that I found in catalogues or historical sources without having
access to the works themselves. There is no need to mention the place of composition,
since all of his works were written in the Ḥijāz. The only work that he mentions having
started before moving to the Ḥijāz is Inbāh al-anbāh ʿalā iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh, which he
finished in Medina. In this description, I mention only the main topics; the arguments
will be presented where relevant in the coming chapters. The works are arranged
chronologically to allow us to follow the developments of al-Kūrānī’s thought and
interests during the time. It is important to note that I mention only the copies that I
used in my description, and in some cases more copies that I obtained, without an
attempt to be comprehensive regarding al-Kūrānī’s manuscripts in libraries and
catalogues.
1. INBĀH AL-ANBĀH ʿALĀ IʿRĀB LĀ ILĀH ILLĀ ALLĀH.277 Al-Kūrānī started composing this work
when he was in Damascus in 1061. He finished its first draft in Medina in 1062, then edited
the work again in 1071.278 As al-Kūrānī explains in the introduction, he called the work at
274
Al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ, vol. 1, p. 12. Al-Shawkānī mentioned just seven titles by names.
275
C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, 5 vols (Volumes I-II: Weimar 1898 and Berlin 1902
[first edition], Leiden 1943 and 1949 [second edition]; Supplementary Volumes I-III: Leiden 1937, 1938 and
1942), II, p. 505 and S. II, p. 520.
276
Anthony H. Johns, “Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and new directions,” Indonesia, No. 19 (Apr.,
1975), pp. 33-55, p. 49.
277
This work was edited by Ahmet Gemī as part of his Ph.D. Dissertation at Ataturk University in Erzurum,
2013.
278
Ibrahim Kûrânî, Inbâhu’l-Enbâh ‘Alâ Taḥḳîḳi I‘Râbi Lâ Ilâhe Illallah, ed. Ahmet Gemi, Doktora Tezi, Atatürk
Üniversitesi, 2013, p. 291. (Henceforth al-Kūrānī, Inbāh al-anbāh).
196
the beginning Rafʿ al-ishtibāh ʿan qawāʿid iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh, 279 then he changed the title
to Inbāh al-Anbāh. Al-Kūrānī edited the text in Medina immediately after his arrival in
1062, and then he wrote parts of chapter 9 and chapters 10, 11, and 12 in Medina in 1071.
As usual, al-Kūrānī concludes his work with some ḥadīths, collecting here more than 40
ḥadiths on the virtues of lā ilāh illā Allāh. He mentions that he started to collect these
ḥadīths at his shaykh’s request, and because he did not have many isnāds at that time, he
thought it would be difficult to reach ten ḥadīths with their chains of transmission.
Eventually, he collected more than 40 ḥadīths.280 Most probably the shaykh who asked
him to do this is al-Qushāshī because, at the end of the work, one of al-Kūrānī’s students,
Badr al-Dīn Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-ʿUjaymī al-Makkī, asks him to mention the form and the chain
of dhikr, so he does, with the permission of his teacher al-Qushāshī. The work ends with
al-Qushāshī’s chain of transmission of dhikr.
2. JAWĀB SUʾĀLĀT ʿAN QAWL “TAQABBAL ALLĀH” WA-L-MUṢĀFAḤAH BAʿD AL-ṢALĀWĀT.

281
Also
known as RAFʿ AL-RAYB WA-L-ILTIBĀS ʿAN DALĪL AL-DUʿĀʾ WA-L-MUṢĀFAḤAH BAʿD AL-ṢALAH LI-L-NĀS.
Al-Kūrānī received a question about the handshake after the prayers and the saying
taqabbal Allāh, “may God accept your prayer,” specifically as to whether these habits had
a legal source and whether the salaf did them or not. This work was completed in Shaʿbān
1063.
3. IJĀZAT AL-KŪRĀNĪ LI-ʿALĪ B. AḤMAD B. ʿABD AL-QAWĪ AL-ZUBAYRĪ. At the beginning of this
work, al-Kūrānī mentions that al-Zubayrī asked him for an ijāzah in the ḥadīth works and
instrumental sciences, “al-ʿulūm al-āliyyah,” which he studied. Al-Kūrānī mentions some
279
MS: Cairo: Azhariyyah 41950, fol. 1-187. This copy is entitled Rafʿ al-Ishtibāh.
280
Al-Kūrānī, Inbāh al-anbāh, p. 264.
281
MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, raqam musalsal 28, 7 folios. In
the ms. card, it is mentioned that the source of this copy is Maktabat Nadwat al-ʿUlamāʾ, Lakhnaw, India,
no. 120.
197
of his isnāds in ḥadīth works, as well as some of his isnāds for texts in logic, theology, and
philosophy, mainly through Mullā ʿAbd al-Karīm and Mullā Sharīf. This work was written
in 20 Shawwāl 1063.
4. TAḤQĪQ AL-TAWFĪQ BAYN KALĀMAĪ AHL AL-KALĀM WA-AHL AL-ṬARĪQ.282 Also mentioned as
TUḤFAT AL-TAWFĪQ BAYN KALĀMAĪ AHL AL-KALĀM WA-AHL AL-ṬARĪQ. This work is about a question
on some poetic verses by Ibn al-Fāriḍ (d. 632/1235) related to the meaning of takhayyul,
taṣawwur, and wahm, and whether Sufis consider them to have different meanings than
do theologians. Al-Kūrānī explains the different levels of existence, then cites the
commentary of al-Farghānī on these verse from Ibn al-Fāriḍ’s al-Tāʾiyyah al-kubrā. This
work was composed on 11 Shawwāl 1066.
5. QAṢD AL-SABĪL ILĀ TAWḤĪD AL-ḤAQQ AL-WAKĪL

283
is al-Kūrānī’s longest and most
comprehensive work, a commentary on his teacher al-Qushāshī’s ʿaqidah poem. At the
beginning of the work al-Kūrānī mentions that one brother from Damascus named ʿAlī
b. Aḥmad al-Baʿlī sent to al-Kūrānī with the ḥajj caravan of the year 1065 and asked him
to write a commentary of this poem, because some students were studying it in
Damascus. Al-Qushāshī gave his permission, so al-Kūrānī wrote this comprehensive
commentary, which, according to him, is not suitable for beginners. Al-Kūrānī started
composing this work on 10 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1065 and finished it on Monday 14 Dhū al-
Qaʿdah 1066. The fact that al-Qushāshī asked al-Kūrānī to write this commentary just
three years after the latter arrived to the Ḥijāz reveals the advanced degree of al-Kūrānī’s
education and the confidence of al-Qushāshī in his new student.
282
MS: Pakistan: Thanāʾ Allāh Zāhidī’s library, no number, 6 folios.
283
MS: KSA: Maktabat al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, ʿĀrif Ḥikmat Collection, ʿaqāʾid/231, 126 folios. A
copy of Qaṣd al-sabīl that was copied by al-Kūrānī’s student ʿAbd al-Shakūr al-Bāntīnī mentions
another title: al-Ghāyah al-quṣwā fī kalimat al-sawāʾ wa-l-taqwā. MS: Indonesia: National Library of
Jakarta, Van den Berg collection.
198
6. AL-JAWĀB AL-MASHKŪR ʿAN AL-SŪʾĀL AL-MANẒŪR.284 Al-Kūrānī received a question from
Yemen about the purpose of creating Ādam and Iblīs, specifically as to why God would
allow Ādam and his wife to dwell in Paradise and then allow Satan to deceive them, and
why God then sent them to Earth and allowed Satan to deceive people again, although
He sent messengers and prophets to guide the people. Al-Kūrānī’s answer is related to
the question of whether God acts for a purpose or not. He presents the Ashʿarite and
Muʿtazilite opinions about this matter and he discusses the question of good and bad
deeds and whether they are determined by reason or revelation. This discussion leads to
the topic that al-Kūrānī always discusses, kasb and the free will of human acts. This work
was completed on Friday at the end of Ṣafar 1067.
7. ISHRĀQ AL-SHAMS BI-TAʿRĪB AL-KALIMĀT AL-KHAMS.285 Al-Kūrānī mentioned to his teacher
al-Qushāshī a treatise in Persian by a certain scholar, Niʿmat Allāh al-Walī, which
explains the five words that Imām ʿAlī mentioned to his student Kumayl. Al-Kūrānī had
initially read these words at the end of al-Dawānī’s work Risālat khalq al-aʿmāl.286 Kumayl
asked Imām ʿAlī, “What is the truth (mā al-ḥaqīqah)?” Imām ʿAlī replied to Kumayl and
said, “The truth is the revelation of the Splendor of the Divine Majesty without a sign.”
Kumayl said, “Tell me more.” Imām ʿAlī said, “It’s the defacement of the conjectured
through the clearing of the known; it is the rending of the veils by the triumph of
mystery; it is the Divine Attraction, but through the apprehension of the known; it is the
light of the morning eternity, that continues to radiate through the unity of the temples
284
MS: Pakistan: Thanāʾ Allāh Zāhidī’s library, no number, 5 folios.
285
MS: Cairo: Maʿhad al-Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿArabiyyah, majmūʿ 16, treatise 3, fols. 267-275. The numeration is
for each page not for folios.
286
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Risālat khalq al-aʿmāl in al-Rasāʾil al-Mukhtārah, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tuisarkānī
(Iṣfahān, Imām ʿAlī Public Library, 1405), p. 76.
199
and their disunity.”287 Al-Qushāshī asked al-Kūrānī to translate Niʿmat Allāh’s
commentary in Arabic. As far as I know it is the only translation al-Kūrānī did in his life.
This work is dated Thursday, 25 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1068.
8. MUKHTAṢAR QAṢD AL-SABĪL. AKA AL-SHARḤ AL-ṢAGHĪR.288 One of his friends, Jamāl al-Dīn
Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Kayyāl, asked al-Kūrānī several times to abridge Qaṣd al-
sabīl. One year after this request, at the end of 1069, al-Qushāshī asked al-Kūrānī to write
this abridgement. This work was completed on 13 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1069. A few years later,
the text was translated into the Malay language; the translation is entitled Sullam al-
mustafidīn, “The Ladder of the Zealous.”289
9. AL-JAWĀBĀT AL-GHARRĀWIYYAH LI-L-MASĀʾIL AL-JĀWIYYAH AL-JUHRIYYAH.

290
Al-Qushāhsī
received questions to which he wrote brief replies and asked al-Kūrānī to expand these
answers and add more detail. The first question is about the fixed entities (al-aʿyān al-
thābitah). The second question is about the intention (niyyah) at the beginning of the
prayer. The third question is about the person who says God is ourselves and our
existence and that we are Himself and His existence. The fourth question is about the
287
Al-Kūrānī mentioned these five words in Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 200 of Fathurahman’s edition. See also Johns,
“Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and new directions,” p. 49.
288
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 62b-124b. Al-Ḥamawī in Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 3, p. 62, names it
Zād al-masīr wa-l-asfār ʿan aṣl istikhārat aʿmāl al-layl wa-l-nahār, which obviously is a mistake, probably on the
part of the editor of the work, who edited the text from only one manuscript.
289
An edition of this work with a translation of Chapters 1 to 7 (out of 14) was submitted by Elizabeth Anne
Todd in 1975 as a part of her master’s thesis at The Australian National University. The author is
anonymous, but the editor argues that a closer study of the issue appears to support the attribution of the
authorship to al-Kūrānī’s student ʿAbdurraʾuf Fanṣūrī (p. xviii) since one manuscript ascribed it to him and
the author mentioned al-Qushāshī and al-Kūrānī as his teachers. The editor suggests that the date of
composition is between 1661 and 1690.
290
MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5345, fols. 20-71. On the front
page there is a note says that Gharrāwiyyah is a name of al-Madīnah and that al-Sanhūdī mentioned it in
his history of Medina. In the text al-Kūrānī mentions that he received questions from the town of (Juhr)
“Johora” from bilād Jāwah in baḥr al-Ṣīn. He even mentioned that those who came from there mentioned
that between them, meaning Jāwah and China, are 13 days by sea.
200
Friday prayer. The fifth and final question is about the validity of the marriage contract
if the man wore a cloth of gold or silver. This work was dated Tuesday, 25 Ṣafar 1070.
10. ʿUJĀLAT DHAWĪ AL-INTIBĀH TAḤQĪQ IʿRĀB LĀ ILĀH ILLĀ ALLĀH.291 This work is an abridgment
of his original work in the same topic, Inbāh al-anbāh. This work was completed on
Sunday, 29 Rabīʿ I 1070.
11. AL-ʿUJĀLAH FĪ-MĀ KATABA MUḤAMMAD B. MUḤAMMAD AL-QALʿĪ SUʾĀLAH.

292
Al-Kūrānī
mentioned that his teacher, al-Qushāshī, received a question from the Maghrib about
whether one worships the essence or the attributes. Al-Kūrānī said that al-Qushāshī
wrote a sufficient reply for this question. After almost ten years, al-Kūrānī and al-
Qushāshī found a copy of the question but they did not find the answer that the latter
had previously composed. At the end of the 1070s, a relative of the questioner came to
the Ḥijāz and asked al-Qushāshī for the reply. Al-Qushāshī asked al-Kūrānī to write an
answer. Al-Kūrānī mentions that the reality (ḥaqīqah) of God is unknown for us. We know
attributes and relations (nisab), which indicate that there is an inner reality that is in
itself distinct (ḥaqīqah mutamayyizah bi-dhātiha), different from all other inner realities
(al-ḥaqāʾiq). Since the essence is not known except through the attributes, it is impossible
to worship the unknown, i.e., the essence. Al-Kūrānī says that it is not necessary to know
the essence to worship God; it is enough to know some of His attributes. We worship
Allāh, and this name refers to the essence that has all the attributes of perfection. Al-
Kūrānī at the end of his answer says that this question was raised in the Maghrib after
some scholars read in a refutation of Christianity that we worship God, not His attributes.
Al-Kūrānī mentions that the Ashʿarities accepted some eternal attributes, and Christians
291
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, ʿUjālat dhawī al-intibāh taḥqīq iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh, ed, Ṣāliḥ b. Ibrāhīm al-Farrāj, Majallat
al-Dirʿiyyah, KSA, no. 47-48, 2009-2010, pp. 315-366.
292
MS: Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, ms. al-Tawḥīd: al-milal wa-l-niḥal, 3000/1, fols. 295-304.
201
say that God has three aqānīm, not as attributes of God but as three distinguished
essences.293 Al-Kūrānī mentions this argument about Christianity in less than one page.
This is may be the only mention of Christian doctrine by al-Kūrānī. This work was written
on 24 Shawwāl 1070.
12. AL-QAWL AL-MUBĪN FĪ TAḤRĪR MASʾALAT AL-TAKWĪN.

294
This work is an answer to a
question about a statement in Ibn Ḥajar’s commentary on al-Bukhārī, entitled Fatḥ al-
Bārī. Ibn Ḥajar says that God creates by His attributes, actions, order, and speech. This
question is related to the attributes of acts (ṣifāt al-afʿāl). How can God be eternally
described as Creator, without there being any creation eternally, since otherwise the
world would be eternal? In other words, how can we describe God as Creator without
creating? Al-Kūrānī explains different ideas about creation. This work was completed on
8 Dhū al-Qaʿdah, 1070.
13. AL-ʿAYN WA-L-ATHAR FĪ ʿAQĀʾID AHL AL-ATHAR.

295
Al-Kūrānī attempts in this work to
reconcile the Ashʿarite and Ḥanbalite positions on the controversial topic of God’s
speech. He wrote to his Ḥanbalite teacher in Damascus ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī
and asked him to provide a summary of Ḥanbalite doctrine with special attention to the
question of God’s speech. Al-Baʿlī responded to this request by composing a treatise
entitled al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqāʾid ahl al-athar. Al-Kūrānī said that al-Baʿlī allowed him to
edit the work (yaʾdhan lī bi-taḥrīrihā), which may mean to verify the Ashʿarite position.
Al-Kūrānī edited it in a comprehensive way. He kept the first section on Ḥanbalite
293
MS: Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, ms. al-Tawḥīd: al-milal wa-l-niḥal, 3000/1, fol. 301.
294
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 178b-185a. This copy does not have the date of composition. The
date is mentione in another copy MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīinah al-
Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 166a-172a.
295
MS: Pakistan: Thanāʾ Allāh Zāhidī’s library, no number, 55 folios. Another copy is MS: UK: University of
Birmingham, Mingana collection, 176, 46 folios. This copy contains only the old conclusion.
202
doctrine without any major changes, but afterwards he changed almost everything. He
wrote extensively on the doctrine of the Ashʿarites concerning God’s attributes, and then
he expanded upon the topic of God’s speech to prove the Ashʿarite position by using the
refutations of the Ḥanbalite critics. Al-Kūrānī completed the original text on the 15th of
Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1070. After one year, when he had obtained some of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works,
he edited the conclusion on 6 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1071.
14. IFĀḌAT AL-ʿALLĀM BI-TAḤQĪQ MASʾALAT AL-KALĀM.

296
When al-Kūrānī sent the edited
version of the previous work, i.e. al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar, back to Damascus, his Ḥanbalite
teacher al-Baʿlī, unsurprisingly, would not put his name on a text that supported the
Ashʿarite position and criticized Ḥanbalite doctrines. On the contrary, al-Baʿlī put the
name of al-Kūrānī on the work and sent it back to Medina. The result now is a strange
amalgamation, an Ashʿarite work on God’s speech with an introduction to Ḥanbalite
doctrine. It seems that al-Kūrānī prefered not to place his name on a work that begins
with Ḥanbalite doctrine. Therefore, he deleted the first part that explains the Ḥanbalite
doctrines and began directly with the topic of God’s speech, and called the treatise Ifāḍat
al-ʿAllām bi-taḥqīq masʾalat al-kalām. The first draft of this work was completed on Sunday,
14 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1070, and he edited the conclusion on Tuesday, 4 Dhū al-Ḥijjah, 1071.
15. ITḤĀF AL-DHAKĪ BI-SHARḤ AL-TUḤFAH AL-MURSALAH ILĀ AL-NABĪ, or ILĀ RŪḤ AL-NABĪ is a
commentary on Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh Burhānbūrī’s al-Tuḥfah al-mursalah ilā rūḥ al-
Nabī. Al-Kūrānī wrote this work for the Javanese community in Medina (jamāʿat al-
Jāwiyyah). Burhānbūrī’s text triggered debates in Java about the concept of waḥdat al-
296
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 185b-249a. See also: Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1,
p. 570.
203
wujūd and the different grades of existence.297 Itḥāf al-dhakī describes the
misunderstanding of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought in Java and tried to offer a legally-oriented
interpretation.298 Later, ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī commented on the same text in his
work Nukhbat al-masʾalah sharḥ al-Tuḥfah al-mursalah. Oman Fathurahman edited the text
and mentioned 31 manuscript copies in existence around the world, which points to its
wide dissemination. 17 of these manuscripts were used in preparing his edition. 299
Fathurrahman does not offer a specific date of its composition. He suggests that it was
written before 1660 since it was composed at the request of al-Qushāshī who died in
1071/1660.300
16. AL-MUTIMMAH LI-L-MASʾALAH AL-MUHIMMAH301 is a discussion of al-Kūrānī’s opinion on
kasb and the extent to which human beings effect their actions. This work is a response
to someone who criticized al-Kūrānī by stating that al-Ghazālī and other Ashʿarite
scholars differ in their opinions with those of al-Kūrānī. Al-Kūrānī attempts to prove that
his ideas agree with the Ashʿarites’ ideas and that they refused to accept an independent
effective power, like the Muʿtazilites, but that they did not deny that man does have
effect by the permission of God (bi-idhn Allāh). This copy is not dated.
297
A summary of this small treatise is offered by Johns in “Friends of grace” and in the introduction to his
edition of this text: Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh Burhānpūrī and Anthony H. Johns, The Gift Addressed to the
Spirit of the Prophet (Canberra: Australian National University, 1965).
298
Antony H. Johns, “Friends in grace: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkeli,” pp. 469-485.
299
Fathurahman, Ithāf al-dhaki: tafsir wahdatul wujud bagi Muslim Nusantara, p. 23 and after. For a summary
of this text see Fathurahman, “Itḥāf al-dhaki by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī,” 177-198.
300
Fathurahman. “Ithaf al-dhaki Ibrahim al-Kurani: a commentary of Wahdat al-Wujud for Jawi audiences,”
p. 183. Basheer Nafi claimed that Itḥāf al-dhakī was written in 1072/1661. Nafi, “Taṣawwuf and reform in
pre-modern Islamic culture,” p. 334.
301
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 129a-145b.
204
17. DHAYL AL-MUTIMMAH, known as ITMĀM AL-NIʿMAH BI-ITMĀM AL-MUHIMMAH.

302
In this
work al-Kūrānī continues his attempt to explain that human beings effect their acts by
the permission of God, and that this position agrees with Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī’s
position. This manuscript has no date of composition. However, he mentions his teacher,
al-Qushāshī, and asks for God to keep him in good health (abqāh Allāh fī ʿāfiyatihi), which
suggests it was written before the end of 1071/1660.
18. TAKMILAT AL-QAWUL AL-JALĪ FĪ TAḤQĪQ QAWL AL-IMĀM ZAYD B. ʿALĪ.303 Al-Kūrānī found a
citation attributed to Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī supporting his understanding
of the idea about the extent to which humans effect their actions. He showed it to al-
Qushāshī, who wrote about one folio and asked al-Kūrānī to expand upon it in detail.304
The treatise is mainly about the theory of human acquisition (kasb) and argues for a
human effect on actions in a way that differs from the Muʿtazili and later Ashʿarī
perspectives. Al-Kūrānī refutes the idea of good and bad according to the intellect (al-
ḥusn wa-l-qubḥ al-ʿaqliyyayn). At the end, he discusses, in detail, the topic of seeing God,
and briefly the un-uttered speech. No date of composition is found in this manuscript,
but since it has a folio by al-Qushāshī and was written at his request, it was most likely
written before the end of 1071.
19. RISĀLAH ILĀ AL-ʿAYYĀSHĪ is one page sent from Medina to Mecca when al-ʿAyyāshī was
there. It is friendly letter to ask about the latter’s situation and to offer some advice. Al-
302
303
304
In MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, this part is between 296b-301. Since the work title is Takmilat al-
Qawul al-jalī one supposes there should be another treatise entitle al-Qawl al-jalī. However, al-Qawul al-jalī fī
taḥqīq qawl al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī is probably al-Qushāshī’s first part of the work as explained above.
205
ʿAyyāshī listed it in his Riḥlah.305 Al-ʿAyyāshī was in the Ḥijāz for the ḥajj seasons of 1072-
1073.
20. AL-ILMĀʿ AL-MUḤĪṬ BI-TAḤQĪQ AL-KASB AL-WASAṬ BAYN ṬARAFAY AL-IFRĀṬ WA-L-TAFRĪṬ.
306
After the criticism of some Maghribī scholars of al-Qushāshī’s work on kasb, al-ʿAyyāshī’s
teacher ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī suggested it would be better if al-Kūrānī abridged it and
explained its main arguments. So, when al-ʿAyyāshī met al-Kūrānī, he asked him to
summarize the objectives of al-Qushāshī’s treatise. Al-Kūrānī wrote this work for al-
ʿAyyāshī, who included a copy of the entire text in his Riḥlah.307 This text was composed
on Wednesday at the end (salkh) of Rajab 1073.
21. AL-ISFĀR ʿAN AṢL ISTIKHĀRAT AʿMĀL AL-LAYL WA-L-NAHĀR.308 The work is dedicated to the
prayer of Istikhārah (seeking God’s guidance before making a decision). It was completed
on Tuesday, 15 Ramaḍān 1073.
22. IʿMĀL AL-FIKR WA-L-RIWĀYĀT FĪ SHARḤ ḤADĪTH INNA-MĀ AL-AʿMĀL BI-L-NIYYĀT309 explains
the meaning of niyyah (intention) from linguistic, juristic, and Sufi perspectives, based
on several ḥadīths. Al-Kūrānī in other works uses the idea of intention to argue for kalām
nafsī. This work was completed on Sunday, 12 Shawwāl 1073.
23. RISĀLAT SŪʾĀLĀT WARADAT MIN MAḤRŪSAT ZABĪD MIN AL-YAMAN MIN AL-SHAYKH ISḤĀQ B.
JAMʿĀN AL-DAWĀLĪ.
310
In this text al-Kūrānī mentions the full name of the questioner,
describing him as his teacher (shaykhunā), Isḥāq b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b.
305
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, 514.
306
307
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p 604. The treatise is between 604-620.
308
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 1b-24a.
309
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt fī sharḥ ḥadīth inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-niyyāt, ed. Aḥmad Rajab
Abū Sālim (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2013). See also Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p.
575.
310
MS: KSA, Medina: Al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, no. 5345, majmūʿ, fols. 1b-6a.
206
Jaʿmān/Jaghmān [Jamʿān] al-Ṣiddīqī al-Dawālī al-ʿAkkī al-ʿAdnānī al-Zabīdī. The first
question is about some diminutive names they used in Yemen for children, such as
Jubayyir for ʿAbd al-Jabbār or Mughaynī for ʿAbd al-Mughnī, and whether it is allowed
for them to change the name of God in this way. The second question is about a person
who was born blind, deaf, and mute, what his situation concerning faith is (mā al-ḥukm fī
īmānihi?), and whether he is allowed to marry. The third question is about a person who
hit another man or women and caused them to become ill. The fourth question is about
the Prophet’s prayer in the cave of ḥirāʾ before he received the revelation. The last
question is about when the end of Ramaḍān should be observed by a person who started
his Ramaḍān fast in Yemen but at the end of Ramaḍān was in Mekka, where Ramaḍān
ends on a different day than in Yemen. This work was completed at the end of Ṣafar 1074.
24. AL-LUMʿAH AL-SANIYYAH FĪ TAḤQĪQ AL-ILQĀʾ FĪ AL-UMNIYYAH.311 This is the first work to be
published and analyzed by Western scholars. The work deals with the story of the satanic
verses, the words that Satan put upon the tongue of Muḥammad while the latter was
reciting the beginning of sūra 53. In the published text, the first draft (taswīd) of the work
was completed in Medina on Thursday, 7 Muḥarram 1074, and the fair copy (tabyīḍ) on
Thursday, 14 Muḥarram 1075.312 This text received several refutations, one of them from
the Moroccan scholar Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī (d. 1116), who sent his
refutation to al-Kūrānī during the latter’s life.313
311
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and Alfred Guillaume, “al-Lumʿat al-saniya fī taḥqīq al-ilqāʾ fi-l-umniyya,” Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 20, No. 1/3, Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph
Turner, Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1937-57 (1957), pp. 291-303. This text is
published from one manuscript.
312
In MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 291b-295b, the date of finishing the first draft is Thursday, 5
Dhū al-Ḥijjah, 1076.
313
See Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir’s Taʿqīb ʿalā al-Lumʿah al-nūrāniyyah, MS: Cairo: Maʿhad al-Makhṭūṭāt al-
ʿArabiyyah, majāmīʿ 11, fols. 16-22.
207
25. MASLAK AL-IʿTIDĀL ILĀ FAHM ĀYĀT KHALQ AL-AʿMĀL.314 This work discusses the theory of
kasb. Al-Kūrānī mentions at the beginning of the text that he will refute the theory of the
Muʿtazilites as articulated in al-Zamakhsharī’s al-Kashshāf, that human beings act
independently. This work is dated Thursday at the end of Shaʿbān 1075.
26. AL-MASLAK AL-QARĪB FĪ AJWIBAT AL-KHAṬĪB.315 This work contains al-Kūrānī’s answers
to several questions about al-Mahdī al-Muntaẓar, the seal of sainthood in Ibn ʿArabī’s
writings, the celebration of mawlid (Prophet’s birthday), the vow (al-nadhr), drumming,
and the recitation of poems with a musical melody. This work was completed on Sunday,
9 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1076.
27. RISĀLAT IBṬĀL MĀ ẒAHARA MIN AL-MAQĀLAH AL-FĀḌIḤAH FĪ-MĀ YATAʿALLAQ BI-L-KAʿBAH AL-
MUʿAẒẒAMAH. Also known as SHARḤ AL-KALIMAH AL-WĀḌIḤAH ʿALĀ AL-MAQĀLAH AL-FĀḌIḤAH.

316
Ādam Bannūrī, one of al-Sirhindī’s students, arrived to the Ḥijāz and started to teach the
idea that the kaʿbah is superior to any human, including the prophets. Al-Qushāshī
responded to him, as did al-Kūrānī. The most powerful reaction came from Muḥammad
b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī who wrote several refutations against al-Sirhindī until he proclaimed
al-Sirhindī to no longer be a Muslim. Later, the sons of Aḥmad Sirhindī, including
Muḥammad Maʿṣūm, arrived in Medina with their families in the year 1068/1658.
Discussions occurred between them and the scholars of the Ḥijāz, leading them to
discover that some of al-Sirhindī’s enemies had changed his ideas in the course of
translation. This problem made ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī ask for a new translation of all
the Maktūbāt of Sirhindī. This work was completed on Wednesday, 4 Rabīʿ I 1078.
314
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 162a-174a.
315
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 48a-62a.
316
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 347a-356a. Al-ʿAyyāshī mentions that al-Kūrānī composed it at
the order of al-Qushāshī after his arguments with Ādam Bannūrī; see the details on the section on Theology
and Sufism below.
208
28. NASHR AL-ZAHR BI-L-JAHR BI-L-DHIKR.317 Some Ḥanafī scholars say that vocal dhikr (jahrī)
in mosques is forbidden, so al-Kūrānī wrote this treatise and cited several ḥadīths to
argue that vocal dhikr is not forbidden. This work was completed on Monday, 22 Dhū al-
Ḥijjah 1078.
29. FAYḌ AL-WĀHIB AL-ʿALĪ FĪ JAWĀB SUʾĀL ABĪ AL-MAWĀHIB AL-ḤANBALĪ.318 Abū al-Mawāhib
al-Ḥanbalī asked al-Kūrānī about the angels described in sūrat al-infiṭār (82:11) as
honorable writers (kirāman kātibīn), specifically whether these angels who record man’s
deeds also record the heart’s diseases such hypocrisy (riyāʾ), arrogance, and envy. Abū
al-Mawāhib mentioned different opinions by several scholars and asked how can we
reconcile them. Al-Kūrānī’s opinion is that these angels do not record the diseases of the
heart, because these diseases are among the unknown things (ghayb) that only God
knows. This work was written on a Sunday at the end of Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1078.
30. MIRQĀT AL-ṢUʿŪD ILĀ ṢIḤḤAT AL-QAWL BI-WAḤDAT AL-WUJŪD.

319
Al-Kūrānī in the year
1078/1667-8 received a question from the far east islands (Java?), which said that a Sufi
in that region claimed that Muḥammad possessed the qualities of divinity attributed by
Christians to Jesus, and this Sufi claimed further that Muḥammad’s possession of divine
aspects is the meaning of waḥdat al-wujūd. Al-Kūrānī says that this claim contradicts the
sharīʿah and reason. Then he mentions the main ideas of absolute existence,
manifestations in forms, and accepting the ambiguous or anthropomorphic Quranic
verses that describe God in human terms without figurative interpretation. The answer
is very short and al-Kūrānī refers in it to his work Itḥāf al-dhakī, written a few years earlier
for Javanese students in Medina. This copy is not dated, but in the introduction al-Kūrānī
317
MS: Istanbul: Resid Efend I996, fols. 104a-128b.
318
MS: Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, majāmīʿ 16/2, fols. 258-267.
319
MS: UK: British Library, India Office, Delhi-Arabic 710c, fols. 20a-21b.
209
mentions that he received the question in 1078/1667-8, which probably is the date he
composed this work since he used to receive questions with ḥajj caravans and replied to
these questions quickly so the caravans could carry the answers with them.
31. NIBRĀS AL-ĪNĀS BI-AJWIBAT AHL FĀS.320 When al-ʿAyyāshī came to the Ḥijāz for the ḥajj
in 1071/1661, he brought with him a question from a certain Moroccan scholar about two
treatises that al-Kūrānī had sent to him earlier. The two works are Itḥāf al-dhakī Sharḥ al-
Tuḥfah al-mursalah ilā rūḥ al-Nabī and al-Lumʿah al-saniyyah. Itḥāf al-dhakī was well-
received by the Moroccan scholars, but the treatise of al-Lumʿah al-saniyyah, in which al-
Kūrānī confirms that the incident of satanic verses is historically correct, raised
questions among Maghribī scholars. The sender of this letter mentioned that he asked
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī to compose objections to al-Kūrānī’s treatise. This
letter was sent to al-Kūrānī and he was asked for his opinion. He wrote this work to
answer the questions of Moroccan scholars and to clarify his ideas. This work is dated 27
Muḥarram 1079.321
32. ĪQĀẒ AL-QAWĀBIL LI-L-TAQARRUB BI-L-NAWĀFIL.

322
Sufis often cite the ḥadīth from
Bukhārī’s collection called ḥadīth al-nawāfil which states that God has said: “My servant
keeps on coming closer to Me through performing nawāfil [extra deeds besides what is
obligatory] until I love him. When I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears,
his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he
walks; and if he asks [something] from Me, I give [it to] him, and if he asks My protection,
320
MS: Istanbul: Laleli 3744, fols. 7a-25b.
321
At the beginning of this work, al-Kūrānī mentions that he received this letter with al-ʿAyyāshī on 7
Muḥarram 1079. And at the end, he mentioned that he wrote this treatise as an answer on 27 Muḥarram
1079. However, al-ʿAyyāshī performed the ḥajj for the last time on 1072-1073. So, more manuscripts need
to be checked for the date of composition of this work.
322
MS: Germany, Leipzig: or. 383–02, 5 folios.
210
I protect him.” Among these extra deeds al-Kūrānī mentions dhikr in specific times and
forms, reading some specific Quranic chapters on specific days or times, some prayers,
and fasting some days out of the month of Ramaḍān. This work is related to dhikr, and he
tries to support his ideas through extensive citations from ḥadīths. This work is dated 18
Rajab 1079.
33. ITḤĀF AL-MUNĪB AL-AWWĀH BI-FAḌL AL-JAHR BI-DHIKR ALLĀH323 is another treatise on vocal
dhikr. One year after writing the previous treatise, al-Kūrānī found a text from the 9th/15th
century by a Ḥanafī scholar from Central Asia (“from the land of Mirzā Ulugh Bek bin
Shahrukh”), saying that vocal dhikr is a forbidden innovation. Al-Kūrānī wrote this work
to provide a detailed explanation of and reply to that text. Most of the text is ḥadīths
about dhikr. This work was completed on Saturday, 24 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1079 and edited on
the 17th of Dhū al-Qaʿdah 1080, and again in Dhū al-Qaʿdah 1083.
34. AL-TAWJĪH AL-MUKHTĀR FĪ NAFY AL-QALB ʿAN ḤADĪTH IKHTIṢĀM AL-JANNAH WA-L-NĀR.
324
A
Prophetic tradition says: “Paradise and the Fire [Hell] argued, and the Fire said, ‘I have
been given the privilege of receiving the arrogant and the tyrants.’ Paradise said, ‘What
is the matter with me? Why do only the weak and the humble among the people enter
me?’ On that, God said to Paradise. ‘You are My mercy which I bestow on whoever I wish
of my servants.’ Then God said to the Fire, ‘You are My (means of) punishment by which
I punish whoever I wish of my servants. And each of you will have its fill.’ As for the Fire,
it will not be filled till God puts His foot over it whereupon it will say, ‘Qati, Qati’ At that
time it will be filled, and its different parts will come closer to each other; and God will
not wrong any of His created beings. With regards to Paradise, God will create a new
323
MS: Istanbul: Resid Efendi 996, fols. 129b-200a.
324
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Tawjīh al-mukhtār fī nafy al-qalb ʿan ḥadīth ikhtiṣām al-jannah wa-l-nār, ed. al-ʿArabī
al-Dāʾiz al-Firyāṭī (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2005).
211
creation to fill it with.” This ḥadīth is related to Ibn ʿArabī’s idea of the end of punishment
in hell. Al-Kūrānī refers to this ḥadīth in several contexts to support his idea that God
manifests in any form He wishes without any restrictions or conditions. This work was
completed on Friday, 7 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1081.
35. IKHBĀR AL-AḤBĀR BI-AJWIBAT SŪʾĀLĀT AHL ĀṬĀR325 also mentioned as JAWĀB SUʾĀL WARADA
MIN BAʿḌ FUḌALĀʾ AL-MAGHRIB, or RISĀLAH FĪ JAWĀZ RUʾYAT ALLĀH TAʿĀLĀ FĪ AL-DUNYĀ WA-L-
326
ĀKHIRAH. At the beginning of this treatise al-Kūrānī mentions that in Muḥarram 1082/
327
May 1671, he received with a Maghribī ḥāj from Āṭār in far Maghrib (Ātār being at the
time in Mauritania) a treatise by Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ḥaḍramī/al-Ḥaḍralī, which
contained several points controversial among the scholars of his town. These points are
related to the possibility of seeing God in this life; the receiving of knowledge from a dead
person; whether the substance, like the accident, does not remain for two instants (al-
jawhar ka-l-ʿaraḍ lā yabqā zamānayn); and the relation of God’s eternal attributes to the
created world, i.e., how God can be seeing and hearing without the existence of things
that He sees or hears. This work was written on Friday, 5 Muḥarram 1082.
36. AL-MASLAK AL-MUKHTĀR FĪ AWWAL ṢĀDIR MIN AL-WĀJIB BI-L-IKHTIYĀR328 Also known as AL-
MASLAK AL-MUKHTĀR FĪ MAʿRIFAT AL-ṢĀDIR AL-AWWAL WA-IḤDĀTH AL-ʿĀLAM BI-L-IKHTIYĀR. Al-
Kūrānī received a question about two statements by Ibn ʿArabī and al-Qūnawī that look
contradictory. Ibn ʿArabī says that whoever accepts the principle “from the One emerges
only one” is ignorant, and al-Qūnawī accepts this principle but says that the first that
emerged is the general existence (al-wujūd al-ʿāmm) not the first intellect. So, how can we
325
MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 162-165b.
326
MS: Istanbul: Atif Efendi 2441, fols. 136a-151b.
327
MS: Istanbul: Kasideci Zade 734, fols. 18a-23b.
328
MS: Istanbul: Veliyuddin 1815, fols. 7a-32a.
212
reconcile these two positions? This work contains long discussions of al-Dawānī’s and
Ibn Sīna’s opinions about how God perceives things. This work was completed on Friday
23 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1082.
37. JANĀḤ AL-NAJĀḤ BI-L-ʿAWĀLĪ AL-ṢIḤĀḤ.329 Also known as AL-ARBAʿŪN ḤADĪTHAN AL-ʿAWĀLĪ
and LAWĀMIʿ AL-LAʾĀLĪ FĪ AL-ARBAʿĪN AL-ʿAWĀLĪ. Al-Kūrānī mentions forty ḥadīths with their
high isnāds. At the end of the book al-Kūrānī lists thulāthiyyāt of al-Būkhārī, then
mentions 21 ḥadīths with their isnāds through Sufis. This work was completed on
Monday, 8 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1083.
38. AL-KASHF AL-MUNTAẒAR LI-MĀ YARĀH AL-MUḤTAḌAR330 is a response to a question about
some statements that spread among the people of Java about the moribund (muḥtaḍar)
person and if they have a legal source. Al-Kūrānī’s student ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Singkilī wrote a
treatise entitled Sakarāt al-mawt and sent it to al-Kūrānī in Medina to verify it; al-Kūrānī
wrote Kashf al-muntaẓar to validate al-Singkilī’s approach.331 The date at the end of the
treatise is 1083.
39. MASĀLIK AL-ABRĀR ILĀ AḤĀDĪTH AL-NABĪ AL-MUKHTĀR,332 or ITḤĀF RAFĪʿ AL-HIMMAH BI-WAṢL
AḤĀDĪTH SHAFĪʿ AL-UMMAH. Al-Kūrānī mentions that he will list his isnāds in ḥadīth, tafsīr,
uṣūl, furūʿ, and other arts of manqūl and maʿqūl. The work is useful in establishing the
chronology of al-Kūrānī’s life because he mentions each ḥadīth with the date of receiving
it and the name of the teacher, with the full isnād of each ḥadīth. This work is dated
1083.333
329
MS: Istanbul: Koprulu 279, fols. 1a-33b.
330
MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 38a-41b.
331
See: Oman Fathurahman, “New textual evidence for intellectual and religious connections between the
Ottomans and Aceh,” in From Anatolia to Aceh, Ottomans, Turks and Southeast Asia (UK: Oxford University
Press, 2015), p. 297.
332
MS: Istanbul: Koprulu 279, fols. 34a-125a.
333
There is an omitted line which can be read as awākhir Ṣafar.
213
40. NIẒĀM AL-ZABARJAD FĪ AL-ARBAʿĪN AL-MUSALSALAH BI-AḤMAD

334
comprises forty ḥadīths
that were transmitted by people with the name Aḥmad. Al-Kūrānī selected these ḥadīths
from al-Nasāʾī’s book al-Mujtabā.335 This work was completed on Sunday, 17 Muḥarram
1085.
41. JALĀʾ AL-FUHŪM FĪ TAḤQĪQ AL-THUBŪT WA-RUʾYAT AL-MAʿDŪM.336 At the beginning of this
work, al-Kūrānī states that someone asked about ʿAlī al-Ūshī’s (d. 569/1173-4) statement
in his ʿaqīdah poem Badʾ al-amālī that a nonexistent can neither be seen, nor is it a thing,
“wa-mā al-maʿdūm marʾiyyan wa-shayʾan.” Most of the discussions are about al-maʿdūm,
nafs al-amr, al-shayʾ, mental existence, and fixed entities. The work was completed on
Tuesday, 28 Rabīʿ I 1085.
42. MASLAK AL-SADĀD ILĀ MASʾALAT KHALQ AFʿĀL AL-ʿIBĀD.337 This is al-Kūrānī’s main work
about the theory of kasb and the creation of human acts. His idea is that man does have
an effect on his action “by God’s permission” (bi-idhn Allāh). He refutes later Ashʿarite
occasionalism and claims that Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī did not deny that humans have an
effect on their actions, but merely denied the claim that this effect is independent of
God’s will.338 The work was completed on Tuesday, 23 Jumādā II 1085.
334
MS: KSA, Medina: Maktabat ʿĀrif Ḥikmat, no. 313/80 ḥadīth, majmūʿ, 13 folios. The treatise is the first
work in this majmūʿ.
335
Also known as Sunan al-Nasāʾī or al-Sunan al-ṣughrā or al-Mujtabā min al-Sunan al-kubrā. Abū ʿAbd al-
Raḥmān Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb al-Nasāʾī (d. 303/915), was a collector of hadīth.
336
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 52a-83a. In MS: Cairo: Azhariyyah, Ḥalīm, majāmīʿ 34795, fols. 1b-42b,
it is called fī Rūʾyat al-maʿdūm.
337
MS: Istanbul: Veliyuddin 1815, fols. 32b-64a; MS: Istanbul: Resid Efendi 996, fols. 2a-37a; MS: Istanbul:
Carullah 2102, fols. 2a-40b.
338
MS: Istanbul: Resid Efendi 996, fols. 1a-37a.
214
43. JALĀʾ AL-NAẒAR FĪ BAQĀʾ AL-TANZĪH MAʿ AL-TAJALLĪ FĪ AL-ṢUWAR.339 Most of this treatise is
composed of citations from the Quran and ḥadīths about the topic of divine manifestation
in forms, with an emphasis on dissimilarity (tanzīh) on the basis of the verse “nothing is
like Him” (laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ). The work discusses the ḥadīth of transformation in
forms, which is held to be an authentic ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim. In this ḥadīth, the
Prophet says that God on the Day of Judgment would “come to them in a form other than
His own form, recognisable to them, and would say: I am your Lord. They would say: We
take refuge with God from thee. We will stay here till our Lord comes to us, and when
our Lord would come we would recognise Him. Subsequently God would come to them
in His own form, recognisable to them, and say: I am your Lord. They would say: Thou
art our Lord.” This work was completed on Tuesday, 11 Ṣafar 1086.
44. ḤUSN AL-AWBAH FĪ ḤUKM ḌARB AL-NAWBAH.340 Al-Kūrānī received a question about using
drums in the vanguard of the army or in front of the ḥajj caravan. His answer is that the
permissibility of using drums depends on the intention, and that there is only one type
of drum that is forbidden. This work was written on 14 Rabīʿ I 1086.
45. IJĀZAT-NĀMAH, or AL-KŪRĀNĪ’S IJĀZAH TO WAJĪH AL-DĪN ʿABD AL-MALIK B. SHAMS AL-DĪN
MUḤAMMAD B. MUḤAMMAD AL-SIJLIMĀSĪ.341 In his request for the ijāzah, the Moroccan scholar
mentioned above asked al-Kūrānī to mention his isnāds in books of ḥadīth through the
mashriqī scholars. Al-Kūrānī mentions here his isnāds for numerous works of ḥadīth, then
339
MS: Istanbul: Halet Efendi 787, fols. 32a-33a; MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 27b-29a; MS: USA,
Princeton University Library, NS 1109, fols. 324b-326b; MS: Istanbul: Ragip Pasa 1464, fols. 29a-30b.
340
MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, no. 5345, fols. 16-17; MS: Cairo:
Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, al-taṣawwuf wa-l-ādāb al-sharʿiyyah, 665, fols. 257-8.
341
MS: Istanbul: Esad Efendi 3626, fols. 1a-22b. At (1a) of this manuscript there is a statement that this is
the ijāzah of Ilyās al-Kūrānī through his shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. The actual work, as explained above, is
an ijāzah of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī to a Moroccan scholar. However, the last folio of this work contains the ijāzah
of Ilyās al-Kūrānī to Muṣṭafā ʿIffatī. (MS: Istanbul: Esad Efendi 3626), fols. 23a-23b
215
his isnāds in works of other scholars such as al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, al-Ījī, al-Dawānī,
ʿIṣām al-Dīn b. ʿArabshāh, al-Ghazālī, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī, and Ibn ʿArabī. In some
cases, al-Kūrānī mentions his isnāds in individual works, including Manāzīl al-sāʾirīn by
Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī and ʿAwārif al-maʿārif by ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī. In general, this work is
a shorter copy of al-Kūrānī’s main thabat, entitled al-Amam li-īqāẓ al-himam, that would be
written 10 years later. This work is dated Sunday, 5 Shawwāl 1086.
46. AL-MASLAK AL-JALĪ FĪ ḤUKM SHAṬḤ AL-WALĪ.342 In 1086, al-Kūrānī received a letter from
Java asking about some statements related to waḥdat al-wujūd, in answer to which he
wrote this work. Later, on 13th Shaʿbān 1139, ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī wrote another
answer to the same question, mentioning at the beginning that al-Kūrānī received this
question and replied to it, and now he, al-Nābulusī, would like to answer according to
what God inspired him (yafīḍu ʿalaynā).343
47. ITḤĀF AL-KHALAF BI-TAḤQĪQ MADHHAB AL-SALAF.344 A short work of 3 folios in which al-
Kūrānī replies to a question about interpreting ambiguous verses and the attitude of the
salaf toward these verses. His idea, which he repeats in different works, is that the salaf
confirm the apparent meaning and confirm that “there is nothing like Him.” He connects
this idea with his interpretation of absolute existence as the One who is not restrected
or conditioned by anything. This idea allows him to defend the Sufi idea that God
manifests Himself in whatever He wants. The date of this work is Monday, 11 Muḥarram
1088.
342
MS: UK: British Library, India Office, n. 2164; MS: Istanbul: veliyuddin 1815, fols. 137a-146b.
343
Al-Nābulusī’s treatise has been published by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī, Shaṭaḥāt al-ṣūfiyyah (Kuwait:
Wakālat al-Maṭbuʿāt, n. d), p. 189.
344
MS: Istanbul: Halet Efendi 787, fols. 34b-35b.
216
48. IMDĀD DHAWĪ AL-ISTIʿDĀD LI-SULŪK MASLAK AL-SADĀD.345 Several years after his main work
on the creation of human acts, Maslak al-sadād, al-Kūrānī continued to receive questions
and criticisms of his position. In this work, he tries to explain again, in detail, his ideas.
This work was completed on Friday, 13 Jumādā II 1088.
49. JALĀʾ AL-NAẒAR BI-TAḤRĪR AL-JABR FĪ AL-IKHTIYĀR.

346
This work is about free will,
predetermination, and kasb. It was completed on Friday, 20 Jumādā II 1088.
50. RISĀLAH FĪ BAYĀN AL-MUQADDIMĀT AL-ARBAʿAH LI-L-TAWḌĪḤ.

347
Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah, ʿAbd
Allāh b. Masʿūd (d. 747/1346) in his work al-Tawḍīḥ fī ḥall ghawāmiḍ al-Tanqīḥ, which is a
commentary on his own book al-Tanqīḥ fī al-uṣūl [in Ḥanafī uṣūl al-fiqh], mentions that the
al-Ashʿarities have four proofs that a human is compelled (majbūr) in his acts, in order to
refute the Muʿtazilite idea of human free will. Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah then mentions four
premises to refute this Ashʿarite position. Al-Kūrānī disagrees with Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah in
his understanding of the Ashʿarite position and says that there are mistakes (khalal) in
these four premises that he will expose. In general, this work is about the theory of kasb.
This work was completed on Friday, 20 Jumādā II 1088.
51. MAṬLAʿ AL-JŪD BI-TAḤQĪQ AL-TANZĪH FĪ WAḤDAT AL-WUJŪD348 comprises a quotation from
Ibn ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt concerning the opinion of some commentators, especially the
criticism of al-Simnānī (d. 736/1336). This work discusses God’s existence and human
existence, with discussions as well of non-existence and absolute existence. Al-Kūrānī
compares Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas with Ashʿarite ones through al-Ibānah of Abū al-Ḥasan and
345
MS: USA, Princeton University Library, Garret Y3867, fols. 31a-87b.
346
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 36a-47a. MS: Istanbul: Ragip Pasa 1464, fols. 63a-73b; MS: Istanbul:
Veliyuddin 1815, fols. 135a-136a. This copy is not completed.
347
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 177a-188a.
348
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 123b-153b; MS: Istanbul: Carullah 2102, fols. 178a-220a; MS: Istanbul:
Ragip Pasa 1464, fols. 97a-129a.
217
al-Jurjānī’s Sharḥ al-Mawāqif. Additionally, al-Kūrānī discusses the topic of God’s
knowledge. The work was completed on 22 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1088.
52. IBDĀʾ AL-NIʿMAH BI-TAḤQĪQ SABQ AL-RAḤMAH.349 This work discusses Ibn ʿArabī’s opinion
about the end of suffering in Hellfire, even though it will continue to be the abode of its
inhabitants. Discussing this topic requires al-Kūrānī to include a discussion about waʿd
(God’s promise of reward) and waʿīd (God’s threat of punishment). This work was
completed on Tuesday, 23 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1088.
53. AL-QAWL BI-ĪMĀN FIRʿAWN.350 This work is about the faith of Pharaoh, a controversial
topic in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. Many scholars wrote about this topic, among them al-
Dawānī, al-Kūrānī, and the latter’s student al-Barzanjī. Al-Kūrānī starts his work with a
citation from al-Shaʿrānī’s al-Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir in which al-Shaʿranī denies that Ibn
ʿArabī says that Pharaoh died as a believer. Al-Shaʿrānī cites Ibn ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt al-
makkiyyah to confirm that Pharaoh is eternally in Hell. Al-Kūrānī replies with several
citations from Ibn ʿArabī’s works to support the idea of Pharaoh’s faith. There was a harsh
reaction against this idea from Moroccan scholars. This work was written in 1088.
54. KASHF AL-MASTŪR FĪ JAWĀB SUʾĀL ʿABD AL-SHAKŪR.

351
This work is an answer to a
question about fixed entities. Al-Kūrānī mentions Platonic forms and says that the
difference between the two concepts is explained in Maṭlaʿ al-jūd. This work was
completed on Thursday, 30 Muḥarram 1089.
55. AL-IʿLĀN BI-DAFʿ AL-TANĀQUḌ FĪ ṢŪRAT AL-AʿYĀN FĪ JAWĀB SUʾĀL ʿABD AL-RAḤMĀN352 is a short
treatise on fixed entities with reference to his earlier works Jalāʾ al-fuhūm, Qaṣd al-sabīl,
349
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 23a-28a.
350
MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 96a-97a. And in MS:
KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5345, fols. 73-74.
351
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 30b- 31.
352
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 31b-33b.
218
Jalāʾ al-naẓar, and Maṭlaʿ al-jūd. It has the same date of composition as the previous work,
which means he answered the questions about fixed entities asked by two of his students
at the same time. This work is dated Thursday, 30 Muḥarram 1089.
56. AL-MASLAK AL-WASAṬ AL-DĀNĪ ILĀ AL-DURR AL-MULTAQAṬ LI-L-ṢĀGHĀNĪ.353 Al-Ṣāghānī (d.
650/1252-3) wrote a work about fabricated ḥadīths (mawḍūʿāt). A student of al-Kūrānī
asked him to review these ḥadīths and to confirm if all of them were fabricated. In this
work al-Kūrānī mentions Ibn Taymiyyah’s idea about some ḥadīths and talks about some
famous Sufī ḥadīths, such as the ḥadīth of the hidden treasures. This work was completed
on Sunday, Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1089.
57. MASHRAʿ AL-WURŪD ILĀ MAṬLAʿ AL-JŪD.354 This work was written as a reply to some
questions concerning al-Kūrānī’s works Maṭlaʿ al-jūd and Ibdāʾ al-niʿmah. He received
questions about some points in these works, mainly about some statements of Ibn ʿArabī
about creation, fixed entities, the faith of Pharaoh, and the end of the punishment in
Hell. Al-Kūrānī criticizes Ibn ʿArabī’s commentators in their explanations, stating that
their interpretations agree with Ibn Sīnā’s ideas, not Ibn ʿArabī’s. He also mentions that
he had refuted some of Jāmī’s ideas in his work al-Maslak al-mukhtār. Then he talks about
the precedence of mercy (asbaqiyyat al-raḥmah) so he can mention the topic of the faith
of Pharaoh. The work was completed on Sunday, 14 Muḥarram 1090.
353
MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 255a- 291a. Preceding this treatise in the same collection, there is
a treatise entitled Risālat al-Durr al-multaqaṭ wa-tabyīn al-ghalaṭ wa-nafy al-laghaṭ, fols. 249b-254b, which is
almost identical to al-Ṣāghānī’s work Mawḍūʿāt al-Ṣāghānī, which is edited and published with al-Durr al-
multaqaṭ by al-Ṣāghānī. Abū al-Faḍāʾil al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṣāghānī, al-Durr al-Multaqaṭ fī
tabyīn al-ghalaṭ wa yalīhi al-mawḍūʿāt, ed. Abū al-Fidāʾ ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah,
1985). Did al-Kūrānī try to abridge the work of al-Ṣāghānī? Or was it a part of the question? Al-Kūrānī in al-
Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī follows the order of this work, ḥadīth by ḥadīth, and give his opinion about it.
354
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 15b-22b. MS: UK: British Library, India Office, no. 2163.
219
58. KASHF AL-LABS ʿAN AL-MASĀʾIL AL-KHAMS.355 Al-Kūrānī received questions about some
aspects of al-Bayḍāwī’s Anwār al-tanzīl. The first question is about the punishment of the
people who did not receive a prophet from God. The last four questions are related to
linguistic aspects of some Quranic verses in which al-Kūrānī discusses the opinions of al-
Bayḍāwī and al-Zamakhsharī. The second question is about the Quranic verse related to
God’s order to the angels to prostrate before Ādam (Q 18:50), particularly what the
ّ
meaning is of the hamzah in ʾafatattakhidhūnah (‫)أفتتخذونه‬, “will you then take him [Iblīs]
and his offspring as friends (awliyāʾ).” Al-Bayḍāwī says that the hamzah is for
interrogation and interjection, but al-Taftāzānī says that humanity was not created yet
at that time, so that cannot have happened during the same occasion, but only much
later. Al-Kūrānī mentions the opinions of several scholars concerning its meaning. The
third question is about the meaning of a word in (Q 5:41,42) (sammāʿūn li-l-kadhib), “they
are listeners of falsehood,” and whether the participle “listening” refers to their ability
to listen or to their actual listening. The fourth question is about the Quranic verse Huwa
aʿlam bikum, “He knows you best” (Q 53:32). The fifth question is about some grammatical
aspects of the verse (Q 9:63). This work was completed on 9 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1090.
59. MASLAK AL-TAʿRĪF BI-TAḤQĪQ AL-TAKLĪF ʿALĀ MASHRAB AHL AL-KASHF WA-L-SHUHŪD AL-QĀʾILĪN
BI-TAWḤĪD AL-WUJŪD. This work is an answer to a question about the concept of legal
356
responsibility (taklīf) from the wujūdī viewpoint. To explain the concept of taklīf it was
necessary to prove that man acquires his acts. That led al-Kūrānī to the topic of “creating
human acts.” His opinion is that taklīf is a combination of absolute existence and
355
MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 42a-45a. The
copyist of this MS is Abū Ṭāhir, Ibrāhīm’s son. This work is edited and published by ʿĀdil Maḥmūd
Muḥammad, “Kashf al-Labs ʿan al-masāʾil al-khams: dirāsah wa-taḥqīq,” Journal of Surra man Raa, University
of Samerra, Iraq, vol. 9, no. 35, November 2013, pp. 45-66.
356
MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Yahuda 3869, fols. 59a-72a.
220
nonexistent quiddity. He talks about nonexistence and interpreting ambiguous verses
(taʾwīl al-mutashābihāt), and he ends with a discussion on the topic of interpreting Sufi
words, and some scholars’ statements about Ibn ʿArabī. This work was completed at noon
on Sunday, 24 Muḥarram 1091.357
60. AL-MASLAK AL-ANWAR ILĀ MAʿRIFAT AL-BARZAKH AL-AKBAR.

358
Al-Kūrānī received a
question about two statments of Ibn ʿArabī that appears contradictory. The first
statement is in his work Inshāʾ al-dawāʾir, in which he talks about a thing that cannot be
characterized as existent nor nonexistent, and neither as eternal nor created. According
to Ibn ʿArabī, this thing is the origin of the world, and he described it as al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq
bi-hi (the truth which is created through it) . In Laṭāʾif al-aʿlām, atributed to al-Qāshānī,
Ibn ʿArabī says that al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq bi-hi is the perfect man (al-insān al-kāmil), which is
descibed as existent. This work was completed on Monday, 8 Rabīʿ I 1091.
61. MADD AL-FAYʾ FĪ TAQRĪR “LAYSA KA-MITHLIHI SHAYʾ.” Also known as RISĀLAH FĪ QAWLIHI
TAʿĀLĀ “LAYSA KA-MITHLIHI SHAYʾ.” In this work, al-Kūrānī tries to explain that the “ka” in
359
the word “ka-mithlihi” does not change the meaning that nothing is similar to Him. His
argument runs that if the kāf is additional to “zāidah,” which means nothing like him
(laysa mithlihi shayʾ), and the “ka” is not an addition, so the meaning will be that nothing
like the things are like Him (laysa mithla mithlihi shayʾ), which means the negation of any
similarity to His similar. This work was completed on 13 Rabīʿ I 1092.
357
MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Yahuda 3869, fol. 72a.
358
MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Yahuda 3869Y, fols. 76a-79a.
359
MS: Istanbul: Nuruosmaniye 2126, fols. 67b-68b.
221
62. ISʿĀF AL-ḤANĪF LI-SULŪK MASLAK AL-TAʿRĪF360 is a continuation of the discussion in the
Maslak al-taʿrīf treatise after a question about some points in it. This work was composed
on Monday, 2 Rabīʿ II 1092.
63. TANBĪH AL-ʿUQŪL ʿALĀ TANZĪH AL-ṢŪFIYYAH ʿAN IʿTIQĀD AL-TAJSĪM WA-L-ʿAYNIYYAH WA-L-
ITTIḤĀD WA-L-ḤULŪL. This work was printed several times. In it, al-Kūrānī defends Ibn
361
ʿArabī and his followers against accusations of anthropomorphism, pantheism,
immanentism, and incarnationism. His argument is the same in his theological treatise,
that God is absolute existence in the sense that He is not restricted or conditioned by any
other things outside of Himself. Thus, the Quranic verses and the Prophetic ḥadīths that
describe God in bodily or human form or in spatial location should be accepted as
manifestations of God, without figurative interpretation. This work was completed on
Saturday, 8 Muḥarram 1093.362
64. AL-ILMĀM BI-TAḤRĪR QAWLAY SAʿDĪ WA-L-ʿIṢĀM.363 Al-Kūrānī recieved a question about
two statements by al-Fāḍil al-Rūmī Saʿd Allāh b. ʿĪsā and ʿIṣām al-Dīn b. ʿArabshāh. In the
first statement, al-Bayḍāwī says in his interpretation of the word ‘rabb’ that it comes from
tarbiyah, “education,” which means guiding the person until his perfection. Al-Bayḍāwī
concluded that contingents (al-mumkināt) need God in their existence and in their
persisting. ʿIṣām al-Dīn argues that contingents need God in their creation and in their
reaching perfection, but that there is no indication that they need God in their persisting.
Al-Kūrānī says that reaching perfection depends on persisting in time for a while, which
360
MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Yahuda 3869, fols. 73a-75b.
361
Al-Kūrānī, Ibrāhīm, Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl ʿalā tanzīh al-ṣūfiyyah ʿan iʿtiqād al-tajsīm wa l-ʿayniyyah wa-l-ittiḥād wa-
l-ḥulūl, edited by Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Ḥusayn (Damascus: Dār al-Bayrūtī, 2009).
362
See El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 277.
363
MS: Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, Taymūriyyah, 1/10, majāmīʿ 92, 5 folios. For three more copies see
al-Fahras al-shāmil li-l-turāth al-ʿArabī al-makhṭūṭ: ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (Jourdan: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt, 1989), vol.
2, p. 739.
222
is a proof that contingents need God in their persisting. The other question is about a
comment of al-Fāḍīl al-Rūmī Saʿd al-Allāh’s on al-Bayḍāwī’s comment on the Quranic
verse “Who perfected everything which He created” (Q 32:7), and the meaning of “thing”
(shayʾ). This work was composed on Thusday, 15 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1093.
65. AL-MASLAK AL-QAWĪM FĪ MUṬĀBAQAT TAʿALLUQ AL-QUDRAH BI-L-ḤĀDITH LI-TAʿALLUQ AL-ʿILM
AL-QADĪM, or AL-MASLAK AL-QAWĪM FĪ MUṬĀBAQAT AL-QUDRAH BI-L-ḤĀDITH LI-TAʿALLUQ AL-ʿILM

364
AL-QADĪM. This work is an answer to a question concerning some statements from al-
365
Shaʿrānī’s book al-Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir about God’s eternal knowledge, and some verses
in the Quran stating how God will know something. Al-Kūrānī discusses the connection
(taʿalluq) between God’s eternal knowledge and the essences of contingents, which are
immutable nonexistents that have essential dispositions to be what they are. Al-Kūrānī
uses Ibn ʿArabī’s texts beside al-Jurjānī’s Sharḥ al-Mawāqif to explain how God’s
knowledge is posterior to the occurrence of something. He composed this work on
Wednesday, 11 Ṣafar 1094.
66. SHAWĀRIQ AL-ANWĀR LI-SULŪK AL-MASLAK AL-MUKHTĀR.366 A certain scholar commented,
critically, on al-Kūrānī’s work al-Maslak al-mukhtār. Al-Kūrānī received this gloss and
replied to its critiques. He does not mention the name of this scholar but calls him al-
muḥashshī. Most of the discussions are related to the theory of perception in Ibn Sīnā’s
works and God’s knowledge of particulars, as well as creation and time. This work was
completed on Thursday, 5 Rabīʿ I 1094. There is an interesting note in one of the
364
MS: Cairo: Azhariyyah, 41976, 8 folios.
365
MS: Cairo: Azhariyyah, 3988, jūharī 41976, 6 folios.
366
MS: Istanbul: Laleli 722, fols. 108a-147b. MS: Istanbul: Carullah 2102, fols. 221a-265b. This majmūʿ contains
another work that has the same title, fols. 41a-121b. After examining this work I found that it is al-Kūrānī’s
work Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād li-sulūk maslal al-sadād.
223
manuscrips367 says that the glossator (al-muḥashshī) is an eminent person (fāḍil) from
Iṣfahān, and that he is a student of the famous Āghā Ḥusayn Khwānsārī (d. 1099/1687-8)
and wrote on the instruction of the latter (al-muḥashshī kataba bi-mushāwaratin ʿan Āghā
Ḥusayn). This gloss came to Medina with the glossator’s son.
67. AL-TAWAṢṢUL ILĀ ANNA ʿILM ALLĀH BI-L-ASHYĀʾ AZALAN ʿALĀ AL-TAFṢĪL.368 This work is an
answer to a question about fixed entities and God’s knowledge of particulars. The text
was composed on Tuesday, 26 Jumādā II 1094.
68. AL-TAḤRĪR AL-ḤĀWĪ LI-JAWĀB ĪRĀD IBN ḤAJAR ʿALĀ AL-BAYḌĀWĪ.369 This work is in fiqh. Ibn
Ḥajar rejected one of al-Bayḍāwī’s ideas that repentance (tawbah) may save a person in
cases of legal retribution (qiṣāṣ). Al-Kūrānī distinguishes between cases in which the
repentance occurred before the murderer was captured and after he was. This work was
composed in Medina on Friday, 7 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1094.
69. AL-AMAM LI-ĪQĀẒ AL-HIMAM. Al-Kūrānī’s main thabat. It is a record of his various
chains of transmissions for a large number of scholarly works and contains full isnāds of
works in the rational sciences. The work was completed on Monday, 8 Dhū al-Qaʿdah
1095.
70. IZĀLAT AL-ISHKĀL BI-L-JAWĀB AL-WĀḌIḤ ʿAN AL-TAJALLĪ FĪ AL-ṢUWAR.

370
This relatively long
text is dedicated to the question of God’s manifestation in forms and the ambiguous
verses (mutashābihāt). Al-Kūrānī discusses several ḥadīths that mention God’s
manifestation in different forms, and argues that God manifests in whatever form He
wants since He is not restricted or conditioned by anything. However, he says clearly
367
MS: Istanbul: Laleli 722, fol. 108a.
368
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 34b-35b; MS: Istanbul: Veliyuddin 1815, fols. 132b-134a.
369
MS: Cairo: Azhariyyah 10046, 2 folios.
370
MS: Istanbul: Nafiz Pasa 508, 47 folios.
224
that accepting that God manifests in material forms does not mean He is material nor is
there any kind of anthropomorphism or inherence; rather, there is always “nothing like
Him.” This work was completed on Monday, 25 Rajab 1097.
71. AL-TAḤRĪRĀT AL-BĀHIRAH LI-MABĀḤITH AL-DURRAH AL-FĀKHIRAH,

371
or TAḤRĪRĀT ʿALĀ AL-
DURRAH AL-FĀKHIRAH. A gloss on Jāmī’s al-Durrah al-fākhirah, thus mostly about the concept
of wujūd. It contains discussions from the Ashʿarite perspective about essence, existence,
quiddity, God’s unity, knowledge, and will, as well as about seeing God, with several
citations from Ibn ʿArabī. It seems that al-Kūrānī’s students used to collect his comments
from the margins of the copies he used. There is no date of composition of this work, but
two copies collected from al-Kūrānī’s text are dated 19 Jumādā II 1120 by a certain Yaḥyā
who was living in the Zāwiyah of Muḥammad Āghā in Istanbul. Another copy mentions
that Mūsā b. Ibrāhīm al-Baṣrī, al-Kūrānī’s student, collected al-Kūrānī’s comments from
the margins of al-Durrah al-fākhirah for the Shaykh al-Islām in Istanbul, Aḥmad Afandī,
and collated the copy with Abū Ṭāhir, al-Kūrānī’s son, in 14 Dhū al-Qaʿdah 1118.
72. MAJLĀ AL-MAʿĀNĪ ʿALĀ ʿAQĪDAT AL-DAWĀNĪ.372 A commentary on some sections of al-
Dawānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah. The second part of this commentary is about the
topic of knowledge (mabḥath al-ʿilm), and is sometimes treated as an independent work.
73. ḤĀSHIYAH ʿALĀ MABḤATH AL-ʿILM MIN SHARḤ AL-ʿAQĀʾID AL-ʿAḌUDIYYAH LI-L-DAWĀNĪ, or
RISĀLAH FĪ AL-BAḤTH ʿAN AL-ʿILM.

373
Al-Kūrānī received a question about the topic of
knowledge (mabḥath al-ʿilm) from al-Dawānī’s commentary on al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah.
The question was whether it is possible for things to be generated by the free will of the
371
MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Garrett, 4049Y, 20 folios; MS: Istanbul: Hudai Efendi I381, fols.
1b-38a; MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Yahuda 5373Y, fols. 189b-203a.
372
MS: Istanbul: Nuruosmaniye 2126, fols. 1b-50b.
373
MS: Istanbul: Laleli 722, fols. 71a-107a.
225
necessary, and whether free choices are always preceeded by knowledge, which would
mean all created things exist externally in God’s knowledge, for otherwise God’s
knowledge would be related to absolutely nothing, which is obviously imposible. The
work is mainly about human acts, free will, and God’s knowledge. This copy was copied
on the last night of Jumādā I 1149.
74. SHARḤ AL-ʿAQĪDAH ALLATĪ ALLAFAHĀ MAWLĀNĀ AL-ʿALLĀMAH AL-MUTAWAKKIL ʿALĀ ALLĀH
ISMĀʿĪL [B. AL-MANṢŪR BI-ALLĀH] AL-QĀSIM RIḌWĀN ALLĀH ʿALAYHIM.374 At the beginning of this
work, al-Kūrānī mentions that after the season of the ḥajj, he received an ʿaqīdah in two
folios; its author says that it is the doctrine of the “saved sect” (ʿaqīdat al-firqah al-nājiyah).
Al-Kūrānī found some mistakes in this text, so he decided to comment on it. Al-Kūrānī
also has another commentary on a longer work by al-Mutawakkil entitled al-Asās li-ʿaqāʾid
al-akyās. This copy is not dated.
75. AL-NIBRĀS LI-KASHF AL-ILTIBĀS AL-WĀQIʿ FĪ AL-ASĀS LI-ʿAQĀʾID ṬĀʾIFAH SAMMŪ ANFUSAHUM BI-
L-AKYĀS. Al-Imām al-Qāsim, known as al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b.
Muḥammad, the ruler of Yemen (d. 1029/1619),375composed a treatise entitled al-Asās li-
ʿaqāʾid al-akyās.376 Several scholars in Yemen wrote commentaries on this work. Al-Kūrānī
wrote a commentary and interpreted it in an Ashʿarite way.377 Al-Kūrānī’s commentary
was rejected by Zaydī scholars and some of them wrote refutation of his work, such as al-
374
MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Garrett 224Y, fols. 147a-174b.
375
Al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 6, p. 76; al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-Athar, vol. 3, p. 293; Al-Shawkānī, al-
Bard al-ṭāliʿ, vol. 2, p. 47; Ibrāhīm b. al-Qāsim b. al-Imām al-Muʾayyad bi-Allāh, Ṭabaqāt al-Zaydiyyah al-Kubrā,
ed. ʿAbd al-Salām al-Wajīh (Amman, Jordan: Muʾassasat al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī al-Thaqāfiyyah, 2001), vol. 2,
p. 860.
376
Al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad al-Muʿtazilī, Kitāb al-asās li-ʿaqāʾid al-akyās, ed. Alber Nadir (Beirut: Dār al-Ṭalīʿah,
1980).
377
226
Iḥtirās min nār al-Nibrās by Isḥāq b. Muḥammad b. Qāsim al-ʿAbdī (d. 1115).378 I was not
able to examine this work.
76. AL-IʿLĀM BI-MĀ FĪ QAWLIHĪ TAʿĀLA “ʿALĀ ALLADHĪN YŪṬĪQŪNAHU” MIN AL-AḤKĀM
379
is a
response to a question about the interpretation of a Quranic verse (Q 2:184) about fasting:
“And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a ransom [as substitute] of
feeding a poor person [each day].” This copy is not dated.
77. IBRĀHĪM AL-KŪRĀNĪ’S IJĀZAH TO AL-DAKDAKJĪ. As mentioned in the section about al-
Kūrānī’s students, al-Dakdakjī was a Sufi Ḥanafī from Damascus. He was the main student
of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī and the scribe of his works. This work is only one page in
which al-Kūrānī replies to a request for ijāzah from al-Dakdakjī. Al-Kūrānī wrote this
ijāzah for all of his works and riwāyāt. Also in this ijāzah, al-Kūrānī asked al-Dakdakjī to
extend his greetings to Shaykh ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī.380
78. NAWĀL AL-ṬAWL FĪ TAḤQĪQ AL-ĪJĀD BI-L-QAWL.381 This work is an answer to a question about
some verses by Ibn ʿArabī related to the notion of creation through the word “Be” (kun).
Al-Kūrānī repeats his idea about the absoluteness of God and that He can manifest in
whatever way He wants. Then he mentions the origin of contingents (mumkināt) from
mutually distinct nonexistents (maʿdūmāt mutamayyizah). Al-Kūrānī also mentions al-
kalām al-nafsī in this text. This copy is not dated.
378
Aḥmad Muḥammad ʿĪsawī and others, Fahras al-makhṭūṭāt al-Yamaniyyah li-Dār al-Makhṭūṭāt wa-l-
Maktabah al-Gharbiyyah bi-l-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr-Ṣanʿāʾ (Irān, Qum: Maktabat Samāḥat Āyat Allāh al-ʿUẓmā al-
Marʿashī al-Najafī al-Kubrā, 2005), vol. 1, p. 241.
379
MS: Istanbul: Halet Efendi 787, fols. 1b-2b.
380
This work is number 375682 in the Juma al-Majed Center for Culture and Heritage in Dubai. Inside the
work is written that this work is originally from the library of Shaykh Badr al-Dīn al-Ḥasanī (d. 1935).
381
MS: Ireland, Dublin: Chester Beatty, no. 4443/9, fols. 112-116.
227
79. AL-TASHĪL, SHARḤ AL-ʿAWĀMIL AL-JURJĀNIYYA382 is a commentary on a famous grammar
(naḥw) manual. The original work, al-ʿAwāmil al-miʾah, also known as al-ʿAwāmil al-
Jurjāniyyah, was written by ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī (d. 471/1078). It was the subject of
numerous commentaries by scholars such as Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī, ʿIṣām al-Dīn b.
ʿArabshāh, Khālid al-Azharī, and ʿAbd al-Ghafūr al-Lārī.383 This copy is not dated.
80. TAKMĪL AL-ʿAWĀMIL AL-JURJĀNIYYA,

384
also known as AL-FAWĀḌIL AL-BURHĀNIYYA FĪ TAKMĪL
AL-ʿAWĀMIL AL-JURJĀNIYYA. This work is a short commentary by al-Kūrānī on al-ʿAwāmil al-
Jurjāniyyah. This copy is not dated.
81. IJĀBAT AL-SĀʾIL ʿAMMĀ ISTASHKALAHU MIN AL-MASĀʾIL.385 This work is missing a few folios
from its beginning, and the author is not mentioned in the colophon. However, most
probably the text is by al-Kūrānī. The author used the sources that al-Kūrānī usually uses,
such as the works of al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, al-Dawānī, al-Ghazālī, and Ibn ʿArabī. The
clearest evidence of al-Kūrānī’s authorship is that the author concludes with a citation
of a ḥadīth saying that he read it with his teacher al-Qushāshī in Medina in 1062 AH. The
work contains comments on several topics, and seems related to al-Subkī’s book Jamʿ al-
Jawāmiʿ, a work in uṣūl al-fiqh but containing numerous discussions of theology (uṣūl al-
dīn). The topics are related to the faith of the imitator (īmān al-muqallid) and the state
with respect to Hell of the people who lived in the time between two prophets, usually
called ahl al-fatrah (people of the interregnum), i.e., those who did not hear the message
of the prophet after them and did not receive the messages of earlier prophets. This
382
MS: UAE, Dubai: Juma al-Majed Center for Culture and Heritage, no. 232146, 52 folios. On the first folio
is written that the origin of this MS is Majmaʿ al-Lughah al-ʿArabiyyah, without specifying which one.
383
For a list of commentators see ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad Ḥabashī, Jāmiʿ al-shurūḥ wa-l-ḥawāshī: muʿjam
shāmil li-asmāʾ al-kutub al-mashrūḥah fī al-turāth al-Islāmī wa-bayān shurūḥihā (UAE, Abū Dhabī: al-Majmaʿ al-
Thaqāfī, 2004), vol. 2, p. 1421.
384
MS: Istanbul: Atif Efendi 2441, fol. 238a-249b.
385
MS: UK: British Library, India Office, Delhi-Arabic 710j, fols. 86-108.
228
question is also related to the state of the Prophet’s parents. Another question that is
raised in this work is related to the issue of the first obligation of the law (taklīf). This
work is not dated.
82. ITḤĀF AL-NABĪH BI-TAḤQĪQ AL-TANZĪH.

386
Al-Kūrānī received a question about divine
manifestation (tajallī), specifically about how the eternal non-created God can be
manifest in created form. Al-Kūrānī replied by explaining that God is an absolute
existence, not conditioned or restricted by others, so He can manifest in forms and His
transcendence (tanzīh) remains because His absoluteness is essential and what is
essential never ceases. This work is dated 22 Rabīʿ I 1060, which is obviously wrong,
because the text concludes with some ḥadīths that al-Kūrānī received from al-Qushāshī,
who he did not meet until 1062.
Alongside the aforementioned texts that I obtained and examined, historical sources
mention further works by al-Kūrānī that I was not able to examine:387
1. ḌIYĀʾ AL-MIṢBĀḤ FĪ SHARḤ BAHJAT AL-ARWĀḤ.388
2. AL-JAWĀB AL-ʿATĪD LI-MASʾALAT AWWAL WĀJIB WA-MASʾALAT AL-TAQLĪD.389 From the title,
this work could be the same as the one mentioned above under the title Jawāb al-sāʾil
ʿammā istashkalahu min al-masāʾil, since both of them deal with the same topics.
386
MS: Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, majāmīʿ 11/2, fols. 351-362; MS: Istanbul: Halet Efendi
787, fols. 30a-33a.
387
I used two lists of al-Kūrānī’s works alongside manuscript catalogues and bio-bibliographies in order to
collect the works that are attributed to al-Kūrānī, but I was not able to gain access to all of these works.
The first list is MS: KSA: Riyāḍ University, 3881. This ms is attributed to al-Kūrānī’s student ʿAbd al-Qādir
b. Abī Bakr, and it is dated on Friday 22 Rabīʿ II 1122. The second list is Aloys Sprenger, A catalogue of the
Bibliotheca Orientalis Sprengeriana (Berlin: Giessen: W. Keller, 1857), p. 21, n. 299.
388
MS: Berline Spre. 299.
389
229
3. AL-JAWĀB AL-KĀFĪ ʿAN IḤĀṬAT AL-ʿILM AL-MAKHLŪQ BI-L-GHAYR AL-MUTANĀHĪ.390
4. SHARḤ AL-ANDALUSIYYAH391 by al-Qayṣarī. Al-Andalusiyyah is a text in ʿarūḍ written by
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh Abū al-Jaysh al-Anṣārī al-Andalusī (d. 626/1228-9). The
commentator is ʿAbd al-Muḥsin b. Muḥammad al-Qayṣarī (d. 872/1467-8).392
5. TAYSĪR AL-ḤAQQ AL-MUBDĪ LI-NAQḌ BAʿḌ KALIMĀT AL-SIRHINDĪ.393
6. TAKMĪL AL-TAʿRĪF LI-KITĀB FĪ AL-TAṢRĪF.394
7. AL-JAWĀB ʿAN AL-SUʾĀL AL-AWWAL MIN AL-ASʾILAH AL-MAKKIYYAH.395
8. IZĀLAT AL-ISHKĀL.396 Probably is the same text mentioned above as Izālat al-ishkāl bi-l-
jawāb al-wāḍiḥ ʿan al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar.
9. GHĀYAT AL-MARĀM FĪ MASʾALAT IBN AL-HUMĀM.397
10. FAYḌ AL-WĀHIB LI-AFḌAL AL-MAKĀSIB.398
11. DHAYL AL-MAQĀLAH AL-WĀḌIḤAH FĪ NADB AL-ḤIRṢ ʿALĀ AL-MUṢĀFAḤAH.399
12. ḌAWʾ AL-AʿYĀN FĪ AJWIBAT AL-SHAYKH ʿABD AL-RAḤMĀN.400
13. AL-KANZ AL-MUʾTAMAN FĪ JAWĀB SUʾĀLĀT AHL AL-YAMAN.401
14. BULGHAT AL-MASĪR ILĀ TAWḤĪD AL-ʿALĪ AL-KABĪR.402 Probably this work is another title
for al-Kūrānī’s short commentary on al-Qushāshī’s poem on ʿaqīdah, since his long
390
Brockelmann, GAL II, p. 505.
391
392
See Ḥabashī, Jāmiʿ al-shurūḥ wa-l-ḥawāshī, vol 1, p. 293.
393
MS: KSA: Riyāḍ University Library, 3881.
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
Al-Kūrānī mentions this title in Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 205 of Fathurrahman’s edition. Also it is mentioned in
230
commentary entitled, Qaṣd al-sabīl ilā tawḥīd al-ʿAlī al-Kabīr and al-ʿAyyāshī mentions the
short commentary as Zād al-masīr.
15. IẒHĀR AL-QADR LI-AHL BADR.403
16. JALĀʾ AL-AḤDĀQ BI-TAḤRĪR AL-IṬLĀQ.404
17. IQTIFĀʾ AL-ĀTHĀR [BI-TAWḤĪD AL-AFʿĀL MAʿ AL-KASB BI-L-IKHTIYĀR].405
18. AL-IHTIMĀM BI-ḤUKM IDRĀK AL-MASBŪQ AL-RUKŪʿ LAM YARA AL-IMĀM.406
19. MASLAK AL-IRSHĀD ILĀ AL-AḤĀDĪTH AL-WĀRIDAH FĪ AL-JIHĀD.407
Alongside these works, there are some attributed to al-Kūrānī, although I doubt the
validity of the attribution.
1. SHARḤ NUKHBAT AL-FIKAR, or ḤĀSHIYAH ʿALĀ NUKHBAT AL-FIKAR. The author of this work
is Ibrāhīm al-Kūrdī; this is why several catalogues attribute it to al-Kūrānī. Many
manuscripts mention the name of the author as Ibrāhīm b. Sulaymān b. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrdī,
usually refering to him as a resident of Aleppo; clearly he is a different person. Still other
catalogues mention two commentaries entitled Sharḥ nukhbat al-fikar, one attributed to
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrdī and another to Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. They may be two different
commentaries. However, I examined three different copies 408 attributed to Ibrāhīm al-
Kūrānī, and all of them are the same as the one attributed to Ibrāhīm b. Sulaymān al-
403
MS: Berline Spre. 299; MS: KSA: Riyāḍ University Library, 3881. A copy of this work is in MS: Yemen,
Trem: Maktabat al-Aḥqāf, n. 2681, majāmīʿ, 2 folios.
404
MS: Yemen, Trem: Maktabat al-Aḥqāf, n. 2681, majāmīʿ, 3 folios.
405
MS: KSA: Riyāḍ University Library, 3881; MS: Berline Spre. 299. A copy of this work is in MS: Yemen,
Trem: Maktabat al-Aḥqāf, n. 2716, majāmīʿ, 4 folios. It was composed in 1091.
406
MS: Yemen, Trem: Maktabat al-Aḥqāf, n. 2678, majāmīʿ, 5 folios.
407
Al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ, vol. 2, p. 12.
408
One is under the number 237343 in the Juma al-Majed Center for Culture and Heritage in Dubai; the
origin of this work is al-Maktabah al-Ẓāhiriyya in Damascus, no. 7676. The second is from the Azhariyyah
library, khāṣṣ 823, ʿāmm 53071. The last one is in Maktabat al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bi-l-Riyāḍ, n. 1501.
231
Kūrdī. In Al-Fahras al-shāmil li-l-turāth al-ʿArabī al-Islāmī al-makhṭūṭ, in the section about
ḥadīth and its sciences, there are 3 copies attributed to Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and 18 copies
attributed to Ibrāhīm al-Kūrdī.409 On page 1026 of the same catalogue, there is a mention
of another copy of Sharḥ nukhbat al-fikar, and it is attributed to al-Kūrānī with a note that
the name listed in the original index of Awqāf al-Mawṣil is al-Kurdī. This work is a
commentary on Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī’s Nuzhat al-naẓar fī tawḍīḥ Nukhbat al-fikar fī
muṣṭalaḥ ahl al-athar. The original work, Nukhbat al-fikar, is a small treatise by al-ʿAsqalānī,
who wrote it to summarize the terms of the science of ḥadīth. But it was very condensed,
so some students asked him to write a commentary to explain it. The original work of al-
ʿAsqalānī and his commentary received a good number of commentaries and glosses.410
This work, Sharḥ nukhbat al-fikar, that is attributed to al-Kūrānī contains some references
to philosophical-theological works such as al-Jurjānī’s Sharḥ al-Mawāqif. It does not have
an incipit or a colophon, neither does it end as al-Kūrānī ends his works, by citing some
ḥadīths with their full isnāds. However, missing the colophon can be normal if this
commentary was collected from a margin of the author’s copy with no intention by the
author to make it a separate work. Also, there is no date of composition.
2. SHUMŪS AL-FIKR AL-MUNQIDHAH ʿAN ẒULUMĀT AL-JABR WA-L-QADAR411 was most probably
not written by al-Kūrānī. In both manuscripts examined there is no clear attribution of
this work to al-Kūrānī, even though it is mentioned in majmūʿ of his texts, probably
because it agrees with his idea of kasb. Furthermore, the style of the text is different from
409
Al-Fahras al-shāmil li-l-turāth al-ʿArabī al-Islāmī al-makhṭūṭ, al-ḥadīth al-nabawī al-sharīf wa-ʿulūmahu wa-
rijālahu (al-Majmaʿ al-Malakī li-Buḥūth al-Ḥaḍārah al-Islāmiyyah, Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt, 1991), vol. 2, p.
694.
410
See al-Ḥabashī, Jāmiʿ al-shurūḥ wa-l-ḥawāshī, vol. 3, p. 2012.
411
MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 47b-50a; MS: Istanbul: Ragip Pasa 1464, fols. In the margin of fols. 63a-
67a.
232
al-Kūrānī’s when he discusses this topic, and there is no reference to any of al-Kūrānī’s
longer texts that explain this topic in detail. Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn and Kashf al-ẓūnūn attribut
this text to Ibn ʿArabī.412
As a conclusion of this section about al-Kūrānī’s work, we can remark on the fact that
he wrote in numerous disciplines of the Islamic sciences, including philosophy, theology,
grammar, tafsīr, ḥadīth, Sufism, and fiqh. This combination of intellectual sciences with
transmitted knowledge, alongside his mystical interest, makes his works very unusual;
he also deals with all these disciplines in the same texts in a coherent way. The next
chapter will show how Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas provided the basis for al-Kūrānī’s theological
discussions, and how he used the whole of the Islamic intellectual tradition to explain
and interpret Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. In both cases, he supported his arguments with
numerous Quranic verses and ḥadīths to show how the rational sciences and transmitted
knowledge are in harmony.
We can notice from al-Kūrānī’s works that many works are dated during Dhū al-Ḥijjah,
which is understandable since numerous treatises were written as answers to questions
posed during the season of the ḥajj. During this season, al-Kūrānī used to receive
inquiries and requests for his legal opinion (istiftāʾ) from different parts of the Islamic
world with the travelers arriving for ḥajj. He would answer these questions quickly so
that the pilgrims might carry the responses back with the caravan that brought them to
the Ḥijāz. The works dated in the ḥajj seasons are relatively short and deal with specific
questions. Another note about al-Kūrānī’s works is that he only translated one text,
Ishrāq al-shams bi-taʿrīb al-kalimāt al-khams, a short Sufi text that was translated at the
request of his teacher al-Qushāshī. Another interesting note that reveals an additional
412
Al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, vol. 2, p. 116; Ḥajjī Khalīfah, Kashf al-ẓūnūn, vol. 2, p. 1065.
233
aspect of al-Kūrānī’s personality is the fact that he did not dedicate any of his works to
any ruler, amīr, or Sultan. This is the case despite the fact that he used to receive large
donations from numerous rulers and wealthy people.
Conclusion
Al-Kūrānī’s life and curriculum vitae display that he was an established scholar in the
rational sciences before leaving his hometown. He continued his intellectual studies with
his teacher al-Qushāshī, who was famous as a Sufi but also wrote several works in
theology, some of which are mentioned above. Al-Kūrānī mentioned al-Qushāshī in many
of his isnāds of intellectual texts. Al-Kūrānī probably read these texts, mainly by al-
Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, and al-Dawānī, again through the Sufi eyes of al-Qushāshī. The
following chapters will display that he used these texts to interpret Ibn ʿArabī and to
situate him within the Islamic intellectual tradition. It is difficult to determine the
influence of al-Qushāshī on al-Kūrānī’s thought since almost all of the latter’s writings
were in Medina after his meeting with al-Qushāshī. The only work that he wrote before
meeting al-Qushāshī is Inbāh al-anbāh, a work of grammar.
The list of al-Kūrānī’s teachers and scholarly contacts reveals his familiarity with the
traditions of Kurdistan, Persia, Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, North Africa, Yemen, the
Ḥijāz, and India. This wide range of teachers and students illustrates the centrality of the
Ḥijāz as a meeting point for all the intellectual trends in the Muslim world during the
16th and the 17th centuries. The list of his students displays how his influence extended
to even more regions to include Istanbul, Southeast Asia, and even Southeast Africa.
One aspect concerning al-Kūrānī’s students that scholars have examined is his
Javanese students in Medina. These investigations are related to the topic of the
Islamization of Indonesia and the role of Ḥijāzī scholars in forming the religious identity
234
of Southeast Asia. Many of al-Kūrānī’s students were from Southeast Asia. Johns has
suggested that ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Singkīlī in Mecca was a teacher of “hundreds if not
thousands”413 of Indonesian students. However, Syed Hussein Alatas in a review of Johns’
book, and based on Dutch documents, offers some statistical data on pilgrims. In the
years 1852-1859 the average number of pilgrims was 2,164 per year. Between 1873 and
1881 the average figure was 3,628. In 1880, 7,327 were reported, the highest figure
attained. In 1858 there were 3,317 persons registered, approximately 200 years after
1661. And in his opinion “if we were to project it back two centuries, excluding the
facilities of modern steamships and stabilized political and commercial relations
between Arabia and Indonesia […] it is unlikely that a few hundred pilgrims went to
Mecca every year.”414 This assumption may agree with Snouck’s suggestion that
“although the period in which Jawah pilgrims could be counted annually in thousands
may be recent, a fairly active traffic had certainly endured over two centuries.”415 Van
Bruinessen suggests two reasons behind the popularity of Kurdish scholars for
Indonesian students: the first is the fact that Indonesians have adhered to the Shāfiʿī
madhhab since at least the 16th century, as did the Kurds, unlike most Arabs, Turks, and
413
Johns, The Gift Addressed, p. 11. Sayed Hussein Alatas in his review says: “In another instance Dr. Johns
offered a statistical speculation on the number of Indonesians in Mecca around 1661, ‘hundreds if not
thousands’.” Syed Hussein Alatas, review “The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet by A. H. Johns,”
Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Mar., 1968), p. 183. Later Johns responded to Alatas saying:
“Nowhere did I suggest that hundreds if not thousands of Indonesians came to Mecca every year or that
these numbers were resident in Mecca during any one year. My only suggestion (speculation?) was that
during his nineteen years in Mecca he could reasonably have been expected to have met a number of
pilgrims and students of this order of magnitude.” Manuel Sarkisyanz, A. H. Johns and Syed Hussein Alatas,
“Correspondence,” Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Sep., 1968), pp. 381-385, p. 383.
414
Syed Hussein Alatas, review “The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet by A. H. Johns,” Journal of
Southeast Asian History, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Mar., 1968), p. 184.
415
Snouck, Hurgronje C., Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century: Daily Life, Customs and Learning, the Moslims
of the East-Indian-Archipelago, tr. J.H. Monahan (Leiden: Brill. 2007), pp. 219-220. The original text was
published in German in two volumes, under the title “Mekka,” in 1888–1889.
235
Indians, who followed the Ḥanafī madhhab. However, this reason is limited to fiqh-related
matters. The second reason, according to him, is that Indonesian and Kurdish Muslims
had a common attraction to mysticism and metaphysical speculation and a firm belief in
miracles and sainthood.416
In the list of al-Kūrānī’s students many of his Javanese students were mentioned, and
the list of his works show that four texts were written especially for a Javanese audience
in Medina, or to reply to some questions that arrived directly from Java. The Ḥijāz was a
religious reference for Javanese scholars and even Sultans. For example, the Sultan of
Banten, Sultan Pangeran Ratu (r. 1626-1651 CE), dispatched a special delegation to Mecca
in 1638, carrying a number of inquiries about al-Ghazālī’s Naṣīḥat al-mulūk. In the
following century, Arshād al-Banjarī also asked for a fatwā from his teacher Sulaymān al-
Kūrdī (1715-1780 CE) regarding the policy of the Sultan of Banjar to prioritize taxes over
zakat.417
Al-Kūrānī’s teachers and students embody the active scholarly environment in the
Ḥijāz during the 17th century. Among all these scholars, al-Kūrānī stands as a unique
person who combined intellectual sciences (maʿqūlāt) with transmitted sciences
(manqūlāt), alongside practicing Sufism as a way of life. In spite of the fact that he was an
established scholar in the rational sciences, he appears from the evidence to have been
very sincere in his search for a spiritual guide, for reasons he did not mention. When he
met al-Qushāshī, he showed complete commitment to the Sufi path in his personal
modest and ascetic life and through his humble character.
416
Martin Van Bruinessen, “Kurdish ʿulama and their Indonesian disciples,” electronic copy from the
author’s website. Revised version of: “The impact of Kurdish ʿulama on Indonesian Islam,” Les Annales de
l’Autre Islam 5 (1998), 83-106.
417
Fathurahman. “Itḥāf al-dhaki by Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī,” p. 181.
236
The other advantage of focusing on al-Kūrānī over other scholars in the Ḥijāz is his
prolific textual production. He wrote over one hundred works in several different
disciplines. I mentioned al-ʿAyyāshī’s description of al-Kūrānī’s style of writing as one
that makes his texts accessible for all readers. Through a careful reading of his works,
one notices his efforts to provide clear explanations and his willingness to repeat and
explain again and again all the aspects of these topics. His works demonstrate his
engagement in actual debates from different regions of the Islamic world. Several
treatises are written to Javanese students or to answer questions from Java. At least two
works written in Iran were commentaries on al-Kūrānī’s works. His debate with Maghribī
scholars was the reason behind several of his works. He had a debate with Indian
Mujaddidī scholars in the Ḥijāz over the topic of the kaʿbah, as well as on his commentary
on al-Burhānbūrī’s al-Tuḥfah. For Yemeni Zaydī scholars he wrote at least three works to
refute some aspects of Imāmī theology, and Yemeni schools replied to his works. We need
hardly mention Damascus, Cairo, and Baghdad, the cities from which many of his
teachers and students came.
His active correspondence and debates with scholars from different Islamic regions
indicates that he was well known in almost the entire Islamic world during his life. His
works reached the Maghrib very early in his career and he continued to correspond with
Maghribi scholars until the end of his life. He also received, and responded to, two letters
from Āṭār, a city that is currently located in Mauritania. Al-Kūrānī also was well known
in Southeast Asia through his students, mainly al-Singkīlī and Maqassarī. The fact that
Damascene students asked him to comment on al-Qushāshī’s ʿaqīdah poem, and later to
abridge this commentary, attests to his reputation in Damascus. The list of his students
who are originally from Egypt, or who moved to Cairo, also reveals that he was well
237
known in Cairo during his lifetime. The specification of his name in the request for the
fatwā about al-Sirhindī’s Maktūbāt means he was known and respected among Indian
scholars as well. The last important facet of al-Kūrānī’s work is that almost all his works
are preserved in several libraries in different parts of the world. The diffusion of his
works over such a wide geographic area indicates that his works were frequently copied
and studied in different parts of the Islamic world.
Al-Kūrānī was one of the most influential figures in the 17th century not only in the
Ḥijāz, but in the entire Islamic world. The spread of his works and ideas from the Ḥijāz
to almost every part of the Islamic world displays the centrality of the Ḥijāz, not only for
the annual pilgrimage, but also for intellectual exchange among scholars from different
parts of the Islamic world. Al-Kūrānī’s engagement in debates and discussions related to
other regions speaks to the interconnectedness of the Islamic intellectual world of his
time. These are the reasons why looking at his theories in the next chapters is
foundational to re-evaluating Islamic intellectual life of the 17th century, when the Ḥijāz
was especially vibrant.

238
Chapter Four: Al-Kūrānī’s Theological and Sufi Thought
This chapter was initially intended to be two chapters dealing respectively with al-
Kūrānī’s theological ideas and his Sufi thought. During the research process, it became
clear that al-Kūrānī’s theology cannot be separated from his Sufi thought. This chapter
will show that, while his main concern was theology, al-Kūrānī’s theological arguments
are in fact largely based on Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. It seems that Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas are the
true reference and the main theological authority for al-Kūrānī’s theological discussions.
Al-Kūrānī discussed almost every topic in theology and Sufism in such an interconnected
way that it is difficult to separate them into different categories. He established a
coherent structure in which each part is at once based on another idea and foundational
to still others. Presenting all his ideas with their supporting demonstrations would mean
reproducing all his treatises in this limited chapter, which is not possible. This chapter
aims instead to present al-Kūrānī’s main theology and Sufi arguments, those that
occupied much of his intellectual life, and their interaction with the intellectual debates
among contemporary scholars. Al-Kūrānī was most interested in the subject of existence
(wujūd), which was a major concern, with its other related concepts, of Islamic
philosophers, most theologians (mutakallimūn), and Sufis for almost eleven centuries.
Discussing the concept of wujūd means dealing with philosophical and theological
discussions of quiddity, nonexistence, creation, God’s attributes, predetermination, and
human will. All these topics had become part of Sufi discourse, beginning with ʿAyn al-
Quḍāt and continuing on to Ibn ʿArabī and the tradition of philosophical commentaries.
Al-Kūrānī describes God as “absolute existence” (wujūd muṭlaq) in the sense that He is
not restricted or conditioned by anything outside of His essence. Since God is not
239
restricted by others, He can become manifest in any restricted form He wants without
this manifestation affecting the absoluteness of His existence. So, the ambiguous verses
(mutashābihāt) and the prophetic ḥadīths that contain apparently anthropomorphic
meanings should be accepted as Divine manifestations without any need for allegorical
interpretation. Beginning with this idea, we will discuss the main three topics of God as
absolute existence, the interpretation of the ambiguous verses, and God’s manifestations
in conceivable forms.
According to Ashʿarī theology, God’s attributes are neither other than God’s essence
nor identical with God’s essence, or, in al-Kūrānī’s expression, laysa ghayr al-dhāt wa-lā
ʿayn al-dhāt. Consequently, God as absolute existence can be considered from two points
of view. The first is God’s essence without any regard to His attributes, names, relations,
or anything else. From this perspective, He is absolutely indeterminate; no label, name,
or attribute can be ascribed to Him. The second perspective is that God can be known
and perceived through His attributes, names, and relations. For example, knowledge is
one of God’s attributes, and God’s knowledge has two aspects; in one aspect it is identical
to, and in the other different from God’s essence. God’s knowledge, as identical to His
essence, is called nafs al-amr. Nafs al-amr contains the realities (ḥaqāʾiq), quiddities
(māhiyyāt), nonexistents (maʿdūmāt), or fixed entities (aʿyān thābita) of all contingent
beings. All these terms refer to the same thing in al-Kūrānī’s writings.
God’s knowledge is eternal; thus, the realities or quiddities of all contingent beings
are eternal and unmade (ghayr majʿūlah). Al-Kūrānī even describes a reality as a “thing”
(shayʾ), an idea that looks similar to the Muʿtazilite idea of the “thingness of nonexistent”
(shayʾiyyat al-maʿdūm). Al-Kūrānī not only explains the meaning of “thing” (shayʾ), he also
tries to prove that Ashʿarites actually accepted the idea that a nonexistent can be
240
described as a “thing” and thus that they accepted the concept of “mental existence”
(wujūd dhihnī). After establishing the idea that realities are uncreated and individuated
in God’s knowledge, al-Kūrānī moves toward an explanation of creation as a manifesting
of these realties in the external world. God creates them as their quiddities require,
which provides an answer to the question of destiny and predestination, and will be
reflected in al-Kūrānī’s theory of kasb and his affirmation of human freedom with regards
to actions. Holding that the eternal realities subsist in God’s knowledge also provides al-
Kūrānī with a solution to the question of God’s knowledge of particulars.
This structure will lead us to discuss in detail almost every topic mentioned in this
paragraph: God’s knowledge, which contains the realities or uncreated quiddities, the
nature of these realities, creation, destiny, human freedom, and God’s knowledge of
particulars. This metaphysical or cosmological structure, starting from absolute
existence and moving to human existence, represents the idea of waḥdat al-wujūd in al-
Kūrānī’s thought.
Along with these main topics, al-Kūrānī discussed many other theological and Sufi
topics including the faith of Pharaoh, the satanic verses, kalām nafsī, the precedence of
God’s mercy and the annihilation of Hellfire (fanāʾ al-nār), and the preference between
the reality of the Kaʿbah and the reality of Muḥammad. There is no doubt that all these
topics are essential parts of al-Kūrānī’s theological and Sufi efforts. They are connected
directly to the main arguments mentioned above. However, I have decided to separate
them from the previous arguments in order to keep the flow of the previous arguments
from the main idea of God as absolute existence until the natural result of his system in
waḥdat al-wujūd, a phrase that serves as the foundation of his whole philosophical system.
241
Thus, I divide this chapter into two parts: Part One is dedicated to al-Kūrānī’s
metaphysical and cosmological thought, and Part Two to other theological and Sufi ideas.
Part Two can be considered a consequence of Part One, but listing each idea directly
after the relevant section in Part One would create an interruption of the general
argument. For example, kalām nafsī is clearly part of the discussion of God’s attributes.
But listing a few pages about kalām nafsī after the topic of God’s attributes would distract
al-Kūrānī’s readers from main aim when explaining the topic of God’s attributes, which
is God’s manifestation in conceivable forms. We have to keep in mind that numerous
treatises by al-Kūrānī were written as replies to questions that he received related to
different topics that are part of theology or Sufi thought. These treatises may concern
certain topics that do not fit directly in the general arguments, even though al-Kūrānī’s
main philosophical and theological doctrines clearly appear even in his answers to these
specific questions.
Before moving on to a detailed discussion of all these aspects, I must remark on the
manuscript sources used here. I do not claim that the manuscripts that I use in this
chapter are superior to other extant manuscripts of the same work. I attempted to collect
a simple of al-Kūrānī’s works that are available in libraries and archives around the world
as I could; the texts that I gathered amount to 80 treatises, some of them only a few folios,
others dozens of folios, and some reaching more than 200 folios. For the most part I did
not intentionally collect different copies of the same work; however, I have several
copies of some works and in a few cases I consulted different copies intentionally.
[4.1] Part One: al-Kūrānī’s Metaphysical and Cosmological Thought

242
[4.1.1] God is Absolute Existence (al-wujūd al-muṭlaq or al-wujūd al-maḥḍ)
Ibn ʿArabī repeatedly describes God as absolute existence, saying, among other
expressions, that “the Truth Almighty is existent by its essence, for its essence, absolute
existence, not restricted by others.”1 His use of the term “absolute existence” (al-wujūd
al-muṭlaq) provoked strong attacks against him. These attacks came from numerous
scholars in different intellectual traditions, including the Ḥanbalite jurist and theologian
Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328), the Maturidite theologian al-Taftāzānī (792/1390), and
even from Sufis such as ʿAlāʾ al-Dawalah al-Simnānī (739/1336).
Ibn Taymiyyah interpreted absolute existence as a universal concept, meaning an
abstract concept that exists only in the mind and that can never exist in the external
world. Universals are nothing more than common, general meanings that the mind
retains to signify individuals in the real, external world. For Ibn Taymiyyah, universals
exist only in the mind and thus there are no universals in the external world; universal
statements are the result of generalizations made by the mind on the basis of empirical
observation of particulars that share certain attributes. In the external world, only
individuated particulars exist, particulars that are specific, distinct, and unique.2 Since
abstract meaning exists solely in the mind, it does not have any actual real meaning in
the world. In other words, Ibn Taymiyyah’s objection to Ibn ʿArabī is that if we say that
God is absolute existence, then God is just an idea or a concept in our mind without any
external existence.
1
Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah (Cairo: Būlāq edition, 1911), vol.1, p. 90; vol. 1, p. 118; vol.
3, p. 162.
2
Wael B. Hallaq, “Ibn Taymiyya on the existence of God,” Acta Orientalia, Lugduni Batavorum: E.J. Brill, (52)
1991, p. 51.
243
Al-Taftāzānī in Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid discusses this idea extensively and argues that
absolute existence belongs to the second intelligibles (al-maʿqūlāt al-thāniyah), which do
not have any real existence outside the mind.3 The universal concept (mafhūm kullī) does
not exist extramentally, apart from its particular instances.4 Al-Taftāzānī rejects the
attempts of Ibn ʿArabī’s followers to interpret the concept philosophically. Pseudo-Sufis,
according to al-Taftāzānī, tried to use the philosophers’ claim that God’s quiddity is
identical to God’s existence and that He has no contrary, no analogue, no genus, and no
differentia. However, the arguments of pseudo-Sufis, as El-Rouayheb explains,
established that something can be true both of absolute existence and God, but it does
not follow from this establishment that absolute existence and God are identical. 5
Al-Simnānī also rejects the description of God as absolute existence. Al-ʿAyyāshī
mentions that Ibn ʿArabī’s commentator ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī (d. 730/1330) met
with one of al-Simnānī’s students and asked him about the latter’s opinion of Ibn ʿArabī
and his thought. Al-Simnānī’s student replied that his shaykh, al-Simnānī, believed that
Ibn ʿArabī was a great person (rajul ʿaẓīm al-shaʾn) but that he was mistaken in his idea
3
Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī, Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿUmayrah (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1989),
vol. 4, p. 59. Knysh thinks that the major source of al-Taftāzānī’s knowledge of his opponent’s views is the
work of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī, who took a strictly rationalist approach to his master’s legacy. That makes
al-Taftāzānī’s criticism, according to Knysh, a superficial acquaintance with the Sufi’s original work.
Knysh, Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), p. 162.
4
For al-Taftāzānī’s refutation of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought see Knysh, Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition, p.
146 and after. It is important to mention that Knysh used Risālah fī waḥdat al-wujūd as the main source to
present al-Taftāzānī’s refutation. This treatise was actually written by ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī (d. 730/1330).
Al-Bukhārī was a student of al-Taftāzānī and he repeated several of his teacher’s ideas, which perhaps is
the cause of this confusion. For further information about this epistle, its different titles, and to whom it
has been attributed, see the French introduction by Bakri Aladdin to al-Nābulusī’s book al-Wujūd al-ḥaqq
(Damascus: IFPO L’institut Français D’études Arabes De Damas, 1995), p. 18 and after.
5
El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 315 and after. El-Rouayheb argues that
from the perspective of al-Kūrānī and other early modern defenders of ontological monism, the most
prominent and formidable opponent of the view that God is identical to absolute existence was not Ibn
Taymiyyah but al-Taftāzānī, Ibid., p. 283.
244
that God is absolute existence (al-wujūd al-muṭlaq). Al-Qāshānī replied that this idea is the
foundation of all of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought, and further that there is no better than this idea
(aṣl jamīʿ maʿārifihi hādhā al-kalām, wa-lā aḥsan min hādhā al-kalām).6 Al-Qāshānī continues
on to say that the idea that God is absolute existence is the doctrine of all prophets, saints
(awliyāʾ), and Imāms. When al-Simnānī’s student conveyed this opinion to his teacher, al-
Simnānī said that in all the doctrines and religions there is no worse than this idea; even
the materialists and the deniers of the Creator (al-dahriyyīn wa-l-ṭabiʿiyyīn) are better than
this idea.7
Describing God as absolute existence is associated with Ibn ʿArabī and his followers,
but, in fact, we can also find a description of God as “absolute” in al-Ashʿarī’s thought.
Ibn Fūrak (d. 406/1015), in Mujarrad maqālāt al-Shaykh Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī says that al-
Ashʿarī, after talking about created existents, says: “and the absolute existent, whose
existence does not depend on an existent of a Creator, is the affirmed being which is
neither negated nor nonexistent (ammā al-mawjūd al-muṭlaq alladhī lā yataʿallaq bi-wujūd
al-wājid lahu fa-huwa al-thābit al-kāʾin alladhī laysā bi-muntaf wa-lā maʿdūm).”8 In spite of the
fact that Ibn Fūrak was talking about the absolute existent (mawjūd) not absolute
existence (wujūd), what was controversial, as we shall see, was the meaning of absolute.
However, the term tends to be associated with Ibn ʿArabī, and all Ibn ʿArabī’s
commentators and followers used this term and were obliged to reply to the critics and
6
7
Al-Simnānī was a critic of waḥdat al-wujūd and actively corresponded with al-Qāshānī over the topic of
the ontological relationship of God and the universe. See Jamal J. Elias, The Throne Carrier of God: The Life and
Thought of ʻalāʼ Ad-Dawla As-Simnānī (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), p. 44. About al-
Simnānī and waḥdat al-wujūd see Hermann Landolt, “Simnānī on waḥdat al-wujūd,” in Collected Papers on
Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism, ed. Hermann Landolt and M. Mohaghegh (Tehran: McGill University,
Institute of Islamic Studies, Tehran Branch, 1971), pp. 91-112.
8
Ibn Fūrak, Mujarrad maqālāt al-Shaykh Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī: min imlāʾ al-Shaykh al-Imām Abī Bakr
Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Fūrak (t. 406/1015), ed. Daniel Gimaret (Beirut: Dār el-Mashriq, 1987), p. 27.
245
explain their understanding of it.9 Some scholars dedicated specific treatises to
demonstrating that absolute existence actually exists, among them ʿAlī al-Muhāʾimī (d.
835/1431-2), one of the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam’s commentators, who wrote Adillat al-tawḥīd and
commented on his own work in Ajillat al-taʾyīd to explain this topic.10 Al-Kūrānī inherited
this long tradition of interpreting Ibn ʿArabī’s concept of absolute existence. Since his
teacher al-Qushāshī discussed it, it is not surprising to find it in al-Kūrānī’s early works.11
Al-Kūrānī explains in numerous contexts and in several works that absolute existence
means unqualified and unconditioned existence.12 In other words, the term “absolute”
(muṭlaq) can be understood by its contrary; that is, the term “conditioned” or “restricted”
(muqayyad). God cannot be restricted by anything other than Himself. That does not
mean that God’s absoluteness is a contrary or contradiction of restriction; in this case,
He will be restricted by what He is not able to do. He is absolute in real absoluteness: He
is not bounded or restricted, and at the same time He is capable of every form of
absoluteness or restriction (al-iṭlāq al-ḥaqīqī alladhī lā yuqābiluhu taqyīd, al-qābil li-kull iṭlāq
wa-taqyyid).13 Lā yuqābiluh taqyyid is explained in Itḥāf al-dhakī as existence that is not
9
Al-Qūnawī used the same term of absolute existence in several contexts. See Miftāḥ al-ghayb li-Abī al-Maʿālī
Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Isḥāq al-Qūnawī wa-sharḥuhu Miṣbāḥ al-uns li-Muḥammad bin Ḥamzah al-Fanārī, ed.
Muḥammad Khvājavī (Tehran: Intishārāt Mawlā, 1416/[1995]). Al-Qūnawī, Miftāḥ al-ghayb, p. 19; and al-
Fanārī’s commentary Miṣbāḥ al-uns, p. 150 and after. See also William Chittick, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī on
the Oneness of Being,” International Philosophical Quarterly, XXI, 1, 1981, 171-184, p. 173. Also, William
Chittick, “Mysticism versus philosophy in earlier Islamic history: al-Ṭūsī, al-Qūnawī correspondence,”
Religious Studies 17, 1981, 87-104, p. 92.
10
Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 232.
11
Al-Qushāshī in his gloss on ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī’s al-Kamālāt al-ilāhiyyah discussed the concept of absolute
existence (al-wujūd al-muṭlaq). See some aspects of his arguments in al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah,
vol. 1, p. 600.
12
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-taʿrīf bi-taḥqīq al-taklīf ʿalā mashrab ahl al-kashf wa-l-shuhūd al-qāʾilīn bi-tawḥīd
al-wujūd (MS: USA: Princeton Islamic_MSS_3869Y), fol. 60a.
13
Al-Kūrānī, Maṭlaʿ al-jūd bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh fī waḥdat al-wujūd (MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440), fol. 124b.
246
conditioned (la bi-sharṭ shayʾ).14 Al-Kūrānī here wants to explain that absoluteness does
not mean an opposite of restriction, because God is able to manifest Himself in a
restricted form and in any form He so wishes without His absoluteness being affected.
The primary and most important characteristic of God is that He will always and forever
be without comparison; “nothing is like Him” (laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ) (Q 42:11). God is
unbounded; He is not determined or defined by any created form; He is an absolute
existence that assumes every binding and every form without becoming bound or
constricted.
Al-Kūrānī says that the issue of absolute existence is the foundation of all foundations
(aṣl al-uṣūl);15 thus, he tries to demonstrate this principle by reason and by scripture to
assert that absolute existence is necessary and exists extramentally. Al-Kūrānī worked
systematically to demonstrate that absolute existence exists, that absolute existence is
necessary, and finally that the doctrine that God is absolute existence is in accord with
al-Ashʿarī’s doctrine that the existence of everything is identical to its essence.
Citing Jāmī in al-Durrah al-fākhirah, he says that existence must include necessary
existence as well as contingent existence; otherwise, existence will be limited to
contingents. The contingent does not exist by itself, and what cannot exist by itself
cannot be a cause of the existence of others, so, that means nothing exists. And if there
is no existence, either by itself or by others, that means there are no existents at all. But
this assumption is not correct, because there are existents; thus, there is necessary
existence.16 Al-Kūrānī then says that the origin of existents (mabdaʾ al-mawjūdāt), which
should be the necessary existence, is existent. It is either the reality of existence (ḥaqīqat
14
15
Ibid., p. 231.
16
Ibid., p. 232. Jāmī, al-Durrah al-fākhirah, ed. al-Sāyiḥ and ʿAwaḍ, p. 7.
247
al-wujūd), or different than existence. The origin of existents cannot be nonexistent,
because what is nonexistent needs existence in order to exist. And since it needs others,
it cannot be necessary. Thus, the origin of existents exists and it is the reality of
existence.17
Up until this point, al-Kūrānī has attempted to demonstrate that there is existence
that is the origin of all existents, and that this existence is the reality of existence. Now,
he needs to demonstrate that this existence that is the reality of all existents and the
origin of existents is absolute existence. Al-Kūrānī offers two possible definitions for
existence, either [1] absolute in the real sense of absoluteness that is niether restricted
nor conditioned by anything apart from itself, and that is able to manifest itself in any
restricted form without its absoluteness being affected. It is concretely individuated
(mutaʿayyin)18 by its essence, not by any addition to its essence; in itself it is neither
universal nor particular. Or, existence is [2] restricted and concretely individuated by
something added to its essence. If so, it is concretely individuated through composition
and each composed item is in need, and what is in need cannot be a necessary existence.19
In another context, al-Kūrānī gives more detail by stating that it is proven that the
necessary existence is existent in itself. So, it is either:
a. Pure existence that exists by itself; or,
b. Existence that is attached to quiddity and is conditioned by its disposition
(istiʿdād); or,
c. The quiddity that can be attached to the existence and which qualified it; or,
17
18
Chittick says that in Ibn ʿArabī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī’s writing this term signifies “to be or to become
an entity,” or “the state of being specified and particularized.” William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge:
Ibn al-ʿArabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,1989), p. 83.
19
Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 232
248
d. The compound of quiddity and the existence which exists in accordance to it [the
quiddity].
(d) is not correct because the compound is in need of others, so it cannot be necessary
existence. (b) and (c) are also not correct because each one needs the other to be
actualized, and being in need negates necessity (al-iḥtiyāj yūnāfī al-wujūb). Thus, it is (a)
that is the correct definition of existence.20 Thus God, the necessary existence, is a pure,
absolute existence.
In Maṭlaʿ al-jūd al-Kūrānī repeats the same proof.21 There, he adds that the necessary
existence by itself is an existence that is devoid of quiddity (wujūd mujarrad ʿan al-
māhiyyah), and concretely individuated by itself (mutaʿayyin bi-dhātihi).22 God’s existence
is thus unprecedented (ghayr masbūq) by a quiddity, unlike all other existents. God is
identical to pure, absolute existence (al-wujūd al-muṭlaq or al-wujūd al-maḥḍ), in the sense
that God has no quiddity (māhiyya) apart from unqualified existence as such.
Thus, the necessary existence is the absolute existence that is devoid of quiddity, self-
subsisting (qāʾim bi-dhātihi), concretely individuated (mutaʿayyan) by itself, and absolute
in the real sense of absoluteness.23 This pure existence is necessary by virtue of itself and
is an “individual” (shakhṣ) and “concretely individuated,” but it is nevertheless not a
“particular” (juzʾī), nor a universal; it is unqualified, pure existence and is a concrete
entity in the extramental world.24 God is a real external existence; He is neither an
20
Al-Kūrānī, Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl, p. 33.
21
Al-Kūrānī, Maṭlaʿ al-jūd, fol. 124a.
22
Ibid., fol. 124a-b.
23
Ibid., fol. 124b.
24
Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 248. Translated by El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth
Century, p. 329.
249
abstract idea nor a mere mental concept. His essence and His existence are the same.
Existence is essential for God since it is the source of existence (ʿayn al-wujūd).25
After establishing the idea that God is absolute existence, al-Kūrānī attempts to
demonstrate that this position is in accord with al-Ashʿarī’s position in his famous
formula that the existence of everything is identical with its quiddity.26 Al-Kūrānī’s
argument for al-Ashʿarī’s agreement with the idea that God is absolute existence always
starts with al-Kūrānī’s attempt to prove that Ashʿarites accept mental existence, even
though they reject the term. This issue will be discussed separately below.
In Itḥāf al-nabīh bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh, al-Kūrānī supports his idea that God is absolute
existence and that He may manifest Himself in any form, and His transcendence would
not be affected because “nothing is like Him.” (Q 42:11). After demonstrating through
reason that God is absolute existence, al-Kūrānī attempts to prove this position through
several ḥadīths and Quranic verses referring to apparent anthropomorphic descriptions
of God. He says that God, as absolute existence, can manifest in any form and that there
is no need for allegorical interpretation (taʾwīl) of these verses or ḥadīths. These
descriptions should be accepted literally while maintaining that “there is nothing like
Him.” Al-Kūrānī states that the salaf, the first three pious generations, accepted these
verses and hadīths without allegorical interpretation, a position he holds as correct.27
Thus, God defined as absolute existence leads us to two main ideas in al-Kūrānī’s thought:
God’s manifestations in forms, or tajalliyyāt in Sufi terms, and his articulation of the
25
26
Ibid., p. 235.
27
Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-nabīh bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh (MS: Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, majāmīʿ
11/2), fols. 352-4.
250
attitude of the salaf as acceptance of the ambiguous verses (mutashābihāt) without
allegorical interpretation. These topics will be discussed separately in the coming pages.
[4.1.2] God’s Attributes and Allegorical Interpretation (taʾwīl)
The Quran (Q 3:7) mentions that it contains two kinds of verses: those that are precise or
specified (muḥkam) and those that are unspecific or ambiguous (mutashābihāt). These
ambiguous verses usually refer to descriptions of God as possessing sensible attributes,
such as a hand (Q 48:10) or an eye (Q 20:39), or that He descends to the lower heavens.
The Quran also says that “there is nothing like Him” (Q 24:11). Scholars disagree about
how one should understand these attributes that God ascribes to Himself so that no kind
of comparison, likeness, or analogy is implied between God’s attributes and human
attributes. Indeed, understanding these apparently anthropomorphic attributes has
been one of the most controversial topics in Islamic theology.
The Quran says about the ambiguous verses that “no one knows its interpretation
except God and those firm in knowledge say, ‘we believe in it’.” (Q 3:7). According to al-
Kūrānī, the dispute among theologians starts from reading this verse. The salaf attitude
is that we have to stop the reading after the word “God”; thus, the only one who knows
the true interpretation is God. And those who are “firm in knowledge” accept how God
describes Himself and believe in it without any interpretation. Theologians who favour
allegorical interpretation, including the Muʿtazilites and the majority of Ashʿarites,
maintain that during our reading of the verse the stop should be after “those firm in
knowledge.” That means that those who know the interpretation of the ambiguous
verses include both God and those who are firm in knowledge.28
28
Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-khalaf bi-taḥqīq madhhab al-salaf (MS: Istanbul: Halet Efendi 787), fols. 34b-35b.
251
El-Rouayheb gives a clear description of the Ashʿarite view of the apparent
anthropomorphic verses, stating that summarizing their position with the formula bilā
kayf, which means these verses should be accepted “without [asking] how,” is not
accurate. The mainstream Ashʿarite position from at least the 11th century onward was
that such passages in the Quran and hadīth should not be taken in their apparent (ẓāhir)
sense. Rather, one should either reinterpret them allegorically (taʾwīl) or entrust their
meaning to God (tafwīḍ); but such passages should not be accepted literally. This position
was the view propounded in such standard handbooks of Ashʿarite and Māturīdite
theology as Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah by Taftāzānī, Sharḥ al-Mawāqif by al-Sayyid al-
Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 1413), the creedal works of Sanūsī (d. 1490), and the Jawharat al-tawḥīd
of Ibrāhīm al-Laqānī (d. 1631).29 El-Rouayheb also clarifies that some Ḥanbalite thinkers
were satisfied with the position of tafwīḍ, but more radical Ḥanbalites like Ibn Taymiyyah
rejected tafwīḍ. Ibn Taymiyyah insists that the apparent (ẓāhir) sense of passages that
state that God has an eye, hands, and feet should simply be accepted in the same way
that one should accept passages that state that God knows or wills or speaks. If
theologians say that God’s knowledge, will, and speech are unlike human knowledge,
will, and speech, why can one not say similarly that God has eye, feet, and hands but that
these are very unlike human eye, feet, and hands?30
Al-Kūrānī disagrees with later Ashʿarite allegorical interpretations of the ambiguous
verses, nor was he satisfied with the attitude of tafwīḍ, which some Ashʿarite and
Ḥanbalite theologians adopted. Al-Kūrānī instead embraces the position of the radical
Ḥanbalites like Ibn Taymiyyah, and claimed that accepting these ambiguous verses and
29
El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 275-6.
30
Ibid., p. 276-7.
252
apparently anthropomorphic descriptions of God without any allegorical interpretation
is the true position, not only of the salaf, but even of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī himself.
According to al-Kūrānī, al-Ashʿarī’s position toward God’s attributes is the same as
that of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and all of the salaf. Each scholar would argue that his
understanding agreed with that of the salaf because a prophetic tradition says that the
best generations (khayr al-qurūn) are those of the first three generations, known as the
pious ancestors (al-salaf al-ṣāliḥ).31 This preference for the first generations refers to their
understanding of the scripture: they were the closest people to the Prophet and
understood the scripture in the “best” way. Al-Kūrānī, in most of his works, puts an
emphasis on following the doctrine of the salaf, and reminds his readers that accepting
the apparent meaning of the Quranic verses without any allegorical interpretation is the
position of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī.32 There is no likening or comparing of God to His
creatures. One should describe God as He describes Himself in the Quran or as the
Prophet described Him, and always remember that “there is nothing like Him.”
Al-Kūrānī was aware of the opinion of what he called the “later Ashʿarites”
(mutaʾakhkhirī al-Ashāʿirah) that the apparent sense should not be accepted literally. In
his opinion, they promoted allegorical interpretations of the ambiguous verses and
ḥadīths because they thought that accepting their apparent meaning contradicted
intellectual demonstrations that it is impossible for God to have material descriptions. 33
Al-Kūrānī says that intellectual contemplation and reasoning (al-naẓar al-ʿaqlī) are not
sufficient to provide understanding of the ambiguous verses and ḥadīths. We should
31
In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: “The best people are those living in my generation, and then those who will follow
them, and then those who will follow the latter.” Similar narrative can be found in Saḥīḥ Muslim.
32
33
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl bi-l-jawāb al-wāḍiḥ ʿan al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar (MS: Istanbul: Nafiz Pasa 508),
fols. 5a-b.
253
believe in these verses without interpreting them allegorically and at the same time we
should reject both assimilation and likening of God with his creatures. Al-Kūrānī repeats
frequently that reason as a means of thinking is limited, but it is limitless as a receiver of
God’s grace (lahu ḥudūd min ḥaythu huwa mufakkir la min ḥaythu huwa qābil).34
How does al-Kūrānī defend his claim that al-Ashʿarī’s position towards the ambiguous
verses is to accept their apparent meaning without any allegorical interpretation? And
why? Al-Kūrānī bases his attempt at reconciliation between the Ashʿarites and the salaf
concerning God’s attributes mainly on al-Ashʿarī’s book al-Ibānah. In al-Ibānah, al-Ashʿarī
acknowledges that he is following Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal,35 and that he accepts the attributes
that have apparent anthropomorphic meaning as the attitude of the salaf concerning the
ambiguous verses. According to al-Kūrānī, al-Ashʿarī thereby affirms the apparently
anthropomorphic passages in the Quran and hadīth without allegorical reinterpretation
of them, all the while simultaneously affirming that “there is nothing like Him.”
Al-Ashʿarī’s al-Ibānah was not the only Ashʿarite book to say that the attitude of the
salaf is to accept the Quranic verses that have apparent anthropomorphic meaning
without the need for allegorical interpretation. Al-Kūrānī also cites Imām al-Ḥaramayn
al-Juwaynī’s al-ʿAqīdah al-niẓāmiyyah, in which al-Juwaynī says that the attitude of the
salaf is to accept the apparent meaning without interpretation and that they entrusted
their meaning to God.36 Al-Kūrānī connects the idea of accepting apparently
34
Ibid., fol. 5b.
35
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, al-Ibānah ʿan uṣūl al-diyānah, ed. Bashīr Muḥammad ʿYūn (Damascus: Dār al-
Bayān, 3ed, 1990), p. 43.
36
Imām al-Ḥaramayin ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Juwaynī, al-ʿAqīdah al-niẓāmiyyah, ed. Muḥammad Zāhid Kawtharī
(Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Azhariyyah li-l-Turāth, 1992), p. 32. This edition is a reprint of the al-Kawtharī
edition, with his comments, in addition to the collation of the edition with a new manuscript. Al-Kawtharī
considers al-Juwaynī’s position to be a precaution (iḥtiyāṭ), lest one accept a less preferable meaning
(marjūḥ) among the different possible allegorical interpretations that respect the transcendence of God.
Ibid., p. 32, fn.1; p. 33, fn. 1. Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 222.
254
anthropomorphic meanings with his interpretation of absolute existence as the One who
is not restricted or conditioned by anything and who can manifest Himself in any
conceivable form, without His absoluteness being affected.37 Al-Kūrānī’s opinion is that
the later mutakallimūn interpreted these ambiguous verses and ḥadīths because they
thought accepting their appearance contradicted the transcendence (tanzīh) of God. But
according to al-Kūrānī, God’s manifestation in forms does not contradict His
transcendence, as we shall see in the related section.38
Al-Ibānah and al-ʿAqīdah al-niẓāmiyyah were also the sources for al-Kūrānī’s theory of
kasb, in which he affirms that man has effects in his acts, not independently, but rather
by the permission of God. This topic will be discussed later; it is mentioned here simply
to indicate that the doubts cast on al-Ibānah and al-ʿAqīdah al-niẓāmiyyah, which we shall
mention soon, are related mainly to these two topics: interpreting God’s attributes and
the theory of kasb.
In every context where al-Kūrānī promotes the attitude of the salaf regarding God’s
attributes and related topics such as the concept of absolute existence and of
manifestation in forms, he cites a few lines from al-Ibānah in which al-Ashʿarī says that
he is following the salaf. The works in which these citations occur include Itḥāf al-nabīh
bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh, Itḥāf al-dhakī (before 19 Dū al-Ḥijja 1071), al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqāʾid ahl
al-athar (written in 1070), Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām (written in 1070), and Itḥāf al-khalaf bi-taḥqīq
madhhab al-salaf (written in 1088), just to name a few. In al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar and Ifāḍat al-
ʿAllām, al-Kūrānī quotes almost two pages from al-Ibānah, but he mentions that he is
37
Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-khalaf bi-taḥqīq madhhab al-salaf, fols. 34b-35b. See also al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 196;
al-Kūrānī, Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām (MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722), fol. 247a. See also Al-Kūrānī, Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl, p.
45-46. Translated by El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 279.
38
Al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl, fol. 24a.
255
citing al-Ibānah from the text of Ibn ʿAsākir’s Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī.39 In one of al-
Kūrānī’s last texts, Izālat al-ishkāl, written in 1097, almost four years before his death, he
repeats his ideas about al-Ashʿarī’s doctrine of accepting apparent descriptions without
allegorical interpretation.40 Interestingly, al-Kūrānī was still citing al-Ibānah from Ibn
ʿAsākir’s book Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī. Does that mean al-Kūrānī did not have access to
al-Ibānah?
In reading al-Kūrānī’s works, I have noticed that he never mentions a direct citation
from al-Ibānah, or cites text from al-Ibānah that was not itself first cited in Ibn ʿAsākir’s
text. What al-Kūrānī needed from al-Ibānah was only al-Ashʿarī’s doctrine and his
statement that he follows the salaf, mainly the first two chapters that Ibn ʿAsākir lists in
his book. In Maslak al-sadād, the text that was written in 1085, when al-Kūrānī wanted to
cite al-Ibānah, he mentioned that Ibn ʿAsākir cited the beginning of Kitāb al-Ibānah in his
book Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī. Then al-Kūrānī mentioned his isnād of reading the
beginning of al-Ibānah that Ibn ʿAsākir listed, starting with his teacher al-Qushāshī, and
continuing until Ibn ʿAsākir.41 Al-Ibānah, as we shall see soon, is a controversial text in
the Ashʿarite tradition. Does that mean it was not popular in Ashʿarite history? Which
texts of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī were used to present his thought in Ashʿarite history
cannot be discussed here. This note aims to draw the attention of scholars to this topic,
especially given the fact that while modern scholars discuss the place of al-Ibānah in al-
Ashʿarī’s thought, as far as I know there are no studies about the use of al-Ibānah in
presenting al-Ashʿarī’s thought among later Ashʿarites.
39
Al-Kūrānī, Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām, fol. 189a-190a.
40
Al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl, fol. 20a-21b.
41
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-sadād ilā masʾalat khalq afʿāl al-ʿibād (MS: Istanbul: Veliyuddin 1815), fol. 33a.
256
Even though al-Kūrānī’s position regarding the anthropomorphic attributes seems to
depart from mainstream Ashʿarism as it developed in later centuries, al-Kūrānī does not
consider himself to be abandoning Ashʿarism. On the contrary, he considers this position
as representing the true and final position of al-Ashʿarī himself. Like Ibn ʿAsākir in
Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī and Ibn Taymiyyah in several places of his writings, al-Kūrānī
was convinced that al-Ibānah was al-Ashʿarī’s last book and thus represented the most
definitive expression of his thought.42 This approach concerning the place of al-Ibānah
among al-Ashʿarī’s works has been challenged by contemporary scholars.
Goldziher regards al-Ibānah as the first attempt to reconcile the Ashʿarites with the
Ḥanbalites, an attempt that later Ashʿarites did not pursue.43 Zāhid al-Kawtharī also
regarded al-Ibānah to be the first book Abū al-Ḥasan composed after his conversion from
Muʿtazilism.44 Anawati and Gardet agree with them.45 Gimaret in La doctrine d’Ashʿari is
uncertain about the dating of the book and in his later article “Bibliographie d’Ashʿari”
says that we do not have enough information to order his works chronologically. 46 Most
of these scholars based their suggestions that al-Ibānah is Abū al-Ḥasan’s first work after
his conversion from Muʿtazilism on an anecdote mentioned by Abū Yaʿlā al-Ḥanbalī in
42
ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan Ibn ʿAsākir, Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī fī-mā Nusiba ilā Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, ed.
Muḥammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Azhariyyah li-l-Turāth, 2010), p. 121. Aḥmad Ibn Ibn
Taymiyyah, al-Risālah al-Ḥamawiyyah al-kubrā in Majmūʿ fatāwā Shaykh al-Islām, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Muḥammad b. Qāsim (KSA, Medina: Mujammaʿ al-Malik Fahd, 2004), vol.5, p. 93.
43
Ignac Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), p.
106.
44
Al-Kawtharī’s comment on Ibn ʿAsākir Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī, p. 392; al-Kawtharī’s comment on al-
Lumʿah fī taḥqīq mabāḥith al-wujūd by Ibrāhīm b. Muṣṭafā al-Madhārī, p. 57. Al-Kawtharī repeated this note
in several works. For example, in his introduction to Ishārāt al-marām min ʿibārāt al-Imām by Kamāl al-Dīn
al-Bayyāḍī, (Pakistan, Karachi: Zam Zam Publisher, 2004), p. 7; also, al-Kawtharī’s footnote on al-Bayhaqī,
Kitāb al-asmāʾ wa-l-ṣifāt (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyyah li-l-Turāth, n.d), p. 297, fn. 1.
45
Anawati and Gardet, Introduction a la theologie musulmane, p. 56.
46
Daniel Gimaret, “Bibliographie d’Ashʿari,” Journal Asiatique, n° 273, 1985. 278.
257
his book Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah. Abū Yaʿlā says that when Abū al-Ḥasan converted from
Muʿtazalism he came to al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Khalaf al-Barbahārī (d. 329/941), the head of
the Ḥanbalities in Baghdad, and presented his book al-Ibānah to him, but al-Barbahārī
rejected it.47 So, while al-Ashʿarī announces specifically in al-Ibānah that he is following
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and that he accepts the khabarī attributes, that does not seem to be
enough for the Ḥanbalites. Al-Ashʿarī’s attempt at reconciliation was not received
positively, which is the reason al-Ashʿarī did not try again and continued on his own.
Not only has the place of al-Ibānah in the chronology of al-Ashʿarī’s works been
challenged, some scholars have claimed that various ideas were interpolated in the
edited text of al-Ibānah.48 Al-Kawtharī asserts that the edition from India contains
interpolations.49 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī agrees with him. McCarthy has similar doubts,
at least about the text published in India.50 Allard suggests that parts of al-Ibānah were
possibly written by some of al-Ashʿarī’s students.51
Al-Kūrānī’s position, based on al-Ibānah, seems to have been following Ḥanbalī
thought on the issue of God’s attributes, but the fact is that he was following Ibn ʿArabī.
El-Rouayheb points out that Sufi attitudes about God’s attributes, especially those having
an apparent anthropomorphic sense, are close to the Ḥanbalites’ position, but the two
positions are based on different reasons. While the Ḥanbalite position arose from their
47
Abū al-Ḥusayn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah, ed. Muḥammad Ḥāmid
al-Faqī (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Sunnah al-Mḥammadiyyah, 1952), vol. 2, p. 18.
48
Wahbī Sulaymān Ghāwajī, Naẓrah ʿilmiyyah fī nisbat kitāb al-Ibānah jamiʿahu ilā al-imām al-jalīl nāṣir al-sunnah
Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1989).
49
In a footnote in Ibn ʿAsākir’s Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī published in Damascus, 1347/1928, p. 28, fn.1. The
Indian edition is published by Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiyyah, Ḥaydar Ābād al-Dakan, 1903.
50
Richard McCarthy, The Theology of al-Ashʿarī: The Arabic Texts of al-Ashʿarī’s Kitāb al-Lumaʿ and Risālat Istiḥsān
al-khawḍ fī ʿilm al-kalām (Beirut: Impr. Catholique,1953), p. 231-2.
51
Michel Allard, Le problème des attributs divins dans la doctrine d’al-Ašʻarī et de ses premiers grands disciples
(Beirut: Impr. Catholique, 1965), p. 52.
258
idea that one should describe God as He describes Himself in scripture, the Sufi position
emerged from their idea that God can manifest Himself in any form He wishes without
any restrictions. Thus, al-Kūrānī was not actually following Ibn Taymiyyah, but Ibn
ʿArabī and his followers, who were adamant that the apparent sense of the Quran and
the ḥadīth should be accepted. El-Rouayheb states that even though Ibn ʿArabī and his
followers regularly proposed hidden meanings in the Quran and ḥadith, they also
accepted the apparent sense of both and criticized rational theologians and philosophers
for their refusal to do so when they deemed the apparent sense to be rationally
impossible.52
By way of a summary, for al-Kūrānī God is the absolute existence that may manifest
in a limited form without being Himself limited or restricted. Not only does reason affirm
that absoluteness is not restricted, but the Quran and the ḥadīth are full of evidence that
God manifests in conceivable forms. There is no need to interpret these verses and
ḥadīths allegorically because manifestation in forms does not entail any kind of
corporealism, incarnationism, or anthropomorphism, as we shall see in the next section
about God’s manifestations in forms.
[4.1.3] God’s Manifestations in Sensible and Conceivable Forms

As explained above, later Ashʿarites thought that accepting the apparent meaning of
these verses and ḥadīths would contradict the principle of God’s transcendence (tanzīh);
thus, we have to interpret these descriptions allegorically. For al-Kūrānī, God is absolute
existence and He may manifest Himself in a limited form while being free from any
likeness to creatures by virtue of there being “nothing is like Him.” He can manifest
Himself in sensible and conceivable forms, and both revelation (sharʿ) and mystic
52
259
unveiling (kashf) affirm that He does manifest Himself in restricted forms. In almost
every context where al-Kūrānī tries to demonstrate that God is absolute existence, he
follows his demonstration with several Quranic verses and ḥadīths that appear to support
anthropomorphism in order to show that the identification of God and absolute
existence is contrary neither to reason nor to religious texts.
Prophetic ḥadīths on manifestation in forms can be found in all authentic ḥadīth
collections including al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, al-Ḥākim al-Nisābūrī, and al-
Bayhaqī.53 Al-Kūrānī dedicated several treatises to clarifying the idea of God’s
manifestations in forms, including Jalāʾ al-naẓar fī baqāʾ al-tanzīh maʿ al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar,54
Itḥāf al-nabīh bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh,55 Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl ʿalā tanzīh al-ṣūfiyyah ʿan iʿtiqād al-tajsīm
wa-l-ʿayniyyah wa-l-ittiḥād wa-l-ḥulūl,56 and Izālat al-ishkāl bi-l-jawāb al-wāḍiḥ ʿan al-tajallī fī
al-ṣuwar.57 This last treatise is relatively long and detailed. It is one of al-Kūrānī’s later
works, written in 1097/1685-6, which means that until almost the end of his life, al-
Kūrānī was still receiving objections and inquiries related to this topic.
Alongside the Quranic verses that ascribe to God hands, a face, and the actions of
sitting on the throne, descending to the lower heaven, hearing and seeing, al-Kūrānī
usually mentions several ḥadīths that contains descriptions of God with
anthropomorphic qualities, including:
- “my Lord came to me in the best of appearances” (atānī Rabbī fī aḥsan ṣuwra).58
53
54
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-naẓar fī baqāʾ al-tanzīh maʿ al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar (MS: Istanbul: Halet Efendi 787),
fols. 32a-33a.
55
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-nabīh bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh, fols. 351-362.
56
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl ʿalā tanzīh al-ṣūfiyyah ʿan iʿtiqād al-tajsīm wa-l-ʿayniyyah wa-l-ittiḥād wa-l-
ḥulūl, ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Ḥusayn (Damascus: Dār al-Bayrūtī, 2009).
57
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl bi-l-jawāb al-wāḍiḥ ʿan al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar, 47 folios.
58
Muḥammad b. ʿIsā al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʿ al-kabīr, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-
Islāmī, 2ed, 1998), vol. 5, p. 283, ḥadīth no. 3234.
260
- “He placed His hand between my shoulders, until I sensed its coolness between my
breast.”59
- The Prophet said that “God is not one-eyed,” and pointed with his hand toward his
eye.60
- “The hellfire will keep on saying: ‘Are there any more (people to come)?’ Till the Lord
puts His foot over it and then it will say, ‘Qat! Qat!’ (enough! enough!).”61
- “God created Adam in His own image.”62
Many other ḥadīths are mentioned in al-Kūrānī’s treatise mentioned above. Almost all
the content of al-Kūrānī’s Izālat al-ishkāl and Jalāʾ al-naẓar consist of citations from ḥadīths
related to God’s manifestation in forms. One specific ḥadīth deserves to be mentioned
separately because al-Kūrānī refers to it frequently. It is known as the ḥadīth of
transformation in forms (ḥadīth al-taḥawwul fī al-ṣuwar). This ḥadīth, which is from the
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, says that on the Day of Judgement God appears to people in different
appearances, but they keep on denying Him until He transforms Himself into the form
in which they recognize Him.63 Al-Kūrānī says that the ḥadīth of transforming in forms is
mutawātir; as an expert in ḥadīth, he dedicates several pages in Izālat al-ishkāl to the isnāds
of the ḥadīth and its different sources.64
Another Quranic verse through which al-Kūrānī attempts to show how later
Ashʿarites departed from the attitude of the salaf concerning the interpretation of
59
Al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʿ al-kabīr, vol. 5, p. 282, ḥadīth no. 3233.
60
Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ed. Muṣṭafā al-Bughā (Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1976),
vol. 6, p. 2696, ḥadīth no. 6972.
61
Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Nisābūrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub
al-ʿArabiyyah, 1991), vol. 4, p. 2186-7, ḥadīths no. 36-37.
62
Ibid., vol. 4, p. 2017, ḥadīth no. 115.
63
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 163, ḥadīth no. 299. Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, vol. 4, p. 1672, ḥadīth no. 4305.
64
Al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl, fols. 2a-5a.
261
Quranic verses that contain some apparent anthropomorphism is the verse that states
that “when he [Moses] came to it [the fire], he was called: blessed is whoever is at the fire
and whoever is around it, and exalted is God, Lord of the worlds.” (Q 27:8). Al-Kūrānī
mentions that al-Bayḍāwī’s interpretation, and those of most later exegetes, proposed
that “in the fire” (fī al-nār) means “in the vicinity of the fire” (fī makān al-nār); those “in
the vicinity of the fire” would thus be Moses and possibly also other humans and angels.
Al-Kūrānī says that an early interpretation that goes back to Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 687) instead
considered “the one who is in the fire” to be God.65 For al-Kūrānī, there is no need to
depart from apparent sense (al-ẓāhir) in this latter interpretation, because God can
manifest in the fire.66
God is absolutely transcendent and independent and yet is in whichever direction one
faces and is with His servants wherever they are; He sits on His throne and He descends
to the lower heavens. All these Quranic verses and ḥadīths should not be interpreted
allegorically because “if you know that the Real has the true absoluteness that is not
restricted, you know that the Real manifests in forms and other attributes that came in
ḥadīths such as laughing, wondering, coming, descending, ascending; all these
descriptions do not negate [His] transcendence (lā tunāfī al-tanzīh).”67 All passages in the
Quran and hadīth that suggest that God has bodily or human form or spatial location
should, on this account, be understood as descriptions of the manifestations or
epiphanies of God. After mentioning the Quranic verses and ḥadīths that contain an
apparent anthropomorphic sense, al-Kūrānī always reminds his readers that the salaf’s
65
Al-Kūrānī, Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām, fol. 231b. Al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl, fol. 38b.
66
67
262
attitude is to accept the literal meaning of these verses and ḥadīths and simultaneously
to negate any similarity between God and His creature, because “nothing is like Him.”68
According to al-Kūrānī, accepting anthropomorphic descriptions of God does not
entail that we affirm that God has corporeal organs (jāriḥah); rather, we affirm that God
can manifest in a phenomenon that has corporeal organs, and His transcendence
remains because “there is nothing like Him.”69 God’s essence is different than the essence
of creatures: He is independent by Himself, concretely individuated by Himself, and
nothing conditions or restricts Him, while the essences of creatures are nonexistent
quiddities with specific dispositions for specific forms of actualization.70 Every creature
is restricted by a form that fits with the essential dispositions of its quiddity (istiʿdād dhātī
li-l-māhiyyah).71 God is not restricted by any manifested form because essentially He has
no form (lā tuqayyiduhu ṣuwrat al-tajallī idh lā ṣuwrah dhātiyyah lahu).72 God’s manifestation
in forms is something added to His essence that does not change the essence; what He
has essentially (bi-l-dhāt) never ceases because “His absoluteness is essential for Him and
what is essential never ceases to be.”73 Since manifestation in restricted forms does not
change the essence, it does not affect God’s transcendence (tanzīh).74
Al-Kūrānī does not ignore the mutakallimūn’s proofs that God is not in a specific place
or direction. He mentions these proofs, mainly from al-Ījī’s al-Mawāqif and al-Jurjānī’s
Sharḥ, and confirms them. He says that it is true that we cannot say that God is in a
68
Al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl, fol. 5a.
69
Ibid., fol. 7b.
70
Ibid., fol. 6a.
71
Ibid., fol. 13a.
72
Ibid., p. 219.
73
Al-Kūrānī, Nawāl al-ṭawl fī taḥqīq al-ījād bi-l-qawl (MS: Juma al-Majed Center for Culture and Heritage, no.
375046), fol. 2b. The number of the folio is for this specific treatise because the numeration of all the majmuʿ
is not clear.
74
Al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl, fol. 15b-16a.
263
specific place or direction, but this is only true about God’s essence. Refusing to describe
God as being in a specific place or direction does not mean that He cannot manifest
Himself in an appearance or form that has a specific place and direction. We affirm place
and direction, not for God’s essence, but for the form. In addition, al-Kūrānī accepts that
God’s essence is not a locus for temporally generated things (la taqūm bi-hā al-ḥawādith),
but again, that does not mean He cannot manifest in forms.75 In Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl, al-Kūrānī
defends Ibn ʿArabī and his followers against accusations of anthropomorphism,
pantheism, immanentism, and incarnationism. His argument is the same in his
theological treatise, that God is an absolute existence in the sense that he is not restricted
or conditioned by any other things outside of Himself.76 In general, all the proofs that
negate that God is in space and direction are accepted by al-Kūrānī, but for him they do
not negate God’s manifestation in an appearance or form that has place or direction.77
What al-Kūrānī means is that absoluteness is essential for God, and what is essential
never ceases.78
It is obvious that the matter at stake is the proper way of describing God and the
relationship between God and the world. This topic was one of the main discussions in
Islamic theology. Between anthropomorphism, which describes God in human
characteristics, and absolute transcendence, such as that propounded by the Jahmiyyah,
who refused to describe God with any description that would be applied to a human,79
75
Ibid., fol.16a-b, 17a.
76
77
Al-Kūrānī, Izālat al-ishkāl, fol. 19b.
78
Al-Kūrānī, Maṭlaʿ al-jūd, fol. 125b.
79
Ibn Ḥanbal states the idea of Jahm about God is that: “He is not described or known by any attribute or
act, nor has He any term or limit; … and whatever may occur to your thought as a being, He is contrary to
it.” Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal, Al-Radd ʿalā al-jahmiyyah wa-l-zanadiqah, ed. Ṣabrī bin Salāmah Shāhīn (KSA, al-
Riyāḍ: Dār al-Thabāt, 2003), p. 98.
264
was a spectrum of different opinions regarding how to describe God using negative or
positive statements. As mentioned above, the salaf’s attitude was to accept these
descriptions without allegorical interpretation. But al-Kūrānī’s reason to accept these
verses without allegorical interpretation is different from that of the salaf, and most
probably his source is not Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings. Rather, he used the salaf and Ḥanbalī
writings to support an idea that has its source in Ibn ʿArabī’s texts.
Alongside describing God as absolute existence, Ibn ʿArabī in Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam says, “the
Real’s (al-Ḥaqq) [manifestation] is limited through all limits.” (al-ḥaqq maḥdūd bi-kull
ḥadd).80 In the Quran and ḥadīth, God describes Himself by saying that He has “established
Himself firmly on the Throne,” and that “He descends to the nearest heaven”; that “He
is in the heaven and in the earth,” and that “He is with us wherever we are.” In all these
verses, God describes Himself by His apparent limits or boundedness.81 Ibn ʿArabī writes
that we can know God through the limited forms in which He reveals Himself. Everything
is a locus of manifestation (majlā, maẓhar) of Divine Being: God displays Himself
outwardly in the form of existent things. So, each thing shows us something about God
Himself. And yet, “nothing is like Him.” In other words, we are talking about the two
main ways to talk about God, tashbīh “immanence” or “similarity” and tanzīh
“transcendence” or “incomparability.” These two attitudes were very well known in
Islamic theology. Chittick explains that Ibn ʿArabī’s writings address the two primary
modes of human understanding, “imagination” (khayāl) and “reason” (ʿaql). God discloses
80
Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. ʿAfīfī, p. 68. In Austin’s translation: “He may be defined by every definition.”
Ibn ʿArabī The Bezels of Wisdom, tr. R. W. J. Austin (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), p. 73.
81
Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 111. “Then He says: ‘He established Himself on the Throne,’ which also
represents a Self-limitation. He then says that He descended to the lower heaven, also a limitation. He says
further that He is in the heaven and on the earth, that He is with us wherever we are […] We are limited
beings, and thus He describes Himself always by ways that represent a limitation on Himself.” Austin, The
Bezels of Wisdom, p. 134-5.
265
Himself to humans in two ways: firstly, He discloses His undisclosability, and thereby we
come to know that we cannot know Him. This way of describing God is the route of
negative theology, and Ibn ʿArabī frequently takes it. Secondly, God discloses Himself to
human beings through scripture, the universe, and their own souls. To the degree that
He does so, people can and do come to know Him.82
These two ways were known long before Ibn ʿArabī; asserting God’s incomparability
had been normative for most versions of Islamic theology, and asserting His similarity
was often found in Sufi expressions of Islamic teachings, especially poetry. But Ibn
ʿArabī’s contribution, according to Chittick, was to stress the need to maintain a proper
balance between the two ways of understanding God. As Chittick says, “when reason
grasps God’s inaccessibility, it ‘asserts his incomparability’ (tanzīh). When imagination
finds him present, it ‘asserts his similarity’ (tashbīh).”83 According to Chittick, tanzīh,
“incomparable,” and tashbīh, “similar,” are the two theological terms that played major
roles in Ibn ʿArabī’s vocabulary.84 Similarly, in al-Kūrānī’s works, the perfect faith (al-
īmān al-kāmil) is a combination of transcendence (tanzīh) and a confirmation of the
mutashābihāt in a way that is suitable for the majesty of God’s essence, which means in a
way that does not negate the transcendence expressed by “nothing is like Him.”85
Ibn ʿArabī was accused of ḥulūl “incarnationism,” and tajsīm “anthropomorphism.” In
Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl, al-Kūrānī defends Ibn ʿArabī and his followers against accusations of
anthropomorphism, pantheism, immanentism, and incarnationism. His argument is the
82
William Chittick, Ibn Arabi, Heir to the Prophets (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2005), p. 18-19.
83
Ibid., p. 19.
84
Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, p. 9. For more discussion on tashbīh and tanzīh in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought
see William Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Cosmology (Albany: State University
of New York Press,1998), p. xxi.
85
266
same in his theological treatise, that God is an absolute existence in the sense that He is
not restricted or conditioned by any other thing outside of Himself.86 Al-Kūrānī faced
similar accusations. Al-Shāwī, who dedicated a treatise to refuting al-Kūrānī’s thought,
mainly his theory of kasb, accused al-Kūrānī of anthropomorphism (al-tajsīm). Al-Barzanjī
in his reply to al-Shāwī’s work mentioned that there were different opinions about God’s
attributes and that al-Kūrānī had selected the opinion of the salaf.87 Al-Shāwī went on to
say that al-Kūrānī arose (taraqqā) in disbelief (ilḥād) by saying that God exists in
everything. Al-Barzanjī rejected these accusations and repeated that God can manifest
in any form because He is absolute existence, without any assimilation.
To gain a wider perspective on God’s relation to the cosmos and to connect this idea
with the next discussion concerning the status of the “nonexistent,” we need to have an
idea about the different categories of existence in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. In Inshāʾ al-
dawāʾir, Ibn ʿArabī talks about three metaphysical categories of existence. The absolute
being, which exists through itself and through which everything else exists, is God, the
Creator, with whom nothing is equal. The second metaphysical category is the opposite
of the first; it is “limited being” (wujūd muqayyad): the material universe and everything
it contains. It has no existence in itself, so it is essentially nonbeing; it exists through the
absolute and depends for its existence upon the absolute. The third metaphysical
category is neither nonbeing nor being. It is some sort of intermediary between the first
and the second category. Among the expressions that Ibn ʿArabī uses to describes this
third category are the “breath of the Compassionate” (nafas al-Raḥmān), the “essence of
86
Al-Kūrānī, Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl, p. 48 and after.
87
Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī, al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī ʿalā al-thaʿlab al-ghāwī wa-l-nashshāb al-kāwī li-l-aʿshā al-
ghāwī wa-l-shahāb al-shāwī li-l-aḥwal al-Shāwī (MS: Istanbul: Laleli 3744), fol. 37b.
267
all essences” (ḥaqīqat al-ḥaqāʾiq), and “the cloud” (al-ʿamāʾ).88 One problem with these
categories is the relation between the first and the third categories. Both are different
from the second, which is the limited being of the world, and at the same time this third
category is neither nonbeing nor being, and cannot be described as either created or
uncreated, as we will see below. Ibn ʿArabī’s idea of this relation is based on the concept
of tajallī, divine manifestation.
Conceptualizing God’s relationship to the cosmos raised several problems for Sufis,
who used theological terms in specific ways. According to Louis Massignon, mystics were
obliged to have recourse to the theological vocabulary of their time. They borrowed
technical terms and twisted the sense a little, without giving a fixed meaning to them,
and “in doing this, primitive Muslim mysticism involved itself in the snares of the
metaphysics of the first Mutakallimūn: atomism, materialism and occasionalism in
metaphysics.”89 Their use of theological terms may be one of the main reasons behind
the conflict between Sufis and theologians, which became violent on several occasions.
Many centuries before al-Kūrānī, Sufism moved beyond spiritual exercises (mujāhadāt)
to discuss topics related to theology and philosophy such as knowledge, existence,
sainthood, or theological doctrines in general on the knowledge of God, as well as on the
relationship between the Creator and the cosmos. As we will see later, Sufism became
increasingly philosophical after Ibn ʿArabī, due to the efforts of al-Qūnawī and his circle,
and theology, which had also become increasingly philosophical after al-Ghazālī, was
discussing many Sufi ideas. Chittick states that “Ibn ʿArabī’s writings mark Sufism’s
88
Landolt argues that this category has many aspects in common with that mysterious entity that was
known in Greek as Logos. Hermann Landolt, “Simnānī on waḥdat al-wujūd,” pp. 91-112.101.
89
Louis Massignon, “Tasawwuf”, Encyclopedia of Islam, 1ed, 1913-1936, vol. VIII, p. 683.
268
massive entry into theoretical discussions of the meaning and reality of wujūd.”90
Discussing wujūd meant that they needed to deal with most of the major philosophical
and theological discussions regarding topics such as essence, existence, nonexistence,
quiddity, creation, God’s attributes, predetermination, and human will; all had become
integrated into Sufi discourse, as we will see in the coming pages. This is one reason why
it is difficult to separate al-Kūrānī’s theological ideas from his Sufi thought.
To repeat al-Kūrānī’s position, manifestation in forms does not restrict God because
He is absolute existence, which is not restricted or conditioned by anything other than
Himself.91 In other words, only absolute existence itself is unrestricted, and anything
other than Him is forever restricted. God’s manifestation is always restricted by the form
in which it occurs. Thus, the Quranic verses and the Prophetic ḥadīths that describe God
in bodily or human form or in spatial location should be accepted as manifestations of
God, without allegorical interpretation.
One of the sources that al-Kūrānī uses frequently to cite ḥadīths that appear to
promote anthropomorphism is al-Bayhaqī’s book al-Asmāʾ wa-l-ṣifāt, which contains
numerous ḥadīths concerning God’s relation with the cosmos. This book was published
with comments by Muḥammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī (d. 1952), who was an ardent Ashʿarī
and a critic of Ibn Taymiyyah. Al-Kawtharī in his comments on this book and on several
kalām texts represents the attitude of later Ashʿarites. He rejects the literal meanings and
emphasizes allegorical interpretations of all the descriptions of God that use human or
creaturely attributes. It is therefore unsurprising that he was not sympathetic to al-
Kūrānī’s efforts to look closely at Ḥanbalite positions on several theological topics.
William Chittick, “Waḥdat al-wujūd in India,” Ishraq: Islamic Philosophy Yearbook 3 (2012), pp. 29-40, p. 29.
90
91
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Mirqāt al-ṣuʿūd ilā ṣiḥḥat al-qawl bi-waḥdat al-wujūd (UK: British Library, India Office,
Delhi-Arabic 710c), fol. 21b.
269
Al-Kawtharī actually mentions al-Kūrānī in several contexts, and for the most parts
rejects his ideas. According to al-Kawtharī, anyone who tries to reconcile the ideas of
Sufis with those of theologians (and he specifies al-Kūrānī) is attempting the impossible
and this person is devoid of reason and scriptural knowledge.92 Al-Kawtharī describes al-
Kūrānī as al-Mutaṣawwif (the Sufi) as a way to discredit his theological efforts.93 He says
that al-Kūrānī’s words in Qaṣd al-sabīl cannot convey al-Juwaynī’s ideas from al-ʿAqīdah
al-niẓāmiyyah.94 He holds that al-Kūrānī, who believed in waḥdat al-wujūd, tried to
interpret al-Ashʿarī’s ideas (yukharrij kalām al-Ashʿarī) according to the idea of waḥdah.
Then he says that al-Kūrānī’s position is merely a personal whim (hawā) that changed the
clear meaning of the text. Manifestation in forms according to al-Kawtharī is incarnation
(ḥulūl),95 so for him, al-Kūrānī’s idea of manifestation in forms is buffoonery and craziness
(mujūn fī mujūn wa junūn laysa fawqahu junūn).96 However, al-Kawtharī does not disagree
with al-Kūrānī on everything. Abū al-Thanāʾ al- Ālūsī in his Quranic commentary entitled
Rūḥ al-maʿānī includes several pages on the topic of kalām nafsī,97 almost literally copied
from Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām by al-Kūrānī. Al-Kawtharī mentions al-Ālūsī’s explanation of the
meaning of Quran and kalām nafsī and praises it, albeit without acknowledging or perhaps
even realizing that these are al-Kūrānī’s ideas.98
92
Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī, al-Sayf al-ṣaqīl fī al-radd ʿalā Ibn Zafīl, ed. Muḥammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī (Cairo: al-
Maktabah al-Azhariyyah li-l-Turāth, n. d), p. 86, fn. 2 by al-Kawtharī.
93
Ibrāhīm b. Muṣṭafā al-Madhārī, al-Lumʿah fī taḥqīq mabāḥith al-wujūd wa-l-ḥudūth wa-l-qadar wa-afʿāl al-
ʿibād, ed. Muḥamad Zāhid al-Kawtharī (Cairo: Dār al-Baṣāʾir, 2008), p. 56, fn. 1. by al-Kawtharī.
94
Ibid., p. 56, fn. 1. by al-Kawtharī.
95
Al-Subkī, al-Sayf al-ṣaqīl, p. 86, fn. 2 by al-Kawtharī.
96
Ibid., p. 109.
97
Maḥmūd ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʿānī fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm wa-l-sabʿ al-mathānī (Cairo: al-
Maṭbaʿah al-Munīriyyah, 1970), vol. 1, pp. 10-16.
98
Al-Subkī, al-Sayf al-ṣaqīl, p. 27, fn. 1 by al-Kawtharī.
270
[4.1.4] Nafs al-amr in al-Kūrānī’s Thought

The concept of nafs al-amr became the subject of heated debates during the 14th, 15th, and
16th centuries. İhsan Fazlıoğlu in “Between reality and mentality: Fifteenth century
mathematics and natural philosophy reconsidered” argues that the concept of nafs al-
amr came to assume the role that the active intellect had played in the Avicennian
system, after the declining role of the active intellect as a guarantor of certain knowledge
in classical (i.e. Avicennian) epistemological systems.99 Fazlıoğlu states that the concept
of nafs al-amr took on a variety of meanings depending on the author, which makes a
coherent, historical account of this term difficult. However, he presents the views of
Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d. 672/1274) and Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ḥillī (d. 726/1325) as starting points
from which to examine the development of this concept. Fazlıoğlu mentions a Sufi who
dealt with the concept of nafs al-amr, namely, one of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam commentators, Dāwūd
al-Qayṣarī (d. 751/1350). In his work entitled Maṭlaʿ khuṣūṣ al-kilam fī maʿānī Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam,
al-Qayṣarī uses the concept of nafs al-amr to refer to the knowledge of God or divine
knowledge.100 More texts and works about the concept of nafs al-amr are now available in
printed form.101 However, in this context, I will limit my inquiry to al-Kūrānī’s
understanding of the concept of nafs al-amr and its related topics.
In Qaṣd al-sabīl, al-Kūrānī says that nafs al-amr refers to God’s knowledge, which
encompasses all objects of knowledge, “nafs al-amr huwa ʿilm al-Ḥaqq subḥānah al-muḥīṭ bi-
99
İhsan Fazlıoğlu, “Between reality and mentality: Fifteenth century mathematics and natural philosophy
reconsidered,” Nazariyat: Journal for the History of Islamic Philosophy and Sciences, 1/1 (November 2014), p. 24
and after.
100
Fazlıoğlu, “Between reality and mentality,” p. 25-26.
101
At least five works on the concept of nafs al-amr are printed. See Ḥasan Zādah Āmulī, “Nafs al-amr,”
Majallat Turāthunā, Iran, Qum, No.1 (second year), Muḥarram, 1407, pp. 62-96; Ṭūsī, Jurjānī, Dawānī,
Kalanbawī, Thalāth rasāʾil fī nafs al-amr, ed. Saʿīd Fūdah (Jordan: Dār al-Aṣlayn, 2017).
271
kull maʿlūm.”102 He interprets this Sufi understanding, as mentioned by al-Qayṣarī above,
through an Ashʿarite perspective. God’s attributes in the Ashʿarite tradition were usually
described as being neither other than God’s essence, nor identical with God’s essence
itself,103 or in al-Kūrānī’s expression laysa ghayr al-dhāt wa-lā ʿayn al-dhāt.104 So, God’s
knowledge has two aspects:
1. God’s knowledge is not other than God’s essence (laysa ghayr al-dhāt). In other
words, knowledge in this respect is identical to the essence. Knowledge as identical to
God’s essence is called nafs al-amr. God’s essence contains all statuses (shuʾūn),
considerations (iʿtibārāt), and relations (nisab), expressions that refer to God’s relation to
things other than Himself. The object of this knowledge is the essence with all its
perfection. In this aspect of knowledge, there is no distinction, even mentally (iʿtibārī),
between knowledge and its object. Thus, we cannot say that knowledge follows the object
of knowledge because the relation of following requires multiplicity and differentiation
(taʿaddud wa-mughāyarah), which does not exist, even conceptually, because the
knowledge is not other than the essence.105 Al-Kūrānī states that nafs al-amr is neither the
preserved tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ)106 nor the active intellect (al-ʿaql al-faʿʿāl).107 In nafs al-
amr there is no intermediate state (wāsiṭa) between existence and nonexistence, which
means that either a reality exists eternally, or has never and will never exist in nafs al-
102
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, fol. 51b.
103
For the developments of this formula in Ashʿarī’s thought see Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of
the Kalam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 207 and after.
104
105
Ibid., fol. 52a.
106
Ibid., fol. 51b.
107
Ibid., fol. 52a.
272
amr, or in the external world, as we shall see below.108 In other words, a certain reality
must exist eternally in nafs al-amr; otherwise, it will never exist in any form.
2. When God’s knowledge is not construed as identical to His essence, this
conceptual differentiation (mughāyarah iʿtibāriyyah) means that there is a kind of
conceptual multiplicity (taʿaddūd iʿtibārī).109 This kind of knowledge is also eternal, but
since there is differentiation (tamāyuz), we can say that this kind of knowledge follows
its object, which is, in this case, the essence.110 The object of knowledge (al-maʿlūm) is the
essence with all its perfection and its states (shuʾūn) that contain all the realities (al-
ḥaqāʾiq).
So, for al-Kūrānī, nafs al-amr is God’s knowledge in the sense that it is not other than
God’s essence, and since God’s knowledge eternally compasses everything, the realities
of everything are affirmed in this knowledge eternally. Thus, the realities of everything
are uncreated (ghayr majʿūlah) because they eternally exist in nafs al-amr, or in God’s
eternal knowledge, in the sense that it is identical to His essence.
The existence of realities, which are also described as relations (nisab and iḍāfat), in
God’s knowledge, in so far as this knowledge is identical to His essence, does not imply
any plurality in the Divine essence. Al-Kūrānī refers to al-Mawāqif to indicate that this
kind of relation is possible within God. Al-Ījī states that “it is generally agreed that
relations can be renewed in God’s essence” (al-iḍāfāt yajūz tajadduduha ittifāqan).111 Al-
Jurjānī explains the word iḍāfāt as al-nisab and says that intellectuals (al-ʿuqalāʾ) agree
108
Ibid., fol. 60b.
109
Ibid., fol. 52a.
110
Ibid., fol. 52a. Al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-fuhūm fī taḥqīq al-thubūt wa-ruʾyat al-maʿdūm (MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye
1440), fols. 52a-83a.
111
Al-Ījī, al-Mawāqif, p. 275.
273
that it is possible for these relations to be renewed in God’s essence.112 Al-Kūrānī uses
their theological authority to confirm that this kind of renewal in God’s essence is
accepted. A similar idea can be found in Ibn Sīnā’s writings, as we will see in the section
related to the topic of creation.
However, I think his main source, which has not been mentioned in this context, is
Ibn ʿArabī. Al-Kūrānī uses Ibn ʿArabī’s terminology to refer to the affirmation of
contingents in nafs al-amr or, in Ibn ʿAraī’s term, al-dhāt al-aqdas.113 God’s attributes in Ibn
ʿArabī’s works can be described as relations. So, if we say “God knows,” that means the
relation of knowledge is established between Him and what He knows. The same thing
can be said when saying that God creates, so the attribute or relation of creativity is
established between Him and His creation.114 In other words, God has always been and
will always be a Creator, as He creates in every moment and new relations with creatures
are renewed forever, but being a Creator eternally does not imply any change in His
essence. Creating one person and then another person does not make the Creator
multiple. Again, the realities of everything eternally exist in God’s knowledge as it is
identical to His essence. So, what does creation mean, what kind of existence do these
realities have? They are not existents in the external world, thus they are nonexistent,
yet they have a kind of existence in nafs al-amr; are we talking about the Muʿtazilite
conception of the nonexistent? Also, if the realities of everything exist eternally in God’s
knowledge, are we not left with a form of predestination? Can man act with free will if
everything already exists eternally in God’s knowledge? All these topics are
112
ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Jurjānī, Sharḥ al-Mawāqif with al-Siyalkūtī and Jalabī’s glosses (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-ʿImiyyah, 1998), vol. 8, p. 36. See also Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī, Ghāyat al-marām fī ʿilm al-kalām, ed. Ḥasan
Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (Cairo: al-Majlis al-Aʿlā li-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah, 1971), p. 193.
113
Al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-fuhūm, fol. 54b-55a.
114
Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God, p. xvii.
274
interconnected and al-Kūrānī’s opinion concerning each topic will be discussed and
clarified.
Before moving on to these points, I should clarify an expression that al-Kūrānī uses
frequently, that knowledge follows the object of knowledge (al-ʿilm yatbaʿ al-maʿlūm).115
This idea can be traced to early theologians. Al-Shahrastānī, in his discussion of Ibn Sīnā’s
idea that God does not know things through the things themselves, or else His knowledge
would be passive, replies that this issue of the relationship between knowledge and the
object of knowledge is a topic of discussion between philosophers and theologians
(mutakallimūn). Then, al-Shahrastānī mentions several options that theologians
discussed, “whether He knows things prior to their coming into being, or with their
coming into being, or after it; and whether the knowledge follows the object of
knowledge, so that it discovers the object of knowledge as it is, or whether the object of
knowledge follows the knowledge.”116 This idea of knowledge following its object can be
traced to Aristotle’s claim that the object of God’s knowledge is Himself, and because He
knows Himself He knows everything.117 Ibn ʿArabī in al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah says,
“Knowledge follows the object of knowledge; the object of knowledge does not follow
115
116
Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī, Struggling with the Philosopher: A Refutation of Avicenna's
Metaphysics: A new Arabic Edition and English Translation of Muhammad b. Abd al-Karīm b. Ahmad al-Shahrastānī's
Kitāb al-Muṣāraʿa, edited and translate by Wilferd Madelung (London: I.B. Tauris in association with the
Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2001), p. 70-71.
117
W. D. Ross, Aristotle (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 189. Frank Griffel in “Al-Ghazālī’s (d. 1111) Incoherence
of the philosophers,” says that in discussing Ibn Sīnā’s idea that God knows “particulars” (juzʾiyyāt) only
“in a universal way,” al-Ghazālī “draws on ideas and solutions that were developed earlier in kalām
literature. He denies the Aristotelian understanding that “knowledge follows the object of knowledge.”
Frank Griffel, “Al-Ghazālī’s (d. 1111) Incoherence of the Philosophers,” The Oxford Handbook of Islamic
Philosophy, ed. Khaled El-Rouayheb and Sabine Schmidtke (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), p.
203.
275
knowledge.”118 When Ibn ʿArabī says that God’s knowledge follows the realities of things,
that does not mean that God has acquired His knowledge from externally existent things.
Rather, God’s knowledge follows the object of knowledge as it eternally exists in God’s
knowledge in so far as it is identical to His essence. Thus, God does not make a thing the
way it is; rather, He knows the way it is in His knowledge through knowing Himself,
because “God is all-knowing, and He is all-knowing always and forever. The choices He
makes are based on the realities of the entities, which are fixed in His knowledge. His
choices follow what He knows about the entities, because knowledge follows the
known.”119 In creation, God’s power creates according to His will, and His will follows His
knowledge, and His knowledge follows the object of knowledge or the known itself.
Nafs al-amr understood as God’s knowledge is related to two main topics in theology,
with respect to both of which al-Kūrānī received severe criticism. If the realities of things
exist eternally in nafs al-amr, does that mean that the nonexistent is a “thing,” as the
Muʿtazilites argue? If the realities of things are not created, what is the meaning of
creation? If realities are eternals in this way, should we not say that everything is
predestined? And in this case how can man be responsible for his acts?
[4.1.5] Ashʿarites and Mental Existence
Al-Kūrānī makes an effort to prove that Ashʿarites accept mental existence. This step is
vital for him in his attempt to prove that the nonexistent has a kind of affirmation
outside of the mind, which will lead him to the idea of affirmation of the nonexistent
(thubūt al-maʿdūm).
118
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. 4, p. 16. Ibn ʿArabī repeated this expression several times in al-
Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, see for example vol. 4, p. 228, 247, 258, 318.
119
Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God, p. 186.
276
Al-Kūrānī mentions both the arguments of the people who accept mental existence
and of those who reject it. Those who affirm mental existence usually refer to some ideas
that do not correspond to anything extramental, which means they must have another
kind of existence, either in the human mind or in God’s knowledge. By contrast, those
who reject the idea of mental existence argue that if we have the idea of whiteness and
blackness in our minds that means the co-existence of contradictions, and if we have the
idea of sky or mountain that means the occurrence of these huge entities in our minds. 120
Al-Kūrānī explains that existence and their concomitants are of different kinds:
1. There are concomitants of the quiddity of the thing. This type of concomitant is
related to the quiddity whether it is in the external world or in the mind, such as the
evenness of four.
2. There are concomitants for things that exist in the mind. They are concomitants
of quiddities in the case where quiddities exist only in the mind, such as universal
concepts.
3. There are concomitants of things in the case of a thing that exists only in the
external world such as whiteness, blackness, heat, and cold.
From this classification, it is not necessary that contradictory things will exist in the
mind if we have the idea of white and black. Neither the actually existing white and black
nor the actually existing sky will exist in the mind; what we have in our minds is the
quiddity, not the actual being, and what is described as huge, hot, or white is the actual
being (al-huwiyyah not al-māhiyyah).121 Al-Kūrānī cites al-Ījī in al-Mawāqif saying that the
mistake of the theologians is that they use the term “quiddity” (māhiyyah) for the
120
ʿAḍūd al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ījī, al-Mawāqif fī ʿilm al-kalām (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, n.d.), p. 52.
121
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, fol. 54a-b.
277
concepts that exist in mental existence as well as for what corresponds to these concepts
in the external world. This equivocation in the term is the cause of the mistake.
External existence is individual (ʿaynī) and fundamental (aṣīl), such as the existence of
the sun. This kind of existence has effects, so the existence of the sun is connected with
lighting and heating. Mental existence is shadowy (ẓillī), not fundamental (ghayr aṣīl); the
mental existence of the sun is a concept that does not have concomitants such as
lightning and heating. These concomitants are related to external existence.122 This
distinction is essential for al-Kūrānī because his next step is to argue that Ashʿarites
actually accept mental existence. What they reject, in his reading, is the idea that
existence always has concomitants, but according to his explanation, only external
existence has concomitants.
For al-Kūrānī, what some people affirm is not exactly what other people reject. The
dispute is simply verbal, because those who affirm “mental existence” and those who
reject it are talking about two different things. Those who reject mental existence reject
the meaning that existence necessitates its concomitants, and those who accept mental
existence affirm the meaning that existence does not necessitate its effects.123 Through
this discussion, al-Kūrānī argues that Ashʿarites accept mental existence in their writings
on metaphysics (ilāhiyyat). What they reject is the concept of mental existence in the
sense that such existence is followed by its concomitants or external effects. Al-Kūrānī
says that what the Asʿarites reject is not the correct concept of mental existence:
whoever affirms mental existence actually affirms a concept that does not necessitate its
concomitants and effects.124 They accept that God’s knowledge encompasses everything,
122
Ibid., fol. 52b.
123
Ibid., fol. 54b.
124
Al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-fuhūm, fol. 53a.
278
so they admit that there is a kind of knowledge different from external existence. They
acknowledge that God’s knowledge is eternal, without external existence. Also, they
frequently talk about different kinds of existence such as existence in the external world,
in the mind, in spoken, and in written form. In Itḥāf al-dhakī, al-Kūrānī says that on the
topics of God’s knowledge and God’s will, Ashʿarites accept “mental existence,” and in
their arguments for mental speech (kalām nafsī) they explicitly say that we have our ideas
in our minds before we utter them.125
Al-Kūrānī says that Ashʿarites reject that a nonexistent is a thing or has a kind of
affirmation in the state of nonexistence. He mentions two of their objections from al-Ījī’s
al-Mawāqif, against the affirmation of the nonexistent. The first objection is that
affirming the nonexistent undermines God’s omnipotence because in this case God is not
the creator of the nonexistent realities. The other objection is that if we accept that there
are affirmed contingent nonexistents (maʿdūm mumkin thābit), the absolute nonexistent
is more general than the contingent nonexistent, because the absolute nonexistent
includes both affirmed and negated nonexistents. Thus, the absolute nonexistent would
be distinct (mutamayyiz) from the possible nonexistent, and this is a contradiction, since
whatever is distinct is contingent because it is known and could be willed.126
Al-Kūrānī replies to these objections that quiddities are not created by their
affirmation, but they are created by their external existence, which is identical to the
existence of individuals in the external world as Ashʿarites believe. The essence of
everything is identical to its existence, and existence in the external world is created;
thus, the quiddities in this sense are created. They are created in respect of their
125
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, fol. 55a. Al-Kūrānī, Itḥāf al-dhakī, p. 235.
126
Al-Ījī, al-Mawāqif, p. 55. Al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-fuhūm, fol. 57b-58a.
279
existence, not in respect of their affirmation.127 It is true that our minds may assume
things that do not have affirmation in nafs al-amr, such as the names of the impossible
and their concepts, and we can even describe them in written form. But the impossible
by itself does not have affirmation in any kind, neither mental or external nor in nafs al-
amr.128 So, concerning the second objection, al-Kūrānī says that the affirmed thing is what
possesses an affirmed attribute in nafs al-amr, by itself, not as a result of a mental
supposition.129
However, al-Kūrānī thinks that Ashʿarite writings demonstrate that they accept that
the contingent nonexistent (al-maʿdūm al-mumkin) is a thing, and that it is affirmed
outside of our minds.130 As mentioned before, existence could be in the mental, external,
or nafs al-amr worlds. An absolute nonexistent could exist in the mind as a delusion
(wahm), but never in the external world or in nafs al-amr. Contingent nonexistence does
not exist in the external world by the virtue of its definition as nonexistent, yet, as al-
Kūrānī attempts to prove, it exists outside of the mind. Thus, it must exist in nafs al-amr.
The idea that the contingent nonexistent is a thing and is affirmed leads to another
discussion about the possibility of seeing the nonexistent, or what he calls ruʾyat al-
maʿdūm. The cause of seeing, according to Ashʿarites, is external existence, but al-Kūrānī
thinks that the cause of seeing is mere existence, which means that the contingent
nonexistent can be seen since it has a kind of existence in minds or in nafs al-amr. Since
Ashʿarites accept mental existence, as al-Kūrānī argues, so all existents in knowledge, in
mind, or in the external world can be seen. Al-Kūrānī uses an analogy between kalām
127
Al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-fuhūm, fols. 58a-59a.
128
Ibid., fol. 59b.
129
Ibid., fol. 59a.
130
Ibid., fol. 53a.
280
nafsī, in which God knows our unuttered speech, and seeing the ideas and forms in our
minds before they come to the external world. According to al-Kūrānī, all Ashʿarites
agree that believers can see God, and they agree that God is not a body, nor a substance
or accident; He is not in space nor in a direction, but He can be seen, thus there is no
reason not to see the mental existent that is a form in the mind.131 The Quran says, “We
show Abraham the realm of the heavens and the earth” (Q 6:75), meaning that seeing is
not exclusive for things that exist in the external world. Any ḥadīth referring to things
that will happen in the future or on the day of judgment also refers to the possibility of
seeing the nonexistent. In short, al-Kūrānī’s idea is that vision is related to existence in
general, not only to external existence.
Again, similar to what he does in the argument for kalām nafsī, al-Kūrānī uses fiqh and
the concept of ijtihād to explain that Ashʿarites actually accept mental existence. Any
mujtahid orders the arguments in his mind before he speaks or writes them; if these ideas
do not have a kind of existence before they come into the external world they will be
pure nonexistence, and that means they will never come to exist in the external world,
but this is not the case, so they must have existed in minds before their external
existence.132
As mentioned in the section related to absolute existence, al-Kūrānī believes that al-
Ashʿarī’s idea that “the existence of everything is identical with its essence” confirms his
own idea that God is absolute existence. He repeatedly asserts this connection without
explaining how the two ideas are connected.133 But as explained before, for al-Kūrānī,
131
132
Ibid., fol. 65b.
133
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabil, fol. 12a. For al-Ashʿarī’s idea see ʿAbd Allāh Ibn ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī, Ṭawāliʿ al-
anwār min Maṭāliʿ al-anẓār, along with Maḥmūd Iṣfahānī’s Commentary, Maṭāliʿ al-Anẓār, Sharh Ṭawāliʿ al-Ānwār,
trans. Edwin Elliott Calverley and James W. Pollock (Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 187.
281
only God has a quiddity that is identical to his existence. Everything else has an eternal
uncreated quiddity in nafs al-amr. These quiddities will have external existence when God
bestows His existence on them. To say that the existence of everything is identical with
its essence can be understood in two ways. The first way is to say that there are actually
no two distinct existing identities in the external world; whatever can be truly said to
have an existence in the external world will also be truly said to have a quiddity that is
not distinct from its existence (mā yaṣduq ʿalayhi al-wujūd fī al-umūr al-khārijiyyah yaṣduq
ʿalayhi al-māhiyyah).134 The second way is to say that the existence of everything in the
external world will be exactly the same as its essence in God’s Knowledge. 135 What
changes in the latter is only the reality manifested in the external world: “if it became
clear that existence exists and that the contingent nonexistent is affirmed, it should
follow that the existence of everything, as al-Ashʿarī said, is identical to its essence.”136
So in this way al-Kūrānī is able to argue that nonexistent quiddities or realities exist
eternally in God’s knowledge, which allows him to argue for thubūt al-maʿdūm,
affirmation of the nonexistent in knowledge (wujūd ʿilmī), not in external existence.137
[4.1.6] Realities: Uncreated Nonexistent Quiddities
Al-Kūrānī was accused of reviving Muʿtazilite thought, mainly the idea of “thingness of
the nonexistent” (shayʾiyyat al-maʿdūm).138 The Moroccan theologian al-Ḥasan al-Yūsī (d.
1691) said that al-Kūrānī revived a moribund innovation and ascribed a partner to God
134
135
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, fol. 55a.
136
Ibid., fol. 56b. (Idhā tabayyana anna al-wujūd mawjūd wa-l-maʿdūm al-mumkin thābit, falā budda an yakūn
wujūd kull shayʾ, kamā qāla al-Ashʿarī, ʿayn ḥaqīqatihi).
137
138
Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1789. (In vol. 5 of Mawsūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib).
282
in acts and a companion in intermediary effects (sharīk al-afʿāl wa-sharīk al-wasāʾiṭ).139 The
first part of this accusation is based on al-Kūrānī’s idea that things have a kind of eternal,
uncreated reality (taḥaqquq), affirmation (thubūt), and existence (wujūd) in nafs al-amr.140
The second part is clearly referring to al-Kūrānī’s interpretation of kasb and humans’
effect in their actions, a topic that will be discussed later.
The previous section about nafs al-amr explained that God’s knowledge eternally
compasses the realities of everything. If the realities of everything eternally exist in
God’s knowledge, and God’s knowledge is not created, that means realities, or quiddities
as al-Kūrānī describes them sometimes, are not created. 141 Al-Kūrānī talks about
existence in knowledge (wujūd ʿilmī), and confirms repeatedly that what exists in God’s
knowledge is the realities, not the actual things themselves.
Recall that for al-Kūrānī, existence can be of three kinds: mental existence, external
existence, and existence in nafs al-amr. Nafs al-amr is more general than mental or
external existences because there is no eternal mental or external existence. However,
“external” includes both existences in nafs al-amr and in the external word in that he
understands it as opposite to mental existence. Both are external in the sense that they
are not mere mental existence. It is thus important to notice that when al-Kūrānī
sometimes talks about existence in the external world, al-wujūd fī al-khārij, he also implies
existence in nafs al-amr, which is nevertheless distinct from external existence in the
actualized world.142
139
Ḥasan al-Yūsī, ʿRasāʾil Abī ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. Masʿūd al-Yūsī, vol. 2, p. 616-17. Al-Yūsī’s letter is also mentioned
in Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1790. (In vol. 5 of Mawsūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib).
140
141
142
Al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-fuhūm, fol. 55b.
283
Al-Kūrānī attempts to prove that the realities of all contingents exist eternally and
are uncreated (ghayr majʿūlah). If the realities of contingents did not exist in nafs al-amr,
they would be pure, or absolute nonexistence, and a pure nonexistent can never come to
exist in the external world. Because creation, which brings realities from God’s
knowledge to the external world, occurs by God’s potency (qudra), and His potency
follows His will, and the will chooses from the objects of knowledge, without affirmed
realities in God’s knowledge there is no creation. In other words, the absolute unknown
can never be willed; thus, creation is not possible for an absolute nonexistent. But this
assumption contradicts the reality that there are existents. The existence of real
concrete existents in the external world means that the realities or quiddities of every
contingent exist in God’s knowledge eternally as distinct (mutamāyiz) individuals.143 The
eternal existence of distinct individuals is essential for al-Kūrānī’s arguments for God’s
knowledge of particulars, as we shall see. Al-Kūrānī’s teacher al-Qushāshī tried to prove
that realities are uncreated (ghayr majʿūlah) by saying that if they were created they
would be known before creation, because creating is a voluntary act (fiʿl ikhtiyārī) and
each voluntary act is preceded by potency and will, and these are in truth preceded by
knowledge of the object that is willed and created. Willing the unknown is not possible.
Thus, to say that entities are created in knowledge means that they should be known to
be willed, which means in turn that they need to be created before they were created,
and the series continues ad infinitum.144
The realities never change, because they are objects of God’s knowledge, and God’s
knowledge, like God’s essence, is eternal and unchanging. Al-Kūrānī uses several terms
143
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, fol. 52b-53a.
144
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī, Nafḥat al-yaqīn wa-zulfat al-tamkīn li-l-mūqinīn (MS: Princeton: NS 1114), fol. 6a.
284
to refer to these realities in his writings: realities (ḥaqāʾiq), nonexistents (maʿdūmāt),
quiddities (māhiyyāt), essences (dhawāt), and meanings (maʿānī); he also uses Ibn ʿArabī’s
term “fixed entities” (aʿyān thābitah). Using these terms synonymously is also observable
in Ibn ʿArabī’s writings, where “the entity” is also referred to as the “possible-existence”
(mumkin) or the “quiddity” (māhiyyāh), or simply as the “thing” (shayʾ).145 Al-Qūnāwī, the
foremost student of Ibn ʿArabī, says that “the term aʿyān is synonymous with what the
philosophers refer to as quiddities (māhiyyat).”146 Al-Qushāshī also says that “realities”
(al-ḥaqāʾiq), “objects of knowledge” (al-maʿlūmāt), and “fixed entities” (al-aʿyān al-
thābitah) are all expressions referring to the same thing. 147 These realities are described
as nonexistents (maʿdūmāt) because they do not have external existence.
God’s knowledge is essential and eternal (azalī dhātī). Nothing in the extramental
world exists eternally, and at the same time nothing in the world is absent from God’s
knowledge eternally. Thus, realities are present in God’s knowledge eternally by their
essences (dhawātihā), which means their realities and quiddities (ḥaqāʾiqihā wa-
māhiyyātihā). These realities are nonexistents that are essentially distinct in and of
themselves (maʿdūmāt mutamayyizah fī anfusihā tamayyuzan dhātiyyan).148 They should be
distinct by themselves; otherwise, they would be absolute nonexistents, which cannot be
objects of the knowledge. Knowledge is a relation between two extremes (ṭarafayn) and
absolute nonexistence cannot be part of a relation because it is impossible to refer to it.
Thus, these essences or quiddities that are known to God are not absolute nonexistents
but contingent nonexistents that are essentially distinct in themselves. Al-Kūrānī’s
145
William Chittick, “Commentary on a hadith by Sadr al-Din Qunawi,” Alserat 4/1, (1980), pp. 23-30, p. 24.
146
Chittick, “Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī on the Oneness of Being,” p. 176.
147
Al-Qushāshī, Nafḥat al-yaqīn wa-zulfat al-tamkīn li-l-mūqinīn, fol. 6a.
148
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād li-sulūk Maslak al-sadād (MS: Princeton, G, Yahuda 3867), fol.
32b.
285
classification of nonexistents will be discussed soon. For now, we can say that God
eternally knows, and in eternity none of the contingents exist, thus the quiddities that
are eternally known by God should be nonexistents, distinct, and not created.149 The
distinction between the thing itself and the existence of the thing was well known to
Muslim philosophers. Wisnovsky suggests that this distinction was influenced by kalām
discussions of existence and shayʾ,150 the problematic term that will be discussed soon.
Affirmation is different from existence, because affirmation covers the existent and
the distinct nonexistent (maʿdūm mutamayyiz).151 God knows all things as concomitants of
His knowledge of Himself, but this knowledge does not give them any existence that is
separate from God’s existence, in a similar way that our knowledge does not give self-
existence to what we know. These fixed entities cannot be described as created
(majʿūlah), because what is created is what has an actual existence. Whatever does not
have an actual existence cannot be described as created.152 Al-Kūrānī says that the idea
that quiddities are uncreated (ghayr majʿūlah) is the doctrine of the Sunnis (Ahl al-Sunnah
wa-l-Jamāʿah). He explains this idea by saying that since God is eternally knowing, and
the world is created, what is present in God’s knowledge are the eternal realities of things
(ḥaqāʾiq al-ashyāʾ), not the created existents. These realities must be distinct, in order that
knowledge can be connected to them (yataʿallaq bi-hā),153 so they are differentiated by
themselves in the state of nonexistence.154Al-Kūrānī says that the connection of
149
150
Robert Wisnovsky, “Notes on Avicenna’s concept of thingness (shayʾiyya),” Arabic Science and Philosophy,
vol. 10 (2000), pp. 181-221,
151
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Tawaṣṣul ilā anna ʿilm Allāh bi-l-ashyāʾ azalan ʿalā al-tafṣīl (MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye
1440), fol. 34b.
152
153
154
Ibid., fol. 127a.
286
knowledge means revealing these realities;155 it is part of the creation process, as we will
see later.
After establishing that entities exist in God’s knowledge eternally, as present in
knowledge (ḥuḍūrī) not through acquisition (ḥuṣūlī) such that they are meanings free of
forms (maʿāni muḥaqqaqah khāliyah ʿan al-ṣuwar),156 al-Kūrānī explains that each entity has
a specific disposition (istiʿdād). This disposition is part of their quiddity, uncreated and
not acquired; it is what prepares quiddity for the effusion of existence and knowledge.
Since everything is the object of God’s knowledge for all eternity, then entities or
“things” are not “made” (majʿūl). God did not “make” them the way they are; instead,
they are “concomitants” (lawāzim) of the very nature of God’s essence Itself. Thus, the
quiddities of nonexistent things are known to God eternally, distinguished in themselves
by unmade eternal distinct dispositions (istiʿdādāt dhātiyyah ghayr majʿūlah),157 and their
eternal distinctness and their eternal dispositions are uncreated (laysat majʿūlah fī
tamayyuzihā al-azalī wa-lā fī istiʿdādātihā al-azaliyyah).158
The idea that realities are affirmed eternally in distinct individual ways in God’s
knowledge and that they are uncreated is frequently expressed in Ibn ʿArabī’s writings
and the tradition that follows him. Realities are the fixed entities that remain always in
the state of nonexistence; in Ibn ʿArabī’s words, “they have never smelt the breath of
existence.”159 Realities never change or transform; what transforms are the forms “lā
tabdīl li-kalimāt Allāh” (Q 10:64). Al-Qūnawī also says that the fixed entities (al-aʿyān al-
thābitah), which are called by the philosophers “essences” (māhiyyāt), “with respect to
155
Ibid., fol. 127a.
156
157
Al-Kūrānī, Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād, fol. 32b.
158
Ibid., fol. 33a.
159
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. 2, p. 404.
287
being delineated within the knowledge of God, are not created […] and in their entity (bi-
ʿaynihā), with regards to their becoming entities and manifest in the knowledge of those
other than Him, they are created.”160 These entities are the “objects of God’s knowledge”
(maʿlūmāt), and God’s knowledge does not change.
As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, establishing that these realities are
eternal, uncreated quiddities will have a direct impact on several topics, such as creation,
destiny, predestination, and God’s knowledge of particulars. Al-Kūrānī is interested in
demonstrating that theologians, and specifically Ashʿarites, accept the idea that there
are eternal, nonexistent quiddities. He does not mention the philosophers’ arguments,
since for him, anyone who differentiates between the contingent and the impossible
cannot reject the distinction between the contingent nonexistent and the impossible
nonexistent.161
The classification of existents or intelligibles was one aspect of Ashʿarite Muʿtazilite
disputes. The other two aspects related to our discussion are how we can classify
nonexistents and how we can describe them.
[4.1.6.1] Classifications of Nonexistents

This section aims to display that al-Kūrānī’s differentiation between contingent
nonexistents and impossible nonexistents is not new in the kalām tradition.
The Muʿtazilite theologian Ibn Mattawayh distinguishes between two kinds of
nonexistents: a nonexistent whose actual existence can possibly be created under the
potency of God, and a nonexistent for which it is impossible to have an actual existence.
Both are nonexistents but the first can possibly exist, while the latter will never come to
160
Al-Qūnawī, al-Nafaḥāt al-ilāhiyyah, p. 143.
161
288
be.162 From the Ashʿarite side we can mention al-Bāqillānī’s classifications of
nonexistents according to their possibility of existence:
a) Never existed and impossible for it to exist; logically impossible.
b) Never existed; even if it is possible, it will never exist, like when God says that
something will never happen.
c) Nonexistent in our time and will be “existent” in the future, like the Day of
Judgment.
d) Nonexistent in our time but was “existent” in the past, like the events of the past.
e) Nonexistent that is possible but depends on God’s will, and we do not know if it
will happen or not.163
Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāʾīnī gives a similar classification of nonexistents.164
Classification of nonexistents was therefore not an innovation of al-Kūrānī’s. He
actually was following the long kalām tradition of classifying nonexistents. However, al-
Kūrānī’s classification of nonexistents into contingent nonexistent and impossible
nonexistent was probably influenced by Ibn ʿArabī. Ibn ʿArabī talked about two kinds of
nonexistence: absolute nonexistence (al-ʿadam al-muṭlaq), which is nothingness, pure and
simple; and relative nonexistence (al-ʿadam al-iḍāfī), which is the state of things
162
Al-Ḥasan b. Aḥmad b. Mattawayh, al-Tadhkira fī aḥkām al-jawāhir wa al-aʿrāḍ, ed. Daniel Gimaret (Cairo:
Institut Franҫais D’Archéologie Orientale, 2009), vol.1, p. 17.
163
Al-Bāqillānī, al-Tamhīd, p. 40.
164
Nonexistents are spoken of under several categories (aqsām): 1- The non-actuality in being (intifāʾ) of
what was and is in the past is known. 2- The non-actuality in being of what shall be is known as one posits
the actuality of an entity and then known that it does not exist; and 1: The non-actuality in being of what
will not be of those beings whose existence is possible, how it would be were it to be (mā lā yakūnu mimmā
jāza an yakūna an law kāna kayfa kān yakūn); and 2: The non-actuality in being of those things whose
existence in impossible (mā yastaḥīl kawnuh) is known. See, Richard M Frank, “The non-existent and the
possible in classical Ashʿarite teaching,” MIDEO 24, Louvain, 2000. Republished in: Texts and Studies on the
Development and History of Kalām. USA & UK: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008), p. 3.
289
considered as Not God.165 In other words, only God has true existence, and everything
else is nonexistence in one way or another.
As we have seen, Muʿtazilites and Ashʿarites had different categories and descriptions
for nonexistents. So, where is the problem and why was al-Kūrānī considered to be
reviving the Muʿtazilites’s position? It seems that the main problem was the use of the
concept of “thing” (shayʾ) to describe nonexistents.
[4.1.6.2] The Description of Nonexistent and the Concept of “Thing” (shayʾ)
Sunni theologians of the Ashʿarī and Māturidī schools believed in a strong identification
of “thing” and “existent.”166 In this framework, a nonexistent cannot be described by any
term that refers to any kind of existence. Al-Juwaynī says that “nonexistence is an
unqualified negation and does not embrace any of the positive attributes of existent
entities. Since it is nothing at all, it has no essential attribute by which it can be
described.”167 For Muʿtazilites, a nonexistent has a kind of affirmation that allows it to be
described. However, they disagree about how to describe a substance without the
attribute of existence.168 Ibn Mattawayh says that the description of the substance in the
state of nonexistence is possible by any term, with the condition that this term does not
refer to existence through its expression or meaning. It is a matter of language, and since
it does not refer to actual existence it is possible to call accidents ‘accidents’ even if they
165
Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, p. 7.
166
Robert Wisnovsky, Avicenna’s Metaphysics in Context (NY: Cornel University Press, 2003), p. 148.
167 Imām al-Ḥaramayin ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Juwaynī, Al-Shāmil fī uṣūl al-dīn, ed. A.S. al-Nashshār (Cairo: 1969),
p. 609-10. Al-Juwaynī said similar things in al-Irshād. See al-Juwaynī, al-Irshād ilā qawaṭiʿ al-adilla fī uṣūl al-
iʿtiqād, ed. M. Yūsuf Mūsā and A. A. ʿAbd al-Hamīd (Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1950), p. 31. Ibn Fūrak said
that Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī held that a nonexistent cannot be described as a substance nor as an accident.
Ibn Fūrak, Mujarrad maqālāt al-Ashʿarī, p. 246.
168
See Ibn Mattawayh, al-Tadhkira, vol.1, p. 13; Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī, al-Masāʾil fī al-Khilāf bayna al-Baṣriyyīn
wa-l-Baghdādiyyīn, ed. Maʿn Ziyādah and Riḍwān al-Sayyid (Beirut: Maʿhad al-Inmāʾ al-ʿArabī, 1979), p. 37.
290
are nonexistents, since we do not understand from these names or descriptions that they
have an actual existence.169
However, as mentioned above, Ashʿarites classified nonexistents in different
categories, so they found a way to describe them. Ibn Fūrak summarizes the description
of nonexistents in Ashʿarite doctrine as “hav[ing] in common that they can be known
and that they can be spoken of, made the subject of a predication and referred to, and
they are potential objects of God’s power.”170 But one cannot describe those nonexistents
with other names and descriptions, specifically with the descriptions that imply the
assertion of the actual existence of entities such as “thing” (shayʾ). Al-Bāqillānī says that
the existent is the established existing thing (al-mawjūd huwa al-shayʾ al-thābit al-kāʾin)
and the nonexistent is a negation and not a thing (maʿdūm muntafī laysa bi-shayʾ). Shayʾ
according to al-Bāqillānī, and Ashʿarites in general, is the existent (maʿnā al-shayʾ ʿindanā
annahu mawjūd).171
Ibn Mattawayh adds a new expression to describe the nonexistent, “as it is possible to
call it substance when it is nonexistent, it is possible to call it “thing” (shayʾ), because its
inner-reality (ḥaqīqatuh) is known and can be spoken of.”172 A new term thus became the
center of controversy between Muʿtazilites and Ashʿarites, the term “thing” (shayʾ).173
Ibn Mattawayh was aware of the controversial use of this term so he tried to justify
using it through lexicographic and Quranic sources. He says that “thing” does not refer
169
Ibn Mattawayh, al-Tadhkira, vol.1, p. 22.
170
Ibn Fūrak, Mujarrad maqālāt, p. 252, (from Frank, “The non-existent and the possible in classical Ashʿarite
teaching,” p. 2).
171
Muḥammad b. al-Ṭayyib al-Bāqillānī, Al-Tamhīd fī al-radd ʿalā al-mulḥidah wa-l-rāfiḍah wa-l-khawārij wa-l-
muʿtazilah, ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad al-Khuḍarī and Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Hādī Abū Rīdah (Cairo: Dār al-Fikr
al-ʿArabī, 1947), p. 40.
172
173
For more discussions about the concept of “thing” (shayʾ) and the role these discussions played in kalām
and philosophy developments, see Wisnovsky, “Notes on Avicenna’s concept of thingness (shayʾiyya).”
291
to actual existence because we say “existent thing” (shayʾ mawjūd), and if these two words
had the same meaning that would be a useless repetition. Also, we say “I knew of a
nonexistent thing” (ʿalimtu shayʾan maʿdūman), and there is no contradiction in this
sentence as there would be if we were saying “I knew of a nonexistent existent.”
Moreover, when lexicographers say “nothing” (lā shayʾ), they do not mean nonexistent
(maʿdūm).174 From the Quran, Ibn Mattawayh uses many verses where the word “thing”
refers to nonexistents such as: “God is able to do all things,” (Q 2:284), (Q 3:29) and that
which is under the ability of God could be nonexistent; “and never say of anything ‘I shall
do such and such thing tomorrow,’ except [with the saying] if God wills.” (Q 18:23-24). He
confirms through this reasoning that “thing” can come before acting or existing. He also
gives many other examples where “thing” refers to a nonexistent, such as the verses (Q
16:40), (Q 36:82), (Q 22:1), and (Q 19:9).175
It is not clear whether al-Kūrānī had direct access to Muʿtazilite texts, but certainly
he knew their arguments through the texts of their opponents, and he refers to their
arguments in al-Ījī’s al-Mawāqif and its Sharḥ, and many other Ashʿarite texts that reject
Muʿtazilite doctrines. Al-Kūrānī uses the same Quranic verses that refer to shayʾ in the
state of nonexistence. He also uses the theologians’ discussions and the lexicographers’
views to argue that shayʾ can be used to describe the nonexistent in the external world.
From the linguistic perspective, al-Kūrānī says that al-Zamakhsharī in al-Kashshāf
mentions that the meaning of shayʾ is what can be known and talked about (mā yaṣiḥḥu
an yuʿlama wa-yukhbara ʿanhu). Al-Kūrānī says that shayʾ is originally from shāʾ which
means “he wills or desires.” So, shayʾ is the thing that the will or the desire attaches to.
174
175
Ibid., vol.1, p. 23.
292
But the will attaches to what is known, because no one can desire what is unknown for
him. Since the will is attached to what is known, every intelligible can be called shayʾ.176
Similar to the Muʿtazilites, al-Kūrānī holds that “thing” (shayʾ) is the most broadly
applicable category of intelligibles, and that “thing” is divisible into “existent” and
“nonexistent.” Al-Kūrānī says that shayʾ can be used to describe every intelligible,
whether eternal or created, substance or accident, even the nonexistent, be it a possible
nonexistent or an impossible nonexistent; all intelligibles can be described by the term
shayʾ in a literal sense, not simply metaphorically (ḥaqīqatan lā majāzan).177 According to
al-Kūrānī, the use of the term shayʾ for all intelligibles is confirmed by linguistic scholars
like Sibawayh, so there is no reason for Ashʿarites to say that shayʾ can only be used in its
literal sense for existents and metaphorically for nonexistents. Again, al-Kūrānī repeats
that al-Ashʿarī’s doctrine is to accept the apparent without allegorical interpretation,
and since the word shayʾ occurs in the Quran and in the Sunnah to refer to extramental
nonexistents, there is no need to say it can only be used metaphorically.178 Al-Kūrānī says
that what al-Ījī and al-Jurjānī mention about the Ashʿarite position is that saying, “every
existent is a thing,” means that we cannot say that an existent “is not a thing/is nothing”
(laysa bi-shayʾ). Al-Ījī’s and al-Jurjānī’s idea does not mean that everything is existent; it
is possible to use the term shayʾ for existents in the extramental world and also for a
nonexistent in the extramental world. The only difference is that the existent in the
extramental world cannot be called “nothing”.179
176
177
Ibid., fol. 67b.
178
Ibid., fol. 67b.
179
Ibid., fol. 68a.
293
The concept of “thing” played an essential role not only in kalām, but in Islamic
philosophy as well. As Wisnovsky has shown in “Notes on Avicenna’s concept of
thingness (shayʾiyya),” kalām discussions of “thing” and “existent” were the backdrop
against which Avicenna made his distinction between essence or quiddity and existence.
The discussions about existence came to encompass general questions of ontology, and
the metaphysical notions used in the debate among mutakallimūn became more
sophisticated.180 These discussions of wujūd, shayʾ, and the nonexistent found their way
into Sufism through theoretical discussions of the meaning of wujūd. Sufi engagement in
philosophical arguments can be seen in the following section, which deals with the topic
of God’s knowledge of particulars, famously associated with Ibn Sīnā’s philosophy.
[4.1.7] God’s Knowledge of Particulars
Ibn Sīnā’s theory that God knows particulars “in a universal way” has attracted
considerable attention from Muslim and Western scholars.181 God is always described as
perfect; thus, He cannot change. But particulars change, so knowledge of particulars will
change with the change of particulars, thus implying that a change occurs in God. In
order to solve this apparent contradiction, Ibn Sīnā asserts that God’s knowledge only
contains eternal truths, which he understands to be “universals” (kulliyyāt). God thus
knows individual objects and their attributes “in a universal way” only. Al-Ghazālī
understands Ibn Sīnā’s position as entailing the denial of God’s knowledge of
180
Wisnovsky, “Notes on Avicenna’s concept of thingness (shayʾiyya),” p. 187.
181
Michael E Marmura, “Some aspects of Avicenna’s theory of God’s Knowledge of particulars,” Journal of
the Americal Oriental Society 82 (1962), pp. 299–312; Peter Adamson, “On knowledge of particulars,”
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (3):273–294 (2005); Rahim Acar, “Reconsidering Avicenna’s position
on God’s knowledge of particulars,” in Interpreting Avicenna: Science and Philosophy in Medieval Islam:
Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Avicenna Study Group (Leiden: Brill, 2004); S. Nusseibeh, “Avicenna:
Providence and God's knowledge of particulars,” in Avicenna and his Legacy: A Golden Age of Science and
Philosophy, ed. Langermann, Y. Tzvi (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009), pp. 275-288.
294
individuals.182 Al-Shahrastānī in Struggling with the Philosopher mentions the traditional
argument as follows: the change in the object of knowledge will necessitate a change in
the knowledge, and the multiplicity of the objects of knowledge will necessitate a
multiplicity in knowledge. So, it would follow that the essence is multiple by virtue of
the multiplication of the objects of knowledge.183
Al-Kūrānī’s solution to this argument is embedded in his theory of realities and their
eternal affirmation in God’s knowledge and in his theory of creation. Creation occurs by
God’s power or potency (qudrah). Power acts according to God’s will. And God’s will
follows God’s knowledge. As explained above, no one wills things that are unknown to
himself. For the will, in order to choose something from the knowledge, this “thing”
should be distinct from other things (mutamayyiz). In the external world, there are only
particulars, which means that everything is individuated eternally in God’s knowledge
that never changes. Recall that realities, quiddities, or fixed entities in al-Kūrānī’s
thought are uncreated (ghayr majʿūlah); they are nonexistents that are distinct by
themselves, affirmed in God’s knowledge.184 As the existence of God is necessarily eternal,
so the reality of a contingent that is nonexistent, affirmed, and individuated (mutaʿayyin)
is eternal in God’s knowledge; if there is no individuation and distinctiveness from other
contingents, the word “Be” would not have a specific entity to address, or to make
manifest in the external world.
Al-Kūrānī cites several statements from Ibn ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt that confirm the idea
that contingents are distinct individually and eternally in God’s knowledge. Ibn ʿArabī in
182
Frank Griffel, “Al-Ghazālī’s (d. 1111) Incoherence of the Philosophers,” in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic
Philosophy, p. 203.
183
Al-Shahrastānī, Struggling with the Philosopher, p. 70.
184
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Tawaṣṣul ilā anna ʿilm Allāh bi-l-ashyāʾ azalān ʿalā al-tafṣīl (MS: Istanbul: Veliyuddin Ef
1815), fol. 132b.
295
chapter 373 of al-Futūḥāt says that contingents are themselves mutually distinguishable
in the state of nonexistence, and God knows them as they are; He sees them and orders
them to be. Everything exists in a detailed way in God’s knowledge. Again, in chapter 297,
Ibn ʿArabī says that in God’s knowledge there is no general knowledge (ijmāl).185 So, fixed
entities according to Ibn ʿArabī are affirmed, distinct, uncreated nonexistents in God’s
knowledge, and knowledge follows the object of knowledge, in the sense that it is
attached to it and reveals it as it is. Thus, God knows every particular thing eternally.
Since God’s knowledge encompasses every particular reality eternally, God knows every
particular thing whether this particular was only in His knowledge or was manifested
and actualized in the external world. In other words, God’s knowledge of all
particularities does not need the realities of things to be actualized, or moved from the
state of fixed entities (ʿayn thābitah) to the state of existent entities (aʿyān mawjūdah).
Al-Kūrānī says that knowledge in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought is a relation (iḍāfah) not an
acquired form (ṣūrah ḥāṣilah); the eternal relation is revealing things as they are and
according to their eternal dispositions.186 As knowledge in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought follows
the object of knowledge, this knowledge is attached to its object and reveals it. So, the
source of God’s knowledge of the world is His very knowledge of Himself. Al-Kūrānī
mentions that this idea is different from al-Ṭūsī’s argument in Tajrīd that knowledge and
its object correspond to each other (mutaṭābiq), and that the object is the origin of this
identification, because the basis of this latter idea is that knowledge is a form (ṣūrah). In
Ibn ʿArabī’s thought, knowledge is a relation that reveals the affirmed nonexistent, not
the existent forms (al-ṣuwar al-wujūdiyyah). After these clarifications, al-Kūrānī returns
185
All these citations and more are mentioned by al-Kūrānī, Ibid., fol. 133a.
186
Ibid., fol. 133b.
296
to the main topic of God’s knowledge of particulars to conclude that detailed knowledge
(al-ʿilm al-tafṣīlī) does not depend on existent forms, but, on the contrary, the existent
forms emanate (fāʾiḍah) from detailed knowledge according to their quiddities, which are
the affirmed, uncreated nonexistents.187
[4.1.8] Creation
As mentioned above, the Quran describes creation as consisting in God saying “Be” to a
“thing.” A thing is thus nonexistent before God says “Be” to it and existent after God says
“Be” to it. The question that arose was whether the world was created ex nihilo (min lā
shayʾ), or from a nonexistent (min al-maʿdūm)? If the world was created from a
nonexistent, can we regard that nonexistent as prior, pre-existent matter? Nicholas
Rescher summarizes the challenge of the idea of a nonexistent to the theory of creation
ex nihilo as implying a version of a doctrine of pre-existent substances.188 If God created
the actual existent world out of “something” that means there is “something” uncreated
and co-eternal with Him. That also implies that God’s potency is limited to moving the
nonexistent into the state of the actual existent, rather than creating from nothing. This
question about God’s power to change anything in creation is important for the concept
of God’s omnipotence in Islamic theology.
The connection between the nonexistent and creation was clear in the minds of the
Muʿtazilites’ opponents; al-Baghdādī in al-Farq bayn al-firaq says:
All Muʿtazilites, except al-Ṣāliḥī, claim that all originated things (ḥawādith) were
“things” before they come to be. [...] That means God creates things from things. God
creates things from “nothing” according to our colleagues (aṣḥābunā) who confirmed
the attributes and denied that the nonexistent is a “thing”.189
187
Ibid., fol. 133b.
188
Nicholas Rescher, Studies in Arabic Philosophy (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966), p. 71.
189
ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, ed. M. Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd (Beirut: al-Maktabah
al-ʿAṣriyyah, 1995), p. 116.
297
According to al-Kūrānī, things have uncreated quiddities prior to their actual existence;
these quiddities are uncreated and exist eternally in God’s knowledge. Creation in this
case means a transformation of entities from fixed entities to existent entities (aʿyān
mawjūdah) God gives each entity within His knowledge its existence in the universe
without any change in its reality. In other words, realities that are affirmed in God’s
knowledge will be manifested in the external world.
In Qaṣd al-sabīl, al-Kūrānī says that quiddities are created from one perspective and
uncreated from another. Quiddities are not created in their eternally known affirmation
(thubūt ʿilmī azalī) and created in their external or mental existence. 190 Creating does not
mean that the exact quiddities will move from eternal knowledge to external existence.
The affirmation in knowledge (al-thubūt al-ʿilmī) of quiddities is essential (dhātī), eternal,
and forever. Affirmed quiddities are not preceded by possibility; in that case, they would
be considered created. Rather, affirmation precedes their possibility. In other words,
eternal quiddities are possible nonexistents because they are affirmed eternally in God’s
knowledge; otherwise, they would be absolute nonexistents.
These entities are concretized in the external world, in accordance with their
dispositions, through the light of the absolute existence. The absolute existence effuses
His light on the contingent realities according to their dispositions and makes them
ready to receive His own act of creation. Then God, by His will, effuses on the entity its
hearing (al-samʿ). At this point God says to it “Be” (kun), which means its specific
individuation (taʿayyun khāṣṣ) according to the disposition of its reality. In this way, it
will appear in an individual form in “the general existence” (al-wujūd al-ʿāmm),191 the first
190
191
Ibid., fol. 59a-b.
298
creature according to al-Kūrānī. This first creature is called in Ibn ʿArabī’s writings “the
cloud” (al-ʿamāʾ), among other terms.
Ibn ʿArabī uses the famous ḥadīth of the hidden treasure to explain the reason for
creation. This ḥadīth states that God “loved” to be known, so He created creatures in
order to be known by them or through them. This love, through His mercy (raḥmah),
formed an abstract space in which creations would appear; this abstract place is named
by Ibn ʿArabī “the cloud” (al-ʿamāʾ).192 Ibn ʿArabī uses the term “effusion” (fayḍ) to
describe the act of generating this abstract space. He talks about two levels of effusions:
in the first effusion the realities manifest in “the cloud,” and in the second the realities
manifest in the external world.
The first effusion, which caused the “the cloud,” is called “the most holy effusion” (al-
fayḍ al-aqdas); that effusion is the manifestation of the Divine essence to Itself. Through
this effusion, “God discloses Himself, through Himself, to Himself” (tajallā bi-dhātihi li-
dhātih). God knows Himself and all His perfections as concomitants of His essence, which
is nothing but Himself. The entities stand in relation to His knowledge, so, when God
knows Himself, He knows all the entities. This self-knowledge that embraces the
knowledge of all the latent existents is the source of plurality that emerged from the One,
which is the essential point in the discussion of how plurality emerged from the One, as
will be explained below. The realities are subsistent (qāʾimah) in this effused existence
and God is the sustainer (Qayyūm) of them; God’s essence is not the locus of creation.193
So, through the holy effusion, the nonexistent entities become “connected” (iqtirān) with
192
Mohamed Haj Yousef, Ibn ʿArabī -Time and Cosmology (NY: Routledge, 2008), p. 8.
193
Al-Kūrānī, Isʿāf al-ḥanīf li-sulūk maslak al-taʿrīf (MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Yahuda 3869), fol.
75a.
299
existence, or they act as “receptacles” to the extent that their disposition allows. But the
existence they now possess is only “lent” to them temporarily.194
The second effusion of the absolute existence is called “the holy effusion” (al-fayḍ al-
muqaddas). This effusion causes the manifestations of creatures in the external world
according to their eternal dispositions, so that reality becomes manifest outwardly as an
existent (mawjūd) or form (ṣūrah).195 When God bestows existence upon these
nonexistents and nonmanifest entities, they become manifest outwardly. So, every
existent entity, every existent thing, is the outward manifestation of a reality existing
eternally in God’s knowledge.
The process of creation thus has absolute existence on one side and the created
material world on the other side, and there is a world between them, which is “the cloud”
(al-ʿamāʾ) or “general existence” (al-wujūd al-ʿāmm).196 This intermediary world plays an
essential role in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought: it is the limit (barzakh) (literally “isthmus”) between
God and the world.197 Ibn ʿArabī calls the barzakh, or the “supreme barzakh,” by several
194
The ontology of creation in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought can be found in Chittick’s The Self-Disclosure of God:
Principles of Ibn Al-ʿArabī’s Cosmology and The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination,
mainly chapter three.
195
Ibn ʿArabī also talks about the perpetual effusion, which means the continued creation, renewed at each
moment. See Souad Hakim, “Unity of being in Ibn ʿArabī - A humanist perspective,” Journal of the Muhyiddin
Ibn 'Arabi Society, Volume 36, 2004, pp. (15- 37), p. 22.
196
A short description of creation can be found in Ibn ʿArabī’s Inshāʾ al-dawāʾir, in which he talks about three
metaphysical categories of existence: the absolute existence, the material universe and everything it
contains, and the third metaphysical category is neither nonexistence nor existence. It is some sort of
intermediary between the first and the second categories. Ibn ʿArabī calls it the essence of all essences
(ḥaqīqat al-ḥaqāʾiq), which may be said for both God and the world, or neither God nor the world, but a third
entity that comprehends everything. Ibn al-ʿArabī, Kitāb inshāʾ al-dawāʾir in Kleinere Schriften des Ibn Al-
ʿArabī, ed. H S Nyberg (Leiden, 1919), p. 15 and after. Landolt argues that this category has many aspects in
common with that mysterious entity which was known in Greek as Logos. Hermann Landolt, “Simnānī on
waḥdat al-wujūd,” pp. 91-112.101.
197
One of the most common classifications is that of the five divine presences (al-ḥaḍarāt al-ilāhiyyah al-
khams), the first of which is the uncreated knowledge of God. The next three are created: the spiritual
world, the world of images or imagination, and the corporeal world. The world of imagination acts as a
300
other names, such as the “reality of the perfect man” and the “Muhammadan Reality,” 198
the “reality of realities” (haqīqat al-ḥaqāʾiq), the “universal reality” (al-haqīqah al-
kulliyyah), the “breath of the Compassionate” (nafas al-Raḥmān),199 and the origin of
everything. Ibn ꜤArabī does not use the term “creation” in discussing the formation of
the cloud, but the term “manifestation,” “tajallī.” This cloud appeared (ẓahara) through
the All-Merciful breath (nafas al-Raḥmān), and everything else appeared in the cloud by
the Divine word “Be” (kun). Al-Kūrānī calls the first creature “general existence” (al-
wujūd al-ʿāmm) and he acknowledges that al-wujūd al-ʿāmm is exactly what Ibn ʿArabī
called al-ʿamāʾ.200 In fact, Ibn ʿArabī sometimes calls al-ʿamāʾ “emanated existence” (al-
wujūd al-mufāḍ).201 Al-Kūrānī says that the existence of all creatures is from the emanated
barzakh or isthmus between the other two created worlds; since it comprehends the attributes of both, it
allows them to become interrelated. The fifth presence is the Perfect Man, who is both created and
uncreated since he comprehends the other four levels within himself. About seven stages doctrine see
Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia, p. 136; Megawati Moris, “Islamization of the Malay
worldview: Sufi metaphysical writings,” World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization, 1 (2): 108-116, 2011,
pp. 108-116; and Chittick, “The five divine presences: from al-Qunawi to al-Qaysari,” Muslim World 72 (1982):
107-128.
198
Ibn ʿArabī begins chapter 27 of al-Fuṣūṣ by saying about the Prophet: “he is the most perfect existent of
this human species, which is why the matter begins and ends with him, for he was a Prophet while Adam
was between clay and water.” Qayṣarī explains this statement by saying: “It is the wisdom of singularity
because of his singularity in the station of Divine All-Comprehensiveness (al-jamʿiyya al-ilāhiyyah), above
which is nothing except the level of the Essence of Exclusive Oneness (al-dhāt al-aḥadiyyah).” “The Prophet
is the receptacle for all the Divine names, since he receives the Name Allāh, which is the name which brings
all the other names together […] he stands alone at the top of the cosmic hierarchy of God’s Self-
Disclosures.” Mohammed Rustom, “The cosmology of the Muhammadan Reality,” Ishraq, Islamic Philosophy
Yearbook, Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura, Issue 4; 2013, pp. 540-545, p. 540-1. About Muḥammadan Reality
see, Michel Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn ‘Arabi, trans. Liadain
Sherrard (Cambridge, 1993), ch. 4 in particular.
199
Ibn ʿArabī usually maintains that “the cloud” is identical with “the breath of the All-Merciful,” although
sometimes he distinguishes between the two and says that “the cloud” comes into existence through the
breath. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, p. 126.
200
Al-Kūrānī, al-Tawaṣṣul ilā anna ʿilm Allāh bi-l-ashyāʾ azalān ʿalā al-tafṣīl, fol. 133b.
201
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. 3, 467-468.
301
existence (al-wujūd al-mufāḍ), which is also known as the added light (al-nūr al-muḍāf), the
cloud (al-ʿamāʾ), and the breath of the Compassionate (al-nafas al-raḥmānī).202
The cloud is also called the “absolute imagination” (al-khayāl al-muṭlaq), so when Ibn
ʿArabī refers to the cosmos as “imagination,” he does not mean that the world has no
external real existence, but that it is a never-ending transformation. Al-Kūrānī says that
imagination (khayāl) means everything within the “absolute imagination” is constantly
transforming from one state to another and from one form to another, while the khayāl
itself is fixed because its reality is the breath.203 The perpetual transformation of forms
explains that the real existence is only God and everything else is in the absolute
imagination.204
This intermediary world was a subject of different treatises by al-Kūrānī, in which he
replied to questions about this world. In al-Maslak al-anwar ilā maʿrifat al-barzakh al-akbar205
al-Kūrānī received a question about a statment of Ibn ʿArabī in his work Inshāʾ al-dawāʾir,
which talks about a thing that cannot be characterized as existent or nonexistent, nor as
eternal or created. According to Ibn ꜤArabī, the first emanated creature, “the cloud,” is
the origin of the world, and he describes it as al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq bihi “the real through
which creation occurs.”206 But al-Kāshānī in Laṭāʾif al-aʿlām says that al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq
bihi is the perfect man (al-insān al-kāmil), who is descibed as existent. The question was
whether this third realm can be characterized as existent or nonexistent in the external
world. Al-Kūrānī says that this third realm is not characterized as existent or
202
Al-Kūrānī, Isʿāf al-ḥanīf li-sulūk maslak al-taʿrīf, fol. 75a.
203
Al-Kūrānī, Maṭlaʿ al-jūd, fol. 126b.
204
Al-Kūrānī, Isʿāf al-ḥanīf li-sulūk maslak al-taʿrīf, fol. 73a.
205
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-anwar ilā maʿrifat al-barzakh al-akbar (MS: USA: Princeton University
Library, Yahuda 3869), fols. 76a-79a.
206
About this concept see Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God, p. 17-18; The Sufi Path of Knowledge, p. 132 and
after.
302
nonexistent, because according to Inshāʾ al-dawāʾir only the first is existent by itself in,
that is God, and the second realm is existent by God. The existence of that which exists
by itself is not different from its reality and the existence of that which exists by God is
different from its reality, because realities of contingents are nonexistents that are
essentially distinguishable (maʿdūmāt mutamayyizah fī dhātiha), affirmed in nafs al-amr,
which is God’s knowledge in so far as it identical to His essence, or the most holy essence
(al-dhāt al-aqdas).207 If this third realm, which is described as “the reality of all realities,”
is characterized as existent or nonexistent, as generated or eternal, then the reality of
all realities would not be inclusive of all realities. The universal reality comprehends all
the individual realities, which it encompasses without being exclusive to any individual
reality within it. So, by itself it cannot be characterized as existent or nonexistent, or as
eternal or created. For the eternal, it is eternal, and for the generated it is generated, and
by itself is an intellectual concept that has no external existence (maʿqūl ghayr mawjūd al-
wujūd al-ʿaynī).208
What attaches to the realities in creation and actualizes their realities according to
their eternal disposition is general existence, not absolute existence. Al-Kūrānī says that
actual existence in the external world consists of the eternal nonexistent and existence,
which means the eternal nonexistent quiddities and general existence, or emanated
existence, and not absolute existence. In the section related to legal responsibility, we
will see that al-Kūrānī received a question related to this exact point.
The entities are either nonmanifest and “nonexistent,” although known in God’s
knowledge, or outwardly manifest and existent. In either case, they are the same entities;
207
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-anwar, fols. 76b-77a.
208
Ibid., fols. 77a.
303
in the first case, they have no independent or outward existence, and in the second case
God has given them existence outside of His knowledge. Creating means giving these
quiddities the accidents and the forms that their eternal essential dispositions (istiʿdādāt
dhātiyyah) require. God’s knowledge of these entities does not change, and He knows
them in the same way before and after their coming into existence. God is the Knower,
always and forever, so the realities or the quiddities never leave God’s knowledge. What
comes to exist in the cosmos are not the things in themselves, for nothing is found in
itself other than God. Ibn ʿArabī urges the reader of al-Futūḥāt to
Know that the entities always remain in their original state of nonexistence. They never
go outside the presence of knowledge, and they have never smelled the breath of
existence. The only existence they have in the external world is the existence of God
(Ḥaqq) clothed in the forms of the states of the possible. So, no one takes delight in or is
pained by His manifestations except Him.209
Al-Qushāshī says that in existence there is nothing but God and His objects of knowledge
(maʿlūmātihi); the objects of His knowledge are His words. They are the realities of
everything. If God wants to manifest any of them in the external world, He will say to it,
“Be,” and it is.210 Al-Qushāshī says that creating in the external world is not ex nihilo, or
from pure nonexistence (ʿadam ṣirf), but from an affirmed existence (wujūd thābit) in
God’s knowledge and a veritable nonexistence (ʿadam muḥaqqaq) into the external
world.211
Al-Kūrānī says explicitly that “nothing is made except the external forms of things”
(lā majʿūl illā al-ṣuwar al-wujūdiyyah li-l-ashyāʾ).212 Each creature manifests its properties to
the extent of its own dispositions, “so the human being comes to be according to the
209
210
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī, Nafḥat al-yaqīn wa-zulfat al-tamkīn li-l-mūqinīn, fol. 6a.
211
Ibid., fol. 6a.
212
Al-Kūrānī, Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād, fol. 33a.
304
property of the disposition to receive the divine command.”213 The eternity of realities
does not mean the eternity of the world, because the dispute is not regarding the eternity
of the realities but the eternity of the forms of those realities in the external world. Al-
Qushāshī mentions that some philosophers (ḥukamāʾ) say that some external forms are
eternal, such as the celestial spheres (al-aflāk).214
According to his interpretation of creation as being due to the realities’ uncreated
disposition, al-Kūrānī interprets al-Ghazālī’s statement “there is nothing in [the realm
of] possibility (imkān) more wondrous than what is” (laysa fī al-imkān abdaʿ mimmā kān) as
an affirmation that God bestowed upon each creature what it was able to accept, without
any deficiency at all, and since everything received what was suitable for it, that means
it reached its perfection.215
Closely connected to the entities’ disposition is the question of “destiny” (qadar). God
brings the entity from nonexistence in His knowledge to existence in the world, so that
these uncreated entities have specific dispositions. Is destiny therefore determined and
foreordained? This topic will be discussed below. But the question of creation still has an
important side that needs to be investigated: how plurality proceeds from unity.
[4.1.9] Unity and Multiplicity
In al-Maslak al-mukhtār al-Kūrānī received a question about an apparent contradiction
between Ibn ʿArabī and al-Qūnawī. Ibn ʿArabī states that whoever says, “from the One
proceeds only one” is ignorant, while al-Qūnawī says that philosophers (ḥukamāʾ) are
correct in this statement, but they are mistaken in identifying the first emanation (al-
213
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. II, p. 272. Translated by Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God, p. 272.
214
Al-Qushāshī, Nafḥat al-yaqīn wa-zulfat al-tamkīn li-l-mūqinīn, fol. 8b.
215
305
ṣādir al-awwal). Philosophers say that the first emanation is the first intellect, but
according to al-Qūnawī the first emanation is general existence (al-wujūd al-ʿāmm).216
Al-Kūrānī states that according to al-Qūnawī the first and the vastest manifestation is
the essential manifestation (al-tajallī al-dhātī).217 Al-Kūrānī then cites several works in
which al-Qūnawī says that from the One proceeds only one. In Tafsīr sūrat al-fātiḥah, al-
Qūnawī says that plurality cannot issue from the One, as one, because unity negates
plurality, and it is impossible for there to emerge from a thing that which negates it.218
The One in respect of His absoluteness is not named by any name, nor is any proposition
ascribed to Him, He is One for Himself without rationalizing His unity as an attribute or
a property or a state; His existence is absolutely for Himself. But in another respect, He
knows Himself by Himself, and He knows that He knows that; He knows His unity and
that the unity is a fixed relation (nisbah thābitah) or an attribute in which nothing else
participates. He knows that he is independent (ghanī) from anything outside of Himself.
From this relative plurality (taʿddūd nisbī), plurality emerges.219 Another citation that al-
Kūrānī makes is from al-Qūnawī’s work Miftāḥ al-ghayb, in which the latter says that from
the unity of God’s existence proceeds only one because from the One only one proceeds.
This emanation is the general effused existence (al-wujūd al-ʿāmm al-mufāḍ); this general
existence is effused upon the eternally nonexistent individual entities that become
externally existent (aʿyān al-mawjūdāt).220 Another long citation is from al-Nuṣūṣ, which
216
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār (MS: Istanbul,
Veliyuddin Ef 1815), fol. 7b-8a.
217
Ibid., fol. 9a.
218
Ibid., fol. 9a. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī, Iʿjāz al-bayān fī tafsīr Umm al-Qūrʾān, ed. Jalāl al-Dīn Ashtiyānī (Iran,
Qumm: Bustan-e Ketab Press, 1423/[2002]), p. 104.
219
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol. 9b. Al-Qūnawī, Iʿjāz al-
bayān fī tafsīr Umm al- Qūrʾān, p. 105.
220
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār, fol. 9b. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī, Miftāḥ al-ghayb li-Abī al-Maʿālī Ṣadr al-Dīn
Muḥammad b. Isḥāq al-Qūnawī wa-sharḥūhu li-Muḥammad b. Ḥamzah al-Fanārī, p. 20-21.
306
repeats the same idea that God, with respect to His essential absoluteness, cannot be
recognized by any description, while from the standpoint of the essential relation of
knowledge (al-nisbah al-ʿilmiyyah al-dhātiyyah) there is a relative (nisbī), not a true,
distinction.221 So, it is true that from the One only one proceeds, which is the effused
general existence.222 And the first emanation is not the active intellect, but “the cloud,”
which is general existence, the All-Merciful Breath, the actualized absolute imagination
(al-khayāl al-muṭlaq al-muḥaqqaq). This general existence is the first existent and it is
common among all creatures, including the active intellect.223
Concerning Ibn ʿArabī’s idea that whoever accepts the idea that “from the One only
one proceeds” is ignorant, al-Kūrānī cites Ibn ʿArabī’s statement that philosophers never
accepted absolute unity from all aspects, and explains that the philosophers who accept
this principle say that the First has relations (nisab), additions (iḍāfāt), and negations
(sulūb).224 He probably refers to Ibn Sīnā’s statement in al-Ishārāt: “A multiplicity of
relative and nonrelative concomitants as well as a multiplicity of negations occur to the
First. This causes a multiplicity of names [for him], but it does not affect the unity of his
essence.”225 However, al-Kūrānī says that all these concomitants are rational
221
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol. 9a. Al-Qūnawī, al-Nuṣūṣ
fī taḥqīq al-ṭawur al-makhṣūṣ, ed. Ibrāhīm Ibrāhīm Muḥammad Yasīn (Cairo: Munshaʾat al-Maʿārif, 2003), p.
39. Al-Nuṣūṣ is translated into English by Chittick and published in Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Mehdi Amin
Razavi, An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2008), vol. 4, p. 416. The version
printed in this volume was abbreviated because of publishing constraints.
222
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol. 10a.
223
Ibid., fol. 12a.
224
Ibid., fol. 12b.
225
Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn Ibn Sīnā, Al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbihāt, maʿ Sharḥ Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, ed. Sulaymān Dunyā
(Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Nuʿmān li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa-l-Nashr, 2ed, 1993), vol. 3, p. 285; Avicenna and Shams
Constantine Inati, Ibn Sina’s Remarks and Admonitions: Physics and Metaphysics: An Analysis and Annotated
Translation (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), p. 174; Avicenna and Michael E. Marmura, The
Metaphysics of the Healing: A Parallel English-Arabic Text = al-Ilahīyāt min al-Shifāʾ (Provo, UT: Brigham Young
University Press. 2004), book 8, chapter 4, p. 273.
307
considerations (iʿtibārāt ʿaqliyyah), which are not enough to cause external entities. And
if we consider these considerations as conditions that necessitate external existence, God
will be the necessary cause by His essence, not an agent who creates by His will, a claim
that is rejected by Ibn ʿArabī.226
Here al-Kūrānī moves to the idea that God is not a cause, which is clearly contrary to
the citation from al-Ishārāt mentioned above that states that “multiplicity comes as a
necessary consequence.” For al-Kūrānī, following Ibn ʿArabī, God or the first principle is
not a cause that necessitates by its essence (ʿillah mūjibah bi-l-dhāt).227 If God creates by
the necessity of nature, nature could be understood to be opposed to will, which means
that the world would be created whether God wills or not. The idea of the necessity of
nature is understood to mean that God is a necessary cause of the effect, which in turn
means that God, with respect to His essence, is necessarily attached to the world, and
that He is not perfect. But God is independent (ghanī) and perfect, according to reason,
revelation, and unveiling (kashf). Even philosophers (ḥukamāʾ) acknowledge that God is
essentially perfect (kāmil bi-l-dhāt).228 Al-Kūrānī mentions several citations from Ibn
ʿArabī in which he refuses to describe God as the cause of creation.229 In al-Futūḥāt, Ibn
ʿArabī states that “He is not caused by anything, nor is He the cause of anything. On the
contrary, He is the Creator of the effects and the causes.”230 For Ibn ʿArabī, cause and
effect require each other in existence, and “cause and effect play roles within the cosmos,
but not in the relation between God and the cosmos.”231 Why is God not the cause? Ibn
226
227
Ibid., fol. 14a.
228
Ibid., fol. 13b.
229
Ibid., fol. 13a.
230
231
308
ꜤArabī says: “we do not make Him a cause of anything, because the cause seeks its effect,
just as the effect seeks its cause, but the Independent is not qualified by seeking. Hence
it is not correct for Him to be a cause.”232
After emphasizing that God acts by His will, al-Kūrānī addresses Ibn Sīnā’s idea of the
impossibility of plurality proceeding from the One without any intermediary.233 Ibn Sīnā
in al-Ishārāt says:
Since his knowledge of his essence is by his essence, and [since] his subsisting as an
intellect by himself due to his essence necessarily leads to his knowledge of multiplicity,
multiplicity will come as a necessary consequence posterior to and not included in the
essence as a constituent of it. Further, multiplicity proceeds in a hierarchy. The
multiplicity of concomitants due to the essence—be they separate or nonseparate—do
not cause a breach in the unity. A multiplicity of relative and nonrelative concomitants
as well as a multiplicity of negations occur to the First. This causes a multiplicity of
names [for him], but it does not affect the unity of his essence.234
This statement is important for al-Kūrānī in his argument that Ibn Sīnā also accepts the
idea that the concomitants of God’s essence are the source of “relative plurality” that
allows plurality to proceed from the One without need of any intermediary. Al-Kūrānī
then cites al-Ṭūsī, calling him the commentator (al-shāriḥ), stating: “the necessary is one,
and His unity does not cease by the multiplicity of the intellectual forms affirmed to Him
(mutaqarrirah fihi).”235 Then al-Ṭūsī says, continues al-Kūrānī, there is “no doubt that
affirming concomitants to the first in his essence is saying that the same thing is
receptive and active (qābil wa-fāꜤil) together, and that the first is described by attributes
that are not relations or negations.”236 Al-Kūrānī considers al-Ṭūsī’s ideas to be objections
232
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. 2, p. 57. More passages with the same meaning are in Chittick,
The Self-Disclosure of God, p. 17.
233
234
Avicenna, Ibn Sina’s Remarks and Admonitions: Physics and Metaphysics, p. 174. In al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbihāt, vol.
3, p. 283-4. Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol. 14a.
235
Ibn Sīnā, al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbihāt, maʿ Sharḥ Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, vol. 3, p. 282
236
Ibid., vol. 3, p. 282.
309
to Ibn Sīnā’s idea. This is confirmed by al-Ṭūsī’s statement a few lines later that he would
explain these difficulties (maḍāyiq), except he had committed himself to a condition that
he would not mention his own opinion in case he found some arguments against Ibn
Sīnā’s theory.237
What is more important for al-Kūrānī is that Ibn Sīnā’s text and al-Ṭūsī’s objection
allow him to argue that the meaning of the former is that God’s essence eternally has
these concomitants, i.e., nisab, iḍāfāt, sulūb, which for al-Kūrānī accord with the idea of
eternal uncreated realities. Also, since God’s essence has “relative plurality,” it is possible
that the plurality proceeds from Him directly without any need for an intermediary. But
how can the idea that plurality proceeds from the First without an intermediary agree
with the idea that from the One only one proceeds? Al-Kūrānī makes an analogy between
God’s perception of individuals all at once (dufʿatan) and multiplicity’s proceeding from
the one all at once (dufʿatan). This should be similar to the first divine effusion, the
essential manifestation that bestowed existence on the realities, not in the external
world, but in the “cloud.” Al-Kūrānī says that things, “creatures,” proceed from God all
at once (dufʿatan) because God’s knowledge of things is “comprehensive and
instantaneous” (dafʿī); things are even arranged by themselves through God’s wisdom.238
Al-Kūrānī cites Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ, book eight, chapter seven, which says: “He
intellectually apprehends things all at once, without being rendered multiple by them in
His substance, or their becoming conceived in their forms in the reality of His essence.”239
Al-Kūrānī wants to demonstrate that Ibn Sīnā accepts that from the One multiplicity
proceeds all at once (dufʿatan). He says this explicitly in his work Shawāriq al-anwār li-sulūk
237
Ibid., 3, p. 283.
238
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol.14 a.
239
Avicenna, The Metaphysics of the Healing, p. 291.
310
al-Maslak al-mukhtār.240 This text was written as a response to a gloss that was written on
his work al-Maslak al-mukhtār.241 Al-Kūrānī says that multiplicity can issue from God all at
once because God’s knowledge is instantaneous (dafʿī) and eternal.242 The glossator
objected to al-Kūrānī’s analogy, saying that if God intellectually apprehends things all at
once, that does not mean that multiplicity issues from Him all at once, without an
intermediary.243 Al-Kūrānī replied that God intellectually apprehends things all at once
because they issue from Him all at once. Ibn Sīnā says that the intellectual forms (al-ṣuwar
al-ʿaqliyyah) issue from Him, and that their effusion was not temporal (laysa zamāniyyan),
because temporal effusion necessitates change in the essence, and as he explains in al-
Shifāʾ God’s knowledge of particulars is not temporal:
It is not possible that He would apprehend intellectually these changeables with the
changes [they undergo] (inasmuch as they are changeable) in a temporal,
individualized manner but in another manner we will be [shortly] showing. For it is not
possible that at one instance in a temporal [act] of intellectual apprehension He would
apprehend them as existing, not nonexisting, and at another instance [in a state of]
nothingness, nonexisting. For then each of the two situations would have an
intellectual concept apart from the other, neither of the two concepts remaining with
the other, and thus the Necessary Existent would be of a changeable essence.244
This text, according to al-Kūrānī, indicates that the effusion cannot be a temporal
(zamānī) because this would necessitate change in the essence, just as apprehending
individuals intellectually would make the essence changeable. According to al-Kūrānī,
perception cannot be temporal, because Ibn Sīnā’s idea of perception would entail the
imprinting of forms in God’s essence. Due to the coming to be of some forms and the
240
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Shawāriq al-anwār li-sulūk al-Maslak al-mukhtār (MS: Istanbul: Laleli 722), fol. 109a.
241
Al-Kūrānī, Shawāriq al-anwār, fol. 108a. The glossator is not mentioned, but as I discussed in the
description of al-Kūrānī’s works in Chapter Three, in one manuscript it is mentioned that the glossator is
from Iṣfahān and that he is one of Aghā Ḥusayn Khawānsārī’s students.
242
Al-Kūrānī, Shawāriq al-anwār, fol. 109a-b.
243
Ibid., fol. 109b.
244
311
passing away of others, change would occur in God’s essence. But God’s essence is not a
locus of change; thus, individuals should be considered to be imprinted in God’s essence
eternally. There is another aspect of this analysis. Imprinted forms in God’s essence will
cause change in God’s essence, which is not accepted either by al-Kūrānī or by Ibn Sīnā.
Thus, al-Kūrānī says that forms should be considered to be imprinted eternally, and
instantaneously (dafʿī), in a comprehensive way (bi-wajh kullī), yet restricted in respect of
a particular (munḥaṣir fī juzʿī), so that there would be no change in the essence.245 Al-
Kūrānī’s idea is that according to Ibn Sīnā, emanation occurs all at once (dufʿatan), which
means that creatures issue from God all at once. Thus, it is not true that from the One
only one proceeds. The first effused, as explained above, is general existence where all
the realities manifest.
After arguing for Ibn Sīnā’s idea “from the One only one proceeds,” construed as
meaning that multiplicity proceeds from the One all at once, and that God creates not by
His nature, but by His will, al-Kūrānī says that Ibn Sīnā accepts that the world was
created. Al-Kūrānī says that Ibn Sīnā says that the contingent cannot exist eternally, that
the world is generated (muḥdath), and that God was and nothing was with Him.246 Ibn Sīnā
in al-Shifāʾ states: “everything is generated (ḥādith) from that One, that One being the
245
Al-Kūrānī, Shawāriq al-anwār, fol. 109b.
246
In book eight, chapter three of al-Shifāʾ Ibn Sīnā says: “everything, with the exception of the One who in
His essence is one and the existent who in His essence is an existent, acquires existence from another,
becoming through it an existent, being in itself a nonexistent. This is the meaning of a thing’s being created
that is, attaining existence from another. It has absolute nonexistence which it deserves in terms of itself;
it is deserving of nonexistence not only in terms of its form without its matter, or in terms of its matter
without its form, but in its entirety. Hence, if its entirety is not connected with the necessitation of the
being that brings about its existence, and it is reckoned as being dissociated from it, then in its entirety its
nonexistence becomes necessary. Hence, its coming into being at the hands of what brings about its
existence is in its entirety. No part of it, in relation to this meaning, is prior in existence neither its matter
nor its form, if it possesses matter and form.”
312
originator of it, since the originated (muḥdath) is that which comes into being after not
having been.”247 Al-Kūrānī says that the meaning of our saying that the world is
originated is that it exists after it was nonexistence (kān baꜤda an lam yakun). This
posteriority was imagined to be temporal (baꜤdiyyah zamāniyyah mutawahhamah), in
which that which is before and that which is after cannot be together; what is after is
posterior not in the sense of actual time, but as today is posterior to yesterday. 248 Al-
Kūrānī here refers to Ibn Sīnā’s idea of “essential posteriority” (al-baʿdiyyah bi-l-dhāt), and
he will attempt to demonstrate that essential posteriority means the world is not eternal,
since it is preceded by nonexistence.
After attempting to prove that Ibn Sīnā claims that God’s knowledge of everything is
imprinted eternally in His essence, al-Kūrānī says that Ibn Sīnā accepts that the world
was created. His idea is that essential origination (al-ḥudūth al-dhātī) actually means that
the world was preceded by nonexistence (ʿadam).
In his comments on al-Dawānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, al-Kūrānī cites several
statements in which Ibn Sīnā says that the contingent by its essence does not exist, but
it exists instead by its cause, which is the necessary. For example, from al-Shifāʾ
[As for] the rest of things, their quiddities, as you have known, do not deserve existence;
rather, in themselves and with the severing of their relation to the Necessary Existent,
they deserve nonexistence. For this reason, they are all in themselves nugatory, true
[only] through Him and, with respect to the facet [of existence] that follows Him,
realized. For this reason, "all things perish save His countenance" [Qur'an 55:26].249
And from al-Ishārāt:
247
248
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār, fol. 16b.
249
Avicenna, The Metaphysics of the Healing, p. 284. In Marmura’s edition this paragraph is in book eight,
chapter six, while al-Kūrānī says book eight, chapter seven. Al-Kūrānī, Ḥashiyat al-Kūrānī ʿalā Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid
al-ʿAḍudiyyah (MS: Istanbul: Nur Uosmaniye 2126), fol. 14b.
313
Whatever exists due to something other than itself merits nonexistence if taken on its
own, or existence does not belong to it if taken on its own. Rather, existence belongs to
it only due to something else. Therefore, it has no existence before it has existence. This
is the essential beginning of existence.250
Al-Kūrānī then says that there was an objection to this opinion. The objection is by Fakhr
al-Dīn al-Rāzī, but al-Kūrānī does not mention him by name and probably he found this
objection in al-Ṭūsī’s commentary. Al-Rāzī’s objection is that it is wrong that something
merits nonexistence if taken on its own. In al-Rāzī’s opinion, if something is considered
only by its essence, it does not merit either existence or nonexistence; if it merits
nonexistence, that means it is nonexistent, not contingent. Al-Rāzī continues to say that
if Ibn Sīnā means that we consider the essence with the absence of its cause, that means
it is not isolated.251 Al-Ṭūsī replies to this objection by saying that quiddity isolated from
any other considerations cannot be confirmed in the external world; thus, mentally it
should be considered either with the existence of another thing, or with the absence of
the other thing, or it could be considered with neither of them, but in the external world
there is no difference between the last two possibilities. If it is not considered with
another, it will not exist at all. Thus, to be taken on its own means it will not exist, and
that is the meaning of saying that it merits nonexistence.252
Al-Kūrānī replies to this objection by saying that what Ibn Sīnā actually meant is the
second possibility proposed by al-Rāzī, namely considering the essence with the absence
of its cause. For al-Kūrānī, Ibn Sīnā says explicitly in the above cited paragraph of al-
Shifāʾ: “in themselves and with the severing of their relation to the Necessary Existent,
250
Ibn Sīnā, al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbihāt, vol. 3, p. 89-90, Avicenna, Ibn Sina’s Remarks and Admonitions: Physics and
Metaphysics, p. 137. Al-Kūrānī, Ḥashiyat al-Kūrānī ʿalā Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, fol. 15a.
251
Ibn Sīnā, al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbihāt, vol. 3, p. 89, al-Ṭūsī’s commentary. Al-Kūrānī, Ḥāshiyat al-Kūrānī ʿalā
Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, fol. 15a.
252
Ibn Sīnā, al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbihāt, vol. 3, p. 89, al-Ṭūsī’s commentary.
314
they deserve nonexistence.”253 Thus, what Ibn Sīnā means by a quiddity that is taken on
its own, is that it is isolated from the necessity of the one who gave it its existence (ījāb
al-mūjid).254 For al-Kūrānī, what is important is proving that Ibn Sīnā actually accepts that
the world was generated by demonstrating that the world is preceded by nonexistence.
Al-Kūrānī cites al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s commentary on the relevant section of al-Mawāqif in
which al-Jurjānī says that it seems that the essential origination (al-ḥudūth al-dhātī)
according to them [philosophers] means preceding existence by nonexistence, like
temporal origination (ḥudūth zamānī), except that preceding by essence is by the essence,
and preceding by time is by time.255
Two topics arise from this argument. The first is the need to prove that multiplicity
exists in God’s essence as concomitants. The second is an objection raised by the
glossator who denies that Ibn Sīnā accepts the idea of “impressing” or “stamping”
(irtisām) anything in God’s essence.
Ibn Sīnā in al-Ishārāt says, “A multiplicity of relative and nonrelative concomitants as
well as a multiplicity of negations occur to the First,”256 and in al-Shifāʾ he says, “He
intellectually apprehends things all at once, without being rendered multiple by them in
His substance, or their becoming conceived in their forms in the reality of His essence.”257
Al-Dawānī in Sharḥ al-ʿAqā’ʾid al-ʿAḍūdiyyah says that the apparent meaning (ẓāhir) of the
words of al-Ishārāt is that the conceived forms subsist in God’s essence, but that Ibn Sīnā’s
253
Al-Kūrānī, Ḥāshiyat al-Kūrānī ʿalā Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, fol. 15.
254
Ibid., fol. 15a.
255
ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Jurjānī, Sharḥ al-Mawāqif wa-maʿahu ḥāshiyatā al-Siyalkūtī wa-l-Jalabī (Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1998), vol. 2, part 4, p. 4.
256
Avicenna, Ibn Sina’s Remarks and Admonitions: Physics and Metaphysics, P. 174. In Ibn Sīnā, al-Ishārāt wa-l-
tanbihāt, maʿ Sharḥ Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, vol. 3, p. 283-4. Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir
min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol. 14a.
257
Ibn Sīnā, The Metaphysics of the Healing, p. 291.
315
argument in al-Shifāʾ negates this opinion.258 Al-Kūrānī rejects al-Dawānī’s objection and
explains that there is no contradiction between Ibn Sīnā’s two statements. What Ibn Sīnā
rejects in the statement of al-Shifāʾ is that the essence will be formed by the multiplicity
that is conceived in the essence. In other words, al-Kūrānī thinks that Ibn Sīnā does not
reject the idea that multiplicity subsists in the essence, but he rejects that the essence
would be formed according to the multiplicity that God conceived. Ibn Sīnā in al-Shifā’
does not reject that multiplicity could be within the essence (dākhila fī al-dhāt), he only
rejects that His Essence would be formed by the forms of the multiplicity (fa-mā nafā illā
kawn al-awwal mutaṣawwaran fī ḥaqīqat dhātihi bi-ṣuwarihā).259
In other words, multiplicity can subsist in the essence, but the essence will not be
made multiple by this conceiving.260 Al-Kūrānī continuous citing from al-Shifāʾ, book
eight, chapter seven, including: “Nor should it be thought that, if the intelligibles with
Him have forms and multiplicity, the multiplicity of the forms He intellectually
apprehends would constitute parts of His essence. How [can this be] when they are
posterior to His essence?”261 Al-Kūrānī cites a further long quotation from al-Shifāʾ in
which Ibn Sīnā discusses the locus of perceived forms:
It remains for you to examine the state of their existence as intellectually apprehended,
as to whether they [1] exist in the essence of the First as necessary concomitants that
are consequent on Him; or [2] whether they have an existence separate from His
essence and the essence of other[s] as separate forms, having an order placed in the
region of Lordship; [3] or [to examine them] with respect to their existing in an intellect
258
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍūdiyya, in al-Taʿlīqāt ʿalā Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, al-Aʿmāl
al-Kāmilah li-l-Sayyid Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, ed. Sayyid Hādī Khusrū-shāhī (Cairo: Maktabat al-Shurūq al-
Dawliyyah, 2002), p. 76.
259
260
Ibid., fol. 14b.
261
Avicenna, The Metaphysics of the Healing, p. 292. Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min
al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol. 14b-15a.
316
or soul, becoming imprinted in either one of the two when the First apprehends these
forms.”262
According to al-Kūrānī, Ibn Sīnā lists these possibilities and then refutes all of them
except one, by saying:
If you make these intelligibles parts of His essence, then multiplicity will take place. If
you make them consequential [concomitants] of His essence, then there would occur
to His essence that which would not be a necessary existent with respect to them-[ this]
because of its adhesion to the possible existent. If you make them things separated from
every entity, then the Platonic forms would occur. If you render them existent in some
mind, then there would take place the impossible [consequences] we have [just]
mentioned before this.263
Al-Kūrānī says that Ibn Sīnā in this text refutes all these possibilities except the idea that
forms exist in the essence of the First as necessary concomitants that are consequent to
Him, because Ibn Sīnā replies to the objection that might arise to this possibility by
saying:
You must, hence, exert your utmost effort to extract yourself from this difficulty and
guard yourself against [the error of] rendering His essence multiple. You must not heed
[the fact] that His essence is taken conjoined to some relation whose existence is
possible. For [His essence] is not a necessary existent inasmuch as it is a cause for the
existence of Zayd, but with respect to itself.264
So, if all possibilities are refuted, except that multiplicity exists in God’s Essence as
concomitants to His essence, there is no contradiction between al-Ishārāt and al-Shifāʾ,265
and God’s essence has a kind of relation that justifies the claim that multiplicity directly
proceeds from the One.
The glossator denies that Ibn Sīnā accepts the idea of “impression” (al-irtisām) in this
context, but admits that it could be a consequence of his ideas (ʿalā sabīl al-ilzām).266 The
262
263
Ibid., p. 294.
264
Ibid., p. 294. Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār, fol. 15b.
265
266
Al-Kūrānī, Shawāriq al-anwār, fol. 114a.
317
glossator says that Ibn Sīnā does not say that the forms are imprinted in the essence;
rather, he rejects this idea. Ibn Sīnā says about the first: “He intellectually apprehends
things all at once, without being rendered multiple by them in His substance, or their
becoming conceived in their forms in the reality of His essence. Rather, their forms
emanate from Him as intelligibles.”267 The cause of the mistake, according to the
glossator, is reading the “or” in “or their becoming…” as “and.” The statement from al-
Shifāʾ, as understood by al-Dawānī, negates the idea of “impression” (al-irtisām), as does
the statement from al-Ishārāt, which is “that whose existence is necessary knows
everything, then he is not truly one, but a multiplicity.” However, according to al-Kūrānī
Ibn Sīnā rejected this possibility by saying: “The multiplicity of concomitants due to the
essence — be they separate or nonseparated — does not cause a breach in the unity,” 268
Al-Kūrānī repeats that Ibn Sīnā in al-Shifāʾ mentions four possibilities and rejects three
of them, and replies to the objections that may be raised against the forth possibility,
which means that he accepts the idea that forms are imprinted in the essence of the
First.269 Al-Kūrānī cites also Ibn Sīnā’s statement in al-Taʿlīqāt that knowledge is the
existence of its configuration in the essence of the knower (al-ʿilm wujūd hayʾatahu fī dhāt
al-ʿālim,270 and says that the statement from al-Ishārāt is repeated verbatim in al-Najāh.271
This is essential step in al-Kūrānī’s attempt to interpret Ibn Sīnā in a way that agrees
with his own explanation of creation as mentioned above. God’s essence is beyond any
change, and at the same time, it has relations as concomitants. These concomitants are
267
Avicenna, The Metaphysic of the Healing, p. 291.
268
Avicenna, Ibn Sina’s Remarks and Admonitions: Physics and Metaphysics, p. 174.
269
270
Al-Taʿlīqāt statement is: “al-ʿālim inna-mā yaṣiru muḍāfan ilā al-shay’ al-maʿlūm bi-hay’atin taḥṣulu fī dhātihi.”
Ibn Sīnā, al-Taʿlīqāt, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī (Beirut: al-Dār al-Islāmiyyah, n.d), p. 13.
271
318
the relative plurality that allows plurality to proceed from the One directly. These
concomitants are the eternal, uncreated quiddities of all creatures. Al-Kūrānī says that
accepting temporal creation does not contradict the idea of divine generosity, as deniers
of temporal creation claim,272 because generosity is a beneficent act devoid of intention
(qaṣd) or end (ghāyah) beyond the act itself.273 Generating the world in specific time is
generosity itself because it agrees with wisdom. There was no generating in eternity
because the world was not ready to receive the existence that is bestowed by God, and
bestowing existence on what is not ready for it is neither generosity nor wisdom.274
As mentioned above, the issue of creation and God’s foreknowledge is closely
connected with the question of “destiny” (qadar), the topic that will be discussed now.
[4.1.10] Destiny and Predetermination
“Realities do not change,” as Ibn ʿArabī, al-Qushāshī, and al-Kūrānī often repeat. If they
did, they would not be realities.275 Al-Kūrānī explains that knowledge follows the object
of knowledge, meaning it reveals the object as it is in itself. Knowledge in this conception
is revealing the distinct, essential quiddities that were affirmed in nafs al-amr.276 Al-
Kūrānī cites Ibn ʿArabī to say that “existents have fixed entities in the state of
nonexistence, the nonexistence of contingents, not the absolute nonexistence.” 277
Creation by God’s potency and Will follows His knowledge, and if knowledge follows the
272
Usually the argument for the eternity of the world says that since God creates on account of His
goodness and, since divine goodness is eternal, God creates eternally, so there must be an eternal effect.
This effect is the world, and thus the world is eternal.
273
For the idea of creation as an act of pure generosity in the philosophy of Ibn Sīnā see Jonathan Samuel
Dubé, Pure Generosity, Divine Providence, and the Perfection of the Soul in the Philosophy of Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), M.A
thesis, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, Montreal, 2014.
274
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-mukhtār, fol. 17a.
275
276
277
Ibid., p. 34.
319
object of knowledge, that means God’s knowledge follows reality or quiddity; thus,
creatures determine their own destiny: “when a bird, a tree or a man enters into
existence, God does not ‘make’ it a bird, a tree or a man. He only bestows existence upon
a reality that He has known for all eternity.”278 By giving existence to things, God simply
makes the realities of the things known to them; He does not make their realities what
they are, since their realities are what they have always been and will forever be.
Ibn ʿArabī says that among those who uncover the mystery of destiny are “those who
know that God’s knowledge of them, in all their states, corresponds to what they
themselves are in their state of preexistent latency.”279 The entities’ state prior to
creation can be understood on the basis of “simultaneity,” which means that God’s
knowledge of Himself is the same as His knowledge of the world. Al-Kūrānī states that
the muḥaqqiqūn’s idea is that God’s eternal knowledge of everything is identical to His
knowledge of Himself, which means that God knows Himself by Himself, and through
knowing Himself He knows everything, because everything is related to His knowledge
insofar as His knowledge is identical to His essence. In other words, as discussed above,
God knows everything through knowing His essence.280 Realities exist in the eternal,
Divine knowledge as possible things, and everything has its own independent character
and disposition, and its own specific destiny. As for its subsequent state after being
created, or after its existence in the external world, the state of the created things will
be as it eternally. Thus, God’s knowledge of things, or of the known things, after they are
created is exactly His knowledge of them before creation.
278
Chittick, “Commentary on a hadith by Sadr al-Din Qunawi,” in Alserat 4/1, (1980), pp. 23-30, p. 25.
279
Ibn ʿArabī, The Bezels of Wisdom, p. 64; Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 60.
280
Al-Kūrānī, Jalāʾ al-fuhūm, fol. 54a.
320
The thirteenth chapter of Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, dedicated to al-ʿUzayir (Ezra,) Ibn ʿArabī calls
“the wisdom of destiny in the word of Ezra” (faṣṣ kalimah qadariyyah fī ḥikmah ʿUzayriyyah).
At the beginning of this chapter, Ibn ʿArabī says: “His knowledge of things is dependent
on what that which may be known gives to Him from what they are [eternally] in
themselves [essentially].”281 Then he says that determination (qadar) means “the precise
timing of [the manifestation and annihilation of] things as they are essentially,”282 which
is what he calls “the secret of destiny” (sirr al-qadar). Destiny, then, consisting in the
transition between the two states of entities from fixed entities to existent. Between
these two states Ibn ʿArabī sees the balance between theodicy and the human freedom:
“God does not compel his servants to behave in a certain way, He simply allows them to
be what they are; ‘God does not treat his servants unjustly,’ for He only knows what the
objects of knowledge provide to Him, since knowledge follows the object of
knowledge.”283 Each creature has a corresponding established entity in the eternal
knowledge of God, and the creature’s appearance in the world conforms to its eternal
state. God “effused His existence upon these entities in keeping with what their own
preparedness requires, so they come to be for their own entities, not for Him.”284 In short,
God’s knowledge exposes these quiddities as they are according to their own dispositions
(istiʿdādāt).285
Existent things in the external world are determined by their quiddities or entities,
and the entities differ in their capacities or dispositions. At the same time, God is absolute
existence and everything else is restricted, yet God is manifested in restricted forms. The
281
Ibn ʿArabī, The Bezeles of Wisdom, p. 165; Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 131.
282
Ibn ʿArabī, The Bezeles of Wisdom, p. 165; Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 131.
283
284
Ibid., vol. II, p. 55. Translated by Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God, p. 182.
285
Al-Kūrānī, Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād, fol. 32b.
321
divine Self-disclosure is always conditioned by the disposition of the receptacle entities.
We have to remember that God
gives constantly, while the loci receive in the measure of the realities of their
preparednesses. In the same way we say that the sun spreads its rays over the existent
things. It is not miserly with its light toward anything. The loci receive the light in the
measure of their preparednesses.286
Those with the greatest disposition display the perfections of God in the fullest measure,
while those with a more limited capacity disclose God’s perfections in accordance with
their own limitations. As Chittick explains: “God created the universe to manifest the
fullness of His generosity and mercy.”287 But as explained above, manifested realities
reflect only some aspects of Divine perfection, according to the realities’ own
dispositions. In Ibn ʿArabī’s thought, the only reality that is able to receive and actualize
every divine attribute is the perfect man (al-insān al-kāmil). Al-Kūrānī does not elaborate
on this Akbarian concept, but al-Qushāshī does in his commentary on chapters of ʿAbd
al-Karīm al-Jīlī’s treatise al-insān al-kāmil.288
The questions of destiny, predetermination, and human freedom are essential topics
of any theology. Yet we see that in al-Kūrānī’s writings, these issues are intertwined with
Sufi arguments for fixed entities, God’s manifestation, and the perfect man, making it
difficult to separate each topic according to the traditional disciplinary boundaries
between philosophy, Sufism, and kalām. The borders between these disciplines faded
away with the historical development of Ibn ʿArabī’s metaphysics. This topic will be
discussed again in the conclusion, but in this context I cite this paragraph that sheds light
on some aspects of the developments of Ibn ʿArabī’s metaphysics among his followers:
286
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. 1, p. 287. Tr. by Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, p. 91-2.
287
Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, p. 30.
288
Al-Qushāshī’s commentary can be found in Ms. Istanbul: Resid Efendi 428, fols. 45a-82a.
322
An important transformation in the school of Ibn al- ʿArabī that takes place over time
is that its representatives not only engage with the ideas and concepts usually
associated with falsafah, which Ibn al-ʿArabī also did, but they gradually adopt a mode
of discourse that in tone and in technical style begins to mirror, at least in the realm of
the metaphysics of existence and related concepts, the already well developed and
increasingly influential discourse of falsafah, which since the time of Ghazali had also
been taken over by kalām.289
The question of destiny is interconnected with the question of human freedom, and al-
Kūrānī was inspired by Ibn ʿArabī to develop his position on the freedom humans have
to create their actions.290 It is true that we can find in Ibn ʿArabī’s writing some texts
supporting the idea of predetermination. But these texts should be understood in the
context of Ibn ʿArabī’s distinction between God’s engendering command (al-amr al-
takwīnī), through which He gives existence to the entity, and His prescriptive command
(al-amr al-taklīfī), through which He requires people to follow religious law. The former
cannot be resisted because it is tied to the command “Be.” As for the prescriptive
command, it can be obeyed or disobeyed by the believer.291 Ibn ʿArabī says that during a
discussion with his student Ibn Sawdakīn, the latter proposed a way to construe the
believer’s ability to choose Ibn ʿArabi says:
Ismāʿīl Ibn Sawdakīn discussed this matter with me. He said: “What stronger proof
could there be in attributing the actions to the servant and relating it to him and the
theophany in him? It was part of his attribute since God “created man in His own
image.” If he didn’t have action attributed to him, it wouldn’t be true that he is in His
image and he wouldn’t have accepted being qualified by the Names. But it is accepted
by you, and all the people of this Way, without doubt, that man was created in the
[Divine] image and it is right that he is qualified by the Names.292
289
Caner K. Dagli, Ibn al-ʿArabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture: From mysticism to philosophy (New York:
Routledge, 2016), p. 3.
290
291
Bakri Aladdin, “The mystery of destiny, sir al-qadar in Ibn ʿArabi and al-Qunawi,” Journal of the Muhyiddin
Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 49 (2011), pp. 129-146, p. 138.
292
Ibn ʿArabī, Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. IV, p. 681.
323
Here again, Sufism, philosophy, and kalām overlap in an inseparable way. God created
man in His image; thus, man’s action be attributed to him, and this in turn consolidates
evidence that man has power over his actions.
[4.1.11] Kasb: Free Will and Predestination
In the Quran, we can find several verses referring to human freedom of action, and at the
same time verses indicating God’s absolute power over human destiny. Different
suggestions have been offered by Muslim theologians to solve this apparent
contradiction. From one side, there is the determinist (jabriyyah) position that human
actions are determined eternally by God, and that God directly creates humans and their
actions; from the other side are most of the Muʿtazilite school, who believe that a
human’s actions are derived from their own free well. Between these two sides more
ideas were proposed. This topic is intimately related to that of legal responsibility (taklīf)
and God’s omnipotence. If God creates all things, including a human’s actions, then
humans cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. If a human acts
independently, they may act against God’s will, and then God would not be omnipotent.
In order to save both, God’s omnipotence and human responsibility, the Muʿtazilite
solution was to affirm the human capability of creating their own works as granted to
them by God. For the Ashʿarites, this solution preserved God’s justice, but detracted from
God’s omnipotence. The Ashʿarites taught that since God is the sole creator, He creates
human actions. Al-Ashʿarī developed a theory of kasb, “acquisition,” according to which
God creates human actions while humans appropriate them, and thus become legally
responsible for them.293 The Ashʿarite belief that only God has causal powers came to be
293
Binyamin Abrahamov, “A Re-examination of al-Ashʿarī’s theory of ‘kasb’ according to ‘Kitāb al-Lumaʿ’,”
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1 (1989), p. 210.
324
known as “occasionalism,” which means there is no natural necessity between a cause
and its effect; it is God who in fact brings about the effect in conjunction with the cause.
Al-Kūrānī discusses the topics of kasb and taklīf in various context, beginning in his
early works. His addressing of these topics at this stage is understandable since the topic
was actually raised by his teacher al-Qushāshī, who wrote several treatises on it.294 Al-
Kūrānī dedicated some treatises specially to this controversial topic, including al-
Mutimmah li-l-masʾalah al-muhimmah, al-Ilmāʿ al-muḥīṭ, Takmilat al-qawl al-jalī, Maslak al-
sadād, and Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād li-sulūk maslak al-sadād. These works were received in a
negative way, mainly by Ashʿarite theologians who felt that al-Kūrānī was betraying the
official Ashʿarite position. Objections to these works may explain why al-Kūrānī wrote
several treatises to reply to his critics and to explain his ideas.
Probably one of the earliest works by al-Kūrānī in which he tries to explain the theory
of kasb is his attempt to summarise one of al-Qushāshī’s three works on this topic, ṣughrā,
wusṭā, and kubrā. In al-ʿAyyāshī’s opinion, the ṣughrā is the most completely verified and
perfectly analyzed (atammuhā taḥqīqan wa akmaluhā tadqīqan).295 Al-Qushāshī says that the
followers of al-Ashʿarī were very confused on the topic of kasb and that al-Juwaynī’s
theory as set out in al-ʿAqīdah al-niẓāmiyyah is the closest to the truth.296 Al-Qushāshī also
wrote a treatise to defend al-Juwaynī’s position in al-Niẓāmiyyah that humans actually
have effects in their actions, entitled al-Intiṣār li-Imām al-ḥaramayn fī-mā shannaʿ bi-hi
ʿalayhī baʿḍ al-nuẓẓār.
294
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī, al-Ifādah bi-mā bayn al-ikhtiyār al-ilāhī wa-l-irādah (MS: Istanbul, Resid Efendi 428),
35a-44a; al-Qushāshī, al-Intiṣār li-Imām al-Ḥaramay fīmā shannaʿ ʿalayhi baʿḍ al-nuẓẓār (MS: Istanbul, Resid
Efendi 428), fols. 112a-135a.
295
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, pp. 575, 598.
296
Ibd., vol. 1, p. 616.
325
Al-Qushāshī’s works, or at least some of them, arrived in the Maghrib and were not
well received among Maghribī scholars. Since there were various critics of the author
(kathrat al-ṭāʿinīn ʿalā ṣāḥibihā), al-ʿAyyāshī asked his teacher Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-
Qādir b. ʿAlī al-Fāsī for his opinion of one of al-Qushāshī’s treatises on this topic, the
medium-length one (al-wusṭā) entitled al-Kashf wa-l-bayān ʿan masʾalat al-kasb bi-l-īqān. Al-
Fāsī found it long and not easy to read, because it has no chapter headings or any kind of
division between its ideas. So he said to al-ʿAyyāsḥī that if this work were summarized
and its objectives clarified, he would return to look at it. When al-ʿAyyāshī met al-Kūrānī,
he therefore asked him to summarize the objectives of al-Qushāshī’s treatise. Al-Kūrānī
wrote this work, i.e., al-Ilmāʿ al-muḥīṭ, to al-ʿAyyāshī, who included a copy of the entire
text in his Riḥlah.297 Al-Kūrānī says that he composed this treatise to express his teacher’s
ideas, as if al-Qushāshī himself had spoken it with al-Kūrānī’s tongue (ka-annahu al-qāʾil
ʿalā lisānī). This work is thus a good place to start explaining the kasb theory as al-
Qushāshī explained it. The Sufi temper of this work is perceptible through the repeated
claim that knowing the meaning of the ambiguous verses (mutashābihāt) is possible
through divine bestowal (wahb ilāhī) and that understanding the topic of kasb is based on
divine inspiration rather than on reasoning (fikr).298 Al-Kūrānī begins this work by
refuting the two extreme positions that human beings act independently, or that their
acts are completely determined by God. This attempt at compromise is clear from the
title of the treatise, al-Ilmāʿ al-muḥīṭ bayna ṭarafay al-ifrāṭ wa-l-tafrīṭ, which refers to a
middle position between two extremes. This middle position according to al-Kūrānī is to
297
Ibid., vol. 1, p 604. The treatise is between pp. 604-620. Another copy is in (MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa
2722), fol. 151a-161b.
298
Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī, al-Ilmāʿ al-muḥīṭ bayna ṭarafay al-ifrāṭ wa-l-tafrīṭ (MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722), fol,
152b.
326
accept the idea that humans have effects in their actions, not independently, but with
God’s permission. This compromise position is supported by the sharʿ and can be justified
by reason.299
El-Rouayheb mentions that al-Juwaynī’s al-ʿAqidah al-niẓāmiyyah, in which al-Juwaynī
suggests that humans have the capacity to perform an act “by God’s permission” (bi-idhni
Allāh), was not widely copied or studied in later centuries. However, this alternative
position survived in the works of the later Ashʿarī theologian Shahrastānī (d. 1153) and
of Ibn Taymiyyah’s student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah.300 We can add that al-Juwaynī’s
suggestion in al-ʿAqidah al-niẓānmiyyah was actually well-known among later Ashʿarite
theologians, long before al-Qushāshī’s treatise in defence of al-Juwaynī. Al-Taftazānī in
Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid says that it is well known (mashhūr) that the doctrine of Imām al-
Ḥaramayn is that a human’s action occurs by their will and potency, similar to the
opinion of the philosophers (ḥukamāʾ).301 Attempts to distinguish al-Juwaynī’s opinion
from that of the Ashʿarites can also be found in al-Rāzī’s Nihāyat al-ʿuqūl302 and al-Āmidī’s,
Abkār al-afkār.303 Al-Dawānī in Risālat khalq al-aʿmāl also considers al-Juwaynī’s position to
be similar to that of the philosophers, who affirm human effects on their actions.304 Al-
299
Ibid., fol. 152a.
300
El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History of the Seventeenth Century, p. 297.
301
Masʿūd b. ʿUmar al-Taftāzānī, Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿUmayra, (Beirut, ʿĀlam al-Kutub,
2ed, 1998), vol. 4, p. 224.
302
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Nihāyat al-ʿuqūl fī dirāyat al-uṣūl, ed. Saʿīd Fūdah (Beirut: Dār al-Dhakhāʿir, 2015), vol.
2, p. 42;
303
Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī, Abkār al-afkār fī uṣūl al-dīn, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad al-Mahdī (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub
wa-l-Wāthāʾiq al-Qawmiyya, 2004), vol. 2, p. 384;
304
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Risālat khalq al-aʿmāl, in al-Rasāʾil al-mukhtārah, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tuwaysirkānī
(Iṣfahān: Imam Ali Public Library, 1400/[1979]), p. 69.
327
Dawānī’s Risālah fī khalq al-aʿmāl was already circulating in Medina during al-Qushāshī’s
life, as we know from al-Kūrānī’s work Ishrāq al-shams bi-taʿrīb al-kalimāt al-khams.305
Al-Kūrānī’s argument for his interpretation of kasb is examined closely in El-
Rouayheb’s Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century. Here I will simply mention
the main lines of this theory, and then try to shed more light on different aspects of al-
Kūrānī’s theory of kasb and the influence of al-Kūrānī’s works on his contemporaries and
successors. Al-Kūrānī rejected both the Muʿtazilite view that humans create their actions
independently of God (bi-l-istiqlāl), and the later Ashʿarites view that human actions are
the direct creations of God and that human intentions and abilities have no effect (taʾthīr)
on the created action.306 Al-Kūrānī cites many Quranic verses and ḥadīths that support his
idea that God granted humans the power to act. However, as mentioned above, al-Kūrānī
bases his interpretation of kasb on two Ashʿarite works in order to confirm his adherence
to “early” Ashʿarī theologians: al-Ibānah of al-Ashʿarī and al-ʿAqidah al-niẓāmiyyah of al-
Juwaynī. As explained above in the section related to God’s attributes, these two texts
are controversial. Al-Kūrānī, basing his arguments on al-Ashʿarī and al-Juwaynī,
nevertheless considers himself faithful to the original Ashʿarī position, and suggests that
later Ashʿarites who refuse to accept that humans have any real effect on their acts are
the ones actually departing from Ashʿarī’s doctrine.
As mentioned already, this topic was one of the most controversial among Ashʿarite
scholars contemporary to al-Kūrānī and after him. El-Rouayheb lists the positions of
some opponents, such as the Tunisian contemporary ʿAlī al-Nūrī al-Ṣafāqisī (d. 1706),307
305
MS: Cairo: Maʿhad al-Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿArabiyyah, majmūʿ 16, treatise 3, fols. 267-275, fol. 267-8. The
numeration is for each page not for folios.
306
307
Ibid., p. 299.
328
and discusses in detail al-Nābulusī’s opinion and his correspondence with al-Kūrānī
concerning this topic.308 The topic was too important to al-Nābulusī to deal with it in one
or two works. He wrote several treatises that deal directly with the topic that came to be
known as “al-irādah al-juzʾiyyah”: al-Kawkab al-sārī fī ḥaqīqat al-juzʾ al-ikhtiyārī,309 al-Durrah
al-muḍīʾah fī al-irādah al-juzʾiyyah, Taḥqīq al-intiṣār fī ittifāq al-Ashʿarī wa-l-Māturīdī ʿalā khalq
al-ikhtiyār, Radd al-jāhil ilā al-ṣawāb fī jawāz iḍāfat al-tāʾthīr ilā al-asbāb, and Taḥrīk silsilat al-
widād fī masʾalat khalq afʿāl al-ʿibād.310
The most severe criticism of al-Kūrānī’s interpretation of kasb came from Moroccan
scholars, who were acquainted with the theory through al-Qushāshī’s works and through
those of al-Kūrānī’s works that reached the Maghrib during the latter’s life.311 Ibn al-
Ṭayyib mentions some citations by scholars who rejected al-Kūrānī’s ideas, including
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī, who had been in contact with al-Kūrānī previously,
and who sent with al-ʿAyyāshī to al-Kūrānī several questions concerning his ideas about
the satanic verses, to which al-Kūrānī replied in Nibrās al-īnās. The other scholar
mentioned by Ibn al-Ṭayyib is Muḥammad al-Mahdī b. Aḥmad al-Fāsī (1109/1697), who
wrote a refutation of al-Kūrānī’s interpretation of kasb entitled al-Nubdhah al-yasīrah wa-
l-lumʿah al-khaṭīrah fī masʾalat khalq al-afʿāl al-shahīrah.312 Al-Yūsī wrote in praise of al-Fāsī’s
al-Nubdhah313 and in another letter to two Qādirī brothers, Abū Muḥammad al-ʿArabī and
Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Salām, he mentions that he saw some of al-Kūrānī’s works and
308
Ibid., 302.
309
Edited by Sami Turan Erel in İslâm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 34 (2015): 135-174.
310
About al-Nābulusī’s works see Bakri Aladdin, ʿAbdalgani an-Nâbulusî: Oeuvre, Vie et Doctrine (Université de
Paris, 1985).
311
Al-Shāwī says that Abū Sālim al-ʿAyyāshī is the person who introduced al-Kūrānī’s works to Morocco.
Yaḥyā al-Shāwī, al-Nubl al-raqīq fī ḥulqūm al-sābb al-zindīq (MS: Istanbul: Laleli 3744), fol. 53b.
312
These works, as mentioned in Chapter Three, were topic of a doctoral dissertation in Morocco.
313
Al-Ḥasan al-Yūsī, Rasāʾil Abī ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. Masʿūd al-Yūsī, ed. Faṭimah Khalīl al-Qiblī (Casablanca: Dār al-
Thaqāfah, 1981), vol. 2, p. 613-615.
329
that he would look at them to ascertain the truth in them. This letter is only one page,
like the previous one, and does not contain any actual discussion. He only says that al-
Kūrānī revived a dead innovation and ascribe a companion (sharīk) to God in the
causation of human acts.314 Among the Moroccan scholars who praised al-Fāsī’s al-
Nubdhah is Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Qusanṭīnī.315 Al-Nubdhah featured al-Sanūsī’s ideas
on the refutation of al-Kūrānī’s arguments, al-Sanūsī being the main source of Ashʿarite
doctrine for later Maghribī scholars. However, al-Sanūsī says that human beings’
possessing effective power over their actions is an idea mistakenly attributed to Imām
al-Ḥaramayn.316 Many other scholars repeated al-Sanūsī’s claim, such as Yaḥyā al-Shāwī
in his refutation of al-Kūrānī, and Shaykh Khālid Naqshbandī in al-ʿIqd al-Jawharī fī al-farq
bayna qudrat al-ʿabd wa-kasbuhu ʿind al-Māturīdī wa-l-Ashʿarī.317 Al-Ifrānī offers an
important hint about the reason for the contention of Fāsī scholars with al-Kūrānī saying
that the latter interpreted kasb in a way that differed from al-Sanūsī’s interpretation. The
student of Fās was here standing in for al-Sanūsī’s position. Al-Ifrānī reports that al-
Kūrānī was amazed that he was responding to al-Sanūsī and the student of Fās responded
to him with al-Sanūsī’s ideas.318
One of the harshest criticisms against al-Kūrānī came from the Algerian theologian
Yaḥyā al-Shāwī. Al-Barzanjī, al-Kūrānī’s foremost student, replied to al-Shāwī saying that
al-Kūrānī’s theory is that God creates by causes and in conjunction with causes (yakhluq
314
Al-Yūsī, Rasāʾil Abī ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. Masʿūd al-Yūsī, vol. 2, p. 616-17. Al-Yūsī’s letter is also mentioned in Ibn
al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1790. (in vol. 5 of Mawsūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib).
315
See his praise in Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1791. (in vol. 5 of Mawsūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib).
316
Muḥamma b. Yūsuf al-Sanūsī, ʿUmdat ahl al-tawfīq wa-l-tasdīd fī sharḥ ʿAqīdat ahl al-tawḥīd al-kubrā (Egypt:
Jarīdat al-Islām bi-Miṣr, 1316/[1898]), p. 186.
317
Khālid Naqshbandī in al-ʿIqd al-Jawharī fī al-farq bayna qudrat al-ʿabd wa-kasbihi ʿind al-Maturidī wa-l-Ashʿarī,
ed. Saʿīd Fudah (Jordan: Manshūrāt al-Aṣlayn, 2016), p. 42.
318
Al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar min ṣulaḥāʾ al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, p. 350.
330
bi-l-asbāb wa ʿinda al-asbāb) and that humans have effective power over their acts by the
permission of God (bi-idhn Allāh).319 Al-Shāwī says that al-Kūrānī relies on a statement
falsely attributed to Imām al-Ḥaramayn. Here al-Shāwī follows al-Sanūsī in trying to
rehabilitate al-Juwaynī.320 Al-Barzanjī rejects this claim on the grounds that whoever
reads al-ʿAqīdah al-niẓāmiyya knows that it is al-Juwaynī’s work, and that many scholars
have transmitted this work in interconnected isnāds. Al-Barzanjī goes on to ask what
right al-Sanūsī has to evaluate Imām al-Ḥaramayn, and whether or not anyone has even
heard about al-Sanūsī except in the Maghrib.321 Al-Shāwī says that al-Kūrānī even
attributed this idea to al-Ashʿarī himself in al-Ashʿarī’s book “al-Burhān.” Here, al-
Barzanjī starts to mock al-Shāwī, saying that he does not even know the title of al-
Ashʿarī’s book al-Ibānah.
In spite of the fact that al-Kūrānī’s theory concerning human effects on their acts was
rejected by several proponents of traditional Ashʿarite thought, it actually revived
discussion of this topic, and many works in his time and after him continue to debate the
issue, for example, Khālid al-Naqshbandī’s work mentioned above, al-ʿIqd al-jawharī, also
known as al-Risālah al-kasbiyyah fī al-farq bayna al-jabr wa-l-qadar; and al-Ṣanʿānī’s (d.
1182/1768-9) treatise al-Anfās al-raḥmāniyyah al-Yamāniyyah fī abḥāth al-ifāḍah al-
Madaniyyah,322 in which he commented on an earlier work on human actions by
Muḥammad al-Sindī al-Madanī.
319
Al-Barzanjī, Muḥamma b. Rasūl, al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī ʿalā al-thaʿlab al-ʿāwī wa-l-nashshāb al-kāwī li-l-aʿshā al-
ghāwī wa-l-shihāb al-shāwī li-l-aḥwal al-Shāwī (MS: Istanbul: Laleli 3744), fol. 37a.
320
Al-Shāwī, al-Nubl al-raqīq, fol. 54a.
321
Al-Barzanjī, al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī, fol. 37a-37b.
322
Muḥammad b. Ismāʿil al-Ṣanʿānī, al-Anfās al-raḥmāniyyah al-Yamāniyyah fī abḥāth al-ifāḍah al-Madaniyya,
ed. ʿAlī b. ʿAbduh al-Almaʿī (KSA: Riyāḍ: Maktabat al-Rushd, 2007).
331
Al-Kūrānī’s conception of kasb also found some supporters, and it continued to spread
and became an opinion that would usually be mentioned in any discussion of the topic
after the 11th/17th century. In al-Lumʿah fī taḥqīq mabāḥith al-wujūd wa-l-ḥudūth wa-l-qadar
wa-afʿāl al-ʿibād by Ibrāhīm b. Muṣṭafā al-Ḥalabī al-Madhārī (d. Rabīʿ II, 1190/May 1776),323
one of al-Nābulusī’s students, mentions al-Juwaynī’s opinion on kasb and says that it is
the true position of al-Ashʿarī as explained in his last book al-Ibānah. Al-Madhārī cites al-
Kūrānī’s Qaṣd al-sabīl and Maslak al-sadād as his sources for this information and mentions
that al-Kūrānī in Qaṣd al-sabīl was himself citing Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s Shifāʾ al-ʿAlīl.324
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Mijjāwī al-Tilmisānī (d. 1913) in Tuḥfat al-akhyār fī-mā yataʿallaqu bi-l kasb
wa-l-ikhtiyār also mentions al-Kūrānī’s ideas on kasb.325 Al-Kawtharī comments in a
footnote that al-Juwaynī encountered some difficulties from his students about this idea,
but that some later scholars supported him, such al-Qushāshī, who wrote al-Intiṣār li-
Imām al-Ḥaramayn fī-mā shannaʿ ʿalayhi baʿḍ al-nuẓẓār.326
Some contemporary scholars interpret al-Ashʿarī in a way that is similar to that of al-
Kūrānī. Frank’s article “The structure of created causality according to al-Asʿarī, an
analysis of Kitab al Lumaʿ pars. 82-164” says that the term kasb is used to denote free
human action that is brought to realization through human created power. It follows
323
Ibrāhīm b. Muṣṭafā al-Ḥalabī al-Madhārī was born in Aleppo and studied with scholars there, then he
moved to Damascus where he studied with ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī, Abū al-Mawāhib al-Baʿlī, Ilyās al-
Kūrānī and others. Later he traveled to Cairo and the Ḥijāz where he studied with several students of
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, among them his son Abū Ṭāhir, Sālim al-Baṣrī, and Muḥammad Ḥayāt al-Sindī. This
information is from Muḥammad Zāhir al-Kawtharī’s introduction to the edition of al-Lumʿah fī taḥqīq
mabāḥith al-wujūd wa-l-ḥudūth wa-l-qadar wa-afʿāl al-ʿibād. Al-Kawtharī mentions that Abū Ṭāhir b. Ibrāhīm
al-Kūrānī studied with ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm al-Siyālkūtī’s son. Ibrāhīm b. Muṣṭafā al-Ḥalabī al-Madhārī, al-Lumʿah
fī taḥqīq mabāḥith al-wujūd wa-l-ḥudūth wa-l-qadar wa-afʿāl al-ʿibād (Cairo: Dār al-Baṣāʾir, 2008), p. 3.
324
Al-Madhārī, al-Lumʿah, p. 54-56.
325
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Mijjāwī al-Tilmisānī, Tuḥfat al-akhyār fīmā yataʿallaq bi-l-kasb wa-l-ikhtiyār (al-Jazāʾir:
Maṭbaʿat Biyyr Fulṭānah al-Sharqiyyah, 1905), p. 10-11.
326
Al-Madhārī, al-Lumʿah, p. 55, fn. 2 by al-Kawtharī.
332
that God’s omnipotence is not impaired, while human responsibility is preserved, too. 327
Frank understands qudrah to mean a power of efficient causality. However, Frank’s
interpretation of human qudra in Ashʿarī thought as an efficient cause is not convincing
for Binyamin Abrahamov.328 Abrahamov says that “it is true that nowhere does al-Ashʿarī
indicate that the created power to appropriate has no effect on the appropriation, and
this may allow the possibility that al-Ashʿarī thought of a human’s using a power granted
to him by God to effect in his acts.”329
Another point that El-Rouayheb does not discuss is the possibility that a human by
their free will to act may act sometimes against God’s will and decree. This idea is related
to the discussion of good and bad according to the intellect (al-ḥusn wa-al-qubḥ al-
ʿaqliyyayn), as will be discussed below.
[4.1.11.1] Good and Bad According to the Intellect (al-ḥusn wa-l-qubḥ al-ʿaqliyyayn)
One point related to the topic of acquisition (kasb) is the possibility that humans, by their
free will to act, may act sometimes against God’s will and decree. This idea is related to
the discussion of good and bad according to the intellect (al-ḥusn wa-l-qubḥ al-ʿaqliyyayn).
Al-Kūrānī says that human power does not have an effect on its object unless it agrees
with God’s will, justifying this position with a prophetic ḥadīth that says: what God wills
will surely happen, and what He does not will, will not happen (mā shāʾ Allāh kān wa-mā
lam yashaʾ lam yakun).330 In another context, al-Kūrānī cites the same ḥadīth and says that
327
Richard M. Frank, “The structure of created causality according to al-Ašʿarî: An analysis of the ‘Kitâb al-
Lumaʿ’ §§ 82-164,” Studia Islamica, No. 25 (1966), pp. 13-75.
328
Abrahamov, “A Re-examination of al-Ashʿarī’s theory of ‘kasb’,” p. 214.
329
Ibid., p. 212.
330
Abū Dāwud Sulaymān al-Sajistānī, Sunan Abī Dāwud, ed. ʿIzzāt ʿUbayd al-Daʿʿās and ʿAdil alSayyid
(Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1997), no. 5075, vol.5, p. 199.
333
we reach this conclusion by conversion of the opposite (ʿaks al-naqīḍ).331 Thus, anything
made to happen by human action is happening by God’s will. It is not true that humans
can act independently, as Muʿtazilites and Zaydīs believe.332 The Quran also says that
“there is no power except in God” (lā quwwa illā bi-Allāh), and since there is no power
except in God, there is no power except God’s. Since there is no action without power,
there is no action without God.
He also makes another refutation of the Muʿtazilite idea that humans act
independently. According to al-Kūrānī, all actions are by God; as such, all actions by
definition are beautiful and good (ḥasanah wa-kayyirah).333 These actions can then be
attributed to humans, and, as such, they are divisible into good and bad. What is good for
humans is action that agrees with the law (sharʿ), and what is bad is action against the
law; the good is what God has commanded and the bad is what He has forbidden. 334 The
Quran states that “decision [authority] belongs only to God” (inna al-ḥukm illā li-Allāh) (Q
6:56) (Q 12: 67); this verse is essential to al-Kūrānī’s argument about the good and bad
deeds of humans. Al-Kūrānī says that this verse is an explicit refutation of the idea that
the good and bad are determined according to human reason; what is good and what is
bad are determined by God, through His law.335 Authority belongs only to God, and no
one has authority over Him, so God’s actions do not enter under the division of human
actions. Everything God does is of one kind, good and beautiful (al-khayr wa-l-ḥasan).
Eventually everything belongs to God, so He is acting in His own property and “He is not
331
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Sharḥ al-ʿaqīdah allatī allafahā mawlānā al-ʿallāmah al-mutawakkil ʿalā Allāh Ismāʿīl [b. al-
Manṣūr bi-Allāh] al-Qāsim riḍwān Allāh ʿalayhim (MS: USA: Princeton University Library, Garrett no. 224Y),
fols. 147a-174b.
332
Al-Kūrānī, al-Qawl al-jalī (MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722), fol. 306.
333
Al-Kūrānī, Sharḥ al-ʿaqīdah allatī allafahā mawlānā al-ʿallāmah al-mutawakkil ʿalā Allāh, fol. 153a.
334
Ibid., fol. 153a.
335
Ibid., fol. 153a.
334
questioned about what He does.” (Q 21:23).336 There are numerous Quranic verses and
Prophetic ḥadīths that attribute all acts to God; they are used in Ashʿarite-Muʿtazilite
debates over the issue of human actions and the capacity of reason to determine what is
good and what is bad. Among these verses and ḥadīths are “All [things] are from God” (Q
4:78); “God created you and that which you do” (Q 37:96); “God is the Creator of all things”
(Q 39: 62); and “all goodness is in Your hands, and evil is not attributed to You.”337
Al-Kūrānī explains that the idea that whatever God does is good does not contradict
the Quranic verse, “He is not satisfied with disbelief from His servants.” (Q 39:7) (lā yarḍā
li-ʿibādihi al-kufr). In the same verse, directly before this sentence, the Quran says, “If you
disbelieve, then verily, God is not in need of you [independent/literally, All Rich].” (ghanī
ʿankum). (Q 39: 7). God is independent from His creatures and not in need of them, so
whatever the creatures do does not affect Him. Human actions are part of this world and
God is totally independent of everything outside of Himself.
God specifies in the Quran some acts that He loves and some acts that He does not
love, acts with which He is satisfied (riḍā) and acts with which He is dissatisfied, along
with His orders and prohibitions. For example, we can find several verses in the Quran
that say, “God loves…” (Q 3:134), (Q 5:93), (Q 9:108), (Q 60:8), (Q 61:4), and other verses
that say that “God does not like …” (Q 2:205), (Q 3:57), (Q 7:55), (Q 30:45), (Q 57:23).
Similarly there are statements about what He is satisfied with and what He is not satisfied
with. But God does not specify similar things relating to His will, potency, and knowledge.
God does not say that He wills one thing and does not will another thing. So, God may
will something and this thing could be loved by God or unloved, forbidden or obliged. Al-
336
Ibid., fol. 153b.
337
Ibid., fol. 153a.
335
Kūrānī distinguishes between God’s attributes that are totally independent of His
creatures, which means they encompass all human actions, and those that constitute
relations with creatures. God’s will is different from His satisfaction, command (al-amr),
and loved actions. This specification of some Divine attributes that encompass all human
actions explains why disbelieving could be willed by God, yet still something He is not
satisfied with, does not like, or does not command.338 What is attributed to God is the act
itself, not the human-centric value of the act, which is divided into bad and illegal or
good and legal, since these are categories that apply only to humans. God is totally
independent and there is no obligation on God; thus, there is no badness in his actions.
God acts according to His wisdom by His mercy, not because He is obliged to do
something. Humans, being legally responsible, act in a way that can be described as
constituting obedience or disobedience, which depends on how the action accords with
God’s law. No one gives orders to God, so His actions can not be described as exceeding
any limits.339
In conclusion, al-Kūrānī emphasises that the authority over, and the evaluation of,
actions (al-ḥukm) belongs only to God, and is not derived from reason, because evaluating
actions as bad and good according to reason subordinates God to the categories of the
human intellect, and God is independent according to the Quran and ḥadīths. God is not
subject to human standards of good and bad. What is bad according to human reason
could not be thus described were it attributed to God; for example, there may be wisdom
in this action that we do not perceive.340 Good and bad are not essential to actions;
338
Ibid., fol. 154a.
339
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-taʿrīf bi-taḥqīq al-taklīf ʿalā mashrab ahl al-kashf wa-l-shuhūd al-qāʾilīn bi-tawḥīd
al-wujūd, fol. 61a.
340
Al-Kūrānī, Sharḥ al-ʿaqīdah allatī allafahā mawlānā al-ʿallāmah al-mutawakkil ʿalā Allāh, fol. 155b.
336
instead, it is God who determines their moral qualities. To describe an action as good or
bad is dependent on how God describes it in the Quran or in law.341
The contention between Muʿtazilites and Ashʿarites revolve around human reason’s
capacity to recognize the badness or goodness of human actions. This doctrine is
intertwined with the issue of justice. If a human is capable of recognizing the good and
the bad by their reason, that means they should be legally responsible even if there is no
revelation or Divine law. Also, if all power belongs to God, how can a human be
responsible for his actions?
[4.1.11.2] Legal Responsibility (al-taklīf)
Al-Kūrānī received a question about the concept of legal responsibility (taklīf) from the
wujūdī viewpoint, to which he replied in his work Maslak al-taʿrīf bi-taḥqīq al-taklīf ʿalā
mashrab ahl al-kashf wa-l-shuhūd al-qāʾilīn bi-tawḥīd al-wujūd.342 The question about legal
responsibility from the wujūdī perspective recalls Ibn Taymiyyah’s understanding of
waḥdat al-wujūd and his interpretation of it as “the existence of objects is the essence of
God.” (wujūd kull shayʾ ʿayn wujūd al-Ḥaqq).343 For Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers, the
idea of waḥdat al-wujūd means that God and the world are identical. In such a doctrine,
there is no distinction between the Creator and the creature, thus there is no
responsibility because there is no distinguishing between the one who gives the orders
(āmir) and the one who receives the orders (maʾmūr). The connection between the
theological idea of kasb, the legal idea of taklīf, and the Sufi idea of waḥdat al-wujūd
becomes very clear with this explanation in mind. Al-Kūrānī attempts to prove that the
341
Ibid., fol. 154a.
342
Al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-taʿrīf bi-taḥqīq al-taklīf ʿalā mashrab ahl al-kashf wa-l-shuhūd, fols. 59a-72a.
343
Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm Ibn Taymiyyah, Ḥaqiqat madhab al-ittiḥādiyyah, in Majmūʻ Fatāwá Shaykh al-Islām
Aḥmad ibn Taymīyah, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad Ibn Qāsim, and Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
Ibn Qāsim (KSA, 1977), vol. 2, p. 112, and p.140.
337
human actor is responsible by showing that there is an essential distinction between the
Creator and His creatures; this distinction is essential to defending the idea of waḥdat al-
wujūd and to refuting the pantheistic understanding, as we will see soon.
Al-Kūrānī acknowledges that legal responsibility assumes distinguishing between two
realities: the one who assigns legal responsibility (al-mukallif), and the one to whom the
legal responsibility is assigned (al-mukallaf).344 Without a clear distinction, there will
either be no responsibility, or we will fall into pantheism in the way that Ibn Taymiyyah
explained, with no commands, no obligations, no prohibitions, and no law or sharīʿah. Al-
Kūrānī’s task, to demonstrate the essential distinction between God as absolute existence
and humans, was not difficult because he had already established all the required
elements for his arguments. From one side, we have God whose essence is identical to
His quiddity or reality; He is absolute in the real sense of absoluteness. From the other
side, there is the contingent whose existence is distinct from its inner-reality; this inner-
reality is nonexistent, essentially distinguishable by its eternal dispositions, and its
existence is not absolute but restricted by the disposition of its inner-reality.345 This
essential distinction between the necessary and the contingent is the condition for legal
responsibility.
The one who is legally responsible (mukallaf) is a composite of existence and
nonexistence; in their reality, they are nonexistent and in their apparent form they are
existent. Al-Kūrānī cites Ibn ʿArabī to support his idea. The first sentence of Ibn ʿArabī’s
al-Futūḥāt states: “praise be to God who made things exist from a nonexistence and [from]
its (nonexistence’s) nonexistence” (al-ḥamdu li-Allāh alladhī awjada al-ashyāʾ ʿan ʿadamin
344
Al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-taʿrīf, fol. 60b.
345
Ibd., fol. 60b.
338
wa-ʿadamihi).346 The non-nonexistence of nonexistence is existence, so God created the
world from nonexistence and existence: the inner-reality of the contingent is
nonexistence and its form is existence.347 It is important to remember that the
combination of the nonexistent inner-reality and existence does not equal absolute
existence. Al-Kūrānī in fact received an inquiry specifically about this idea. The
questioner asked how absolute existence could be part of a combination and thus be
considered legally responsible. Al-Kūrānī replied that the existence that becomes part of
external existence is emanated existence (al-wujūd al-mufāḍ), or al-ʿamāʾ in Ibn ʿArabī’s
terms.348
The other topic related to human responsibility is that of the ability to act, and the
idea that action should be attributed to the actor. This point was not a problem for al-
Kūrānī, since he had previously established that humans have effects in their actions. He
repeats several verses that attribute action directly to humans: “are you being
recompensed except for what you used to earn?” (Q 10:52), “And you will not be
recompensed except for what you used to do” (Q 37:39), and many other verses ending
with the statement “for what you used to do.” (Q 16:32), (Q 43:72), (Q 77:43). Thus, humans
are legally responsible, and reward or punishment depends on human actions.349
The two assertions that all power belongs to God and that all perfections belong only
to God are called tawḥīd al-afʿāl and tawḥīd al-ṣifāt. Neither assertion undermines the
essential difference between the absolute and the contingent. All human powers are
manifestations of God’s power, but these manifestations are not the same as the reality
346
347
Al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-taʿrīf, fol. 60b.
348
Al-Kūrānī, Isʿāf al-ḥanīf li-sulūk maslak al-taʿrīf, fols. 75a.
349
Al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-taʿrīf, fol. 61a.
339
of the attribute itself; as al-Kūrānī explains, something appearing or reflected in a mirror
does not mean that the thing itself is in the mirror.350 With this example, al-Kūrānī enters
into the most controversial topic associated with Ibn ʿArabī’s legacy: the doctrine of
waḥdat al-wujūd.
[4.1.12] The Unity of the Attributes (waḥdat al-ṣifāt)
The expression “the unity of the attributes” (waḥdat al-ṣifāt) was coined as response to
the expression waḥdat al-wujūd, “the unity of Being” or “Oneness of Being,” which is
closely associated with Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. The idea of waḥdat al-ṣifāt is one of al-
Qushāshī’s doctrines; al-Kūrānī said, according to al-ʿAyyāshī, that no one explained the
idea of waḥdat al-ṣifāt better than al-Qushāshī. Al-Kūrānī referred to waḥdat al-ṣifāt as the
“sister” of waḥdat al-wujūd, and thought al-Qushāshī’s efforts in laying the basis for the
former were similar to Ibn ʿArabī’s efforts in laying the basis for the latter.351 Al-Kūrānī
also names the theory tawḥīd al-ṣifāt, which is closer to the theological term used to
express tawḥīd al-afʿāl, “the unity of God’s actions” or the uniqueness of God’s actions;
and tawḥīd al-dhāt, “the oneness of God’s essence.” These different types of unity are
interconnected.
All prophets assert God’s unity, or Divine unity (tawḥīd al-ulūhiyya), in other words a
belief in God’s oneness. God’s oneness entails that He be described by all the attributes
of perfection, including necessity of existence. Being described by all the attributes of
perfection is called “the unity of the attributes of perfection” (tawḥīd ṣifāt al-kamāl). In al-
Qawl al-jalī, al-Kūrānī explains that the unity of the attributes means that the attributes
of perfection belong exclusively and essentially (bi-l-dhāt) only to God, (qaṣr al-kamālāt
350
Ibid., fol. 62a.
351
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 590. Also, al-Ḥamawī, Fawāʾid al-irtiḥāl, vol. 2, p. 327.
340
kullihā bi-l-dhāt ʿalā Allāh taʿālā).352 He is omnipotent, the necessary existence by Himself,
the absolute existence that exists by His essence (mawjūd bi-dhātihi), independent by
essence (ghanī bi-l-dhāt), and perfect by essence (kāmil bi-l-dhāt).353 It seems that the rider
(bi-l-dhāt) is what distinguishes God from His creatures. Humans can have power, will,
and knowledge, but only as reflections of their divine counterparts. Human powers are
instances of divine power; they are loci of manifestation (maẓāhir), specifications
(taʿayyunāt), or revelations (tanazzulāt).354
The unity of the attributes entails the unity of God’s actions (tawḥīd al-afʿāl). According
to al-Kūrānī, the unity of God’s actions allows us to talk about the human capacity to act
by God’s permission. As explained in the previous sections about kasb and taklīf, humans
have power that is given to them by God, but the true attribute of power belongs only to
God; humans do not have power and cannot act except through by the power granted to
them by God.355 Thus, there is only one unqualified power in existence, and that is God’s
power.
Given this connection with the topic of kasb, it is not surprising to find the main
discussion of waḥdat al-ṣifāt in al-Kūrānī’s corpus in his works that deal with the issue of
kasb, i.e., in Maslak al-sadād and Takmilat al-qawl al-jalī. In Maslak al-sadād al-Kūrānī says
that accepting that human power (qudrah) has an effect on their actions - by God’s
permission, not independently - does not contradict the claim that God is the Creator of
everything. For al-Kūrānī this is “the unity of actions” (tawḥīd al-afʿāl).356 Al-Kūrānī means
352
Al-Kūrānī, Takmilat al-qawl al-jalī fī taḥqīq qawl al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī (MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722), fol.
303a.
353
Al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-sadād, fol. 34b.
354
355
Al-Kūrānī, Takmilat al-qawl al-jalī, fol. 303b.
356
Al-Kūrānī, Maslak al-sadād, fols. 32b.
341
that the actions of all creatures are ultimately reducible to God’s power. The human
power that causes an action is therefore not independent of God’s power, as the early
Muʿtazilites wrongly supposed, but is instead a manifestation of God’s absolute power.
The human act results from a particular manifestation or instance of divine power and
is not independent of God’s power. Al-Kūrānī states:
It is clear that power is one in essence but manifold in its specifications. If that is the
case, it will be correct to say that actions are one while also affirming the human’s
acquisition (kasb) in virtue of the effect of his power by God’s permission, and not
independently.357
Attributes such as power are not essential to human beings, but are instead bestowed on
them by God. Humans have power (qudrah) through God (bi-Allāh) and potency (quwwah)
through God. What is given to humans by God belongs essentially only to God; thus,
power is only one by essence, but it can be multiplied by its specifications (taʿayyunāt).
On this understanding, al-Kūrānī was able to argue that human power and potency have
effects on human actions by God’s permission. As mentioned above, this is called the
unity of actions (tawḥīd al-afʿāl). Humans cannot act without power, and “there is no
power except in God,” (Q 18:39); thus, there is no human action except through God’s
power. This is how “God is the creator of all things” (Q 13:16) while at the same time
humans have effects on their actions.358
Al-Kūrānī says in Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād that he is still receiving questions about kasb
because the main principle (aṣl) of the unity of attributes (waḥdat al-ṣifāt) that he
explained in Maslak al-sadād was unclear. He repeats his idea about accepting the
ambiguous verses (mutashābihāt) without allegorical interpretation, and says that this
357
Ibid., fol. 34b.
358
Ibid., fol. 34b.
342
principle is a result of conceiving of God as absolute existence.359 The unity of God’s
actions thus depends on the unity of God’s attributes, and the latter depends on the idea
that God is absolute existence, or on the unity of God’s essence (tawḥīd al-dhāt), which
indicates that God’s essence and His attributes are incomparable with their human
counterparts and bear no likeness to the essences and attributes of creatures because
“there is nothing like Him.”
A contemporary of al-Kūrānī, al-Kafawī (d. 1683), explains in his dictionary al-Kulliyyāt
the three kinds of unity, or three levels (marātib), as he calls them: (1) tawḥīd al-dhāt, “the
unity of God’s essence,” which is the highest level of divine unity, at which everything is
annihilated and vanishes in God (fanāʾ wa-istihlāk fī Allāh), and where the only real being
is God (lā wujūd fī al-ḥaqīqah illā Allāh); (2) tawḥīd al-ṣifāt, “the unity of God’s attributes,”
which is the level at which the believer perceives every perfection in the world as a
reflection of the light of God’s perfection; and (3) tawḥīd al-afʿāl, “the unity of God’s acts,”
which is the level at which the believer realizes (yataḥaqqaq) and knows with certainty
that nothing can have an effect in the universe except God.360
God’s essence is identical to His existence, so we can say that the first level of unity is
the unity of God’s existence, or Oneness of Being, the most controversial idea in Akbarian
tradition.
[4.1.13] Waḥdat al-Wujūd
It may be surprising that al-Kūrānī, who has been described as “the leading
representative of Ibn ʿArabī’s doctrines in Medina and perhaps throughout the entire
359
Al-Kūrānī, Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād, fol. 32a.
360
Ayyūb Ibn Mūsā Kaffawī, al-Kulliyyāt, ed. ʿAdnān Darwīsh and Muḥammad al-Miṣrī (Beirut: Muʾassasat
al-Risāla, 2ed,1998), p. 931-2.
343
Muslim world,”361 did not dedicate more than two short treatises to the doctrine of
waḥdat al-wujūd. However, Ibn ʿArabī himself, so far as we know, never used this term
specifically in his writings.362 Al-Kūrānī nevertheless mentions the term waḥdat al-wujūd in the
titles of two of his works:
1. The first work is Mirqāt al-ṣuʿūd ilā ṣiḥḥat al-qawl bi-waḥdat al-wujūd,363 which is only
two folios long. In this treatise, al-Kūrānī rejects an extreme idea proposed by some Javan
Sufis who claimed that Muḥammad possessed divine aspects, and that this is the true
meaning of waḥdat al-wujūd. Al-Kūrānī then states that “the doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd
is correct on legal ground (sharʿan) because it agrees with the Quran and the Sunna. Its
gist (ḥāṣiluh) is to believe in the ambiguous verses while confirming God’s transcendence
by virtue of [the statement] “there is nothing like Him” and to affirm the apparent
meaning of these verses.364 Then he says that the followers of waḥdat al-wujūd believe that
God Almighty is the absolute existence in the true sense of absoluteness – namely that
which is not restricted by anything in the cosmos - and that He manifests Himself in
created forms without being restricted by these forms. According to al-Kūrānī, this is the
belief of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamāʿah, who reject both assimilating (tashbīh) God to
his creatures through their confirmation that “there is nothing like Him,” and striping
away the Divine attributes (taʿṭīl) through their confirmation that He manifests Himself
361
Martin Van Bruinessen, “The impact of Kurdish ʿUlama on Indonesian Islam,” Les annales de l'autre islam
5, 1998, pp. 83-106.
362
William C. Chittick, “A history of the term Waḥdat al-Wujūd,” p. 73; Caner K. Dagli, Ibn al-ʿArabī and Islamic
Intellectual Culture: From mysticism to Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 2016), p. 2.
363
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Mirqāt al-ṣuʿūd ilā ṣiḥḥat al-qawl bi-waḥdat al-wujūd (MS: UK, British Library: India
Office, Delhi-Arabic 710c), fols. 20a-21b.
364
Ibid., fol. 21a.
344
in whatever forms He wills.365 Al-Kūrānī then says that he has expanded on the topic in
Itḥāf al-dhakī and in Qaṣd al-sabīl.
2. The second work is Maṭlaʿ al-jūd bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh fī waḥdat al-wujūd,366 in which al-
Kūrānī emphasizes the transcendence of God according to the doctrine of waḥdat al-
wujūd. This work is divided into several chapters. In chapter one, al-Kūrānī discusses the
idea of God’s absoluteness. In chapter two, he talks about general existence (al-ʿamāʾ) that
is emanated from the absolute existence. In chapter three, he talks about the quiddities
or inner-realities of contingents and how they are uncreated nonexistents. In chapter
four, he explains creation as the emanation of existence from the absolute existence in
accordance with the disposition of the nonexistent inner-realities. He also explores the
main topics related to “necessary existence,” “contingent existence,” and creation.
Those are the only two treatises that contain the term “waḥdat al-wujūd” in their titles.
And as mentioned above, al-Kūrānī in Mirqāt al-ṣuʿūd refers his readers to two other
works for more detail about the meaning of waḥdat al-wujūd: Itḥāf al-dhak and Qaṣd al-
sabīl. Both are doctrinal surveys that discuss most of the topics in this chapter: the idea
of absolute existence, manifestations in forms, and accepting the ambiguous or
anthropomorphic Quranic verses without allegorical interpretation.
Another text that deals directly with the term waḥdat al-wujūd is al-Kūrānī’s treatise
al-Maslak al-jalī fī ḥukm shaṭḥ al-walī. In this treatise, al-Kūrānī mentions that he received
a letter from Java asking about some statements related to waḥdat al-wujūd. The question
refers to the fact that some people in Java say that “God is ourselves and our existence
and we are Himself and His existence.”367 This treatise is one of only a few texts that
365
Ibid., fol. 21b.
366
Al-Kūrānī, Maṭlaʿ al-jūd, fols. 123b-153b.
367
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-jalī fī ḥukm shaṭḥ al-walī (MS: Istanbul: Veliyuddin Ef 1815), fol. 137b.
345
address waḥdat al-wujūd explicitly. Al-Kūrānī says that this idea is spreading in that
country, i.e., Java, among the educated and the common people (al-khāṣṣ wa-l-ʿāmm) so it
needs to be clarified.368 What al-Kūrānī accomplishes in this treatise is an explanation
that waḥdat al-wujūd should be construed in such a way that God, the absolute existence,
is different from the human, and from contingent existence generally.369 The absolute
existence exists by Himself for Himself; His essence is identical to His existence. The
contingent existent has a distinct essence that is an uncreated nonexistent;
“nonexistent” cannot be predicated of God, and absolute existence cannot be contingent
upon an existent.370 So, God cannot be us. The second part of the Javans’ claim, namely
that we are Himself and His existence, is similarly impossible. “We,” whether it refers to
the inner-realities or to the existent forms, cannot be predicated of God; the inner-
realities are nonexistents, and the apparent forms are created, and God can be neither
nonexistent nor created.371 Here, al-Kūrānī has not stated anything new concerning
waḥdat al-wujūd. He is simply restating the ideas he explained in Itḥāf al-dhakī and Maṭlaʿ
al-jūd.
We should note that the two treatises that refute the pantheistic interpretation of
waḥdat al-wujūd, i.e., Mirqāt al-ṣuʿūd and al-Maslak al-jalī fī ḥukm shaṭḥ al-walī, were written
as responses to questions from Southeast Asia, which suggests that this understanding
of waḥdat al-wujūd was spreading in Java in the 17th century. Al-Kūrānī also wrote to a
Javan student in Medina, at his request, his main text relating to the doctrine of waḥdat
al-wujūd, i.e., Itḥāf al-dhakī. Writing about waḥdat a-wujūd to a Javan audience implies that
368
Ibid., fol. 137b-138a.
369
Ibid., fol. 138a.
370
Ibid., fol. 139a.
371
Ibid., fol. 139a.
346
the pantheistic interpretation of waḥdat al-wujūd was an important topic in Java. This
active engagement of al-Kūrānī in Sufi-theologian debates in Southeast Asia requires
some clarification of the context of waḥdat al-wujūd’s reception in Java.
In Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission and Responses, Riddell gives a
general overview of prominent Malay religious scholars and their writings during the
late 10th/16th and the 11th/17th century. Ḥamza Fanṣūrī (c. 1690) and Shams al-Dīn al-
Samatrānī (d. 1630), two important Sufis in Southeast Asia, were accused by Nūr al-Dīn
al-Rānīrī (d. 1658) of heresy. Al-Rānīrī devoted several works, including Ḥujjat al-ṣiddīq li-
dafʿ al-zindīq, to refute what he considered to be the pantheistic teachings of al-Fanṣūrī
and al-Samatrānī. Al-Rānīrī distinguished between two groups of wujūdiyyah: “the true”
and “the heretical.” Ibn ʿArabī belongs to the former according to al-Rānīrī, who himself
was a Sufi.372 Al-Rānirī launched an attack on the heretical wujūdiyyah, targeting Ḥamza
Fanṣūrī and Shams al-Dīn al-Samatrānī by accusing them of collapsing the correct
multiplicity-within-unity viewpoint into a simple equation of God and the world by
saying: “the world is God and God is the world.”373
Al-Kūrānī did not only participate directly in this argument through the texts
mentioned above. Another of his important contributions to the wujūdiyyah debate was
through his main student, ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkilī (c. 1615-93), who spent 19 years in the
Arabian Peninsula and studied in a variety of centers there. He was the preeminent
Islamic scholar dominating the religious life of the Acehnese sultanate during the latter
half of the 17th century. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf reaffirmed the reformed Sufi approach initiated by
Riddell, Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission and Responses, p. 120.
372
Ibd., p. 122. However, al-Attas argued that al-Rānīrī misunderstood the essential orthodoxy of Hamza’s
373
position. Ibid., p. 119 and after.

347
al-Rānīrī and emphasised the importance of adhering to the sharīʿah.374 Al-Singkilī is
probably the translator of al-Kūrānī’s short commentary on al-Qushāshī’s creed into the
Malay language. This translation, in the context of the debate over the wujūdiyyah and
al-Kūrānī’s other treatises that were addressed to Javan audience, can be considered an
attempt to correct the excesses of certain Sufis. These efforts can also be seen in the
Malay translation of al-Nasafi’s creed at the end of the 16th century.375
To summarize al-Kūrānī’s understanding of waḥdat al-wujūd, we can look at chapter 12
of Inbāh al-anbāh, one of the chapters that were added in 1072/1661-2, almost 10 years
after his companionship with al-Qushāshī. Al-Kūrānī says that tawḥīd al-wujūd means that
God Almighty does not have a partner in existence in the real sense of existence (lā sharīk
lahu fī al-wujūd, ayy [al-wujūd] al-ḥaqīqī).376 Al-Kūrānī cites al-Ghazālī’s interpretation in
Mishkāt al-anwār of the Quranic verse “everything perishes except His Face” (Q 28:88),
claiming that it does not mean that everything will perish at some future point; it has
actually perished eternally in the past (azalan) and forever in the future (abadan).
Everything but God, if you consider it in term of its essence, is nonexistent.377 Al-Kūrānī
says that al-Ghazālī’s words mean that the universe’s (al-ʿālam) existence is not
independent but emanated from God, so its existence cannot be described as existent
with God but it is existent by God. Al-Kūrānī concludes this section by saying:
The statement “no God except God” means that there is no essential perfection except
for God, just as there is no existence for anything except through God, so too there is
no perfection except through God. And whatever does not exist except through
another, then the existence as truly belongs to that other; similar things can be said
about the perfection [it has].378
374
375
Ibid., p. 132.
376
377
Ibid., p. 228.
378
348
Again, when al-Kūrānī tries to explain waḥdat al-wujūd, he returns to explanations of his
ideas about absolute existence, realities, manifestations in forms, and other topics
mentioned in this chapter.
To contextualize al-Kūrānī’s understanding of the doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd, we can
look at the works of some of his contemporary scholars and how they understood this
doctrine. I will mention briefly the ideas of al-Qushāshī, al-Barzanjī, and ʿAbd al-Ghanī
al-Nābulusī concerning the meaning of waḥdat al-wujūd.
Al-Qushāshī in Kalimat al-jūd bi-l-bayyinah wa-l-shuhūd ʿalā al-qawl bi-waḥdat al-wujūd
says that there is no existence by itself and for itself except for God’s existence, and the
cosmos is His action (fiʿluhu); thus, it exists through God, not by itself. There are therefore
no two existences, only one existence - God’s - through which everything exists.379 Then,
after one folio, he states that if all existents possess existence neither by themselves nor
in themselves, but their existence is instead contained in God’s knowledge, then they do
not exist in themselves or for themselves, but are rather through Him and for Him. Then
he continues to say that this is what is meant by waḥdat al-wujūd: it means that there is
no other partner for God in His existence; the contingents consist entirely in His objects
of knowledge, His actions, and His creatures. The action of an agent does not exist
without the agent, but instead exists only through the existence of the agent.380 Drawing
closer to the philosophers’ language, al-Qushāshī says that there is a division between [1]
the necessary for whom it is impossible to imagine His nonexistence even mentally, His
existence is for Himself and by Himself (li-dhātih wa-bi-dhātih) not for a thing, nor from a
thing; this necessary existence is God Almighty. And there is [2] the contingent which
379
Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī, Kalimat al-jūd bi-l-bayyinah wa-l-shuhūd ʿalā al-qawl bi-waḥdat al-wujūd (MS:
Istanbul: Reside Efendi 428), fol. 2b.
380
Ibid., fol. 3b.
349
could potentially exist or not, as its existence or nonexistence depends on the murajjiḥ.381
Existence is essentially one (al-wujūd wāḥid bi-l-dhāt); there is nothing in it except the
truth by its essence (al-ḥaqq li-dhātihi).382 True existence belongs to God alone and
anything other than Him does not have any part in it in any way.383 Al-Muḥibbī described
al-Qushāshī as the Imām of all those who believe in waḥdat al-wujūd.384
ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī (d. 1143/1731) dedicated a special book to explaining the
concept of “the True Existence” (al-Wujūd al-Ḥaqq) that applies only to God. Possible
existence does not exist independently from True Existence. Contingents are existent,
but they do not possess existence by themselves. Al-Nābulusī says that “if you heard us
saying that ‘Existence is God,’ do not think that we mean ‘all existents are God,’
regardless of whether these existents are material or mental. Rather, existence is God
through whom all other existents subsist.”385 Al-Nābulusī distinguishes clearly between
oneness of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd) and multiplicity of existents (kathrat al-mawjūd);
existence is one and God alone deserves the title wujūd, since his existence is from
Himself and does not depend on anything else; multiplicity lies in existent things, which
are absolutely not God.386 Al-Nābulusī says:
Know that the difference between existence (wujūd) and existent (mawjūd) is
necessarily demarcated. Existents are numerous and differentiated, while existence is
one, neither multiple nor diverse in itself; it is one reality undivided and indivisible
according to the multiplicity of existents. Existence is an origin and existents are
succeeding, proceeding from and based on Him. He controls them according to His will
and He is able to change and replace them. The meaning of existent is a thing that has
381
Ibid., fol. 8b.
382
Ibid., fol. 9a.
383
Ibid., fol. 9b.
384
Al-Muḥibbī, Kulāṣat al-athar, vol. 1, p. 345.
385
ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī, al-Wujūd al-Ḥaqq, ed. Bakri Aladdin (Damascus: IFPO L’institut Français
D’études Arabes De Damas, 19995), p. 11.
386
Ibid., pp. 13, 17.
350
existence; it is not the essence of existence. Our discussion is concerning waḥdat al-
wujūd not waḥdat al-mawjūd, since al-mawjūd is not one but multiple.387
Al-Barzanjī dedicates numerous pages of his work al-Jādhib al-ghaybī to the discussion of
the concept of “absolute existence” and the distinction between different types of
existence. Based on al-Kūrānī’s works, al-Barjanzī distinguishes between two kinds of
absolutes: absolute in contrast to particular, which means that the absolute here does
not exist in reality except by its individuals. God is not absolute in this sense. The other
type is absolute in the sense that God does not have any restriction. The latter is the
meaning Ibn ʿArabī had in mind when he said in al-Futūḥāt that “the Truth Almighty is
existent by its essence, for its essence, absolute existence is not restricted by others.”388
Al-Barzanjī thinks that the vilification of Ibn ʿArabī came from misunderstanding the
difference between these two senses of “absolute.” Absolute existence, as al-Barzanjī
describes it, exists in reality, necessarily, individually, and it differs from the existence
that is common to all quiddities. God is one without any duality; so, al-Barzanjī, following
al-Kūrānī, argues that the existence of God is identical to His essence, and that this is
exactly the idea of al-Ashʿarī that the existence of everything is identical to its essence.
We can note that these three scholars, and al-Kūrānī, were all from the 17th century
and residents in the Arabic-speaking part of the Ottoman empire. Three of them were
active in the Ḥijāz, and al-Nābulusī lived and died in Damascus close to Ibn ʿArabī’s tomb.
The agreement with sharīʿah was a central aspect of all of their efforts to explain waḥdat
al-wujūd. Numerous contemporary scholars interpreted waḥdat al-wujūd similarly.389
387
Ibid, p. 19.
388
Al-Barzanjī, al-Jādhib al-ghaybī ilā al-Jānib al-gharbī, fol.139b and after.
389
For the term waḥdat al-wujūd in Ibn ʿArabī’s tradition see William Chittick, “Waḥdat al-wujūd in Islamic
thought,” Bulletin of the Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, 10 (1991), pp.7-27. Revised copy entitled
“Rūmī and Waḥdat al-Wujūd,” Poetry and Mysticism in Islam, The Heritage of Rūmī, ed. Amin Banani, Richard
Hovannisian, and George Sabagh (UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Another revised copy in In Search
351
Chittick in “A history of the term waḥdat al-wujūd” traces the evolution of the phrase
waḥdat al-wujūd and its use among the direct disciples of Ibn ʿArabī. Chittick observes
that:
Ibn ʿArabī and his immediate followers upheld a doctrine which we can call waḥdat al-
wujūd, since they maintained that there in only one true wujūd and that the multiplicity
of the world manifests the one wujūd, without introducing any ontological plurality
into it. But Ibn al-ʿArabī never employs the term waḥdat al-wujūd, while Qūnawī only
mentions it in passing. When Faraghānī begins to employ the term repeatedly, it refers
to a relatively low station of spiritual realization, since the adept who realizes the
Oneness of Being still has to ascend to the Manyness of Knowledge and beyond.390
This series of commentaries shows a process of evolution that reaches maturity with
Qayṣarī, who played an essential role in shaping Ottoman religious attitudes, especially
towards Ibn ʿArabī as we will see shortly.
Ibn ʿArabī describes God as the truly real wujūd. Thus, the word wujūd could be applied
to God and to everything else as well. God is wujūd, and everything else has wujūd in one
mode or another; “Ibn al-ʿArabī employs the term wujūd in two basic senses. First, the
term refers to God, who is the Real Being (al-wujūd al-ḥaqq) or Necessary Being (wājib al-
wujūd) who is impossible not to be. Second, the term may also refer to the universe or
the things within it.”391 Souad Hakim, in “Unity of being in Ibn ʿArabī - A humanist
perspective,” states that being (al-wujūd) is the Divine essence itself (ʿayn al-dhāt al-
ilāhiyyah). Ibn ʿArabī considers that only He who possesses being in himself (wujūd dhātī)
and whose being is his very essence (wujūduhu ʿayn dhātihi) merits the name of
being.392 For Ibn ʿArabī, the created does not deserve the attribution of being. Only God
of the Lost Heart, chapter eight “A history of the term waḥdat al-wujūd.” Also, Souad Hakim, “Unity of being
in Ibn ʿArabī - A humanist perspective”; and Bakri Aladdin, “Oneness of Being (waḥdat al-wujūd) the term
and the doctrine,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 51 (2012), pp. 3-26.
390
Chittick, “Waḥdat al-wujūd in Islamic thought,” p. 15.
391
Chittick, “A history of the term waḥdat al-wujūd.” p. 75.
392
Hakim, “Unity of being in Ibn ʿArabī - A humanist perspective,” p. 18-19
352
is being, and all the rest is in reality a possibility (imkān), a relative, possible
nonexistence.393 His being is not other than His essence. But His essence cannot be
known; it is known neither by proof nor by intellectual argument, and cannot be defined.
Only His attributes are knowable.
In sum, waḥdat al-wujūd in the 17th-century Arab World was understood as existence
being nothing but the existence of God. Existence is a single reality that manifests in
other entities, without itself becoming many. Existence belongs only to God; thus,
everything other than God is nonexistent in itself, although it is existent to the extent
that it manifests the real existence. The absolute existence is the source of all existence
(al-wujūd al-muṭlaq aṣl kull wujūd); thus, in themselves, creatures are entities (aʿyān) that
possess no existence of their own. The inner-reality of possible existents remains
nonexistent, or as Ibn ʿArabī describes them, “the contingent beings are, in the final
analysis, nonexistent, since the only [true] existence is the existence of the Reality in the
forms of states in which the contingent beings are in themselves and in their [eternally
latent] essences.”394 External existence has no being or meaning apart from God, the
absolute existence, who is the only real existence; the world is merely a manifestation of
the absolute, or an expression of Divine external existence.
[4.2] Part Two: al-Kūrānī’s other Theological and Sufi Thought
[4.2.1] The Faith of Pharaoh

The faith of Pharaoh is one of the topics that caused al-Kūrānī to be criticized by several
scholars, mainly Moroccans.
393
Ibid., p. 19.
394
Ibn ʿArabī, The Bezels of Wisdom, p. 115; Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 96.
353
The particular controversy over the issue of Pharaoh’s faith, at least as it related to al-
Kūrānī’s ideas, first arose in Ibn ʿArabī’s works. In al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, Ibn ʿArabī lists
Pharaoh among the four groups that will remain forever in Hell because he was arrogant
(mutakabbir) and because he asserted his own divinity.395 Yet in chapter 25 of Fuṣūṣ al-
ḥikam, which is devoted to Moses, Ibn ʿArabī argues for the validity of Pharaoh’s
confession of faith. Ibn ʿArabī says that God had granted Pharaoh belief and that he died
a believer, pure and cleansed of his sins. The Fuṣūṣ statement is:
Pharaoh’s consolation was in the faith God endowed him with when he was drowned.
God took him to Himself spotless, pure and untainted by any defilement, because He
seized him at the moment of belief, before he could commit any sin, since submission
[to God: Islam] extirpates all that has occurred before. God made him a sign of His
lovingkindness to whomever He wishes, so that no one may despair of the mercy of
God, for indeed, no one but despairing folk despairs of the spirit of God (12:87). Had
Pharaoh been despairing, he would not have hastened to believe.396
The faith of Pharaoh became a topic of several independent treatises and attracted
numerous interpretations from Ibn ʿArabī’s supporters and detractors.
The arguments are related to several Quranic verses and Prophetic ḥadīths. The
Quranic verse in Sūrat Yūnus says: “And We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and
Pharaoh and his soldiers pursued them in tyranny and enmity until, when drowning
overtook him, he [Pharaoh] said, ‘I believe that there is no deity except that in whom the
Children of Israel believe, and I am of the Muslims’.” [10: 90]. God replied, saying: “Now?
And you had disobeyed before and were of the corrupters?”397 [10: 91]. These verses seem
to indicate that Pharaoh announced his belief in the God of Moses, which means he
395
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥat al-Makkiyah, vol. 1, p. 301.
396
Ibn Arabī, The Bezels of Wisdom, p. 255.
397
For Ibn ʿArabī’s approach to these verses see Denis Gril, “The Quranic figure of Pharaoh according to the
interpretation of Ibn ʿArabī,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, volume 60 (2016), pp. 29-52.
354
became a believer. No one can deny that God blamed him for delaying his repentance
until the last minute, but blaming his delay cannot be equated with a rejection of his
faith. The argument cannot be about his announcement of the statement of belief in the
God of Moses, because it is confirmed by the Quran. According to a ḥadīth considered
authentic in the collections of Muslim and musnad of Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal, the Prophet
says: “that embracing Islam wipes out all that has gone before it (previous misdeeds).”
Since Pharaoh died immediately after his announcement of belief, all his previous sins
are forgiven and he is saved. Not only saved, but without any sin.
The center of the argument was not so much about the fact of Pharaoh pronouncing
his faith in the God of Moses, but about the timing of this faith. The Quran says: “But
repentance is not [accepted] of those who [continue to] do evil deeds up until, when
death comes to one of them, he says, ‘Indeed, I have repented now’” [4: 18]. In another
ḥadīth, the Prophet says: “God accepts the repentance of His servant so long as the death
rattle has not yet reached his throat,” which means until the point of his death when,
according to tradition, the dying person sees the signs of the truth of the religion. In
another Quranic verse, it is said: “But never did their faith benefit them once they saw
Our punishment (baʾsunā)” [Q 40:85]. The faith in this context is called “īmān al-baʾs.” Baʾs
is usually rendered into English as duress or force, and also refers to the moment of
death. So, the faith that occurs due to duress or due to expecting punishment or certain
death is not accepted because it is not a free choice. Does the faith of Pharaoh therefore
constitute the faith of baʾs?
Muslim scholars generally hold that Pharaoh’s faith was invalid on the grounds that
it had been extracted from him under duress or at the moment of his death. But the topic
became controversial after Ibn ʿArabī. Several Muslim theologians and Quranic
355
interpreters argued extensively about the validity of Pharaoh’s faith. Numerous scholars
defended Ibn ʿArabī’s position and numerous others refuted his argument. Most of the
authors and commentators who defended Ibn ʿArabī and tried to support his idea that
the faith of Pharaoh was valid discussed the idea from the perspective of God’s mercy.
Accepting the repentance of Pharaoh is proof that even the worst sinner can be forgiven
if he repents at the last minute. Among the scholars who wrote to defend Ibn ʿArabī’s
position is Jalāl al-Dīn Dawānī. Mullā ʿAlī b. Sulṭān al-Qārī al-Harawī (d. 1014/1605) wrote
a refutation of al-Dawānī’s work entitled Farr al-ʿawn min al-qā’ilīn bi-īmān Firʿawn.398 Both
works are published and have been analysed briefly in academic articles.399 A further list
of 20 scholars who participated in the debate is provided in Eric Ormsby’s article “The
faith of Pharaoh: a disputed question in Islamic theology.” Al-Kūrānī is not mentioned in
the list, but his student al-Barzanjī is.400
Al-Kūrānī’s work defending the faith of Pharaoh is extremely short, only one folio:
it is entitled Bayān al-qawl bi-īmān Firʿawn, and was written in 1088/1677 However, his
student al-Barzanji wrote one of the most detailed and comprehensive studies defending
the faith of Pharaoh, entitled al-Taʾyyid wa-l-ʿawn li-l-qāʾilīn bi-īmān Firʿawn.401 Al-Barzanjī
summarizes the main arguments in his work al-Jādhib al-ghaybī.402
398
Both texts are printed in one volume. See Īmān Firʿān li-l-Imām Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī wa-l-radd ʿalayhi li-l-
ʿallāmah ʿAlī b. Sulṭān Muḥammad al-Qārī, ed. Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Miṣriyyah wa-Maktabatuhā,
1964.
399
See for example Eric Ormsby, “The faith of Pharaoh: a disputed question in Islamic Theology,” Studia
Islamica, No. 98/99 (2004), pp. 5-28; and Carl W. Ernst, “Controversies over Ibn ʿArabī’s Fuṣūṣ: The faith of
Pharaoh,” Islamic Culture CIX (3): 1985, 259–66.
400
Ormsby, “The faith of Pharaoh,” p. 27-28.
401
MS copy in Maʿhad al-Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿArabiyyah in Cairo in 20 folios, no. 303 (tawḥīd, al-milal wa-l-niḥal).
402
Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī, al-Jādhib al-ghaybī ilā al-Jānib al-gharbī fī ḥall mushkilāt Ibn ʿArabī (MS:
Suleymaniye, Istanbul: Manisa 45HK 6230), fols. 114a-130b.
356
Al-Kūrānī, following the long tradition of commentators on Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, argues that
scripture and logic prove that Pharaoh’s last-minute belief was both sincere and
accepted as such by God.403 Al-Kūrānī starts his work with a citation from al-Shaʿrānī’s al-
Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir in which al-Shaʿranī denies that Ibn ʿArabī says that Pharaoh died as
a believer.404 Al-Shaʿrānī mentions the idea of Pharaoh’s faith in the section about the
words that were posthumously added to Ibn ʿArabī’s writings, which means al-Shaʿrānī
believes that the sections related to this topic in Ibn ʿArabī’s writings are not authentic,
but forged.405 Al-Shaʿrānī cites Ibn ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, chapter 62, to confirm
that Pharaoh is eternally in Hell. Al-Shaʿrānī claimed that several controversial ideas of
Ibn ʿArabī’s were heretical interpolations by later hands,406 an idea that al-Kūrānī and al-
Barzanjī would reject. Al-Barzanjī says that al-Shaʿrānī claimed that some ideas are
interpolations in Ibn ʿArabī’s works in order to protect the reputation of al-Shaykh al-
Akbar, or because he could not reconcile these ideas with sharīʿah.407 This is why al-Kūrānī
lists several passages from Ibn ʿArabī to demonstrate that the idea of Pharaoh’s faith
actually occurs in several contexts in Ibn ʿArabī’s writings, especially in al-Futūḥāt and al-
Fuṣūṣ. Al-Kūrānī, always attempting to reconcile the different ideas, suggests that al-
Shaʿrānī should try to reconcile the citation he mentioned about the four doomed groups
403
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Bayān al-qawl bi-īmān Farʿawn (Ms: KSA, al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah: al-Jāmiʿah al-
Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293), fol. 96a.
404
Ibid., fol. 96a.
405
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī, Al-Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir fī bayān ʿaqāʾid al-akābir (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth
al-ʿArabī), p. 33.
406
Al-Shaʿrānī used this strategy also to refuse Ibn ʿArabī’s idea that the torment of infidels in Hell would
eventually come to an end. El-Rouayheb mentions that al-Shaʿrānī usually uses al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah and
avoids Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. Al-Shaʿrānī wrote an abridgment of al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah in two works al-Kibrīt al-
aḥmar fī bayan ʿulūm al-Shaykh al-Akbar and al-Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir fī bayan ʿaqāʾid al-akābir in which he did
not mention al-Fuṣūṣ at all or any of Ibn ʿArabī’s commentators. See El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History
in the Seventeenth Century, p. 238.
407
Al-Barzanjī, al-Jādhib al-ghaybī, fol. 111a.
357
in Hell, in which Ibn ʿArabī mentioned Pharaoh, with other citations in Ibn ʿArabī’s
writings that suggest the acceptance of his faith, instead of trying to deny the
authenticity of some of Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas.
Al-Kūrānī also cites the Damascene scholar Sirāj al-Dīn al-Makhzūmī (d. 885/1480) as
saying that several scholars of the salaf accepted that Pharaoh died a believer, since his
last words in this life were his declaration of following Moses. Al-Makhzūmī said that
there are reports that al-Bāqillānī suggested that the possibility of the faith of Pharaoh
is stronger by inference, because we do not have explicit scriptural evidence that he died
an unbeliever. In al-Kūrānī’s opinion, the Quran confirms that Pharaoh pronounced the
statement of faith explicitly, and the Quran does not say explicitly that he died an
unbeliever. Thus, the question at stake is whether his faith is the faith of a dying person
(īmān baʾs)408 or not.
Al-Kūrānī thinks that Pharaoh believed while he was convinced that he could be
saved, which is not the faith of a person who is certain that he is dying at that moment.
Several arguments support this idea: Pharaoh saw the believers cross the sea that was
parted for them, so he knew that this was due to their belief. He then repented with the
hope of being saved, not with fear of the arrival of death. Pharaoh was in front of his
army, which means he was physically the closest person to the believers who were
passing onto land in front of him. Al-Kūrānī also thinks that God did not deny his faith,
but only reproached him for delaying it to this time. The Quran says: “Now? And you had
disobeyed [Him] before and were of the corrupters?” [10: 91]. When God did not accept
408
Some scholars read it as yaʾs “desperation,” but it is “baʾs” which literally means “power or force,” but
in the Quran it is used to refer to those who believe only when they see God’s power over them. The faith
at this moment is not accepted because it is not an act out of free choice. Carl Ernst read it also as “the
faith of despair” (īmān al-yaʾs). Carl Ernst, “Controversies over Ibn ʿArabī’s Fuṣūṣ: The faith of Pharaoh,”
Islamic Culture CIX (3): 1985, 259–66. p. 262.
358
from other people their claim of faith, He explicitly rejected it; “The Bedouins say, ‘we
have believed.’ Say, ‘You have not [yet] believed’.” [49: 14].
Another proof that the faith of Pharaoh was not occasioned by his death is the fact
that he was able to pronounce his faith by a long statement as recorded in the Quran: “I
believe that there is no deity except that in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am
of the Muslims.” [10: 90]. Al-Barzanjī says that this verse contains three confirmations of
faith: his confession of faith, his specifying that he believed in the God of the Children of
Israel, and his repeating again that he is a Muslim.409 Al-Barzanjī was clear that accepting
the idea of the faith of Pharaoh does not mean he will not enter Hell; rather, it means
that he will not remain in Hell forever. It is similar to the believers who were disobedient
or committed sins. Their punishment will be according to their sins, but after that they
will be taken to Paradise.410
This view was mentioned among the others criticized by scholars of the Maghrib. Ibn
al-Ṭayyib in Nashr al-mathānī mentions theological disputes concerning several topics in
al-Kūrānī’s thought, such as his interpretation of kasb, the material character of
nonexistence, the satanic verses, and the faith of Pharaoh.411 I do not believe there is any
specific refutation of this work, probably because of its brevity and the fact that al-
Kūrānī’s student al-Barzanjī wrote one of the most detailed and comprehensive defenses
of Pharaoh’s faith, a defense that may have been a more attractive target for critics.
Al-Kūrānī’s short work on the faith of Pharaoh may seem like a mere defense of one
of Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas, but it is easy to find some connections with al-Kūrānī’s main interest
in theology, by which I mean the question of human free will and the theory of kasb, and
409
Al-Barzanjī, al-Jādhib al-ghaybī, fol. 117a.
410
Ibid., fol. 115b.
411
Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1789 (in vol. 5 of Mausūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib).
359
God’s eternal knowledge and predestination. If God knows from all eternity that Pharaoh
will not believe, how then can Pharaoh be considered responsible for his disbelief? This
question also relates to the question of whether divine foreknowledge is itself causative.
None of these questions is mentioned explicitly in al-Kūrānī’s text, but the question of
Pharaoh’s faith could be a starting point for extending the discussion to more
controversial theological arguments.
The faith of Pharaoh can also be situated in relation to Ibn ʿArabī’s idea that the
punishment of all the people in Hell will come to an end, even though the people of the
Fire, who will remain eternally in the Hell, will live in blessing also.
[4.2.2] Precedence of God’s Mercy and the Vanishing of the Hellfire (fanāʾ al-nār)
Al-Kūrānī received a question concerning Ibn ʿArabī’s idea that the punishment of the
people in the Hellfire will come to an end while there exists a Quranic verse stating: “So
taste [the penalty], for all you will get from Us is more torment.” (Q 78:30). The
questioner seems to consider Ibn ʿArabī’s idea contradictory the Quranic verse. Al-Kūrānī
replied with his main treatise that discusses this topic, Ibdāʾ al-niʿmah bi-taḥqīq sabq al-
raḥmah.412
Al-Kūrānī states that Ibn ʿArabī repeated this idea in several places in al-Fuṣūṣ and al-
Futūḥāt, then he lists several citations from these two books related to this topic. For
example, Ibn ʿArabī in Fūṣūṣ al-ḥikam says: “as for the people of the Fire, they will return
to bliss, but it will be in the Fire since after the end of the duration of punishment, it must
become cold and peaceful according to the mercy which preceded it.”413 Then Ibn ʿArabī
continues with an example of Ibrāhīm (Abraham) who was thrown into the fire; from
412
Al-Kūrānī, Ibdāʾ al-niʿmah bi-taḥqīq sabq al-raḥmah (MS: Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440), fols. 23a-28a.
413
Ibn ʿArabī, Fūṣūṣ al-ḥikam, p. 169.
360
outside it looked like a punishment, but actually it was cool and peaceful.414 In another
chapter of al-Fuṣūṣ, Ibn ʿArabī says: “the hope of the people of the Fire lies in the removal
of pains. Even if they still dwell in the Fire, that is pleasure, so wrath is removed when
the pains are removed since the source of pain is the source of wrath.”415 Again in another
context Ibn ʿArabī states: “God says, ‘My mercy embraces everything’ (Q 7:156), and His
wrath is a thing. Hence His mercy embraces His wrath, confines it, and rules over it.
Therefore, wrath disposes itself only through mercy’s ruling property. Mercy sends out
wrath as it will.”416 He also says, “the final issue of the cosmos will be at mercy (li-l-
raḥmah), even if they take up an abode in the Fire and are among its folk.”417
Ibn ʿArabī emphasises the precedence and predominance of God’s mercy according to
several Quranic verses and ḥadīths.418 The main Quranic verse that Ibn ʿArabī repeats
frequently is “‘My mercy embraces everything” (Q 7:156), and the prophetic ḥadīth is the
one in which God says, “My mercy takes precedence over My wrath.” However, the topic
is more complicated than this and contains controversial theological aspects, which we
will discuss shortly.
The precedence of God’s mercy is also related to the topics of human freedom and
predestination. Chittick states that there are two basic sorts of worship and servanthood:
the “essential” sort that follows upon created nature, and the “accidental” sort that
derives from God’s commandments delivered by the prophets. The existence of
accidental servanthood depends on a number of factors, not least of which is free choice.
414
Ibid., p. 169.
415
Ibid., pp. 93-4, 172.
416
417
Ibid., vol. 4, p. 434.
418
For a clear discussion of this topic in Ibn ʿArabī’s thought see Chittick, Ibn ʿArabī: Heir to the Prophets,
chapter 9, p. 123 and after.
361
In the next world, whether people go to paradise or hell, they will lose their freedom of
choice and return to worship through their essences. “This is why the final issue for the
wretched will be at mercy (al-maʾāl fī al-ashqiyāʾ ilā al-raḥmah), for the essential worship
is strong in authority, but the commandment [to worship God in this world] is accidental,
and wretchedness is accidental. Every accidental thing disappears.”419
Ibn ʿArabī’s opinion is that suffering in Hell will come to an end, even though the
people in Hell will stay in it and it will be their homestead. This is not the destiny of
believers who committed sins or who were disobedient. Ibn ʿArabī and his followers were
talking about unbelievers who were threatened to remain forever in Hell. Ibn ʿArabī says,
yes, unbelievers will remain forever in Hell, but they will not be suffering and tortured
forever. One day the fire will pass away and the people in Hell will live in bliss.
In the Quran, there are several verses in which God promises to reward the obedient,
and there are verses where He threatens to punish the disobedient and sinners. This
topic is known as waʿd (God’s promise of reward) and waʿīd (God’s threat of punishment).
According to the Muʿtazilite principle of theodicy, God does not break His own promises
or forgo His threats, as stated by the Quranic verses regarding Divine promise: “Indeed
God does not break the promise” (Q 13:31), and “do not think that God will fail in His
promise to His messengers” (Q 14:47). Indeed, this became one of the five principles of
Muʿtazilite theology, known as al-waʿd wa-l-waʿīd.420 According to the Muʿtazilites, all
threats addressed to the sinners and the wicked should be carried out without fail, except
when the sinner repents before death. There is no pardon without repentance. From the
viewpoint of the Muʿtazilites, pardon without repentance implies failure to carry out the
Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah, vol. 3, p. 402; tr. Chittick, Ibn ʿArabī: Heir to the Prophets, p.134.
419
See Richard C. Martin, Mark R. Woodward, and Dwi S. Atmaja, Defenders of Reason in Islam: Muʿtazilism from
420
Medieval School to Modern Symbol (Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications, 1997), p. 103.
362
threats (waʿīd), and breaking of the promise (khulf al-waʿd), and it is bad (qabīḥ), therefore
it is an impossible occurrence.
For Ibn ʿArabī and his followers it is true that God says, “as for the wretched they will
be in the Fire” (Q 11:106), but, immediately, in the following verse, He says: “they shall
remain there forever, as long as the heavens and the earth remain intact, unless your
Lord wills otherwise.” (Q 11:107). Ibn ʿArabī and his followers, including al-Kūrānī, say
that every threat of punishment in the Quran is restricted and conditioned by God’s will:
“unless your Lord wills otherwise.”421 Al-Kūrānī supports his idea by a Prophetic ḥadīth
saying “the verse ‘unless your Lord wills otherwise,’ overrules every threat in the
Quran.”422 So, God is not obliged to punish the sinner as the Muʿtazilites argue, but He
can forgive them. On the other hand, the Quran states concerning the rewards of
obedience that “as for those who have been blessed, they will be in Paradise, there to
remain as long as the heavens and earth endure, an award never to be ceased” (Q 11:108).
The Quran says that the reward of God is “never to be ceased” with no restriction or
condition, but there is no similar verse regarding the punishment of the people of the
Fire.
Al-Kūrānī repeats the same idea that God’s threat is conditioned by God’s Will.423 Then
he says that according to Arab custom, forgiveness of a threat does not constitute a
falsehood; on the contrary, they consider refraining from carrying out threats as
praiseworthy, while failure to fulfill a promise is blameworthy.424 Al-Kūrānī then cites a
few verses from an Arabic poem that considers a man of honour who is obliged to keep
421
Al-Kūrānī, Ibdāʾ al-niʿmah, fol. 25b.
422
Ibid., fol. 25b.
423
Ibid., fol. 26a.
424
Ibid., fol. 26a-b.
363
his word if he promises to do some good, and on the other hand, his failure to carry out
a threat is considered an act of generosity.425 According to al-Kūrānī, waʿd and waʿīd are
true, but God’s promise is the right of the people from God that if they do such and such
they will be rewarded, and God fulfills His promise. Although God’s threat to punish
people if they do not obey His orders is God’s right over people, He can carry out his
threat or He can forgive them.426
Interestingly, Ibn Taymiyyah seems to hold an opinion close to Ibn ʿArabī’s.427 Ibn
Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 751/1350), the foremost student of Ibn Taymiyyah, in two of his
books, Ḥādī al-arwāḥ and Shifāʾ al-ʿalīl, is inclined toward this view, outlining the evidence
in support of it, and attributing this position to his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah. Several
scholars used Ibn al-Qayyim’s texts to argue that Ibn Taymiyyah actually believed that
the punishment of the Hellfire comes to an end, the topic that came to be known as the
vanishing of the Hellfire (fanāʾ al-nār). Ibn Taymiyya’s main work on this topic is al-Radd
ʿalā man qāla bi-fanāʾ al-jannah wa-l-nār. This text, which was edited and published in 1995,
is probably the last treatise that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote before his death in 728/1328,428
425
Ibid., fol. 26b.
426
Ibid., fol. 26b.
427
Several studies explored Ibn Taymiyyah’s and Ibn al-Qayyim’s opinions in this topic; see for example:
Jon Hoover, “Islamic universalism: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s Salafī deliberations on the duration of Hell-
Fire,” The Muslim World, 2009, 99 (1), pp. 181-201; Hoover, “Against Islamic Universalism: ʿAlī al-Harbī’s 1990
attempt to prove that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya affirm the eternity of Hell-Fire,” in
Islamic Theology, Philosophy and Law: Debating Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, ed. Krawietz, B. and
Tamer, G., (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), pp. 377-399; Binyamin Abrahamov, “The creation and duration of
Paradise and Hell in Islamic Theology,” Der Islam, 79 (2002): 87–102; and Muhammad Hassan Khalil, Muslim
Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of Others, (PhD. diss., University of Michigan, 2007) that was
published later under the title Islam and the Fate of Others: The Salvation Question (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012), chapter two of this book discusses Ibn ʿArabī’s opinions and chapter three discusses Ibn
Taymiyya’s and Ibn al-Qayyim’s opinions.
428
Hoover, “Islamic universalism: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s Salafī deliberations on the duration of Hell-
Fire,” p. 184.
364
and it seems to be the source of Ibn al-Qayyim’s arguments in the two aforementioned
books.429 Hoover discusses the topic in several studies and argues that “the evidence
might be thought sufficient to report that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim believe that
the Fire will pass away.”430
Ibn Taymiyyah’s position is relevant to our discussion because al-Kūrānī’s student, al-
Barzanjī, used both of Ibn al-Qayyim’s texts to argue that Ibn Taymiyyah also believed
that the punishment of Hellfire will come to an end.431 Al-Barzanjī explains that Hell is
the place of the fire and not the fire itself and that Ibn ʿArabī’s opinion is that the people
who will remain eternally in Hell will not be punished eternally but will stay there since
it is their home, but the punishment will turn sweet. Meanwhile, Ibn Taymiyyah’s idea is
that Hell will be empty after the period of punishment.432
After al-Kūrānī and Barzanjī, ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī also wrote on this topic. He
wrote a treatise entitled al-Qawl al-sadīd fī jawāz khulf al-waʿīd wa-l-radd ʿalā al-Rūmī al-
zindīq.433 Al-Nābulusī repeats that God’s refraining from his threat is generosity on His
part, and is one of the qualities of perfection. Al-Nābulusī adds that God’s refraining from
his threat was the opinion of the Sunnī ʿulamā’.434
429
Aḥmad Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Radd ʿalā man qāla bi-fanāʾ al-jannah wa-l-nār, ed. Muhammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-
Simharī (KSA, Riyāḍ: Dar Balansiyyah, 1415/ 1995).
430
Hoover “Against Islamic universalism: ʿAlī al-Harbī’s 1990 attempt to prove that Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn
Qayyim al-Jawziyya affirm the eternity of Hell-Fire,” p. 378.
431
Al-Barzanjī, al-Jādhib al-ghaybī, fol. 92a and after. Al-Barzanjī cites many pages from Ibn al-Qayyim’s Ḥādī
al-arwāḥ, almost 10 folios in the manuscript that corresponds with the pages 309-327 in Ibn al-Qayyim’s
edited copy. Ibn al-Qayyim, Ḥādī al-arwāilā bilād al-afrāḥ, ed. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf āl Muḥammad al-Fāʿūr (Beirut:
Dār al-Fikr, 1987).
432
Al-Barzanjī, al-Jādhib al-ghaybī, fol. 104b.
433
About this treatise see Michael Winter, “A polemical treatise by ʿAbd al-Ġanī al-Nābulusī against a
Turkish scholar on the religious status of the ḏimmīs,” Brill, Arabica, T. 35, Fasc. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 92-103,
434
Winter, “A polemical treatise by ʿAbd al-Ġanī al-Nābulusī,” p. 100.
365
[4.2.3] Satanic Verses
The satanic verses, known in the Islamic tradition as qiṣṣat al-gharānīq, “the story of the
cranes,” refers to an incident in which Muḥammad was reciting some verses of the
Quran, Sura 53: 19-20, and he recited mistaken words suggested by Satan. These verses
that were inspired by Satan praise the pagans’ idols and acknowledge their power to
intercede with the supreme God. Al-Kūrānī’s treatise on this topic, entitled al-Lumʿah al-
saniyyah fī taḥqīq al-ilqāʾ fī al-umniyyah, is one of the earliest of his texts to be published,
with a summary of the arguments by Alfred Guillaume.435 Guillaume gives a brief
introduction to the incident of the satanic verses, and then summarizes al-Kūrānī’s
arguments and provides an Arabic edition based on only one manuscript. It may seem
strange that the first text by al-Kūrānī to be edited and published is a short treatise that
does not relate to his main interests in Sufism, theology, or ḥadīth. In my opinion,
Guillaume’s interest in the topic is related to the fact that he translated Ibn Isḥāq’s lost
biography of the Prophet (sīrah). Guillaume extracted Ibn Isḥāq’s sīrah, which mentions
this incident, from the sīrah of Ibn Hishām, in which the story is omitted.436 Al-Ṭabarī in
his history mentions it and attributs it to the authority of Ibn Isḥāq.437 It seems that
Guillaume searched in other historical documents to restore the sirah of Ibn Isḥāq. The
omission of the incident of the satanic verses from Ibn Hishām’s sirah can be considered
representative of later attitudes toward the authenticity of the incident, a topic that has
been studied by Shahab Ahmad.
435
Alfred Guillaume and Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī, “Al-Lumʿat al-sanīya fī taḥqīq al-ilqāʾ fi-l-umnīya,” Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 20, No. 1/3, Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph
Turner, Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1937-57 (1957), pp. 291-303.
436
ʿAbd al-Malik Ibn Hishām, Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq, and Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A
Translation [from Ibn Hishām’s Adaptation] of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1967).
437
Guillaume, “al-Lumʿat al-sanīya fī taḥqīq al-ilqāʾ fi-l-umnīya,” p. 291.
366
The attitude of Muslims toward the historicity of this incident changed completely
between the early generations and contemporary Muslims. Shahab Ahmad planned to
follow the incident of the satanic verses and its reception within Muslim sects and
groups. Ahmad studied fifty historical reports from the first two hundred years of Islam
to reach what he called the fundamental finding of his research: that the Muslim attitude
toward the satanic verses incident, which is collectively rejected by contemporary
Muslims, was to accept it as a true historical event.438 In Ahmad’s opinion, objections to
the historicity of the satanic verses incident were raised as early as the 4th/10th century
and continued to be raised in subsequent centuries. Several historians, theologians, and
Quran commentators from the 12th and 13th centuries argued against the historicity of
the incident, an attitude that eventually became the only acceptable orthodox
position.439
In another study, Shahab Aḥmad confirms that Ibn Taymiyyah accepted the
historicity of the Satanic verses incident; the latter’s argument is that the incident
cannot be rejected on the basis of weak isnāds because the transmission of the reports is
sound. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the incident does not undermine the concept of
infallibility (ʿiṣmah), because Prophets are not infallible in the transmission of divine
revelation but rather are protected only from any error coming to be permanently
established in divine revelation.440 Ibn Taymiyyah’s attitude toward the incident is
misunderstood by some of the modern Salafi scholars who understood that Ibn
438
Shahab Ahmed, Before Orthodoxy: The Satanic Verses in Early Islam (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 2017), p. 2-3. Ahmad uses the reception of the satanic verses incident among Muslims as
a case study of constituting an instance of contemporary Islamic orthodoxy. However, he does not mention
al-Kūrānī’s treatise in his publications on this topic.
439
Shahab Ahmed, “Satanic Verses,” in J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Quran (Leiden, the
Netherlands: Brill, 2001–2006), V, pp. 531–536.
440
Shahab Ahmad, “Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic verses,” Studia Islamica 87 (1998), pp. 67-124.
367
Taymiyyah’s stand on the incident was that Satan uttered the verses and not the
Prophet.441 This idea is mentioned by Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, who said that Satan imitated
the voice of the Prophet in reciting the words of the gharānīq,442 a position that al-Kūrānī
rejected, as we will see shortly.
Al-Kūrānī confirms the authenticity of the story of the satanic verses in divine
revelation.443 He rejects Ibn Ḥajar’s interpretation that Satan imitated the voice of the
Prophet in reciting the words of the gharānīq.444 Al-Kūrānī also rejects al-Bayḍāwī’s idea
that the story is not true. However, al-Bayḍāwī also suggests that if the story were true
then it was a test by which those of firm faith could be distinguished from the waverers.445
Al-Kūrānī agrees with this idea and believes that the true tradition supports it.446 He cites
al-Kashshāf by al-Zamakhsharī to support the idea that it was a test that increases the
doubts and obscurity of the half-hearted and the light and certainty of believers.447
Al-Kūrānī argues that Muḥammad uttering these words does not contradict the fact
that the Prophet does not speak from his own inclination or out of vain desire, nor does
he utter lies against God, and that whatever Muḥammad says “is not but a revelation
441
Ahmad, “Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic verses,” p. 119.
442
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, al-Minaḥ al-makkiyyah fī sharḥ al-Hamziyyah al-musammā Afḍal al-qirā li-qurrāʾ Umm
al-Qurā, ed. Aḥmad Jāsim al-Muḥammad and Bū-Jumʿah Makrī (Beirut: Dār al-Minhāj, 2005), p. 258. Umm al-
Qurā is a poem by al-Būṣīrī (d. 696/1294). Ibn Ḥajar repeats the same idea in Fatḥ al-Bārī, ed. ʿAbd al-Qādir
Shaybah al-Ḥamad, (al-Riyāḍ: 2001), vol. 8, p. 303.
443
About early records of the incident see Shahab Ahmad, Before Orthodoxy; Shahab Ahmad, “Ibn Taymiyyah
and the Satanic verses;” Guillaume, “Al-Lumʿat al-sanīya.”
444
Al-Haytamī, al-Minaḥ al-Makkiyyah p. 258. Ibn Ḥajar repeated the same idea in Fatḥ al-Bārī, ed. ʿAbd al-
Qādir Shaybah al-Ḥamad (KSA, al-Riyāḍ: 2001), vol. 8, p. 303.
445
Nāṣir al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-taʾwīl al-musammā Tafsīr al-
Bayḍāwī, ed. Muḥammad Ṣubḥī Ḥallāq and Muḥammad al-Aṭrash (Beirut: Dār al-Rashīd/Dār al-Īmān, 2000),
sūrat al-ḥajj, vol. 2, p. 454.
446
Al-Kūrānī, “Al-Lumʿat al-sanīya,” p. 299.
447
Abū al-Qāsim Jārullāh Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī, Tafsīr al-Kashshāf ʿan ḥaqāʾiq al-tanzīl wa-ʿuyūn
al-aqāwīl fī wujūh al-taʾwīl (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, 2009), p. 699.
368
revealed” [Q, 53: 3-4]. God says in the Quran that “We did not send before you any
messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some
misunderstanding]. But Allāh abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allāh makes
precise His verses. And Allāh is knowing and wise.” [Q, 22:52] The uttering of the words
that Satan suggested by the Prophet’s tongue does not contradict the Prophet’s
infallibility, in al-Kūrānī’s view, nor can it be inferred that revelation is mingled with
Satanic whispering. God tells us that He cancelled what Satan had suggested and then He
established His own verses. This confirmation by God removes the feeling of uncertainty.
The Moroccan historians al-Ifrānī, in Ṣafwat man intashar,448 and Ibn al-Ṭayyib, in Nashr
al-mathānī,449 mention theological disputes that arose concerning several of al-Kūrānī’s
positions, including that regarding the satanic verses. Most of the Moroccan refutations
of al-Kūrānī’s thought were against his theory of kasb, however, and only briefly
mentioned other topics, such as the satanic verses and the Faith of Pharaoh, as examples
of topics that al-Kūrānī supported in order to discredit his reputation.450
In Nibrās al-īnās bi-ajwibat ahl Fās,451 al-Kūrānī tries to clarify his position concerning
the satanic verses after receiving some questions from the Moroccan scholar Muḥammad
b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī (d. 1116/1704).452 In his reply, al-Kūrānī confirms that the incident
of the satanic verses is historically correct. He mentions several historical sources to
support his idea, mainly the works of Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, al-Suyūṭī, and al-Sakhāwī. Al-
Fāsī mentions that al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (544/1149) claimed that this story was fabricated. But,
448
Al-Ifrānī, Ṣafwat man intashar min ṣulaḥāʾ al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, p. 350.
449
Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1789 (in vol. 5 of Mausūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib)
450
See, Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, p. 1792.
451
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Nibrās al-īnās bi-ajwibat ahl Fās (MS: Suleymaniye, Istanbul: LaLeLi 3744), fols. 7a-25b.
452
A copy of al-Fāsī’s treatise can be found in Cairo, Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, ms. majāmīʿ 11/5
(fols. 374-386).
369
according to al-Kūrānī, there are numerous isnāds for this story in works of history and
of ḥadīths, and that the numerous accounts of this story indicate that there is an origin
for all these accounts.453 Al-Fāsī claims that this story contradicts the Quranic verses
about protecting the Prophet, so we cannot accept the story at face value (imtināʿ ḥaml
al-qiṣṣah ʿalā ẓāhirihā). Al-Kūrānī replies that there is no contradiction, and that accepting
the incident does not undermine the theory of prophethood or the concept of
infallibility. Al-Kūrānī says that this deception from God to His Prophet is a kind of
education because Muḥammad was very eager to see all the people accept his call to
Islam, whereas in God’s foreordained plan there were different receptions by different
people.454 It is a kind of purification and elevating of his Prophet’s position by educating
him to be in accord with God’s decree; accepting God’s will is a higher degree of
perfection. It is proven in the same verse that God abrogated the false and that He
established the true.455
In general, most of the discussions relate to evidence mentioned in historical records
and whether accepting this incident affects the authenticity of prophetic revelation.
Later, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī wrote a refutation of al-Kūrānī, but only
concerning the idea of kasb.456 Al-Fāsī’s objections to al-Kūrānī on this topic and others
took the form of polite scholarly discussions with mutual respect. But another North-
African scholar, Yaḥyā al-Shāwī, accused al-Kūrānī of kufr, mainly due to his ideas on the
satanic verses. Al-Shāwī was a prominent scholar who studied with scholars of Algeria
453
Al-Kūrānī, Nibrās al-īnās, fol. 12a.
454
Ibid., fol. 13a.
455
Ibid., fol. 14b.
456
See Radd Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī ʿalā al-Maslak [Maslak al-sadād by al-Kūrānī] in Saʿīd al-Sarrāj,
Maslak al-sadād li-l-Kūrānī wa-rudūd ʿulamāʾ al-Maghrib ʿalayhi: dirāsah wa-taḥqīq, PhD Thesis, Kulliyyat al-
Ādāb wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah, Jāmiʿat ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Saʿdī, Taṭwān, 2010-2011, pp. 418-429.
370
and Morocco. He went for pilgrimage in 1663 and then settled in Egypt where he taught
Malikī law, grammar, rational theology, and logic at Azhar.457 He traveled to Istanbul two
times and had good relations with the scholars there. He used to return to teach in the
great schools of Cairo. But in the final years of his life, he was excluded from all his
positions. Al-Shāwī seems to have written more than one treatise against al-Kūrānī. Al-
Nabl al-raqīq fī ḥulqūm al-sāb al-zindīq458 is the one that al-Barzanjī refuted. There is another
work entitled Tawkīd al-ʿaqd fī-mā akhadha Allāh ʿalaynā min al-ʿahd, in which he defends
the traditional Ashʿarī position concerning God’s attributes.459
In the same anthology that contains al-Kūrānī’s al-Lumʿah al-saniyyah460 and Nibrās al-
īnās, Laleli 3744, there are two more treatises related to the same topic. The fourth is by
Yaḥyā al-Shāwī (d. 1096/1685), and the third is a reply to this work by al-Kūrānī’s
prominent student Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī. Al-Barzanjī’s refutation, written in
1093/1682,461 is entitled al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī ʿalā al-thaʿlab al-ʿāwī wa-l-nashshāb al-kāwī li-l-aʿshā
al-ghāwī wa-l-shahāb al-shāwī li-l-aḥwal al-Shāwī. The title and the content of this work
confirm al-Barzanjī’s reputation as a person of quick-temper; Ibn al-ʿUjaymī describes
him as adopting the caliph ʿUmar’s position (ʿUmarī al-maqām),462 that his insistence on
457
El-Rouayheb, Intellectual Islamic History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 157 and after. Also see Amaḥamad
Qrūd, “al-Dawr al-thaqāfī li-l-shaykh Abū Zakarīyāʾ Yaḥyā al-Shāwī fī al-Jazāʾir wa-l-Mashriq al-ʿArabī,” in
Mujallat Ansanah li-l-Buḥūth wa-l-Dirāsāt, Algeria, No. 15, December, vol. 2, 2016, (87-118).
458
Yaḥyā al-Shāwī, Al-Nabl al-raqīq fī ḥulqūm al-sāb al-zindīq (MS: Suleymaniye, Istanbul: Laleli 3744), fols.
55b-72a.
459
Amaḥamad Qrūd, “al-Dawr al-thaqāfī li-l-shaykh Abū Zakarīyāʾ Yaḥyā al-Shāwī,” p. 97. Qrūd thinks it is
addressed against anthropomorphists (mujassimah) and Muʿtazilites because it addressed the topic of God’s
attributes and the creation of man’s acts. These two topics were refuted by several Maghribī scholars.
460
In the margin of al-Kūrānī’s al-Lumʿah al-saniyyah, (fol. 2b) the scribe says that al-Kūrānī’s ratification of
this story was a trial (ibtilāʾ) from God for al-Kūrānī in spite of the abundance of his knowledge.
461
Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī, al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī ʿalā al-thaʿlab al-ʿāwī wa-l-nashshāb al-kāwī li-l-aʿshā al-
ghāwī wa-l-shahāb al-shāwī li-l-aḥwal al-Shāwī (MS: Suleymaniye, Istanbul: LaLeLi 3744), fol. 53b.
462
This refers to a statement attributed to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, the second Caliph in Islam, who said: mā
tarak lī al-ḥaqq ṣāḥiban, “announcing the truth did not leave me any friends”.
371
the truth did not leave him any friends.463 Al-Barzanjī accuses al-Shāwī of being jealous
of al-Kūrānī and says that it is due to his envy that he wrote a treatise accusing al-Kūrānī
of kufr. Al-Barzanjī says that al-Shāwī visited al-Kūrānī and kissed his hands several
times, and that he praised his works, including the one he criticized. But when al-Shāwī
went to Istanbul and saw how al-Kūrānī was respected there, envy burned in his heart.464
Al-Shāwī accuses al-Kūrānī of disparaging prophets through the story of the satanic
verses. He says that Moroccan scholars refuted the story and insulted (shatama) al-
Kūrānī. Al-Barzanjī in turn says that Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī wrote a very
respectful letter to al-Kūrānī to ask him about some points, mentioning the beginning of
this letter and recalling that al-Kūrānī replied to these points in a work entitled Nibrās
al-īnās bi-ajwibat suʾālat Ahl Fās, which the other scholars received and accepted. Al-
Barzanjī mentions that al-Kūrānī also sent them his work Maslak al-sadād ilā masʾalat khalq
afʿāl al-ʿibād, on which Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir also had some questions. In order to
clarify his theory of the creation of human acts, al-Kūtānī responded with Imdād dhawī
al-istiʿdād li-sulūk maslak al-sadād and sent it to Morocco.465 Al-Shāwī lists several sources
in order to refute the story of the satanic verses, and he ends his work by saying that al-
Kūrānī should be executed and that even if he repented, his repentance would not be
accepted. In his reply, al-Barzanjī mentions several prophetic ḥadīths indicating that the
Prophet can forget some Quranic verses, and he confirms the historicity of the satanic
verses with several citations from prominent scholars.466
463
Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabāyā al-Zawāyā, p. 287.
464
Al-Barzanjī, al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī, fol. 36a.
465
Ibid., fol. 41a.
466
Ibid., fol. 32b.
372
It is important to place al-Kūrānī’s position on this topic in the context of his general
approach to the figurative interpretation of Quranic verses. In Nibrās al-īnās, al-Kūrānī
mentions several times that the Moroccan scholar Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī
suggested that even if we accept the historicity of the incident we need to interpret it
figuratively (taʾwīl) and we do not have to accept it at face value. 467 Al-Kūrānī’s position
on taʾwil was explained earlier and there is no need to repeat it here. He simply thinks
that accepting the historicity of this incident will not undermine the concept of
infallibility.
[4.2.4] Preference for the Reality of the Kaʿbah or for the Muḥammadan Reality
In Tāj al-rasāʾil wa-minhāj al-wasāʾil, Ibn ʿArabī addresses eight love letters to the Kaʿbah.
The circumstances in which he composed this work are explained in chapter 72 of al-
Futūhāt al-makkiyyah, which deals with the pilgrimage and its secrets. He says that he
used to consider his own origin (nashʾah) and rank to be more excellent than those of the
Kaʿbah, given that as a locus for the theophany of divine realities it was inferior to him.
Once when he was circumambulating around the Kaʿbah, he had a mystical vision and
heard it [the Kaʿbah] saying to him: “How you underestimate my value and overestimate
that of the Sons of Adam, when you consider that those who have knowledge are superior
to me!” Ibn ʿArabī says that he realised that God wished to correct him. After this vision,
he then composed eight love-letters explaining the Kaʿbah’s high rank.468 In these letters,
as Denis Gril explains:
The Kaʿba appears there above all as a majlā: a place where

theophanies (tajalliyāt) occur. Ibn ʿArabī recognises the high rank occupied by the Kaʿba
467
Al-Kūrānī, Nibrās al-īnās, fol. 11b, 14b.
468
Denis Gril presented and analyzed Ibn ʿArabī’s Tāj al-rasāʾil, which contains these eight letters. See Denis
Gril, “Love letters to the Kaʿba: A presentation of Ibn ʿArabi’s Tāj al-Rasāʾil,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn
ʿArabi Society, vol. 17 (1995), pp. 40-54.
373
in the hierarchy of levels of Being, since he considers it to be the heart of

existence (qalb al-wujūd; cf. Futūhāt, I, 50). On a higher plane he even converts it into a
symbol of the Essence, where the seven ritual circumambulations correspond to the
seven major divine attributes.469
The Kaʿbah thus has a mystical dimension beyond its physical, surface appearance.470 The
status of the Kaʿbah compared to the status of human beings, including all the prophets
and Muḥammad, was discussed by Aḥmad al-Sirhindī and engendered intense debate in
the Indian Subcontinent.471 When al-Sirhindī’s thought reached the Ḥijāz in the 17th
century, it created considerable controversy there as well. In the context of this present
study, only the topics that are related to al-Kūrānī will be discussed. One of the most
controversial ideas was the superiority (afḍaliyyah) of the Kaʿbah, or the superiority of
the reality of the Kaʿbah (ḥaqīqat al-Kaʿbah) over the Muḥamadan Reality (ḥaqīqah
Muḥamadiyyah) and the reality of the other prophets.472
One of al-Sirhindī’s leading students, Ādam al-Bannūrī (d. in Mecca in 1073/1663-4)
arrived in the Ḥijāz and started spreading Sirhindī’s views to the ʿulamāʾ of Mecca and
Medina; among these was his theory of the superiority of the reality of the Kaʿbah. Al-
Qushāshī was in the audience on one occasion and publicly challenged al-Bannūrī on his
469
Gril, “Love letters to the Kaʿba,” p. 45.
470
For this mystical aspect of the Kaʿba see Stephen Hirtenstein, “The mystic’s kaʿba: The cubic wisdom of
the heart according to Ibn ʿArabī,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 48 (2010), pp. 19-43; and
for other aspects of the relations between al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah and the kaʿba see Michel Chodkiewicz,
“The paradox of the kaʿba,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 57 (2015), pp. 67-83.
471
Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī: An Outline of his Thought and a Study of his Image in the Eyes of
Posterity, Doctoral Thesis, McGill University, 1966, p. 130 and after; Sayyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, A History of
Sufism in India (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978), vol.2, p. 218 and after provides a clear idea about
the controversy over al-Sirhindī’s thought in the Indian Subcontinent.
472
The controversy over al-Sirhindī’s thought in the Ḥijāz is discussed in several studies, mainly,
Friedmann’s Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī; Sayyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India; and Atallah S.
Copty’s “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot, the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ḥaramayn in the
11th/17th Century,” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 43, Issue 3, Transformations of the Naqshbandiyya,
17th-20th Century (2003), pp. 321-348.
374
theory. He partially convinced shaykh Ādam of the superiority of the Prophet
Muḥammad over the Kaʿbah, but not of the superiority of other prophets or awliyāʾ.473
Ibn al-ʿUjaymī mentions in Khabāyā al-zawāyā that once al-Qushāshī met with Ādam
al-Bannūrī in the presence of an African man and he said to al-Bannūrī that this black
man is better than the Kaʿbah and that even his dress is better than the cover of the
Kaʿbah. When al-Bannūrī wondered about his dress being better than the cover of the
Kaʿbah, al-Qushāshī replied that this superiority was because his dress covered him so
that he could perform his obligations to God.474 Ibn al-ʿUjaymī participated in the debates
occurring in the Ḥijāz over al-Sirhindī’s ideas, and he may be the author of one treatise
that describes al-Sirhindī’s ideas as contradicting Islamic law (kufriyyāt), as we will
mention shortly. Concerning the topic of the Kaʿbah, in Khabāyā al-zawāyā, Ibn al-ʿUjaymī
wonders what al-Sirhindī means by the Kaʿbah, whether its appearance, which consists
of stones and clay and the roof, or its reality, which is mentioned by some Sufis such as
Ibn ʿArabī. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī says that in both cases, the Prophet Muḥammad is better than
the Kaʿbah because there is a consensus that he is the best creature in the universe.475 Ibn
al-ʿUjaymī goes on to say that if al-Sirhindī meant the first meaning, i.e. the appearance
of the Kaʿbah, then any living creature is better than it, even a dog, since a living creature
is better than a non-living one. He says that ensouled (i.e., animals) creatures are better
than inanimate (jamad) creatures.476
Atallah S. Copty in his article “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot, the
Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ḥaramayn in the 11th/17th Century” divides the
473
Abbas Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India, vol. 2, p. 339. More detail can be found in Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Khabayā
al-Zawāyā, p. 151.
474
475
Ibid., p. 151-2.
476
Ibid., p. 152.
375
debates over al-Sirhindī’s thought in the Ḥijāz into two phases. The debates over the
status of the Kaʿbah were essential in both phases. The first phase is associated with the
arrival of Shaykh Ādam Bannūrī and the debates with al-Qushāshī that ended by
convincing al-Bannūrī of the superiority of the Prophet Muḥammad over the Kaʿbah.477
Copty mentions that the debates in this phase did not reach the degree of declaring al-
Sirhindī an unbeliever (takfir).478 In the year 1067/1656-7, during the time of shaykh
Ādam, al-Sirhindī’s son and khalīfah Muḥammad Maʿṣūm (d. 1079/1668) arrived in the
Ḥijāz and calmed the situation by avoiding the most controversial topics, mainly the
criticism of waḥdat al-wujūd in favor of al-Sirhindī’s idea of waḥdat al-shuhūd, and the issue
of ḥaqīqat al-Kaʿbah.479 Muḥammad Maʿṣūm also sent his son to visit al-Qushāshī, who
received him with great honour. Later, al-Qushāshī sent Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and Muhannā
ʿAwaḍ Bā-Mazrūʿ al-Ḥaḍramī to visit Muḥammad Maʿṣūm.480
The second phase is associated with the request that reached the Ḥijāz in Jumādā
1093/June-July 1682, asking for the legal opinion (istiftāʾ) of the Ḥijāzī scholars on 32
points from al-Sirhindī’s Maktubāt, including his idea about the status of the Kaʿbah.481
Al-Kūrānī’s student Muḥammad b. Rasūl al Barzanjī was one of the most energetic
scholars opposing al-Sirhindī. Al-Ḥamawī mentions that al-Barzanjī wrote ten treatises
in response to al-Sirhindī, some in Arabic and some in Persian.482 Less than one month
after the istiftāʾ reached the Ḥijāz in 1093/1682, al-Barzanjī wrote Qadḥ al-zand wa-qadaḥ
477
Atallah S. Copty, “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot, the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the
Ḥaramayn in the 11th/17th Century,” p. 332.
478
Copty, “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot,” p. 334.
479
Copty, “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot,” p. 335-6, 338.
480
Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 405-6.
481
For more detail on al-Barzanjī’s treatise and al-Ūzbakī’s reply see Copty, “The Naqshbandiyya and its
offshoot,” p. 338 and after. And for the controversies over al-Sirhindī’s thought in India see Friedmann,
Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī, p. 130 and after.
482
376
al-rand fī radd jahālāt ahl Sirhind. Another scholar from the Ḥijāz called Ḥasan b. ʿAlī
[maybe Ibn al-ʿUjaymī?] wrote al-ʿAṣab al-hindī li-istiʾṣāl kufriyyāt Aḥmad al-Sirhindī around
the same time. The two treatises were sent on behalf of the Sharīf of Mecca, with a
personal letter to “the chief qadi of India.”483 As mentioned in chapter one, al-Barzanjī
was among the delegation that traveled to meet the Mughal Sultan, but he was not able
to see him.
Al-Kūrānī’s contribution to this debate is a treatise entitled Risālat ibṭāl mā ẓahar min
al-maqālah al-fāḍiḥah fī-mā yataʿallaq bi-l-kaʿbah al-muʿaẓẓamah, written on Wednesday, 4
Rabīʿ I 1078/ 24 August 1667.484 It seems that al-Kūrānī wrote another work entitled Taysīr
al-Ḥaqq al-mubdī li-naqḍ baʿḍ kalimāt al-Sirhindī, which may contain a discussion of the
Kaʿbah’s status, but I was not able to find it in any library catalogue.485 The former work
was written after the death of al-Qushāshī and before the debate ignited by the istiftāʾ
from Indian scholars. This indicates that the debate over the status of the Kaʿbah went
on for almost half a century.
Al-Kūrānī starts his text by indicating that when a certain scholar from India
announced his scandalous opinion (maqālah fāḍiḥah) about preferring the Kaʿbah over
human beings, even prophets and the Prophet Muḥammad, al-Qushāshī responded in a
treatise entitled al-Maqālah al-fāḍiḥah. In his treatise, al-Qushāshī states that in
1053/1643-4, a person came from India who held the opinion of his teacher [al-Sirhindī]
that the Kaʿbah is preferable to human beings. Al-Qushāshī mentions that this Indian
scholar turned from his preference for the Kaʿbah over the Prophet Muḥammad but not
483
Copty, “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot,” p. 339.
484
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Risālat ibṭāl mā ẓahar min al-maqālah al-fāḍiḥah fī-mā yataʿallaq bi-l-kaʿbah al-muʿaẓẓamah
(Suleymaniye, Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722), fols. 347a-356a.
485
It is mentioned in a list of al-Kūrānī’s works by his student ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Abī Bakr, MS. Riyāḍ University
Library, 3881.
377
over the rest of the prophets and all other human beings.486 This person, i.e. al-Bannūrī,
had been following the opinion of his teacher for years, based on the idea that all humans
prostrate themselves to the Kaʿbah, and he agreed to exclude the Prophet Muhammad
because the latter is the origin of all creatures.
Al-Kūrānī then said that after a few years he found two pages in which al-Bannūrī
tried to interpret al-Sirhindī’s opinion as referring only the preference for the reality
(ḥaqīqah) of the Kaʿbah over the reality of the Prophet Muḥammad, not for the form
(ṣurah) of the Kaʿbah over the form of the Prophet Muḥammad.487 Al-Kūrānī thinks that
this text aimed to rectify the mistake that had occurred earlier, so he decides to mention
these ideas to clarify their confusions and contradictions.488 But two years later, al-Kūrānī
obtained the original texts of al-Sirhindī, in which al-Sirhindī states his opinion that the
form of the Kaʿbah is preferable over human forms because man prostrates himself
(yasjud) to the Kaʿbah; this text is al-Sirhindī’s Risālat al-mabdaʾ wa-l-maʿād.489 In this
treatise, al-Sirhindī says that the reality of the Quran and the reality of the Kaʿbah are
above (fawq) the Muḥammadan Reality. Al-Sirhindī’s argument for preferring the reality
of the Kaʿbah over the Muḥammadan Reality is that because everything prostrates itself
to the Kaʿbah, every reality therefore prostrates itself to the reality of the Kaʿbah,
including the Reality of Muḥammad.490
486
Al-Kūrānī, Risālat ibṭāl mā ẓahar min al-maqālah al-fāḍiḥah, fol. 347a. Al-Kūrānī in folio. 350b mentions that
al-Qushāshī sent his replay to the author, supposed to be Ādam al-Bannūrrī since al-Sirhindī died in
1034/1624, and that al-Bannūrī responded to his letter.
487
Ibid., fol. 348b.
488
Ibid., fol. 347b.
489
Ibid., fol. 348b. Al-Sirhindī’s Risālat al-mabdaʾ wa-l-maʿād is published in Kitāb al-raḥmah al-hābiṭah fī aḥwāl
al-Imām al-rabbānī qaddas Allāh sirrah (Turkey, Istanbul: Waqf al-Ikhlāṣ, 2002), p. 167.
490
Al-Sirhindī, Risālat al-mabdaʾ wa-l-maʿād, p. 167-8.
378
Another point that al-Sirhindī raises in this work and which al-Kūrānī refutes is his
idea that one thousand and some years after Muḥammad, the Muḥamadan Reality will
ascend (taʿruj) from its status (maqām) and unite with the reality of the Kaʿbah and it wil
became known as the Aḥmadan Reality (al-ḥaqīqah al-Aḥmadiyyah).491 This text clearly
says that the status of the reality of the Kaʿbah is higher than the Muḥammadan Reality.
Al-Sirhindī then says that the maqām of the Muḥamadan Reality will be empty until the
return of ʿĪsā who will apply the Sharīʿah of Muḥammad and his Reality will ascend to
occupy the place of the Muḥammadan Reality.492 These are the points that al-Kūrānī
discusses and refutes in his treatise al-Maqālah al-fāḍiḥah.
Al-Kūrānī replies to the first claim - that the form of the Kaʿbah is preferable over all
other forms because all prostrate themselves to it - by saying that Muslims used to
prostrate themselves to bayt al-maqdis in Jerusalem before they changed the direction of
the prayer to Mecca. Also, he points out that the angels were ordered to prostrate
themselves to Ādam.493 Al-Kūrānī says that al-Sirhindī admits that the Muḥamadan
Reality is the origin of all realities, so the reality of the Kaʿbah must therefore be included
among the things that are inferior to the Reality of Muḥammad; thus, there is nothing
superior to the latter.494 Concerning the idea about the future ascent of the Muḥamadan
Reality and its unification with the reality of the Kaʿbah, al-Kūrānī says that the realities
(al-ḥaqāʾiq) are fixed (thābitah) in God’s knowledge and there are no transformations or
ascent with regard to realities.495 Al-Kūrānī also criticises the idea that the status of the
Muḥamadan Reality will be void from the millennium until the descent of ʿĪsā. The void
491
Ibid., p. 168.
492
Ibid., p. 168.
493
Al-Kūrānī, Risālat ibṭāl mā ẓahar min al-maqālah al-fāḍiḥah, fol. 349b.
494
Ibid., fol. 350a.
495
Ḥaqīqa may also mean reality, essences, or quiddity.
379
status of the Muḥamadan Reality means that the law of Muḥammad will be interrupted,
and this contradicts Prophetic ḥadīths that the religion will continue until the Day of
Judgement.496 It is worth mentioning that al-Barzanjī in Qadḥ al-zand says that al-
Sirhindī’s theory of ḥaqīqah Muḥammadiyah changing to ḥaqīqah Aḥmadiyyah is a nod to
himself, and that al-Sirhindī claimed to be a prophet.497
From al-Kūrānī’s text, it seems that he had several conversations with Shaykh
Muḥammad Maʿṣūm, al-Sirhindī’s son, who tried to interpret several of his father’s
controversial ideas, but al-Kūrānī thinks they are mere contradictions.498
As mentioned above, the controversy over al-Sirhindī’s idea of ḥaqīqat al-Kaʿbah did
not come to an end with al-Kūrānī’s work. It became more inflamed in 1093-4/1682-3
with the arrival of the istiftāʾ from India and the severe reaction by al-Barzanjī that
culminated with proclaiming al-Sirhindī a kāfir, although that proclamation was made
primarily because of other Sirhindian ideas.499 Shortly after the appearance of al-
Barzanjī’s work Qadḥ al-zand, Muḥammad Bēg al-Ūzbakī came from India to the Ḥijāz and
wrote a book entitled ʿAṭiyyat al-Wahhāb al-fāṣilah bayn al-khaṭaʾ wa-l-ṣawāb to show that
the fatwās issued against al-Sirhindī were based on a faulty translation of his Maktūbāt
into Arabic and on the willful misrepresentation of his views.500 After al-Ūzbakī’s
campaign to correct al-Sirhindī’s image in the Ḥijāz, al-Barzanjī wrote al-Nāshirah al-
nājirah li-l-firqah al-fājirah, completed in Muḥarram 1095/December 1683, with the
intention of countering al-Ūzbakī’s efforts.501 Al-Barzanjī in al-Nāshirah listed 16 scholars
496
Al-Kūrānī, Risālat ibṭāl mā ẓahar min al-maqālah al-fāḍiḥah, fol. 351a.
497
Al-Barzanjī, Qadḥ al-zand (MS: Istanbul: LaLeLi 3744), fol. 87b.
498
Al-Kūrānī, Risālat ibṭāl mā ẓahar min al-maqālah al-fāḍiḥah, fol. 354a.
499
See Friedmann, Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī, p. 148 and after.
500
Muḥammad Bēg Al-Ūzbakī, ʿAṭiyyat al-wahhāb al-fāṣilah bayna al-khaṭaʾ wa-l-ṣawāb
501
See Friedmann, Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī, p. 11.
380
from the Ḥijāz who rejected and refuted al-Sirhindī’s thought, including Ibrāhīm al-
Kūrānī.502
This controversy over al-Sirhindī’s Maktūbāt made the celebrated Sufi ʿAbd al-Ghanī
al-Nābulusī request a new translation of all the Maktūbāt of Sirhindī, and he commented
on some parts of al-Maktūbāt in his work Natījat al-ʿulūm wa-naṣīḥat ʿulāmā al-rusūm.503
[4.2.5] God’s Speech (kalām Allāh)
The question of God’s speech is related to two main debates in Islamic theology, over
God’s attributes and over the createdness (or un-createdness) of the Quran. Kalām Allāh
was one of the central theological topics ever since the inquisition (miḥna) instituted by
the Abbasid Calipha al-Maʾmūn in 833 CE. Later, discussions concerning God’s speech
detached from both topics and became an independent subject of debate between the
Ḥanbalities and the Ashʿarites. Discussions of God’s speech found their way into works of
uṣūl al-fiqh as well. Uṣūl al-fiqh scholars investigated the meaning of God’s speech in the
context of their discussions about the Quran as the first source of Islamic law (maṣādir al-
tashrīʿ).504
502
Friedmann, Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī, p. 12. Copty in his article “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot” says,
based on Friedmann’s work, that the 16 scholars accused al-Sirhindī of being kāfir. But Friedmann’s text
does not mention the idea of takfir. Friedmann’s words do not suggest this idea after referring to al-
Barzanjī’s works against al-Sirhindī, Friedmann adds, “many more works of the same kind seem to have
been written at that time. A list of authors containing 16 names is given in al-Nāshirah al-Nājirah. The most
prominent among them seems to have been al-Barzanji’s teacher, Ibrāhīm al-Kurdī al-Kūrānī,” p. 12.
503
ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī, al-Iʿlām bi-man fī tārīkh al-Hind min aʿlām al-musammā bi-Nuzhat
al-khawāṭir wa-bahjat al-masāmiʿ wa-l-manāẓir (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1999), vol. 5, p. 481-2.
504
Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Futūhī al-Ḥanbalī, known as Ibn al-Najjār (d. 972/1564-5) dedicated more than
one hundred pages to the topic of kalām Allāh in his book Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-munīr al-musammā bi-Mukhtaṣar
al-Taḥrīr aw al-Mukhtabar al-mubtakar Sharḥ al-Mukhtaṣar fī ūṣūl al-fiqh, ed. Muḥammad al-Zuḥaylī and Nazīh
Ḥammād (KSA: Wazārat al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah wa-l-Awqāf wa-l-Daʿwah wa-l-Irshād, 1993), vol. 2, pp. 7-
115. Ibn al-Najjār has another book entitled Muntahā al-irādāt a famous commentary on this book was
written by Manṣūr al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī (d. 1051/1641) the teacher of ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī, al-
Kūrānī’s teacher in Damascus. Ibn al-Najjār and al-Bahūtī’s works were the main sources for al-Baʿlī’s
arguments against kalām nafsī in his original work al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar. So al-Kūrānī therefore mentioned
381
Al-Jurjānī in Sharḥ al-Mawāqif mentions four different positions on the issue of God’s
speech, and classifies them according to those who promoted them:
1. Ḥanbalites: His speech is eternal. Extreme Ḥanbalis: even the cover and the
paper are eternal.
2. Karrāmiyyah: His speech is created, but it subsists in God’s essence.
3. Muʿtazilites: His speech is created.
4. Ashʿarites: kalām nafsī is unuttered speech.
Al-Jūrjānī found that all the positions concerning Kalām Allāh are reducible to two
syllogisms:
1- His speech is an attribute; all attributes are eternal; therefore, His speech is eternal.
2- His speech is composed of ordered, sequential parts; whatever is composed is
created; therefore, His speech is created.505
Each one of the four groups accepted some parts of the syllogism and rejected others.
The two syllogisms used to explain the different positions concerning Kalām Allāh
became the norm when presenting this topic. Jāmī in al-Durrah al-fākhirah,506 al-Qushjī in
al-Sharḥ al-jadīd507 on al-Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd, and al-Dawānī in Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah508
repeat them verbatim.
them frequently in his al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar and in Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām. Al-Kawkab al-munīr is Ibn al-Najjār’s
abridgment of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Mirdāwī al-Maqdisī’s (d. 885/1480-1) Taḥrīr al-manqūl wa-tahdhīb ʿilm al-uṣūl.
Ibn al-Najjār then commented on his own Mukhtaṣar and called the commentary al-Mukhtabar al-mubtakar
Sharḥ al-Mukhtaṣar fī ūṣūl al-fiqh.
505
ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Jurjānī, Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, with al-Siyālkūtī and al-Fanārī’s glosses (Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1998, vol. 4, part 8, p. 103-104.
506
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī, al-Durrah al-fākhirah, ed. Aḥmad al-Sāyiḥ & Aḥmad ʿAwaḍ (Cairo: Maktabat al-
Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, 2002, p. 36.
507
ʿAlī al-Qushjī, al-Sharḥ al-jadīd (MS: Tehran: Tehran 1884), fol. 353a.
508
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, in al-Taʿliqāt ʿalā Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah by
Muḥammad ʿAbduh, ed. Sayyid Hādī Khusrū-Shāhī (Cairo: Dār al-Shurūq, 2001), p. 112.
382
In the 17th century, al-Kūrānī, who we must recall studied with the Ḥanbalī scholar
ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī, attempted to reconcile the Ashʿarite and Ḥanbalite positions on this
controversial topic. As explained earlier, al-Kūrānī’s position concerning the issue of
God’s attributes is closer to the Ḥanbalite position than it is to the latter Ashʿarite
position. Both Ashʿarites and Ḥanbalites agreed that God is “speaking” (Mutakallim) and
both considered the Quran to be divine speech. However, they disagreed over the
meaning of kalām. The word “speech” may taken to refer to two things:
1- God’s attribute of “speech” or
2- The Quran as the word of God.
Al-Kūrānī in al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar and Ifāḍat al-ʿAllān refers respectively to these two senses
as kalām bi-maʿnā al-takallum (speech in the sense of “speaking”) and kalām bi-maʿnā al-
mutakallam bihi (speech in the sense of “what is spoken”).509 And according to him, both
God and man have these two kinds of kalām, and both kinds have uttered (lafẓī) and
unuttered (nafsī; literally, “mental”) aspects.510
Ḥanbalites accepted that God has uttered speech because it is mentioned frequently
in the Quran and in ḥadīth that God speaks. But as Ibn al-Najjār explained, we cannot call
“speech” the meaning that we have within ourselves before it is uttered. If we call
unuttered speech kalām, this will only be metaphorically.511 For Ashʿarites, speech can
refer to uttered and unuttered speech. Later Ashʿarites emphasize that unuttered speech
is the true meaning of kalām, and uttered speech can be said to be God’s speech
metaphorically. El-Rouayheb presents the position of several later Ashʿarites concerning
kalām nafsī, saying that their idea is that kalām nafsī does not consist of sounds and letters
509
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, fol. 140b. al-Kūrānī, Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām, fol. 190b; 208a.
510
Al-Kūrānī, Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām, fol. 191b.
511
Ibn al-Najjār, Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-munīr, vol. 2, p. 14.
383
(ṣawt wa ḥarf) and that the Arabic Quran that is recited, written, and memorized is an
articulation of this eternal spiritual speech that in itself is not ordered spatially or
aurally.512 Uttered speech requires organs such as a tongue, a throat, and a mouth, all
anthropomorphic descriptions that cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore, al-Kūrānī
dedicates part of his work in al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar and Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām to responding to
Ashʿarite arguments that God’s speech refers only to kalām nafsī.
Al-Kūrānī discusses the topic of God’s speech and unuttered speech (kalām nafsī) in
different works,513 but his main discussion is in three works: Qaṣd al-sabīl, and the two-
other works that are dedicated specifically to the topic of God’s speech (kalām Allāh)
namely al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqāʾid ahl al-athar and Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām fī taḥqīq masʾalat al-kalām.
These latter two works are interconnected, as explained in the discussions of al-Kūrānī’s
works in Chapter Three. In Qaṣd al-sabīl, al-Kūrānī mentions the main arguments about
kalām nafsī, without attempting to compare it to the position of Ḥanbalite theologians.514
Al-Kūrānī’s attempt to reconciliate the Ashʿarites and Ḥanbalites on the question of
God’s speech came from two angles. From one angle, he tried to prove that al-Ashʿarī’s
position on God’s attributes is to affirm the attributes of God as they exist in the Quran
without any figurative interpretation, meaning that al-Ashʿarī accepts that God has
uttered speech composed of sounds and voices, not only unuttered speech as some later
Ashʿarites suggested. God said explicitly in the Quran that He is speaking, and that others
heard Him, so there is no need to interpret these verses as if they refer to kalām nafsī. Al-
512
513
For example, al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī ilā al-Durr al-multaqaṭ li-l-Ṣāghānī (MS: Istanbul: Sehid
Ali Pasa 2722), fols. 286b-287a; al-Kūrānī, Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt, p. 74-75, 146; in Takmilat al-qawl al-jalī
(MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722), fol 345a; al-Kūrānī mentioned a title Fī ithbāt al-kalām al-nafsī al-qadīm.
This work is not dated, but it was apparently written at the request of al-Qushāshī, which means it is close
to the other works, al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar and Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām.
514
Al-Kūrānī, Qaṣd al-sabīl, fol. 15a-b; fol. 40a-50b.
384
Kūrānī here argues on the basis of his fundamental idea about accepting the
anthropomorphic verses without figurative interpretation, and his idea that God
manifests Himself in any form He wills without restriction because “nothing is like Him.”
As explained before, al-Ibānah is taken by al-Kūrānī to represent the final, definitive
expression of al-Ashʿarī’s view.
From the other angle, al-Kūrānī tries to prove that not only do the Ashʿarites accept
kalām nafsī but the Ḥanbalites do as well, whether they acknowledge it or not. After
repeating the Ashʿarite proofs for kalām nafsī from the Quran, ḥadīth, statements by many
of the Prophet’s companions, and poetry, he cites numerous Ḥanbalī scholars who
effectively endorsed kalām nafsī even though they did not accept the term.
Al-Kūrānī starts his argument by defining unuttered speech (kalām nafsī) as mental
words that are ordered in a way such that if a person pronounces them with his voice
they will correspond exactly to his mental words.515 That means the uttered words are
an expression of the words that we have in our minds. Al-Kūrānī is saying that for every
speech act, we first have the words in our minds before they are uttered, so that when
we pronounce it audibly this will be our uttered speech (kalām lafẓī), and if we do not
pronounce it, it will remain mental speech (kalām nafsī). That means that anyone who
accepts that man and God have uttered speech must also accept that man and God have
unuttered speech, whether they admit it explicitly or not. And since all Ḥanbalites accept
uttered speech, they also must accept unuttered speech.516
Al-Kūrānī’s reply to the Ashʿarites who refused to ascribe sounds and voices to God is
easy to anticipate. From one side al-Ashʿarī follows Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and the salaf in
515
Al-Kūrānī, Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām, fol. 190b.
516
Ibid., fol. 204a.
385
accepting the verses that appear to have an anthropomorphic sense without figurative
interpretation.517 From the other side, God manifests Himself in restricted forms without
Himself being restricted or conditioned.518
Al-Kūrānī’s attempt to prove that kalām nafsī thus comes from both a traditional angle
that repeats the Ashʿarites’ arguments for kalām nafsī and from a new angle that shows
that even Ḥanbalities accept kalām nafsī. Al-Kūrānī mentions several Quranic verses that
can be interpreted as referring to kalām nafsī in this sense. Every verse or story that
indicates how a person keeps a secret inside himself can be interpreted as kalām nafsī,
because we keep these words in our minds without uttering them. For example (Q 12:77)
“Joseph kept it within himself (asarrahā) and did not reveal it to them. He said [without
uttering the words] ‘You are worse in position’.” In this verse Yūsuf did not utter any
words, but the Quran says that he “said” them to himself. Thus, the Quran describes these
unuttered words as speech. The same situation occurs in (Q 43:80), (Q 20:7), (Q 2:248), and
numerous other verses.519 Al-Kūrānī mentions more prophetic ḥadīths and stories of the
Prophet’s companions that all refer to thought that is not uttered vocally.520
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal accepts that God speaks by words and voices. This implies that he
should also accept that God has kalām nafsī, because God speaks according to His eternal
knowledge, and the existence of the words in God’s knowledge precede their external
existence. Uttered speech is a form of eternal unuttered speech.521 Al-Kūrānī regards the
Ḥanbalites’ creed of the uncreated and eternal speech of God as enough to prove kalām
nafsī; it was the Quran in God’s knowledge, exactly as we have it now, but it was without
517
Ibid., fol. 188a.
518
Ibid., fol. 220b-221a.
519
Ibid., fol. 192a.
520
Ibid., fol. 193a-b.
521
Ibid., fol. 200b.
386
voices or letters, and Ḥanbalites cannot deny that.522 Al-Kūrānī cites several statements
from Ḥanbalī scholars who in effect accepted this sense of kalām nafsī. For example, al-
Kūrānī believes that when Ibn ʿAqīl (d. 513/1119) states, “The Quran is divine speech
before it is recited to us, when it is still in the hearts, not uttered in voice and letters,” is
an implied recognition of kalām nafsī.523
The interesting new contribution of al-Kūrānī is his heavy use on Ḥanbalite fiqh texts
to prove that they accept kalām nafsī. He refers to various texts with a citation of several
legal situations in which they acknowledge kalām nafsī, at least according to his
interpretation. He starts from the issue of intention (niyyah) in worship (ʿibādat), citing
several statements indicating that intention in fasting or prayer is necessary, and that it
is enough for the intention to simply come to the person’s mind (or heart). In its legal
effect, therefore, it is equivalent to an articulated intention.524 Another example brought
from law is that if a person is in the washroom, it is discouraged (makrūh) that he talk or
that he respond to the adhān, or to thank God with a loud voice if he sneezes. In these
cases he is recommended to do it in his heart.525 Yet another example is that of a disabled
person or a prisoner, who should perform the prayer in his heart, silently recalling the
fātiḥah; it is required as part of the prayer and it is accepted without being made vocal.526
Al-Kūrānī cites all these examples from Ḥanbalite fiqh books to prove that they do in fact
accept kalām nafsī and elaborate upon it, even though they do not acknowledge the use
of the term.
522
Ibid., fol. 200a-b.
523
Ibid., fol. 204a.
524
Ibid., fol. 204b.
525
Ibid., fol. 205a.
526
Ibid., fol. 205a-b.
387
Al-Kūrānī’s al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar and Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām each contain an interesting
conclusion in which al-Kūrānī examines the accusation of anthropomorphism levelled
against Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, and defends both of them. Al-Kūrānī seems
not to have possessed any of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works initially, so he used Ibn al-Qayyim’s
texts instead and took him to be representative of his own and his master’s ideas. Later,
al-Kūrānī modified his conclusion, mentioning that he had obtained some of Ibn
Taymiyyah’s works.527 According to al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Kūrānī said that he looked carefully
at the works of the Ḥanbalites, and found them innocent of many of the charges brought
forth against them by Shāfiʿites, such as corporealism (tajsīm) and anthropomorphism
(tashbīh). He found the Ḥanbalites adhering to the position of the ḥadīth scholars, which
is to accept Quranic verses and ḥadīth reports as they stand, while entrusting to God the
meaning of passages that seem anthropomorphic.528 Al-Kūrānī in al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar and
Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām quotes extensively from Ibn Taymiyyah’s works al-Risālah al-tadmuriyyah,
al-Risālah al-Ḥamawiyyah,529Risālah fī rajulayn tanāzaʿā fī ḥadīth al-nuzūl, and Risāla fī rajulayn
ikhtalafā fī al-iʿtiqād. Al-Kūrānī also quotes from Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s works al-Rūḥ
and Shifāʾ al-ghalīl. He shows that they went to great length to distance themselves from
corporealism and anthropomorphism, and that they affirmed how God describes Himself
in the Quran and negated what He negates in the Quran without interpreting these
527
MS: Pakistan: Maktabat Thanāʾ Allāh Zāhidī, Al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqā’id ahl al-athar, no number. Two
copies in this library contain the conclusion that mentions Ibn Taymiyyah’s works. MS: UK: University of
Birmingham, Mingana 176, contains the old conclusion in which al-Kūrānī used Ibn al-Qayyim’s texts and
regarded him as representative of his own and Ibn Taymiyyah’s ideas. All mss of Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām that I
examined contain al-Kūrānī’s edited conclusion in which he uses Ibn Taymiyyah’s works.
528
Al-ʿAyyashī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 271. I benefited from El-Rouayheb’s translation in Islamic
Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century, p. 274.
529
Al-Kūrānī does not mention this work in his text, but examining the quotations from Ibn Taymiyyah’s
works I found him quoting from this text.
388
descriptions allegorically. This is the position of the salaf, and even that of al-Ashʿarī,
concerning towards the verses that appear to endorse anthropomorphism.
Al-Kūrānī’s defense of Ibn Taymiyyah’s position regarding apparently
anthropomorphist statements in the Quran and ḥadith, as El-Rouayheb explains, aims to
support al-Kūrānī’s idea that God manifests Himself to whomever He chooses and in
whichever way He chooses, while being devoid of any likeness to creatures by virtue of
the Quranic statement “There is nothing like Him,” even when manifesting Himself in
phenomenal appearances.530 Al-Kūrānī’s position on this issue is thus consistent with his
position on God’s attributes and on God’s manifestation in forms (al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar).
Both positions are representative of the broader Ibn ʿArabī tradition. Moreover, in his
defence of Ibn Taymiyyah against the accusation of anthropomorphism (tashbīh), al-
Kūrānī quotes, with approbation, that likeness and similarity (tashbīh wa tamthīl) only
occur when one says: “a hand like my hand, or a hearing like my hearing.” If you say that
God has a hand, hearing, and seeing, but also that they are different from the hand,
hearing, and seeing of creatures, then, given that the attributes differ just as the objects
of the attributes differ, this is not tashbīh with God.531 This linguistic approach is in fact
attributed to Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in Ibn Qayyim’s book al-Rūḥ as cited by al-Kūrānī.532 We
can also find it in Ibn ʿArabī’s writings. In al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah Ibn ʿArabī says that
likeness (tashbīh) does not occur except when saying the word mithl (“like”) or the kāf of
similarity (“just as”), and these prepositions are very rare in the statements that they
considered to be indicating an apparent similarity between God and man. Ibn ʿArabī then
530
531
Al-Kūrānī, Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām, p. 245b-246a.
532
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Kitāb al-rūḥ, ed. Muḥammad Ajmal Ayyūb al-Aṣlāḥī (KSA, Mekka: Dār ʿĀlam al-
Fawāʾid, 1432 [2011]), p. 729.
389
continues to criticize Ashʿarism, saying that when they apply figurative interpretation
(taʾwīl) they think they have escaped from anthropomorphism, when in fact they have
simply moved from the drawing of corporal likeness to the drawing of semantic likeness
(intaqalat min al-tashbīh bi-l-ajsām ilā al-tashbīh bi-l-maʿānī).533
[4.2.6] Al-Kūrānī and Sufi Orders
In top of al-Kūrānī’s interest in theoretical Sufism, he was a devoted Sufi practitioner. He
entered the khalwah several times and was initiated into several Sufi orders; he then
became head of some of them and he initiated disciples into several. Affiliation with Sufi
orders was a common practice among religious scholars in the Ottoman empire. The
Ḥijāz was no exception: most of the scholars of the 17th-century Ḥijāz were practicing
Sufis, in addition to their other activities. Sufi orders were probably more active in the
Ḥijāz than in any other place in Islamic world. Due to its religious significance, almost all
the Sufi orders from around the Islamic world attempted to establish zāwiyahs and
khalwahs in the Ḥijāz. The ḥajj season and the intellectual centrality of the Ḥijāz in the
17th century were important factors in spreading Sufi orders to different parts of Islamic
world. It has been documented that one example of this is the Shaṭṭāriyyah order, which
is originally from the Indian Subcontinent, and which reached Southeast Asia not
directly from India but through the Ḥijāz.534
In Chapter Two, I mentioned that some scholarly studies counted 59 ribāṭs that are
known to have been founded in Mecca before the Ottoman takeover of the Ḥijāz.535
533
534
Fathurahman, Shaṭṭariyah Silsilah in Aceh, Java, and the Lanao area of Mindanao (TOKYO: Research Institute
for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2016), p. 105.
535
Mortel, “Ribāṭs in Mecca during the medieval period: A descriptive study based on literary sources,”
p.33.
390
Another academic study counted 80 ribāṭs in Mecca at the same period.536 During the
Ottoman period the number of ribāṭs in Mecca alone reached 156.537 The Ottoman traveler
Evliyā Çelebī, in his trip to the Ḥijāz in 1082/1671, mentioned more than 78 takiyyahs, the
greatest one being that of the Mawlawiyyah.538 Ibn al-ʿUjaymī’s Khabāyā al-zawāyā is the
most important Sufi bio-bibliography devoted to Sufis of the Ḥijāz in the 17th century. In
it, he describes 15 Sufi zāwiyahs in Mecca along with their shaykhs and their activities.
The book contains the names of about 120 shaykhs who lived in Mecca and with whom
the author met and studied.
Al-Kūrānī was affiliated with numerous Sufi orders and he mentions his chains of
transmissions (silsilahs) of these orders in some of his works. Scholars have examined
some of the Sufi orders in the Ḥijāz, the most famous being the Naqshabandiyyah and
the Shaṭṭāriyyah, studied by Copty539 and El-Rouayheb540 respectively. Alongside these
two main orders, al-Kūrānī mentions his isnāds in the following orders: al-
Qushayriyyah;541 al-Suhrawardiyyah, attributed to ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī, through al-
Qushāshī and through al-Shaʿrānī to its founder;542 al-Kubrawiyyah, attributed to Najm
al-Dīn Kubrā;543 al-Rifāʿiyyah;544 al-Uwaysiyyah;545 al-Khiḍriyyah, attributed to al-Khiḍr;546
536
Ḥusayn, al-Arbiṭah fī Makkah al-mukarramah mundhu al-bidāyāt ḥattā nihāyat al-ʿaṣr al-Mamlūkī: Dirāsah
tārīkhiyyah ḥaḍāriyyah.
537
Ḥusayn, al-Arbiṭah fī Makkah fī al-ʿahd al-ʿuthmānī: Dirāsah tārīkhiyyah ḥaḍāriyyah 923-1334H/1517-1915.
538
Jalabī, al-Riḥlah al-ḥijāziyya, p. 265.
539
A. Copty “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiya in the Haramayn in the
11th/17th Century,” Die Welt des Islams 43 (2003): 321–348.
540
541
542
Ibid., fol. 75b.
543
Ibid., fol. 76a.
544
Ibid., fol. 76b.
545
Ibid., fol. 76b.
546
Ibid., fol. 76b.
391
and al-Qādiriyyah, attributed to ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī. Al-Kūrānī received his initiation
into all these orders from al-Qushāshī.
The chains of transmissions of all these orders are stated in the references mentioned
above so there is no need to repeat them here. It is enough to give just one example that
displays the richness of studying these chains. For that, we turn to the three different
isnāds that al-Kūrānī mentions in the Qādiriyyah order.
1. The first isnād goes back through Yemeni scholars, with whom Ṣafī al-Dīn al-
Qushāshī’s father spent several years.
Al-Kūrānī --- Al-Qushāshī --- (his father) Muḥammad b. Yūnus --- al-Amīn b. al-Ṣiddīq
al-Yamanī al-Mirwāḥī --- Shujāʿ al-Dīn ʿUmar b. Aḥmad Jibrāʾīl --- ʿAbd al-Qādir b. al-
Junayd --- (his father) al-Junayd b. Aḥmad --- (his father) Aḥmad b. Mūsā al-Musharriʿ
--- Ismāʿīl b. al-Ṣiddīq al-Jabartī --- Muḥammad al-Mizjājī --- Sharaf al-Dīn Abū Maʿrūf
Ismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Jabartī --- Sirāj al-Dīn Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad
al-Salāmī --- Muḥyī al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Asadī --- Fakhr al-Dīn Abū Bakr b.
Muḥammad b. Yaghnam --- Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh --- (his father) Aḥmad
b. ʿAbd Allah b. Yūsuf --- (from his father) ʿAbd Allāh b. Yūsuf and his shaykh ʿAbd
Allah b. Qāsim b. Dharba --- (both from) Abū MuḥammaʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī al-Asadī ---
ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jilānī.547
2. The second isnād is through al-Qushāshī’s main teacher, al-Shinnāwī. This chain
passes through highly celebrated scholars such as al-Shaʿrānī, al-Suyūṭī, al-Jazarī, and
Ibn ʿArabī.
Al-Kūrānī --- Al-Qushāshī --- al-Shinnāwī --- (his father) ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Quddūs --- (his
father) ʿAbd al-Quddūs --- ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī --- Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī in
547
Ibid., fols. 74a-74b. Al-Kūrānī continues the silsilah until the Prophet. Ibid.
392
Egypt in 13 Rabīʿ I, 911 AH – Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad known as Ibn
Imām al-Kāmiliyyah --- al-Shams Muḥammad b. al-Jazarī --- ʿUmar b. al-Ḥusayn al-
Marāghī --- Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīm al-Fārūqī --- Myḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī --- Jamāl al-Dīn
Yūnus b. Yaḥyā al-Hāshimī --- ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jilānī.548
3. The third chain, like the first, goes back through Yemeni shaykhs. This chain agrees
with al-Kūrānī’s first isnād mentioned above until Ismāʿīl al-Jabartī, and then it
departs as follows: Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Zabīdī --- Burhān al-Dīn
Ibrāhim b. ʿUmar al-Zabīdī --- Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-
Ātishghāhī --- Najm al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Iṣfahānī --- ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Fārūqī --- Myḥyī
al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī --- Jamāl al-Dīn Yūnus b. Yaḥyā al-Hāshimī --- ʿAbd al-Qādir al-
Jilānī.549
Since most of al-Kūrānī’s chains of transmissions of Sufi orders are through his teacher
al-Qushāshī, these chains can be examined again through al-Qushāshī’s own thabat,
entitled al-Samṭ al-majīd, to trace the transmission of these orders from their birthplaces
until they reached the Ḥijāz.
By reconstructing the circulation of these Sufi orders and their paths to the Ḥijāz, we
will be able to link most of the Sufi orders in Southeast Asia to their founders. ʿAbd al-
Raʾūf Al-Singkilī mentions the isnād of two Sufi orders: al-Qādiriyyah and al-
Shaṭṭāriyyah, both of them through al-Qushāshī.550 Fathurahman attempts to construct
the Shaṭṭāriyah chains in Aceh; he states that he studied “12 Shattarryah silsilahs
developed in Aceh through ʿAbd al-Raʾuf’s and Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s lines.”551 It is
548
Ibid., fol. 75a.
549
Ibid., fol. 75a-b.
550
Oman Fathurahman and Abdurrauf Singkel, Tanbih al-Masyi: menyoal wahdatul wujud: kasus Abdurrauf
Singkel di Aceh abad 17 (Bandung: Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient,1999), p. 158-160.
551
Fathurahman, Shaṭṭariyah Silsilah in Aceh, Java, and the Lanao area of Mindanao, p. 10.
393
important to mention in this context that al-Kūrānī was one of the four main lines of the
Shaṭṭāriyah silsilah in Aceh, Java, and the Lanao area of Mindanao from the 7th century.552
However, according to Fathurahman, ʿAbd al-Raʾūf received most of his ijāzās in Sufi
orders from al-Qushāshī, not al-Kūrānī. This is normal when the original master was still
alive and his chain would be shorter. However, ʿAbd al-Raʾūf had also an ijāzah for the
Shaṭṭāriyyah from al-Kūrānī.553 Fathurahman says that ʿAbd al-Raʾūf received most of his
spiritual knowledge and authority from al-Qushāshī and the intellectual aspects of
speculative mysticism from al-Kūrānī.554
Al-Kūrānī was affiliated with all the above-mentioned Sufi orders through his teacher
al-Qushāshī. The Ḥijāz, however, was full of other Sufi shaykhs who were active in
affiliating disciples. Al-ʿAyyāshī mentions that when he entered Mecca, he asked about
the shaykhs of the Naqshbandī order. Two were mentioned to him, the first one being
Jamāl al-Dīn al-Hindī.555 Al-Hindī and the other unnamed shaykh were both students of
shaykh Tāj al-Dīn. Al-ʿAyyāshī became affiliated with the Naqshbandiyyah through
shaykh Jamāl al-Dīn.556 In Mecca, al-ʿAyyāshī became affiliated with three more orders:
al-Qādiriyyah, al-Suhrawardiyyah, and al-Kubrawiyyah. His initiations into these three
orders were taken from shaykh Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn al-Ṭabarī (d. 1078/1667-8).557 Later, al-
ʿAyyāshī mentions his affiliation with eight orders through shaykh ʿIsā al-Thaʿālibī.
These eight orders are mentioned by Aḥmad b. Abī al-Futūḥ al-Ṭāwusī al-Ḥanafī in his
552
Ibid., p. 110. Al-Kūrānī’s line can be found on page 118.
553
Ibid., p. 106.
554
Ibid., p. 106.
555
Al-Qādirī, Iltiqāṭ al-durar, 167. Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Nashr al-mathānī, vol. 2, p. 151.
556
557
About him see: al-Qādirī, Iltiqāṭ al-Durar, 172. Al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-Athar, vol. 2, p. 195.
394
book Jamʿ al-firaq li-rafʿ al-khiraq, with their isnāds to each order’s founder and then to the
Prophet.
This information about some Sufi shaykhs aims to emphasize that al-Qushāshī was
only one shaykh among many who need to be investigated, explored, and studied in
order to produce a clear picture of Sufism and intellectual life in the 17th century Ḥijāz.
Conclusion
Al-Kūrānī mentions that his interest in Sufism started in Baghdad when his travel to the
ḥajj was interrupted because of his brother’s illness. He was already an established
scholar in the intellectual sciences, as discussed in Chapter Three. His exploration of
Sufism would continue until the end of his life and would dominate both his intellectual
production and his personal life. He never abandoned the rational sciences; rather, he
used his intellectual knowledge to clarify and explain the theories of Ibn ʿArabī. He did
not see Sufism as in competition with the rational sciences but as complementary to
them. However, he maintained that there is a higher knowledge than intellectual
knowledge: divine emanation (fayḍ ilāhī). This higher kind of knowledge can be perceived
by human intellects, not from their thinking faculty, but as the intellect’s divinely gifted
ability to receive this divine knowledge.558 This “received knowledge” is in turn
presented and demonstrated using systematic, intellectual arguments, with supporting
evidence from all Islamic intellectual traditions. Al-Kūrānī was an Ashʿarite theologian
and he cited most of the famous Ashʿarite texts, including those of al-Ashʿarī, al-Juwaynī,
al-Ghazālī, al-Ījī, al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, and al-Dawānī. Along with these famous
theologians, al-Kūrānī used Ibn ʿArabī, al-Qūnawī, Jāmī, and other Akbarian scholars and
558
395
commentators when making theological arguments. These arguments are presented side
by side with Quranic verses and Prophetic ḥadīths that buttress al-Kūrānī’s theories.
To argue that a specific text belongs to specific discipline, or that a specific scholar is
a Sufi, or a theologian, or a philosopher, has become more difficult and complex in the
field of Islamic intellectual history, especially for the post-classical period. Some have
attempted to establish parameters with which to differentiate between Sufism, theology,
and philosophy, such as their distinctive objectives, sources of authority, technical
terminology, and the literary style that they employ.559 But these parameters overlap and
cannot be detached one from the other. William Chittick explains the complexity of
classical classification into Sufism, theology, and philosophy stating:
[The] relatively clear distinction among the three perspectives of philosophy, Sufism
and theology becomes increasingly clouded with the passage of time. From the sixth
century A.H. (twelfth century A.D.) onward, more and more figures appear who speak
from the points of view of two or even all three schools, and who gradually begin to
combine the perspectives. In later Islamic history, especially from the Safavid period
onward in Iran, it is often impossible to classify a particular thinker as only a
philosopher, or a theologian, or a Sufi.560
Franz Rosenthal expresses a similar idea, saying, “it is not always absolutely clear why
an individual was considered a faylasūf or a Sufi, or into which category he would fall
according to our understanding of philosophy and mysticism.”561
Immediately after the death of Ibn ʿArabī, his thought was philosophically grounded
through the efforts of commentators such as al-Qūnawī and some of his students. By that
time kalām had already been largely philosophized. Al-Qūnawī and his circle played a
559
Caner K. Dagli, Ibn al-ʿArabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture: From Mysticism to Philosophy, p. 8. Dagli talks
about five parameters of belief, mode of inquiry, goal, authority, and terminology as they concern the
three communities of taṣawwuf, kalām, and falsafah.
560
Chittick, “Mysticism versus philosophy in earlier Islamic history,” p. 88.
561
Franz Rosenthal, “Ibn Arabi between ‘Mysticism’ and ‘Philosophy’,” Oriens 31 (1988), p. 1.
396
central role in interpreting Ibn ʿArabī’s thought and establishing the later direction of
the entire Akbarian school. Most studies stress the idea that al-Qūnawī wrote in a
relatively systematic way and focused mainly on philosophical issues rather than, like
his master, on the Quran and ḥadīth.562 According to Knysh, al-Qūnawī’s emphasis on the
ontological elements of Ibn ʿArabī’s mysticism sprang from his proficiency in and
preoccupation with the philosophy of Ibn Sīnā, who exercised enormous influence, both
directly and indirectly, on subsequent generations of Muslim thinkers.563 Al-Qūnawī,
Knysh states, “took a strictly rationalist approach to his master’s legacy, treating it from
the perspective of Avicennian philosophy with its persistent ontological bent.” 564
Similarly, James W. Morris, in “Ibn ʿArabī and his interpreters,” states that the school of
Ibn ʿArabī developed “from the very beginning in extremely close interaction with the
separate intellectual traditions of Avicennian falsafa (especially as transmitted by N. Ṭūsī)
and of later kalām (Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Ījī, etc.).”565
In the introduction to this chapter, I mentioned that it was initially intended to be two
chapters examining al-Kūrānī’s theological ideas and his Sufi theories. Now, with the
conclusion of this chapter, it has become clear that al-Kūrānī’s theological and mystical
thought cannot be separated. Al-Kūrānī without a doubt belongs to the long-standing
562
Al-Qūnawī’s will display his intensive education in different fields of Islamic studies, certain works on
philosophy from Qūnawī’s endowed works are preserved in Qūnawī’s endowed trust, including a copy in
his own handwriting of Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq of Suhrawardī along with Lubāb al-Ishārat wa al-Tanbīhāt by Fakhr
al-Dīn al-Rāzī, copied in 640/1242-3. William Chittick, “The last will and testament of Ibn ʿArabī’s foremost
disciple, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī,” Sophia Perennis, Volume IV, number 1, 1978, pp. 43-58.
563
Alexander Knysh, “Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1101/1690), an apologist for ‘waḥdat al-wujūd’,” Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Apr., 1995), pp. 39-47, p. 39. For the same idea See, e.g. J.
Morris, “Ibn ʿArabī and his interpreters,” JAOS, CVI/3 (1986), pp. 539-64; CVI/4 (1986), pp. 733-56; CVII/i
(1987), pp. 101-20; W. Chittick, “Mysticism versus philosophy in earlier Islamic history,” pp. 87-104.
564
Knysh, Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition, p. 162.
565
James W. Morris. “Ibn ʿArabī and his interpreters,” part II-A, p. 752.
397
intellectual tradition of interpreting Ibn ʿArabī. He found Ibn ʿArabī’s writings to be
already very philosophized. Al-Kūrānī mentioned many of al-Qūnawī’s disciples and used
their texts, which were already systemized in an intellectualizing manner. What changed
in al-Kūrānī’s thinking is the prioritization of all the topics discussed in this chapter. Al-
Kūrānī considers God, as absolute existence, to be the foundation of all foundations (aṣl
al-uṣūl). Indeed, the doctrine of absolute existence serves as the foundation of al-Kūrānī’s
thought. It is his main underlying principle that existence is nothing but God’s existence,
the absolute existence, the real existence, the source of all existence.
All the topics of this chapter lead to this interpretation of the idea of waḥdat al-wujūd.
The idea of nonexistent eternal realities, or fixed entities, has a clear connection with
the doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd. External existence has neither being nor meaning apart
from God, the absolute existence, who is the only real existence outside of the mind. The
idea of God’s manifestation establishes that all things other than God are loci of
manifestation (majlā) of God’s attributes, in which God discloses Himself in accordance
with the thing’s dispositions. So, the world does not actually have an existence; it is
merely a manifestation of the absolute, the only true existence. In the progression of
creation, we saw that everything other than the essence of God is in a perpetual process
of transformation. And as explained in the sections on waḥdat al-ṣifāt, kasb, and taklīf, the
power of the human agent comes from God, the only essential power in the world. The
idea of waḥdat al-ṣifāt, which is intimately connected with the idea of absolute existence
and God’s attributes, is related to the first kind of tawḥīd, that is tawḥīd al-dhāt, “the unity
of the essence.” Since God’s essence is identical to His existence, it can be called “the
unity of existence.”
398
The fact that al-Kūrānī did not dedicate a special treatise to discussing and explaining
the term is very significant to his understanding of waḥdat al-wujūd not as a matter of a
single term, but as a complete doctrine. Al-Kūrānī and other Sufis claimed that the
doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd is the subject of Sufi experience through kashf or dhawq.
However, the manifestation of this Sufi experience is clearly expressed by a systematic
intellectual structure. Al-Kūrānī may well have thought that he was only revealing the
coherent system that lies behind Ibn ʿArabī’s mystical language, as some contemporary
scholars read Ibn ʿArabī. Chittick writes that “[Ibn ʿArabī’s] writings are clear, consistent,
and logically structured, even though they may appear opaque to those not familiar with
them.”566 James Morris remarks that describing Ibn ʿArabī as “incoherent,” “pantheist,”
or “heretic” is not based on reasoned judgments; rather, the use of these terms amounts
to a reaction to the difficult task of unifying and integrating such diverse and challenging
materials.567 These difficulties forced generations of Ibn ʿArabī’s followers to explain his
ideas and to reconcile them with the Islamic intellectual traditions of kalām and
philosophy. But with al-Kūrānī there is no attempt to reconcile theology and Sufism, or
to interpret Ibn ʿArabī in a philosophical or kalām way. Instead, theology and Sufism were
one.
566
William C. Chittick, “A history of the term Waḥdat al-Wujūd,” in Search of the Lost Heart (New York: State
University of New York Press, 2012), p. 72.
567
James W. Morris, “Ibn ʿArabi and his interpreters: Part I: Recent French translations,” Journal of the
American Oriental Society Vol. 106, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1986), pp. 539-551, p. 540, n. 4 (Part I).
399
Chapter Five: Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Ḥadīth, Fiqh, and Arabic Grammar
Alongside theology and Sufism, al-Kūrānī was interested in almost all fields of Islamic
studies. This chapter examines his works in the three fields of ḥadīth, fiqh, and Arabic
grammar.
[5.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Ḥadīth
As mentioned in Chapter Two, intellectual activity in the 17th-century Ḥijāz has largely
been investigated as a result of the interest of several scholars in the reform movements
of the 18th century. Among the common characteristics that are ascribed to these
movements is a concern with socio-moral reconstruction. These movements attempted
to reform society on the basis of a “return” to pristine Islam, in the form of the Quran
and the Sunnah, and therefore the study of ḥadīth was of critical importance. Ḥadīth
formed the basis for an imagined ideal society, and during this period attempts to outline
what such a society would look like appeared.1 One example of such a work is the
Nigerian reformist ʿUthmān Ibn Fūdī’s (d. 1232/1817) work Iḥyāʾ al-Sunnah wa-ikhmād al-
bidʿah.2 Ibn Fūdī is an example of an 18th-century activist who was associated with the
spread of ḥadīth studies and who was connected with the Ḥaramayn circle.3
1
An emphasis on ḥadīth studies is considered one of the major factors in these movements. For these main
characteristics see R.S. O’Fahey and B. Radtke, “Neo-Sufism reconsidered,” Der Islam, University of Bergen.
vol. 70, (1993), pp. 52-87, p. 57 and after.
2
Louis Brenner, “Muslim thought in Eighteenth-Century Africa: the case of Shaykh ʿUthmān b. Fūdī,” in
Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, eds. Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll (Syracuse, N.Y:
Syracuse University Press, 1987), pp. 39-58.
3
John Voll, “ʿUthmān b. Muḥammad Fūdī’s sanad to al-Bukhārī as presented in Tazyīn al-waraqāt,” Sudanic
Africa, Vo. 13 (2002), pp. 111-115.
400
However, while interest in the ḥadīth was certainly a motivating factor in some reform
movements in the 18th century, each movement should be studied individually within its
particular historical and social context in order to understand its development into
political activism. Chapter Two mentioned the attempt by John Voll to connect several
reform movements in the 18th century with the spread of Sufi orders and the flourishing
of ḥadīth studies in the Ḥijāz in the 17th and 18th centuries.4 Ḥadīth studies, according to
Voll, “provided the basis for socio-religious purification programs.”5 The assumption
that ḥadīth studies flourished in the 17th-century Ḥijāz will be critically evaluated below,
after having examined the contributions made to them by al-Kūrānī.
In Chapter Three, I showed that al-Kūrānī’s education was mostly in his homeland of
Kurdistan, except for two sciences: ḥadīth and Sufism. He states that he did not think,
before leaving his hometown, that these two sciences continued to exist in the
traditional sense of transmission of authority. A confirmation of al-Kūrānī’s
unfamiliarity with ḥadīth studies at the beginning of his career can be found in his first
treatise, Inbāh al-anbāh ʿalā iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh, in which he states that at the request of
his master, al-Qushāshī, he started to collect ḥadīths that dealt with the virtues of the key
4
Voll tried to show that there was a cosmopolitan network of scholars and students from all parts of the
Islamic world. The main interest of this intellectual community was ḥadīth studies and Sufism. Later, he
published several articles about intellectual activities in different parts of the Islamic world in order to
show their connection with the Ḥaramayn circle. John Voll, “Muḥammad Ḥayāt al-Sindī and Muḥammad
Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: an analysis of an intellectual group in Eighteenth-century Madīna,” Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 38, No. 1 (1975), pp. 32-39; “Hadith scholars
and Tariqah: an ulama group in the 18th Century Haramayn and their impact in the Islamic world,” Journal
of Asian and African Studies, Jul 1, XV, 3-4 (1980), pp. 264-273; “Linking groups in the networks of Eighteenth-
century revivalist scholars: the Mizjājī family in Yemen,” in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam,
pp. 68-115; “ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Sālim al-Baṣrī and 18th century ḥadīth scholarship,” Die Welt des Islam 42:3 (2002);
“Scholarly interrelations between South Asia and the Middle East in the 18 th Century,” in The Countries of
South Asia: Boundaries, Extensions and Interrelations, eds. Peter Gaeffke and David A Utz (Philadelphia: 1980),
pp. 49-59; “ʿUthmān b. Muḥammad Fūdī’s sanad to al-Bukhārī as presented in Tazyīn al-waraqāt.”
5
Voll, “Hadith scholars and Tariqah,” p. 265.
401
phrase in Islam, the shahādah, lā ilāh illā Allāh, “there is no god but God.” At this early
phase of his time in Medina, when he began to seek isnāds and ijāzahs, he thought it would
be difficult to construct 10 ḥadīths with their full isnāds. Eventually, he collected more
than 40.6
Concluding a treatise with the ḥadīths related to the main topic discussed therein
became a usual characteristic of almost all of al-Kūrānī’s works. By concluding his works
in this way, al-Kūrānī aimed to support his rational arguments with transmitted
evidence, and to show that his ideas therefore agreed with the sharīʿah. It seems that in
this practice he was following his teacher al-Qushāshī, who would rely extensively on
both the ḥadīth and the Quran. Al-Qushāshī, as mentioned above, asked al-Kūrānī to
collect these ḥadīths after the latter finished his treatise Inbāh al-anbāh. Al-ʿAyyāshī
mentions that al-Qushāshī’s commentary on Ibn ʿAṭāʾ Allāh’s al-Ḥikam has a special
advantage over other commentaries in that al-Qushāshī ends his comment on each
ḥikmah with a ḥadīth that fits the topic.7 Al-ʿAyyāshī adds that he has not found anyone
like al-Qushāshī for mingling the science of truths, i.e., Sufism, with prophetic ḥadīths.
Almost all of al-Qushāshī’s works conclude with a citation of a ḥadīth or Quranic verses;
it is as if all the works of ḥadīths are present in front of him so that he can select
whichever ones he wants, always mentioning them with their full isnāds.8
This style of ending every treatise with prophetic ḥadīths is also one of the main
characteristics of Ḥijāzī scholars who investigated Ibn ʿArabī’s works, in order to show
how Ibn ʿArabī’s thought conformed to the Quran and the Sunnah. We notice this feature
not only in the works of al-Qushāshī and al-Kūrānī, but also in those of Muḥammad b.
6
Al-Kūrānī, Inbāhu’l-Enbāh, p. 264.
7
8
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 592-3.
402
Rasūl al-Barzanjī, who was their student. However, this combination of Sufism with the
ḥadīth did not seem to be a standard practice of Ibn ʿArabī himself. In Rūḥ al-quds, the
book that contains the names of some of Ibn ʿArabī’s teachers, he mentions a shaykh
called Abū al-Ḥusayn Yaḥyā b. al-Ṣāʾigh and says that he is considered to be a scholar of
the ḥadīth but is in fact a Sufi, adding that “it is among the wonders to find [a person who
is] a scholar of ḥadīth and a Sufi at the same time (nisbatahu ilā al-muḥaddithīn wa-huwa
ṣūfī, huwa min al-uʿjūbāt: muḥaddīth ṣufī!)”9
Al-Kūrānī, who did not learn anything about the ḥadīth tradition when he was living
in his own hometown, became a major source of isnād in later centuries. He is regarded,
alongside other scholars in the Ḥijāz, as responsible for the revival of ḥadīth studies in
the 11th/17th century. Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī (d. 1176/1762) mentions seven scholars
who were the main authorities in ḥadīth in this century: (1) Muḥammad b. al-ʿAlāʾ al-
Bābilī, (2) ʿIsā al-Maghribī, (3) Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-Rūdānī, (4) Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī,
(5) Ḥasan al-ʿUjaymī, (6) Aḥmad al-Nakhlī, and (7) ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim al-Baṣrī.10 All these
scholars were residents of the Ḥijāz, which may support Voll’s assumption of a revival of
ḥadīth studies in the region in the 17th century. A full account of ḥadīth studies in the 17th-
century Ḥijāz would, however, require a comprehensive study both of developments of
ḥadīth literature as well as of similar studies in the Ḥijāz, both of which are beyond the
scope of this research. Nevertheless, examining al-Kūrānī’s efforts in this area may act
9
Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī and Maḥmūd Ghurāb, Sharḥ Risālat Rūḥ al-quds fī muḥāsabat al-nafs (np, 2ed, 1994),
p. 125.
10
Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī, al-Irshād ilā muhimmāt al-isnād, ed. Badr b. ʿAlī b. Ṭāmī al-ʿUtaybī (KSA: Dār al-
Āfāq, 2009), p. 25-26. A similar list is by shaykh Fāliḥ al-Ẓāhirī, but instead of al-Bābilī, he adds Quraysh al-
Ṭabariyyah. Fāliḥ al-Ẓāhirī considers al-Bābilī an Egyptian and thus replaces him with a Ḥijāzī scholar; See
al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, p. 942.
403
as an introduction to such studies in the 17th-century Ḥijāz and thereby help situate Ḥijāzī
ḥadīth scholars within the broader framework of ḥadīth studies.
In order to explore al-Kūrānī’s work in ḥadīth studies I shall start by mentioning his
main ḥadīth teachers, then give a general outline of his different works in ḥadīth, moving
then to his main interest in the isnād aspect of ḥadīth, by establishing his highest isnāds,11
which connect him with main ḥadīth scholars before him and provide an example of al-
Kūrānī’s interest in and his search for high isnāds. Then we will broadly look at ḥadīth
studies in the 9th/15th century to be able to understand the changes that occurred in the
11th/17th century and that have allowed some scholars to talk about a revival of ḥadīth
studies in the Ḥijāz in that century.
Al-Kūrānī’s thabat, entitled al-Amam li-īqāẓ al-himam, contains his isnāds for almost all
the main ḥadīth collections. For example, he studied different parts of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī
with al-Qushāshī, Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī, Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī, and ʿAbd Allāh al-Lāhūrī;12 he
studied parts of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim with al-Mazzāḥī and al-Qushāshī;13 he studied parts of Sunan
Abī Dāwud with al-Qushāshī; and Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī with al-Mazzāḥī and al-Qushāshī.14 Al-
Kūrānī’s other works of ḥadīth contain more names of ḥadīth scholars with whom he met
and studied, or to whom he asked for an ijāzah in ḥadīth, including:
- Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-ʿAfīf al-Anṣārī al-Yamanī al-Taʿzī al-ʿUqaybī, with
whom al-Kūrānī studied ḥadīth in his own house in Medina in 1072/1661-2, after the
ḥajj season.15
11
“High isnād,” as explained in Chapter Two, refers to an isnād with only few links between the transmitter
and a certain source of authority, i.e. the Prophet in the case of ḥadīth.
12
13
Ibid., p. 6.
14
Ibid., p. 7-8.
15
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-Nabī al-mukhtār (MS: Istanbul: Koprulu 279), fol. 36b.
404
- Muḥammad b. Saʿīd b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad al-Mirghatī al-Marākishī
al-Mālikī, who wrote an ijāzah to al-Kūrānī from Marākish in 1076/1665-6.16
- Muḥammad al-Murābiṭ b. Muḥammad b. Abū Bakr al-Maghribī al-Dallāʾī al-
Mālikī. Al-Kūrānī received the ijāzah from him in his own house in Medina in
1080/1669-70 when al-Dallāʾī visited him after the ḥajj season.17
- Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ṭabarī al-Makkī. Al-Kūrānī received an ijāzah
in ḥadīth from him in Rabīʿ I 1073/October 1662.18
- Mubārakah and Zayn al-Sharaf, daughters of Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn al-Makkī. Al-Kūrānī
received an ijāzah in ḥadīth from them in Rabiʿ I 1080/July 1669.19
- Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
al-Daybaʿ al-Shaybānī al-Zabīdī.20
Even though some of these scholars, such as Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī, were more famous as
ḥadīth scholars than al-Qushāshī was, most of al-Kūrānī’s ḥadīth isnāds in his works are
through the latter. This is to be expected, since al-Kūrānī spent only a few months in
Cairo and while there he was not yet interested in attending ḥadīth lessons or asking for
ijāzahs. He mentioned to al-ʿAyyāshī that during his time in Cairo he met Shihāb a-Dīn al-
Khafājī because he was composing his first treatise on Arabic grammar and needed to
check a book by the famous grammarian, Sibawayh, which existed in al-Khafājī’s library.
Al-Kūrānī explicitly says: “this is what I was looking for, and isnād (riwāyah) was not my
interest.”21 While he was living in the Ḥijāz, he did meet other scholars during the ḥajj
16
Ibid., fol. 37a.
17
Ibid., fol. 37a.
18
Ibid., fol. 37b.
19
Ibid., fol. 37b.
20
Ibid., fol. 41b.
21
405
season, and he did attempt to obtain their isnāds in order to become connected with
earlier scholars. With al-Qushāshī, however, he spent almost ten years reading and
revising the main works of ḥadīth.
Al-Kūrānī’s list of works contains numerous titles specifically in ḥadīth. The dominant
topic of these works is isnād; good examples are Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣiḥāḥ, which,
as is clear from its title, contains al-Kūrānī’s highest isnāds; Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-
Nabī al-mukhtār, which contains 101 ḥadīths with their isnāds; and Niẓām al-zabarjad fī al-
arbaʿīn al-musalsalah bi-Aḥmad, which contains 40 ḥadīths that were transmitted by
scholars named Aḥmad. Al-Kūrānī has also some works that discuss specific ḥadīths, such
as Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt fī sharḥ ḥadīth “inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-niyyāt”22 and al-Tawjīh al-
mukhtār fī nafy al-qalb ʿan ḥadīth ikhtiṣām al-jannah wa-l-nār.23 Both of these works on
ḥadīths were used by al-Kūrānī to argue in favor of theological topics such as using the
concept of intention (niyyah) to argue for kalām nafsī, and using the ḥadīth of
transformation in forms24 to support his idea that God manifests in any form He wishes
without any restrictions or conditions. The ḥadīth were always used by al-Kūrānī to
support his arguments in theology and Sufism, and indeed some topics are discussed
primarily through citations from the ḥadīth. For example, two of his treatises on vocal
dhikr, a topic that had been controversial for almost two centuries among the
Naqshabandī order,25 are based on several ḥadīths, that he cites to argue that vocal dhikr
22
Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī, Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt fī sharḥ ḥadīth inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-niyyāt, ed. Aḥmad Rajab Abū
Sālim (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2013). See also Al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 575.
Al-Kūrānī explains the meaning of niyyah (intention) from linguistic, juristic, and Sufi perspectives, based
on several ḥadīths.
23
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Tawjīh al-mukhtār fī nafy al-qalb ʿan ḥadīth ikhtiṣām al-jannah wa-l-nār, ed. al-ʿArabī al-
Dāʾiz al-Firyāṭī (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2005).
24
This ḥadīth is mentioned in al-Kūrānī’s works, no. 43.
25
Jürgen Paul, Doctrine and Organization: The Khwājagān/Naqshbandīya in the First Generation after Bahāʾuddin
(Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 1998), p. 18.
406
is permissible.26 In one of his treatises, al-Kūrānī mentions that he received a treatise of
a Ḥanafī scholar from Central Asia who says that vocal dhikr is forbidden. Al-Kūrānī was
aware that practical topics related to public behaviour and addressed to a general
audience could be addressed using theological arguments, but still required
authoritative references to prophetic ḥadīths in order to prove that such dhikr is not an
innovation (bidʿah).
Another work on ḥadīth in al-Kūrānī’s list of works is al-Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī ilā al-
Durr al-multaqaṭ li-l-Ṣāghānī,27 which discusses the authenticity of ḥadīth. This work
indicates the advanced level that al-Kūrānī reached in ḥadīth studies by revealing that he
was asked to evaluate an earlier work that collected fabricated ḥadīths (mawḍūʿāt) and to
give his opinion about the accuracy of classifying them as indeed fabricated. In total, Al-
Kūrānī analyzed some 145 ḥadīths that al-Ṣāghānī (d. 650/1252) had collected and
considered to have been fabricated.28 Al-Kūrānī also used this opportunity to address
theological and Sufi topics, such as those related to the ḥadīths suggesting that the first
created thing was the intellect (fol. 260a), that whoever knows himself knows his God
(fol. 262a), and that God created Adam in his image (fol. 263a). However, he does not
engage in theological debates in these texts; rather, he simply refers to the idea and says
that he has explained it in Qaṣd al-sabīl or other works.
Even though al-Kūrānī became an authority in ḥadīth, especially regarding the issue
of ḥadīth authenticity, his Sufi affiliation dominated his thought. In several places in his
26
Al-Kūrānī, Nashr al-zahr bi-l-jahr bi-l-dhikr and Itḥāf al-munīb al-awwāh bi-faḍl al-jahr bi-dhikr Allāh.
27
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Maslāk al-wasaṭ al-dānī ilā al-Durr al-multaqaṭ li-l-Ṣāghānī (MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa
2722), fols. 255a- 291a.
28
Al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Ṣāghānī, al-Durr al-multaqaṭ fī tabyīn al-ghalaṭ, ed. Abū al-Fidāʾ ʿAbd Allāh al-
Qāḍī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1985). Al-Ṣāghānī’s book mainly traces the work of al-Quḍāʿī (d.
454/1062) entitled Shihāb al-akhbār fī al-ḥikam wa-l-amthāl wa-l-ādāb and its supplement by al-Aqlishī (d.
550/1155) entitled al-Nujam min kalām sayyid al-ʿArab wa-l-ʿAjam.
407
al-Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī, he asserts that the authenticity of a certain ḥadīth was revealed
by kashf, “unveiling,” even though there are doubts regarding its isnād.29 He also
mentions the famous Sufi ḥadīth regarding the “hidden treasure” and says that this ḥadīth
is correct by kashf and not by transmission.30 In general, though, al-Kūrānī depends upon
previous scholars in ḥadīth, such as Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Sakhāwī, al-ʿIrāqī, Ibn al-
Jawzī, al-Suyūṭī, and even Ibn Taymiyyah. What I mean is that al-Kūrānī did not
independently research the transmitters list in the isnād and thereby try to evaluate the
transmission by himself on the basis of ḥadīth criticism (jarḥ wa-taꜤdīl). Instead, he used
his wide knowledge of early scholarly works to indicate his preferences among them.
The isnād was the main interest of al-Kūrānī’s works in the study of the ḥadīth, and as
mentioned above he dedicated a number of treatises specifically to this aspect of ḥadīth.
His work Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣīḥāḥ reveals from its title that al-Kūrānī wanted to
mention his highest isnāds in ḥadīth. The high isnād is preferred for its spiritual value as
it brings the person closer to the Prophet, and because the possibility of error in
transmission is reduced. For these reasons, scholars used to seek high isnāds and to
classify their isnāds according to the number of transmitters in the chain. For example,
if there are three persons between the scholar and the Prophet, a ḥadīth will be called
thulāthī, “triple”; if there are four persons a ḥadīth is rubāʿī, “quaternary,” etc. When the
ḥadīths were beginning to be recorded, the smallest number of transmitters was three,
which means that the scholar who undertook the recording actually met one of tābiʿ al-
tābiʿīn, i.e., those who studied with a member of the generation that studied with one of
the Prophet’s Companions.
29
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī ilā al-Durr al-multaqaṭ li-l-Ṣāghānī, fol. 261b, 262a.
30
Ibid., fol. 266a-b.
408
Because of their high spiritual value, scholars would collect the “triple” (thulāthiyyāt)
ḥadīth and separate them in special treatises such as thulāthiyyāt al-Būkhārī by ʿAlī
Bayyūmī,31 al-Farāʾid al-marwiyyāt fī fawāʾid al-thulāthiyyāt: Sharḥ thulāthiyyāt al-imām al-
Bukhārī by al-Ḥaḍramī,32 and Taʿliqāt ʿAlī al-Qārī (d. 1014/1605) ʿalā thulāthiyyāt al-Būkhārī.33
Rubāʿiyyāt, “quaternary” ḥadīth also received much attention from scholars, so that one
finds rubāʿiyyāt al-imām al-Bukhārī in Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣīḥāḥ. One of the most
famous thulāthiyyat was al-Ṭabarānī’s (d. 360/970), which became the standard of high
isnād for later scholars. Al-Ṭabarānī, who wrote al-Muʿjam al-kabīr, al-Muʿjam al-ṣaghīr and
other works on ḥadīth, lived almost one century after al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), yet he has
some isnāds that are equal in the number of transmitters to those of al-Bukhārī, which
made al-Ṭabarānī’s thulāthiyyāt the model that later generations tried to emulate.
Until 700/1300, scholars of the ḥadīth would reach thumāniyyat (eightfold). After this
date, it is difficult to find less than tusāʿiyyāt (ninefold). So, after 700/1300, most of the
isnāds will contain more than 8 persons. This is why al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) was very glad
when he was able to reach ʿushāriyyāt (tenfold), which means that between him and the
Prophet there were only ten intermediaries. He separated these ḥadīths into a specific
treatise entitled al-Nādiriyyāt min al-ʿushāriyyāt.34 Al-Kūrānī asserts that these ʿushāriyyāt
of al-Suyūṭī are actually based on the thulāthiyyāt of al-Ṭabarānī, there being 6 persons
between al-Ṭabarānī and al-Suyūṭī. Al-Kūrānī then relates several of his own isnāds to
31
Ms. Azhariyya 322992. This work was composed in 1199/1784.
32
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥmmad Ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaḍramī and Muḥmmad Shāyib Sharīf, al-Farāʾid al-marwiyyāt
fī fawāʾid al-thulāthiyyāt: Sharḥ thulāthiyyāt al-imām al-Bukhārī (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa-l-Nashr
wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2014).
33
See ʿAlī Riḍā and Aḥmad al-Bizrah, al-Thulāthiyyāt: thulāthiyyāt al-aʾimmah: al-Bukhārī, al-Tirmidhī, al-
Dārimī, Ibn Mājah, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd al-Kishī, al-Ṭabarānī (Damascus: Dār al-Māʾmūn, 1986).
34
This work by al-Suyūṭī is listed entirely in al-ʿAyyāshī’s thabat entitle Iqtifāʾ al-athar baʿda dhahāb ahl al-
athar, p. 214.
409
these thulāthiyyāt of al-Ṭabarānī and, since the isnād between al-Suyūṭī and al-Ṭabarānī
is the shortest, al-Kūrānī’s highest isnād is through whichever chain has the fewest
scholars between him and al-Suyūṭī.
He mentions that he has three different isnāds in these ḥadīths: one is through 15
transmitters, another is through 14, and the last one is through 13. The shortest isnād
through 13 transmitters is by a general ijāzah (ijāzah ʿammah)35 of Ibn Muṭayr, who also
had a general ijāzah from Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī, by another general ijāzah from al-Suyūṭī.36
These three different isnāds are the following:
1- Al-Kūrānī al-Qushāshī al-Shinnāwī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-
Qādir b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Fahd al-Makkī (his uncle) Jārullāh b. Fahd al-
Suyūṭī.37
Through this isnād there are 15 transmitters between al-Kūrānī and the Prophet.
2- Al-Kūrānī al-Qushāshī al-Shinnāwī Ḥasan al-Danjīhī al-
Suyūṭī.38
Through this isnād there are 14 transmitters between al-Kūrānī and the Prophet. Here is
al-Kūrānī’s highest isnād through general ijāzah:
3- Al-Kūrānī (general ijāzah) Muḥammad b. Muṭayr al-Ḥakamī (general
ijāzah) Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytanī (general ijāzah) al-Suyūṭī.39
Al-Kūrānī has several other isnāds for these thulāthiyyāt, which he mentions in Janāḥ al-
najāḥ. For example, al-Qushāshī had an ijāzah from Ibn Muṭayir, but this isnād, which al-
35
The general ijāzah (ijāzah ʿāmmah) usually includes anyone alive who wants to transmit certain ḥadīth,
and some scholars - although only children at the time - were considered as part of the ijāzah, so it is
normal to find 70 or 80 years between scholars on some chains in order to make the isnād higher.
36
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣiḥāḥ (MS: Istanbul: Koprulu, 279), fol. 6a.
37
Ibid., fol. 6a.
38
Ibid., fol. 6a. Al-Kūrānī, al-Amam, p. 18.
39
Al-Kūrānī, Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣiḥāḥ, fol. 6a.
410
Kūrānī mentions, would raise the number of links, while al-Kūrānī is connected directly
with Ibn Muṭayr by ijāzah ʿāmmah.40 Al-Kūrānī also received these thulāthiyyāt from ʿAbd
Allāh al-Lāhūrī, who had an ijāzah ʿammāh from Quṭb al-Dīn al-Nahrawālī al-Makkī, and
that isnād extends to reach al-Ṭabarānī.41
After first explaining the importance of the high isnād, and how scholars should strive
for it as soon as they begin to record and collect the ḥadīth, and then listing his isnāds in
the thulāthiyyāt of al-Ṭabarānī, al-Kūrānī goes on to list 40 ḥadīths with their isnāds,
probably the highest isnāds he obtained. He admits that his isnāds mostly contain 15
transmitters, but sometimes he has 14 or 13, if he counts the general ijāzahs.
In Masālik al-Abrār, al-Kūrānī lists 101 ḥadīths with their isnāds and classifies them
according to different categories, which is not new in isnād literature. One of his
categories is the isnāds of only Shāfiʿī scholars. Other examples include ḥadīths that are
transmitted only by Damascene scholars or only by Sufis, and chains that contain only
transmitters with the name Muḥammad, Aḥmad, or scholars whose names start with a
specific letter.42 These ḥadīths usually have different isnāds through different scholars,
and can thus be classified in a specific way following the isnāds through scholars who fit
the criterion of the category. This classification system is of course artificial, and
scholars’ attempts to find specific isnāds that contain certain characters will make the
isnād longer than direct chains that passed through a diverse group of scholars. These
long chains are the reason that al-Kūrānī, after almost every isnād, says that he has a
higher isnād for this ḥadīth and mentions this higher isnād.
40
Ibid., fol. 6b.
41
Ibid., fol. 7a.
42
Al-Kūrānī has a specific treatise, mentioned earlier, entitled Niẓām al-zabarjad fī al-arbaʿīn al-musalsalah bi-
Aḥmad.
411
Al-Kūrānī’s high isnāds are mentioned above, but we can add the following chains:
1. Al-Kūrānī al-Qushāshī al-Shinnāwī al-Ramlī (general ijāzah)
Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī.43
2. Al-Kūrānī al-Qushāshī (general ijāzah) al-Ramlī Zakarīyā al-
Anṣārī.44
Numerous of al-Kūrānī’s isnāds pass through famous Sufis, including al-Shaʿrānī, al-
Jīlānī, ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī, and Ibn ʿArabī. Ibn ʿArabī’s name frequently appears in these
isnāds.45 Even though he is not famous as a scholar of ḥadīth, it was one of his interests.
In Histoire et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn Arabi, Osman Yahya mentions 17 works of ḥadīth
by Ibn ʿArabī including al-Miṣbāḥ fī al-jamʿ bayn al-ṣiḥāh (no. 478), Ikhtiṣār al-Bukhārī (no.
274), Ikhtiṣār Muslim (no. 278), Ikhtiṣār al-Tirmidhī (no. 277), al-Arbaʿūn al-mutaqābilah fī al-
ḥadīth (n. 37), and al-ʿAwālī fī asānīd al-ḥadīth (no. 60).46
One example of ḥadīths that are mentioned by al-Kūrānī with their full isnād also
shows his interest in the discipline and his search for high isnād. This famous ḥadīth is
known as al-ḥadīth al-musalsal bi-l-awwaliyyah because it was normally the first ḥadīth that
the student recieved from the teacher. This ḥadīth is also known as ḥadīth al-raḥmah, “the
ḥadīth of mercy,” because it states that: “The Compassionate One has mercy on those who
are merciful.”
Al-Kūrānī received ḥadīth al-raḥmah from the following scholars:
43
Al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār, fols. 43a-44a.
44
Al-Kūrānī, Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣiḥāḥ, fol. 6b.
45
For example, in chains mentioned in Masālik al-abrār in fols. 44b, 66a, 69b, 75b.
46
Osman Yahya, Histoire et classification de l'œuvre d'Ibn ʻArabī; étude critique (Damas: Institut franc̜ais de
Damas, 1964), vol. 1, p. 109. See also: Denis Gril, “Hadith in the works of Ibn ʿArabī: The uninterrupted chain
of prophecy,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, 50, 2011, pp. 45-76.
412
1. From Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-ʿAfīf al-Anṣārī, al-Yamanī al-Taʿzī al-
ʿUqaybī, in his own house in Medina in 1072, after Nūr al-Dīn’s performance of the
ḥajj.47 Al-Kūrānī extended the isnād through al-Sakhāwī.
2. Al-Kūrānī mentioned that he had another isnād that is higher than that of his
teacher mentioned above, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī, by one person, through the Moroccan
scholar Muḥammad b. Saʿīd b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad b. Abī Bakr al-
Mirghatī al-Sūsī al-Marākishī al-Mālikī. Al-Kūrānī recieved this ḥadīth through
correspondence in 1074,48 and its chain extends through Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī.
3. Another isnād is through Muḥammad al-Murābiṭ b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-
Maghribī al-Dallāʾī al-Mālikī, again received in his own house in Medina on the 5th
of Muḥarram, 1080, when al-Dallāʾī visited him after the season of ḥajj.49 The isnād
extends through al-Suyūṭī and is detailed below because it contains two female
scholars:
Al-Kūrānī Muḥammad al-Murābiṭ al-Maghribī al-Dallāʾī (1) Mubārakah,
and (2) Zayn al-Sharaf, daughters of Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Qādir Muḥammad b.
Yaḥyā al-Ṭabarī al-Ḥusaynī al-Makkī (al-Kūrānī recieved this ḥadīth in Mecca in
the end of the year 1079/1669) both from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b. Ibrāḥīm al-Ḥaṣārī
al-Miṣrī, by a general ijāzah in 1011/1602-3 Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b.
Aḥmad al-ʿUmarī al-Suyūṭī.
4. Al-Kūrānī studied directly with these two female scholars and their brother Zayn
al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī, so he has other isnāds higher than the one mentioned above. The
first isnād was obtained in 1073/1662-3:
47
48
Ibid., fol. 37a.
49
Ibid., fol. 37a.
413
Al-Kūrānī Zayn al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b. Ibrāḥīm al-Ḥaṣārī al-
Miṣrī. The second isnād was obtained in 1080/1669-70:
Al-Kūrānī (1) Mubārakah and (2) Zayn al-Sharaf ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b.
Ibrāḥīm al-Ḥaṣārī al-Miṣrī.50
5. Another isnād is through Ḥanbalī scholars:
Al-Kūrānī ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī (in a letter sent from Damascus in
1064/1753-4) ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Buhūtī al-Ḥanbalī Jamāl al-Dīn
Yūsuf b. Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī.51
6. Yet another isnād is through the Moroccan scholar al-ʿAyyāshī, on Friday
afternoon, 19 Ṣafar, 1073; this isnād is mainly through the al-Ṭabarī family in
Mecca.
Al-Kūrānī al-ʿAyyāshī Zayn al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī al-Makkī ʿAbd al-
Qādir al-Ṭabarī Yaḥyā b. Mukarram al-Ṭabarī Muḥammad al-Muḥibb
al-Ṭabarī […] ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb the Prophet Muḥammad.52
These are some isnāds for a single ḥadīth. Al-Kūrānī mentions that he has only listed his
high isnāds, stating that al-ʿAyyāshī received this ḥadīth from several scholars. Al-Kūrānī
means that he can list more isnāds through al- ʿAyyāshī, but that he was interested only
in the highest isnād, the one mentioned above.53
We can also notice the diversity and the interconnectedness of scholars from different
parts of the Islamic world through the isnāds of this single ḥadīth. Al-Kūrānī received it
from a Yemeni scholar, several Maghribī scholars, a Ḥanbalī scholar from Syria, and
50
Ibid., fol. 37b.
51
Ibid., fol. 37b.
52
Ibid., fol. 38b.
53
Ibid., fol. 38a.
414
women scholars from the Ḥijāz. The interest in ḥadīth seems to be general in the Islamic
world, but there is no doubt that the ḥajj season played an essential role in making the
Ḥijāz the point of connection for all these scholarly traditions, and motivated scholars
who came to perform the ḥajj to spread the isnāds they had received there from scholars
coming from other parts of Islamic world.
The centrality of the Ḥijāz in the exchange of isnāds may support Shāh Walī Allāh’s
claim that the revival of ḥadīth studies in the 11th/17th century was begun in the Ḥijāz.
While most other scholars met and exchanged ijāzahs only over the course of one ḥajj
season, the scholars based in the Ḥijāz had the advantage of meeting new scholars every
year, which allowed them to obtain a broad variety of the highest isnāds. However,
tracing isnāds that emerged after the 11th/17th century or outside of the Ḥijāz is not part
of this study. Instead, I shall return to two centuries earlier, to those scholars to whom,
according to Shāh Walī Allāh, most of the isnāds of the scholars of ḥadīth in the Ḥijāz
during the 17th century return, in order to compare this record with the revival that is
ascribed to ḥadīth studies in the 17th-century Ḥijāz.
[5.1.1] Some Aspects of 9th/15th Century Ḥadīth Studies

The two main scholars to whom most of the isnāds of the 11th/17th century Ḥijāzī scholars
return, according to Shāh Walī Allāh, are Shaykh al-Islām Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī (d.
926/1520) and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505).54 These two scholars were of course
not the only ḥadīth commentators in the 9th/15th century. Many other scholars produced
multi-volume works of ḥadīth commentaries during that period. In fact, the 15th century
was a time that witnessed the composition of some of the most influential ḥadīth
commentaries in Islamic history. Among those who wrote ḥadīth commentaries in that
54
Al-Dihlawī, al-Irshād ilā muhimmāt al-isnād, p. 29.
415
century were Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qasṭallānī (d. 923/1517), who wrote Irshād al-sārī fī Sharḥ
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, and Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī (d. 855/1451), who composed ʿUmdat al-qārī
Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in Cairo.
The Egyptian scholar Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī was born around the year 1423 in a town close
to Cairo and studied in al-Azhar with several celebrated scholars, such as the famous
ḥadīth scholar Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī.55 Al-Anṣārī was a Sufi with deep interests in fiqh,
uṣūl al-fiqh, and ḥadīth. His works amount to around 74, including a commentary on al-
Abharī’s Īsāghūjī, a commentary on al-Kātibī’s al-Shamsiyyah, a commentary on al-
Bayḍāwī Ṭawāliʿ al-anwār (entitled Lawāmiʿ al-afkār), a commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-
Nasafī’s ʿAqāʾid, a commentary on al-Bayḍāwī’s Anwār al-tanzīl, and a commentary on al-
Samarqandī’s Ādāb al-baḥth entitled Fatḥ al-Wahhāb bi-sharḥ al-Ādāb. His works on ḥadīth
include Tuḥfat al-Bārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Sharḥ al-Arbaʿīn al-Nawawiyyah, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ
Muslim, al-Iʿlām bi-aḥādīth al-aḥkām, and a commentary on one of his own books, entitled
Fatḥ al-ʿAllām bi-Sharḥ aḥādīth al-aḥkām.56
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) was an Egyptian scholar and one of the most
productive authors of the pre-modern Islamic world.57 He is well known as a jurist of the
Shāfiʿī school, but he was also a scholar of ḥadīth and was described as “a master of
prophetic narrations (ḥadīth) who claimed to have memorized all ḥadīths in existence.”58
55
For a sketch of Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī’s life and works see Matthew B. Ingalls, “Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī and the
study of Muslim commentaries from the later Islamic middle period,” Religion Compass 10 (5): 2016, pp. 118-
130.
56
A list of his works with short descriptions is provided by Māzin al-Mubārak in the introduction to his
edition of al-Anṣārī’s work al-Ḥudūd al-anīqah wa-l-taʿrīfāt al-daqīqah, ed. Mazīn al-Mubārak (Beirut: Dār al-
Fikr al-Muʿāṣir, 1991), pp. 19-46.
57
E.M. Sartain, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī: Biography and background (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Oriental
Publications 23, 1975).
58
Aaron Spevack, “Al-Suyūṭī, the intolerant ecumenist: Law and theology in Taʾyīd al-ḥaqīqa al-ʿaliyya wa-
tashyīd al-ṭarīqa al-Shādhiliyya,” in Al-Suyūṭī, a Polymath of the Mamlūk Period Proceedings of the themed day of
416
Al-Suyūṭī describes the discipline of ḥadīth as “the noblest of sciences” because it is
related to the prophetic model.59 He commented on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, alongside a
commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī called al-Tawshīḥ, and commentaries on the collections
of Ibn Mājah and al-Nasāʾī.60 Together with his interest in the ḥadīth, al-Suyuṭī was also
famous as a Sufi and was described as “the most prominent scholar involved in taṣawwuf
of the Mamlūk era, and he acted as a pioneer in this field.”61 Some of al-Kūrānī’s isnāds to
al-Suyūṭī have already been mentioned above, and others through the Ḥijāzī scholar
Jārullāh b. Fahd will be mentioned below.
In addition to al-Anṣārī and al-Suyūṭī, and the other scholars mentioned above, there
is the most important ḥadīth scholar of all, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449), the
teacher of al-Anṣārī, al-Suyūṭī (through general ijāzah), and other scholars, and the
author of the most widespread and famous ḥadīth commentary in all Islamic history, Fatḥ
al-Bārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.62 Fatḥ al-Bārī has been described as “the crown both of its
genre and of the Imam’s academic career.”63
This flourishing of ḥadīth studies in the 15th century was a result of long efforts by the
Ayyubids and Mamluks to support ḥadīth studies. The Ayyubids were very interested in
the First Conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, June 23, 2014), ed. Antonella
Ghersetti (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016), p. 15-16.
59
Eric Geoffroy, “Al-Suyūṭī as a Sufi,” in Al-Suyūṭī, a Polymath of the Mamlūk Period, p. 8.
60
Joel Blecher, “Usefulness without toil: Al-Suyūṭī and the art of concise ḥadīth commentary,” in Al-Suyūṭī,
a Polymath of the Mamlūk Period, p. 182-3.
61
Geoffroy, “Al-Suyūṭī as a Sufi,” p. 8.
62
For information about Ibn Ḥajar and his book see Joel Blecher, Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary
across a Millennium (California: University of California Press, 2018); Blecher, “Ḥadīth commentary in the
presence of students, patrons, and rivals: Ibn Ḥajar and Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī in Mamluk Cairo,” Oriens 41 (2013)
261–287; Sabri Kawash, Ibn Ḥajar al-Asqalānī: A study of the background, education, and carrer of a ʿālim in Egypt
(Princeton: Princeton University, PhD diss., 1968).
63
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Selections from the Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, tr. Abdal-Hakim Murad (UK:
Muslim Academic Trust, 2000), p. 1.
417
such studies, focusing on Sunni traditions as a way to counter any lingering Shīʿī
influence after Fatimid rule in Egypt. The first school of ḥadīth was established by Nūr al-
Dīn Zinkī (d. 569/1173-4) and it was named, after him, al-Madrasah al-Nūriyyah. The
Ayyubid king al-Kāmil Nāṣir al-Dīn (d. 622/1225) established Dār al-Ḥadīth in Cairo and
then al-Madrasah al-Ashrafiyyah in Damascus.64 In the 7th/13th century, Egypt and Syria
became the centers of ḥadīth studies with the spread of schools and the patronage of the
Sultans “where the genre of hadith commentary came of age under the patronage of the
Mamluk sultanate.”65 The recitation of books of ḥadīth, mainly Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, and the
annual appearance of new commentaries on these books, often with students’ marginal
notes, added new layers of glosses alongside systematic commentaries such as those
mentioned above. The interest in that period was not only in explaining the meaning of
the ḥadīth themselves, but also the systematic analysis of each hadīth’s chain of
transmission.66
The Mamluk period in Egypt has been described as a golden age of Arabic
encyclopaedic literature. Some scholars have attempted to explain the rise of
encyclopaedism in the Mamluk Empire by focusing on social and political factors. Other
scholars argue that after the fall of Baghdad in the year 1258, Cairo inherited its mantle
as the political and cultural epicentre of the Muslim world. Scholars and poets fled from
Iraq, finding a welcome home in the colleges of the Mamluk realms in Egypt and Syria.67
Elias Muhanna in “Why was the fourteenth century a century of Arabic
64
Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid, “Ijāzāt al-samāʿ fī al-makhṭūṭāt al-qadīmah,” Majallat Maʿhad al-Makhṭūṭāt, 1955,
n. 1, vol. 2, p. 233.
65
Blecher, Said the Prophet of God, p. 7.
66
Ibid., p. 9-10.
67
Elias Muhanna, “Why was the fourteenth century a century of Arabic encyclopaedism?” in Encyclopaedism
from Antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. Jason König and Greg Woolf (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2013), p. 347.
418
encyclopaedism?” focuses on social and political factors, and the increasing build up of
institutionalised scholarly systems.68 The result was a boom of encyclopedic and
compilatory literature during the 14th century, especially as, to quote Muhanna, “the
stability and security provided by a rapidly consolidating imperial state represented a
fundamental break with several centuries of fractiousness and political turmoil in the
central Islamic lands.”69
In one sense, therefore, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Anṣārī, al-Suyūṭī, and other scholars
in the 15th century built on the efforts of early generations of ḥadīth scholars. Their new
works became the main reference works for subsequent generations, and as a result of
their efforts, the 15th century represents the climax of ḥadīth studies in the Islamic world
as far as the large numbers of ḥadīth commentaries being produced by different scholars
is concerned. What happened in the immediate aftermath of this period is thus essential
to evaluating the efforts of the scholars of the Ḥijāz in the 17th century. For the Ḥijāz, Ibn
Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 974/1567) played a pivotal role, since he belonged to the great
tradition of ḥadīth commentary of 15th-century Cairo, yet went on to settle in Mecca.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī moved in 940/1533-4 from Cairo to Mecca, where he lived until
his death. Al-Haytamī says that after moving to Mecca, he focused mainly on the sciences
of the Sunnah teaching to the residents of the city and to its visitors.70 He mentions that
scholars of the Sunnah as well as Sufis would travel to seek this knowledge, but that in
his time people’s enthusiasm (himmah) was at a low ebb, to the extent that this science,
i.e. the science of ḥadīth, almost disappeared.71 Al-Haytamī continues by saying that after
68
Ibid., p. 349.
69
Ibid., p. 348.
70
Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad Ibn Ḥajar, Thabat al-Imām Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī al-Makkī al-Shāfiʿī (909-
974) min taṣnīfihi, ed. Amjad Rashīd (Jourdan: Dār al-Fatḥ, 2014), p. 88.
71
Ibid., p. 89.
419
stopping their travels to seek the Sunnah, people would ask for isnāds by corresponding
with scholars from different parts of the Islamic world; but even seeking isnāds by
correspondence had fallen into disuse, and the great musnids (the scholars with
numerous isnāds) had disappeared.72 Al-Haytamī then mentions the main scholars in
ḥadīth with whom he connects the isnād, namely Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī, ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-
Sunbāṭī, and then al-Suyūṭī through an ijāzah ʿāmmah.73 Al-Haytamī is perhaps the scholar
who motivated a resurgence in ḥadīth studies, this time not in Cairo, where most ḥadīth
scholars of the 15th century were concentrated, but in the Ḥijāz.
In light of our general overview of ḥadīth studies in the 15th century and al-Haytamī’s
description of the decline of interest in ḥadīth studies, we might wonder if students in
the 16th century felt intimidated by the prospect of competing with the efforts of their
great predecessors during the flourishing of ḥadīth studies in the 15th century, thinking
perhaps that they could not add anything to the efforts of their immediate predecessors.
An anecdote in al-Kittānī’s Fahras al-fahāris reflects the attitude of the later generation
toward the efforts of ḥadīth scholars in the 15th century. Al-Kittānī reports that when al-
Shawkānī was asked by his students to write a commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, he
responded, “‘there is no migration after al-Fatḥ,” referring to Fatḥ al-Bārī.”74 Thus
overcome by the sense that nothing could be done after these great commentaries,
students became less actively involved in ḥadīth studies in the 16th century.
72
Ibid., p. 90.
73
Ibid., p. 91. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī was not yet three years old when al-Suyūṭī died, but al-Suyūṭī gave an
ijāzah for all the people who were alive during his life, and al-Haytamī considered himself included in this
ijāzah.
74
Al-Kittānī, Fahras al-fahāris, vol. 1, p. 323. “there is no migration after al-Fatḥ” is reference to a prophetic
ḥadīth that refers to the conquest (fatḥ) of Makkah.
420
However, the efforts of the scholars of the Ḥijāz in the 17th century, as exemplified by
al-Kūrānī and his compilation of isnāds, suggests that after a period that culminated in
the production of multi-volume commentaries in the 15th century, scholars and students
became convinced that these commentaries were sufficient, and that they only needed
to connect themselves via isnād to them. We can thus say that isnād literature flourished
in the 17th-century Ḥijāz, but not the commentaries on the ḥadīths themselves.
Accounts from scholars from the Indian Subcontinent in the Ḥijāz during the 17th
century confirm that the topic of interest in the Ḥijāz at that time was mainly isnād. Al-
ʿAyyāshī mentions that ḥadīth scholars in India were interested in dirāyah, which means
investigation and contemplation, more than riwāyah, meaning chains of transmission.75
Scholars from the Indian Subcontinent regarded working on chains of transmission as
insufficient (quṣūr). Badr al-Dīn al-Hindī said to al-ʿAyyāshī, “if Indian students attend
your lessons in ḥadīth, they will be surprised and will make fun of you. What is the benefit
of reading a ḥadīth without investigating its meaning and discussing its details in order
to obtain its benefits?”76 Al-Ḥamawī says that Badr al-Dīn al-Hindī did not find value in
reading ḥadīth based on isnād alone (lā yastaḥsin qirāʾat al-ḥadīth riwāyatan). Al-Hindī also
used to ask what the point is of listening to a ḥadīth without investigating its meaning
and its concepts, and without discussing what is general and what particular in this
ḥadīth and what judgments we can infer from it. 77 This remark from a scholar from the
Indian subcontinent supports the general view that al-Kūrānī was more interested in
isnād than in the text of the ḥadīth (matn).
75
76
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 633.
77
421
Since the main interest of the scholars in the 17th century was the isnād, their focus
was on attempting to extend their isnāds to the main scholars of ḥadīth in the 15th
century. Below are al-Kūrānī’s isnāds to al-Anṣārī, al-Suyūṭī, Ibn Ḥajar al-ꜤAsqalānī, and
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī al-Makkī.
Al-Kūrānī’s isnāds to al-Anṣarī:
1- Al-Qushāshī al-Shams al-Ramlī Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī.
2- Al-Qushāshī al-Shinnāwī Aḥmad b. Ḥajr al-Haytamī al-Makkī and
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī (both from) Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī.
3- Al-Qushāshī al-Shams al-Ramlī al-Ramlī’s father Zakarīyā al-
Anṣārī.
4- Al-Qushāsh al-Shinnāwī Muḥammad b. Abī al-Ḥasan al-Bakrī his
father Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī.
5- Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī Aḥmad b. Khalīl al-Subkī al-Najm al-Ghayṭī
Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī.78
6- Al-Qushāshī al-Shinnāwī al-Ramlī Zakarīyā al-Anṣārī.79
We can note that the first isnād is the highest, since there are only two persons between
al-Kūrānī and al-Anṣārī, while chain number four is the lowest isnād because it contains
4 persons. Al-Kūrānī’s isnāds to al-Anṣārī are through Egyptian scholars, as al-Qushāshī
connects him with al-Shinnāwī and al-Ramlī, and he studied directly with al-Mazzāḥī.
Some of al-Kūrānī’s isnāds to al-Suyūṭī are mentioned above in his highest isnāds, and
others through the Ḥijāzī scholar Jārullāh b. Fahd will be mentioned below. There is no
need to repeat al-Kūrānī’s isnāds to Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, since all the isnāds to al-Ansārī
78
79
Al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār, fols. 35a-b.
422
and al-Suyūṭī are connected to al-ʿAsqalānī. Moreover, al-Kūrānī has other isnāds that
connect him with al-ʿAsqalānī through Ḥijāzī scholars. The closest student to al-
ʿAsqalānī, and the person who wrote his biography, is the famous historian Shams al-Dīn
al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497).80 Among the closest students to al-Sakhāwī is the Ḥijāzī
historian Jārullāh Muḥammad b. Fahd al-Makkī, who is connected to al-Kūrānī in two
ways:
1. Al-Kūrānī al-Qushāshī al-Shinnāwī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Fahd al-
Makkī (his uncle) Jārullāh Muḥammad b. Fahd al-Makkī al-Sakhāwī
al-ʿAsqalānī.
2. Al-Kūrānī Mullā Sharīf al-Kūrānī ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ḥakamī
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Fahd (his uncle) Jārullāh Muḥammad b. Fahd al-Makkī
al-Sakhāwī al-ʿAsqalānī.
Al-Kūrānī’s isnāds to Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī are through Ḥijāzī and Yemeni scholars:81
1. Al-Kūrānī Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-ʿAfīf al-Anṣārī al-Yamanī
ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Muṭayr al-Ḥakamī Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī.
2. Al-Kūrānī (general ijāzah) ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Muṭayr al-Ḥakamī82 Ibn
Ḥajar al-Haytamī.
3. Al-Kūrānī Muḥamad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bābilī Abū Bakr al-Shinwānī
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī.
I conclude this section about al-Kūrānī’s efforts in ḥadīth with an attempt to examine
the claim of some scholars that the Ḥijāz was a center of a revival movement in ḥadīth
80
Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī, al-Jawāhir wa-l-durar fī tarjamat Shayk al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar, ed. Ibrāhīm Bājis ʿAbd
al-Majīd (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1999).
81
Al-Kūrānī, Al-Amam, p. 80.
82
Al-Kūrānī did not meet Ibn Muṭayr, but the latter gave a general ijāzah to all those who wanted to
transmit from him, and as al-Kūrānī was alive at the time, he considered himself included in this ijāzah.
423
studies in the 17th century. For this purpose, it is important to emphasize that while the
isnād is indeed an essential part of ḥadīth studies, without efforts to produce new ḥadīth
commentaries, or without contributions in other aspects of ḥadīth studies, such as new
criteria for ḥadīth criticism, it is not obvious that we can use the term “revival” in relation
to ḥadīth studies in this period. I shall leave this question to scholars of ḥadīth studies,
fully acknowledging that my research is limited only to one scholar, al-Kūrānī, who was
just one among many scholars of ḥadīth in the Ḥijāz that should be studied before
developing a clear, definitive thesis about ḥadīth studies in the Ḥijāz during the 17th
century.
Al-Kūrānī’s almost exclusive focus on isnād does not undermine his efforts in this field.
His most important contribution was that, as a result of his interest in isnād, the
intellectual texts that are traced to al-Kūrānī reached the peak of precision in listing the
chains of transmissions of all the works that he studied. I assume that al-Kūrānī’s later
interest in ḥadīth and Sufism, the two disciplines in which isnād plays an essential role,
motivated him to create the isnāds of almost all works dealing with rational sciences that
he studied. Al-Kūrānī’s work al-Amam and other treatises that contain his isnād in works
of rational sciences are, to my knowledge, the first attempt to establish the isnād of all
works of rational sciences that any given scholar might mention. Al-Kūrānī’s example in
al-Amām motivated other scholars to follow him in mentioning the isnāds of their
intellectual education. This contribution, which still requires further study, can help
trace the circulation of the works of rational sciences and lead to the construction of a
more complete picture of the transmission of knowledge between different parts of the
Islamic world.
[5.2] Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Fiqh

424
Al-Kūrānī was a Shāfiʿī scholar, but his education included traning in all four schools of
fiqh. Even though his main interests were theology and Sufism, he would still receive
inquiries related to fiqh given his scholarly eminence. Most of these questions were
related to different types of public behavior that some scholars considered to be
innovations (bidʿah), such as celebrating the Prophet’s birthday (mawlid), vocal dhikr,
using musical instruments, and shaking hands after prayer. Al-Kūrānī’s opinions on
these topics will be discussed after first establishing his isnāds in the four fiqh schools,
which he mentions in his work Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-nabī al-mukhtār.
In the case of Shāfiʿī fiqh, al-Kūrānī studied with:
1. Sulṭān al-Mazzāḥī in al-Azhar in Cairo in the year 1061/1651.83
2. Nūr al-Dīn al-Shabramallisī, also in Cairo in 1061/1651.84
From both of these scholars al-Kūrānī received an ijāzah to give fatwās and to teach.85
3. Isḥāq b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Jaʿmān al-Zabīdī. Al-Kūrānī received an ijāzah
from him in Shāfiʿī fiqh in Medina in 1067/1657.86
4. Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-ʿAfīf b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Taʿzī al-Anṣārī al-
ʿUqaybī.87
Al-Kūrānī traces the isnāds of each of these scholar to al-Shāfiʿī through numerous other
famous Shāfiʿī scholars, such as al-Balqīnī, al-Fayrūzābādī, al-Ghazālī, al-Juwaynī,88 and
even Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī.89
As for Ḥanafī fiqh, al-Kūrānī studied with:
83
Al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār, fol. 87a.
84
Ibid., fol. 87a.
85
Ibid., fol. 87a.
86
Ibid., fol. 87b.
87
Ibid., fol. 87b.
88
Ibid., fol. 87b-91b.
89
Ibid., fol. 88b.
425
1. Ḥasan al-ʿUjaymī al-Makkī, who was his student in other fields, but had better
ijāzahs in Ḥanafī fiqh.90
2. Aḥmad b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-ʿAjamī al-Azharī al-Shāfiʿī, who had an ijāzah
from Ḥasan b. ʿAmmār al-Shanbalānī al-Ḥanafī, the author of Ḥāshiyat al-Durar wa-l-
ghurar.91 It is worth noting that al-Kūrānī received this ijāzah in Ḥanafī fiqh from a Shāfiʿī
scholar who had studied with a Ḥanafī.
3. ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī. This isnād is one of the oddest of his isnāds, where
a Shāfiʿī scholar, i.e., al-Kūrānī, received ijāzah in Ḥanafī fiqh from a Ḥanbalī. ʿAbd al-Bāqī
attended the lessons of al-shaykh al-Muḥibbī, the head of the Ḥanafī School in Egypt, and
received an ijāzah from him in Ḥanafī fiqh. He was thus qualified to teach and transmit
Ḥanafī fiqh, and in al-Kūrānī’s case, al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī transmitted the Ḥanafī fiqh to a
Shāfīʿī scholar.92
In the case of Mālikī fiqh, al-Kūrānī received his ijāzahs from:
1. ʿIsā b. Muḥammad al-Jaʿfarī al-Thaʿālibī al-Maghribī.93
2. His main teacher, al-Qushāshī, who also used to give fatwās in line with the Mālikī
and Shāfiʿī madhhabs.
Finally, in the case of Ḥanbalī fiqh, al-Kūrānī studied with his teacher in Damascus, ʿAbd
al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī.94
Al-Kūrānī’s education in the four schools of fiqh reveals the close connections between
these schools in 17th century, not only in the Ḥijāz but, it seems, in different parts of
90
Ibid., fol. 92a.
91
Ibid., fol. 93b. Ḥāshiyat al-Durar wa-l-ghurar is a gloss on Durar al-ḥukkām fī sharḥ ghurar al-aḥkām by
Muḥammad b. Faramūz b. ʿAlī, known as Mullā Khusrū (d. 885/1480). The book and the gloss are published
alongside Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn (Karachi: Mīr Muḥammad Kutub-khānih, 1308/[1890]).
92
Al-Kūrānī, Masālik al-abrār, fol. 92a.
93
Ibid., fol. 94a.
94
Ibid., fol. 95b.
426
Islamic world, since al-Kūrānī’s teachers were from Syria, Egypt, Yemen, and North
Africa. Relations between the different schools of law were not always positive, but the
conflicts were mostly motivated by scholastic doctrinal disputes rather than political
competition.95 Al-Kūrānī, the AshꜤarī, ShāfiꜤī, Sufi adherent of Ibn ꜤArabī’s school, was a
student of a Ḥanbalī scholar, ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī, and their relationship was sufficiently
strong that ꜤAbd al-Bāqī’s son, Abū al-Mawāhib al-BaꜤlī, later studied with al-Kūrānī. The
relations between Ḥanbalīs and Sufis were also mostly positive. As mentioned above, Abū
al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī listed his isnāds for Ibn ꜤArabī’s works in his thabat.96 I also
mentioned the correspondence between al-Kūrānī and al-BaꜤlī concerning the topic of
God’s attributes, mainly God’s speech, in al-Kūrānī’s attempt to reconcile the two
doctrines.
In response to a question related to shaking hands after prayers and saying “taqabbal
Allāh,” “may God accept your prayer,”97 al-Kūrānī starts his answer by citing a prophetic
ḥadīth that states: “If anyone introduces in our matter something which does not belong
to it, [that] will be rejected.” Al-Kūrānī then mentions al-Shāfiʿī’s opinion that
“introduces” refers to the development of something opposed to the Quran, the Sunnah,
and scholarly consensus, or what he labels a “bad” innovation. If it does not contradict
95
For example: “During the course of the notorious inquisition (miḥna), inaugurated by the Caliph al-
Maʾmūn in 833 to force persons of rank to make public profession of the doctrine of the createdness of the
Quran as expounded by the MuꜤtazilite school of theology, the Ḥanafī qāḍī al-Layth, who himself espoused
the MuꜤtazilite creed, refused to allow Maliki and ShafiꜤī scholars to hold audience in the mosque. Some
years later, after the end of the inquisition, the Mālikī qāḍī al-Ḥārith retaliated by expelling the Ḥanafī
teachers from the mosque, and is also said to have rejected in his court the evidence of witnesses who were
known to have Ḥanafī affiliations.” Noel J. Coulson, A History of Islamic Law (NY: Routledge, 2017 [Originally
published in 1964 by Edinburgh University Press]), p. 88.
96
ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī was the foster father of the famous Sufi ꜤAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī.
97
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Jawāb Suʾālāt ʿan qawl “taqabbal Allāh” wa-l-muṣāfaḥah baʿd al-ṣalāwāt (MS: KSA, Medina:
al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, raqm musalsal 28), 7 folios.
427
any of these sources, then for him it is a “good” innovation. Al-Kūrānī cites Ibn Ḥajar al-
Haytamī al-Makkī’s opinion that good innovations are recommended (mandūb), stating
that a distinction should therefore be made between good innovations and bad ones.98
Al-Kūrānī then divides the question into two parts, explaining first that saying “taqabbal
Allāh” is a prayer, which is a recommended act, and that shaking hands is a greeting,
which is also recommended. After that, he cites several ḥadīths and stories from the
Prophet’s companions to support his view.
One of the features of al-Kūrānī’s method of dealing with fiqh questions is that he
begins his responses by discussing the meaning of Sunnah and bidʿah. Another feature is
that he divides the topic at hand into its basic elements, similar to what he did in
response to the issue above. In another treatise related to a person who takes a vow
(nadhr) to celebrate the mawlid, which includes the question of whether it is necessary to
prepare food for invited guests and if it is lawful for poems to be recited with a musical
melody and tambour (duff),99 he again begins his answer by clarifying the meaning of
Sunnah and bidʿah. Al-Kūrānī then says that inviting guests to gather to read the Quran,
to recall stories of the Prophet, and to eat is lawful and does not contradict any principle
of Islam, even though it did not occur in the first generations after the Prophet. The
Quran says: “In God’s grace and mercy let them rejoice,” (Q 10:58), and the Prophet is
among God’s graces in which we should rejoice.
Al-Kūrānī also mentions some ḥadīths about the virtues of gatherings to read the
Quran and remember God, such as: “any group of people that assemble in one of the
Houses of God to recite the Book of God, learning and teaching it, tranquility will descend
98
Ibid., fol. 2a.
99
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-qarīb fī ajwibat al-Khaṭīb (MS: Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722), fol. 56a.
428
upon them, mercy will engulf them, angels will surround them and God will make
mention of them to those [the angels] in His proximity.” He continues to mention other
ḥadīths that encourage people to feed others, including “feed the people, spread the
[greeting of] Salām.” Concerning the food offered to the people during the mawlid, al-
Kūrānī says that offering food for guests during a mawlid ceremony is a customary habit.
For example, if people of a certain town understand from an invitation to a mawlid
ceremony that there will be food, then there should be.100 Playing drums is also allowed,
and it is even a Sunnah at weddings. In al-Tirmidhī’s collection of ḥadīth, a slave girl
(jāriyah) says to the Prophet that she took an oath that if God returned the Prophet safely,
she would beat the tambour and sing before him. The Prophet says to her: “if you have
taken an oath, then beat it.” Al-Kūrānī says that scholars say it is lawful to beat drums to
show the happiness of the coming of a scholar or a Sultan. Beating drums, if it is done
with a good intention, is thus lawful and encouraged (mandūb).101 Beating drums and
reciting poems with a musical melody occurred when the Prophet arrived at Medina, and
the Prophet did not object; therefore, the practice is lawful as long as it is with a good
intention.102
Another example of al-Kūrānī’s arguments is his response to a question that he
received about hitting drums in the vanguard of the army or in front of the ḥajj
caravan.103 He says that there is only one type of drum that is forbidden (muḥarram); he
calls it al-kawbah and described it as wide on two sides and narrow in the middle. Other
100
Ibid., fol. 57b.
101
Ibid., fol. 58a-b.
102
Ibid., fol. 59a, 60b.
103
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Ḥusn al-awbah fī ḥukm ḍarb al-nawbah (MS: KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-
l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, no. 5345, fols. 16-17).
429
kinds are allowed in war, in weddings, and with the caravans of pilgrimage.104 However,
the permissibility of using drums depends on the intention. If the intention is for
entertainment and amusement, then it will be forbidden; but if it is to terrify the enemy
or awaken the pilgrims and indicate the times to move or to rest, then it will be lawful.105
In his reply, al-Kūrānī relies on a Shāfīʿī book entitled al-ʿAzīz sharḥ al-Wajīz by ʿAbd al-
Karīm b. Muḥammad al-Rāfiʿī al-Qazwīnī (d. 623/1226).106
We can see from these examples that al-Kūrānī answered questions by first dividing
them into their constituent parts, and then discussing each part independently in order
to show that there is nothing forbidden in inviting people to read the Quran, remember
the Prophet, or feed visitors.107 The thread linking all these acts together is intention
(niyyah), which serves as the starting-point for al-Kūrānī’s replies to most of the
questions. As mentioned earlier, he composed a specific treatise dedicated to the ḥadīth
“inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-niyyāt,” that is, “[The value of] an action depends on the intention
behind it.”108 In this work, al-Kūrānī explains the meaning of niyyah, starting with some
lexicographical considerations, and then lists the full isnāds of the ḥadīth.
The topic of intention is commonplace in fiqh texts, and is also one of the main
interests of Sufis, as it is related to works of the heart. Al-Kūrānī, discussing God’s speech,
appeals to the concept of niyyah when arguing for kalām nafsī. His conclusion to this work
is that all voluntary actions (al-afʿāl al-ikhtiyāriyyah), whether by the bodily organs (al-
arkān), by the tongue, or by the heart, whether in obedience or disobedience (ṭāʿāt aw
104
Ibid., fols. 16-17.
105
Ibid., fols. 16-17.
106
ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Muḥammad al-Rāfiʿī al-Qazwīnī, al-ʿAzīz sharḥ al-Wajīz, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ
and ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1997).
107
Al-Kūrānī, al-Maslak al-qarīb fī ajwibat al-Khaṭīb, fol. 56b-57b.
108
Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī, Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt fī sharḥ ḥadīth inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-niyyāt. See also Al-ʿAyyāshī,
al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 575.
430
maʿāṣī), from a believer or an unbeliever, all depend on the intention of the action.109 In
his explanation, he mentions two main ḥadīth commentaries: al-ʿAynī’s ʿUmdat al-qārī, in
which is specified the ḥadīth for particular actions, and al-ʿAsqalānī’s Fatḥ al-Bārī, in
which he says the niyyah is only required in ʿibādāt (acts of ritual worship). Al-Kūrānī’s
assessment is that these opinions are not accurate (kalām ghayr muḥarrar).110 His
discussion of early ḥadīth commentators displays his independent character in ḥadīth
scholarship. At the time he composed the treatise in 1073/1662-3, al-Kūrānī was mainly
interested in high isnād. Therefore, after mentioning the ḥadīth inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-
niyyāt with its full isnād through his teacher al-Qushāshī, al-Kūrānī says that the latter
taught him the ḥadīth in another isnād higher than this isnād by three degrees and
another isnād higher by four.111
In al-Taḥrīr al-ḥāwī li-jawāb īrād Ibn Ḥajar ʿalā al-Bayḍāwī,112 al-Kūrānī occasionaly
discusses the relationship between repentance (tawbah) and legal retribution (qiṣāṣ). Ibn
Ḥajar al-Haytamī, in Tuḥfat al-muḥtāj, a book of Shāfiʿī fiqh, in the section related to
“bandits” (qaṭʿ al-ṭarīq), cites an opinion that the necessity of killing as legal retribution
(qiṣāṣ) may be dropped in the case of repentence. Ibn Ḥajar rejects this opinion, saying
that it is strange (ʿajīb) because there is no relation between repentance (tawbah) and
legal retribution (qiṣāṣ). Al-Kūrānī says that scholars distinguish between cases if the
accused person - in this case the “bandit” - killed someone or not, and if repentance
occurred before the murderer was captured or after. This demonstrates al-Kūrānī’s
specific knowledge of Shāfiʿī fiqh.
109
Al-Kūrānī, Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt, p. 128.
110
Ibid., p. 130.
111
Ibid., p. 97.
112
MS: Cairo: Azhariyyah 10046, 2 folios.
431
Having said this, al-Kūrānī did not actually composed any independent works in fiqh,
but mainly replied to questions that were related to specific issues. In his replies, he
divides the question into its basic elements and discusses each part separately, and in the
end, as far as he concerned, the intention of any act is the main creterion.
[5.3] Al-Kūrānī’s Efforts in Arabic Grammar
In his four treatises on Arabic grammar, al-Kūrānī discusses two topics: iʿrāb lā ilāh illā
Allāh in two original works and ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī’s (d. 471/1078) al-ʿAwāmil al-māʾah,
which is also known as ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah, in two commentaries.
Al-Kūrānī’s very first work was a grammar text on iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh entitled Inbāh
al-anbāh ʿalā iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh.113 Later, he abridged the text in a treatise entitled ʿUjālat
dhawī al-intibāh taḥqīq iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh. As mentioned in chapter three, al-Kūrānī
started to teach in Arabic in Baghdad, and he probably became interested in this topic at
that time, intending to prove his proficiency in Arabic grammar. Al-Kūrānī started
composing the main work in 1061/1651 while he was in Damascus, and when he arrived
in Cairo he searched for Sibawayh’s book to check some topics. The first draft was
completed in Medina in 1062/1652, and was edited again in 1071/1660-1. In this second
edition, al-Kūrānī added two folios to the middle and the end of the first chapter and
another two folios to the end of the second chapter. Alongside this modification, he
changed parts of the ninth chapter and added three additional chapters.114 The
modifications in the first, second, and ninth chapters are easy to identify because in these
parts al-Kūrānī addresses theological topics in ways that shows the influence of al-
113
This work was edited by Ahmet Gemī as part of his PhD dissertation at Ataturk University, Erzurum,
2013.
114
432
Qushāshī in Medina. The last three chapters also show clear evidence of al-Qushāshī’s
influence. In the tenth and eleventh chapters, he addresses the topics of kasb, God’s
manifestation, and the generating (jaʿl) of contingents, and in the final chapter the topic
of waḥdat al-wujūd.
Since the first chapter was modified almost ten years after al-Kūrānī’s arrival in
Medina, we can expect to find some theological discussions in the new edition. The first
chapter is about negating the genus (nafy al-jins), and al-Kūrānī starts with a citation from
al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Muṭawwal Sharḥ Talkhīṣ Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm115 in
which al-Jurjānī says that the rarest essences (anfas al-dhawāt) cannot be negated; what
is negated are only their attributes. But what does essence (dhāt) mean in this context?
Al-Kūrānī says that scholars disagree, mentioning an opinion that essences mean the
inner-realities of things, because inner-realities according to Muʿtazilites are uncreated
(ghayr majʿulah) so they cannot be negated, and what can be negated or affirmed about
these essences is existence and what follows is the existence of other attributes.116
Since the discussion moves into theology, we also find citations from al-Jurjānī’s gloss
on al-Iṣfahānī’s al-Sharḥ al-qadīm on al-Ṭūsī’s al-Tajrīd, al-Rāzī’s al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, al-
Dawānī’s gloss on al-Qūshjī’s al-Sharḥ al-jadīd, and al-Jurjānī’s Sharḥ al-Mawāqif,
concerning the meaning of negation. For example, al-Kūrānī cites al-Rāzī’s discussion of
the view that negating the quiddity (māhiyyah) is not possible and that we cannot say
that the blackness is not blackness because a thing cannot become its opposite, but we
can say that blackness does not exist. Al-Rāzī refutes this argument, saying that it is not
correct that the quiddity cannot be negated because when we say that blackness does
115
Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm is by al-Sakkākī (d. 626/1228), Talkhīṣ al-Miftāḥ is by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Qazwīnī (d. 739/1338),
and al-Muṭawwal is by al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1389).
116
433
not exist that means we negate the existence, but the existence is the existence of the
quiddity. It is incorrect to claim that our saying that blackness does not exist means that
we negate neither quiddity nor existence. Rather, we negate the attribute of the quiddity
by existence. Al-Rāzī replied by wondering whether this attribute is identical to the
quiddity and the existence or different from them. If it is identical, that means we negate
the quiddity; if it is different, that means it has its one quiddity and we negate it. 117 This
is only an example of how the discussion of grammatical matters quickly evolved into a
discussion of some of the main philosophical arguments of the day. This in turn prompts
us to look closely at grammatical texts, especially those written by theologians such as
al-Jurjānī and al-Taftāzānī, for more philosophical arguments in the post-classical
period. After mentioning the opinions of several scholars, al-Kūrānī presents his idea on
realities in a way that is similar to the way he explains his view in other theological texts,
as mentioned in Chapter Four.
The second chapter deals with the subject of lā al-nāfiyah li-l-jins. This chapter is based
on Sibawayh’s, Ibn Hishām’s, and Jāmī’s commentaries on Ibn al-Ḥājib’s Kāfiyah, and on
al-Sirāfī’s Sharḥ kitāb Sibawayh. The third chapter concerns the meaning of exception
(istithnāʾ), while the fourth chapter explains that exception of negation means
affirmation and vice versa. Al-Kūrānī discusses all the grammatical aspects of the
sentence using al-Taftāzānī, Sibawayh, al-Zamakhsharī, and other grammarians. The
eighth chapter is the longest, numbering 85 pages, and contains the iʿrāb of lā ilāh illā
Allāh, listing the first two chapters of al-Dawānī’s treatise about the same topic and
discussing some of al-Dawānī’s ideas.
117
Ibid., p. 69.
434
While the first eight chapters contain citations from Sibawayh, Ibn Hishām, and al-
Zamakhsharī, as well as al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī and other theologians who wrote
commentaries on grammatical texts such as al-Miftāḥ, the last three chapters mainly
contain theological-Sufi discussions. Here al-Kūrānī cites al-Ghazālī’s Mishkāt al-anwār
and Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn118 alongside Ibn ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah.119 Chapter ten
explains that lā ilāh illā Allāh refers to the unity of existence, while the eleventh chapter
explains that lā ilāh illā Allāh refers to the unity of actions (tawḥīd al-afʿāl), and the last
chapter explains that lā ilāh illā Allāh refers to the unity of attributes. Thus, al-Kūrānī
concludes this treatise on Arabic grammar with the same result as his theological-Sufi
arguments for God’s unity of existence, actions, and attributes. Without providing more
detail and without discussing any aspects of the text, the editor states that the work is
original and contains philosophical discussions, even though there are many other works
on the same topic.120
The scholarly writings on the subject of iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh are indeed various and
always contain some theological discussions. One of the oldest texts on iʿrāb lā ilāh illā
Allāh is Zamakhsharī’s small treatise entitled Masʾalah fī kalimat al-shahādah.121 In this text,
al-Zamakhsharī replies to a critique that the sentence lā ilāh illā Allāh is not complete,
because (lā) al-nāfiyah li-l-jins, “the negation that denies genus,” (or “the lā of absolute
negation”) needs a predicate (khabar), so it should be assumed that there is a deleted
khabar (lā ilāh mawjūd).122 Al-Zamakhsharī says that this objection is not correct because
118
119
120
Ibid., p. 41.
121
Jārullāh Abū al-Qāsim Maḥmūd al-Zamakhsharī, “Masʾalah fī kalimat al-shahādah,” Majallat al-Majmaʿ al-
ʿIlmī al-ʿIrāqī, ed. Bahījah al-Ḥasanī (Iraq, Baghdad: al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-ʿIrāqī, 1387/1967), pp. 37-42.
122
Ibid., p. 39.
435
the origin of the statement is that lā ilāh illā Allāh (ilāh) negates a god who deserves to be
worshipped.123 Al-Zamakhsharī discusses only one point related to khabar lā al-nāfiyah li-
l-jins. Many other works were written afterwards to discuss each word and aspect of the
statement including: Risālah fī iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh by Hishām al-Anṣārī (d. 761/1359);
Risālah fī iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh by al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1391); Risālah fī iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh
also known as al-Tajrīd fī iʿrāb kalimat al-tawḥīd by ʿAlī b. Sulṭān al-Qārī (d. 1014/1605). Al-
Dawānī’s work was originally written in Persian124 but an Arabic edition exists as well.125
Al-Kūrānī says that he has included what Nāẓir al-Jaysh126 mentioned about this topic in
Sharḥ al-Tashīl and what al-Dawānī mentioned in his treatise. He seems to disagree with
al-Dawānī on some points, because he says that al-Dawānī rejected some well-known
ideas for unconvincing reasons and instead selected unaccepted opinions; therefore al-
Kūrānī promises that he will clarify his ideas in the relevant sections.127
The abridged text ʿUjālat dhawī al-intibāh taḥqīq iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh contains only the
grammatical aspects of the first work. Since it was completed in 1070, the last chapters
added to the longer text are not reflected in it, since they were not written until 1071. In
these two works, al-Kūrānī depends on the works of early grammarians, but his
independent character appears in his preference for and discussion of these ideas and
his explanations of the reasons for his preferences. He usually defines all the terms he
123
Ibid, p. 40.
124
Reza Pourjavady, Philosophy in early Safavid Iran: Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī and his Writings (Leiden:
Brill, 2011), p. 7.
125
Al-Dawānī’s treatise can be found in (MS: Istanbul: Atif Efendi 2441), fols. 142a-145a.
126
Nāẓir al-Jaysh is Muḥibb al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yūsuf b. Aḥmad (d. 778/1376-7) and his work Sharḥ al-
Tashīl is a commentary on al-Tashīl by Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Mālik (d. 672/1273-4), the author of al-
Alfiyyah.
127
436
uses in the text, and he employs the kalām style of argumentation to discuss some ideas
by saying “if you say” and “I say.”128
The other two works that al-Kūrānī wrote to comment on ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī’s al-
ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah seem to have had a pedagogical purpose, as is clearly shown by his
title, al-Tashīl, “the Facilitation,” of Sharḥ al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah. ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī
is the author of several books on the Arabic language including Asrār al-balāghah and Iʿjāz
al-Quran, but al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah seems to have been written for non-Arab speakers
who wanted to learn Arabic grammar to understand the Quran. As a result, the text is
short and clear, and it was later translated into Persian and Turkish.129 Since it was
written for a non-Arab students of Arabic grammar, the text became famous in non-
Arabic-speaking regions. This can be confirmed by two reports, one from al-Kūrānī
himself about the study of Arabic grammar in Kurdistan and the other from Southeast
Asia. Al-ʿAyyāshī mentions, reporting from the former, that students in his hometown in
Kurdistan start their Arabic studies with al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah and then move on to
their main text, Kāfiyat Ibn al-Ḥājib.130 A similar note can be found in a later commentary
by a Javanese scholar, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Zayn b. Muṣṭafā al-Faṭṭānī al-Jāwī (d.
1300/1882), entitled Tashīl nayl al-amānī fī Sharḥ ʿAwāmil al-Jurjānī, which says that this
small treatise is very useful for beginners, especially for the people of Malaya (abnāʾ
jinsinā maʿāshir al-malāyawiyya). He mentions that students in Malaya start their Arabic
studies with this work even before the famous 13th-century book of Arabic grammar al-
Ājrūmiyyah by the Moroccan Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Dāʾūd al-Ṣanhājī (d. 723/1323-
128
Ibid., pp. 92, 104-5, 110. Al-Kūrānī, ʿUjālat dhawī al-intibāh, p. 322.
129
ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī and Khālid al-Azharī, al-ʿAwāmil al-māʾah al-naḥwiyyah fī uṣūl al-ʿarabiyyah Sharḥ
al-Shaykh Khālid al-Azharī al-Jarjāwī (d. 905/[1499]), ed. Al-Badrāwī Zahrān (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 2ed, 1988),
p. 4.
130
Al-ʿAyyāshī, Al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah, vol. 1, p. 479.
437
4).131 Al-Kūrānī’s text does not contain any historical context to clarify whether he taught
or wrote this text for Javanese students.
ʿAwāmil is a plural of ʿāmil, which means an agent or a factor. In grammar, ʿāmil refers
to the factor that causes changes that occur at the end of words, such as fatḥah, ḍammah,
or kasrah. Al-Jurjānī was trying to present in a simple way the main factors that affect
the grammatical situations of words in a sentence. Al-Jurjānī’s al-ʿAwāmil is only five
pages, and he commented on his own work with another treatise entitled al-Jumal, which
is also relatively short at around 20 pages.132 Later, this latter work was the subject of
numerous commentaries by scholars including al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, Saʿd al-Dīn
al-Taftāzānī, ʿIṣām al-Dīn b. ʿArabshāh, Khālid al-Azharī, and ʿAbd al-Ghafūr al-Lārī.133
While al-Kūrānī in al-Tashīl was trying to explain al-ʿAwāmil, his other work, entitled
Takmīl al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah,134 seems designed to show his proficiency in Arabic by
adding more factors to the one hundred mentioned by al-Jurjānī. According to al-
ʿAyyāshī, al-Kūrānī supplemented (istadrak ʿalayhi) many other ʿawāmil that al-Jurjānī did
not mention.135 However, examining the text reveals that he simply added more
examples to clarify the roles, rather than adding anything new in terms of grammatical
theory.
Conclusion
131
Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Zayn b. Muṣṭafā al-Faṭṭānī, Tashīl nayl al-amānī fī sharḥ ʿAwāmil al-Jurjānī (Cairo:
Maṭbaʿat Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah bi-Miṣr, 1301/[1883-4]), p. 3.
132
ʿAbd al-Qāhir Al-Jurjānī, al-Jumal, ed. ʿAlī Ḥaydar (Damascus: Dār al-Ḥikmah, 1972).
133
For a list of commentators see ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad Ḥabashī, Jāmiʿ al-shurūḥ wa-l-ḥawāshī: muʿjam
shāmil li-asmāʾ al-kutub al-mashrūḥah fī al-turāth al-Islāmī wa-bayān shurūḥihā (UAE, Abū Dhabī: al-Majmaʿ al-
Thaqāfī, 2004), vol. 2, p. 1421.
134
MS: Istanbul: Atif Efendi 2441, fol. 238a-249b.
135
438
Al-Kūrānī’s interest in ḥadīth, fiqh, and Arabic grammar was of a different nature than his
main interest in theology and Sufism. His interest in the former seems to have been only
insofar as they related to other topics, rather than a result of a genuine desire to
contribute to them. The same is true for al-Kūrānī’s contribution to Quranic commentary
(tafsīr), which was always subordinated to other topics. Many of his theological and Sufi
works were written as replies to questions regarding specific Quranic verses, or as replies
to other questions in which he stated Quranic verses that he interpreted in a way that
confirmed his ideas. We can see this in his works related to topics such as God’s attributes
and their figurative interpretation, God’s manifestation in conceivable forms, the faith
of Pharaoh, the precedence of God’s mercy, the vanishing of Hellfire, the Satanic verses,
and God’s speech.
Al-Kūrānī’s ḥadīth works were mainly an opportunity for him to elucidate and
expound upon his theological and Sufi thought and to display the agreement of his
thought with the sharīʿah. His main interest in the ḥadīth was in the isnād, and the search
for higher isnāds in ḥadīth was at least partly motivated by the tendency among the Sufi
orders to abbreviate mystical chains in order to get as close as possible to the Prophet or
to the founder of the order. We notice that al-Kūrānī’s efforts in ḥadīth studies were not
extensive, as we can see by considering his work Niẓām al-zabarjad fī al-arbaʿīn al-
musalsalah bi-Aḥmad, in which he simply selects these ḥadīths from al-Nasāʾī’s book al-
Mujtabā. This work is dated 1085, which means it is not an early work from when he was
not very familiar with ḥadīth literature.
This chapter has presented a challenge to early studies that assume as a starting point
the flourishing of ḥadīth studies in the 17th-century Ḥijāz and al-Kūrānī’s role in this
movement. The claim of some scholars about a renewal of ḥadīth studies in the 17th-
439
century Ḥijāz lacks evidence, particularly when compared to the status of the discipline
in the 9th/15th century. Even if ḥadīth studies indeed flourished in the Ḥijāz in the 17th
century, it is difficult to argue that al-Kūrānī should be credited for it. That does not
mean al-Kūrānī did not participate in this science. In fact, al-Kūrānī’s contribution to
some aspects of ḥadīth studies extended beyond the science of ḥadīth. His later interest
in connecting ḥadīth and Sufism, both in isnād and silsilah, is essential to his larger project,
and is what motivated him to mention the isnāds of almost all the works he studied. As
explained in Chapter Two, the practice of tracing the isnād of works of the rational
sciences existed before al-Kūrānī, but these isnāds were not as comprehensive as al-
Kūrānī made them in his thabat entitled al-Amam. This work became a model for later
scholars who attempted to connect their isnāds in all fields of knowledge. This practice
offers observers a unique literature that traces the rational sciences from the 17th-
century Ḥijāz back to the 12th and 13th centuries and serves as a source that can help us
bridge many gaps in post-classical Islamic intellectual history.
In fiqh, al-Kūrānī did not produce any independent works, but only replied to some
questions related to controversial topics such as mawlid, dhikr, and the use of musical
instruments at special occasions. Al-Kūrānī’s method, as stated above, was to divide
questions into several parts, then discuss each one individually, focusing primarily on
intent as the main factor in evaluating the issue according to the fiqh. This interest in
intent, in my opinion, can be considered to be subordinate to his interest in Sufism, and
not as a sign of some general engagement with ḥadīth or fiqh in and of themselves.
All the same, al-Kūrānī’s isnāds in ḥadīth and fiqh are valuable documents that shine
light on the relations between scholars and different schools of thought in the 17th
century. A ShāfiꜤī scholar receiving an ijāzah in Ḥanafī fiqh from a Ḥanbalī scholar is
440
evidence of long process of confidence-building that resulted in relatively open and
positive relations between different schools of fiqh. More important is the relationship
among different doctrinal schools as reflected in the relationship between al-Kūrānī, the
AshꜤarite theologian and Sufi adherent of Ibn ꜤArabī’s school, and his Ḥanbalite teacher
in Damascus. El-Rouayheb focuses on the role of al-Kūrānī in rehabilitating Ibn
Taymiyyah by defending him against the charge of anthropomorphism, which allowed
Ibn Taymiyyah’s works to spread in later generations. But more studies are needed on
the relationship between Sufis and Ḥanbalis before the 17th century, which, as we have
seen, were already positive.
In Arabic grammar, al-Kūrānī displayed a comprehensive knowledge of the works of
grammarians and their opinions, discussing them in detail in his own works and citing
them as evidence for his opinions. Aside from the main texts by al-Sirāfī, Sibawayh, and
Ibn Hishām, he depended mainly on texts written by theologians such al-Taftāzānī and
al-Jurjānī. As in his other works, everything served theological-Sufi ends. His Inbāh al-
anbāh, with its theological and Sufi content, suggests that historians of post-classical
Islamic philosophy should extend their research to include more Arabic grammar texts,
especially those written by theologians such as al-Jurjāzī, al-Taftāzānī, Jāmī, and al-
Dawānī.
In general, these three fields were among al-Kūrānī’s interests, but they should be
considered secondary sources from which he would draw evidence to reinforce his
theological and Sufi theories. Their importance lies in their use as historical evidence
reflecting scholarly relationships and doctrinal connections that can help us better
understand the intellectual environment of the 17th century Islamic world in general,
and in that of the Ḥijāz in particular.

441
Conclusion
The aim of this dissertation has been to explore understudied aspects of the history of
post-classical Islamic theology by examining a centrally located geographical zone, the
Ḥijāz, in the 17th century, a century that has been described as a period of decline. I have
focused on the life and writings of one important and influential scholar of that period
in order to explore the extent to which philosophical, theological, and Sufi texts were
spread, studied, and discussed. The resulting account has revealed that during this one
century, and located in this one area - Mecca and Medina - approximately one hundred
scholars studied and taught classical works of the intellectual sciences, including texts
by Ibn Sīnā, al-Suhrawardī, al-Ṭūsī, al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, al-Dawānī, and others. This
intellectual activity produced commentaries, glosses, and new works related to the
classical texts they studied. Hundreds of titles, mostly from the Ḥijāz and mostly related
to intellectual topics, have been mentioned in this dissertation. However, the majority
of these works have not been published or extensively studied. Since a survey of scholars’
names and books’ titles alone cannot convey the depth or extent of intellectual life, this
dissertation has drilled down and analyzed the life and works of one of the most
prominent scholars in the Ḥijāz in the 17th century, Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī. On the basis of
detailed account of around 80 of al-Kūrānī’s works - mostly manuscripts - I have
attempted to synthesise his ideas into a coherent philosophical system, in order to show
that intellectual life in the Ḥijāz during the post-classical period was rich and dynamic.
Al-Kūrānī’s life and works provide an entry point into intellectual discussion in the
17th century, both in terms of scholarly activities in general and in terms of the details of
the rational sciences that were studied and taught and the philosophical and theological
topics that were discussed. In order to present a case study that demonstrates the
442
originality of Islamic intellectual life in the post-classical period, this dissertation has
focused on al-Kūrānī’s synthesis of several of the major traditions of Islamic thought in
the post-classical period, namely the kalām and the Akbarian appropriations of
Avicennian metaphysics. Al-Kūrānī’s discussions of almost all topics of Islamic
philosophy and theology, including quiddity, existence, creation, God’s attributes, God’s
knowledge of particulars, unity and multiplicity, and predestination, provide an example
of post-classical kalām and Sufism that demonstrates that the rational sciences continued
to be studied, discussed, and taught in the Islamic world during the so-called period of
“decline.”
Situating al-Kūrānī’s work in the particular context of the Ḥijāz requires a deeper
understanding of the Ḥijāz itself, and the local and global elements that contributed to
making it a place that was fertile for thinkers like al-Kūrānī. Chapter One argued that
several factors, primarily external, contributed to transforming the Ḥijāz into a centre
of intellectual life in the 17th century. The spread of European navies and merchant fleets
in the Indian Ocean reinforced the connection of the Ḥijāz with the Indian Subcontinent
and Southeast Asia and facilitated the circulation of knowledge through different parts
of the Islamic world. These enhanced opportunities for safe travel resulted in an increase
in the number of pilgrims, students, and scholars who journeyed to study in the Ḥijāz. At
the same time, Iran’s conversion to Shiʿism forced numerous Sunni scholars to flee to
other parts of the Islamic world, carrying with them their knowledge to other
intellectual centers in the Indian Subcontinent, Anatolia, Damascus, or Cairo.
The stable political situation in the Ḥijāz, along with generous donations from the
Mughals and the Ottomans, helped increase investments in the region’s educational
institutions and maintain endowments that provided their teachers and students with
443
living stipends. The institutions and the scholars who through the institutions
contributed to this intellectual transformation of the Ḥijāz were discussed in Chapter
Two, with a focus on diverse range of madrasas, libraries, ribāṭs, and zāwiyās. This chapter
also mentioned 23 scholars from the 17th-century Ḥijāz who taught in areas such as kalām,
logic, and philosophy, without including Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s own circle, which exceeds
this number. These factors transformed the Ḥijāz into one of the primary scholarly
destinations of that era; it became a meeting point for all the major intellectual trends in
the Islamic world during the 16th and the 17th centuries, partly during the annual ḥajj
season, which continued to play an essential role in gathering scholars together and
circulating knowledge.
Chapter Two also attempted to trace the circulation of some of the main texts from
13th- and 14th-century Central Asia to the 17th-century Ḥijāz, using a historical source that
is not normally associated with the intellectual sciences: the chain of transmission
(isnād). The isnād, as shown in this chapter, represent fertile and promising textual
evidence that has the potential to change our perspective on the transmission of
knowledge between different parts of the Islamic world. The isnād is also an important
source for the study of post-classical Islamic philosophy, as it associate names of authors
and the titles of their works with particular theological and philosophical discussions.
After setting the stage for al-Kūrānī’s life and work, Chapter Three revealed further
aspects of intellectual life in the Islamic world through tracing al-Kūrānī’s background
and education in his hometown. Then, through a detailed discussion of the wide range
of al-Kūrānī’s teachers and students, this chapter documented the active scholarly
environment in the Ḥijāz during the 17th century, illustrating the centrality of the Ḥijāz
for intellectual exchange and knowledge circulation. The list of al-Kūrānī’s students
444
displays how his influence extended across almost the entire Islamic world. His works
show that he was actively engaged in ongoing debates from different regions, from Java
and the Indian Subcontinent to Iran, Yemen, North Africa, and the Maghreb. His
correspondence with scholars from different regions further indicates that almost all the
Islamic world was engaged in these various theological debates and, further, that many
of the theological arguments travelled from one region to another and prompted
responses by different scholars in geographically distant regions. The intellectual
interconnectedness of the Islamic world emerges clearly from the fact that al-Kūrānī was
well-known during his lifetime and that he engaged in theological discussions then
current in Southeast Asia, Iran, Yemen, and North Africa.
After situating al-Kūrānī within his local and global contexts, Chapter Four focused
on his theological arguments, which provide clear evidence of the sophistication of
theological discussions in the 17th-century Ḥijāz. Al-Kūrānī discussed almost all the main
topics of Islamic theology and Sufism including existence, quiddity, non-existence,
creation, God’s attributes, predetermination, and human will. His discussions display a
wide knowledge of all the intellectual arguments and the diffusion of the ideas of most
of the early Muslim philosophers and theologians in the Ḥijāz. As an established scholar
in the rational sciences before arriving in the Ḥijāz, al-Kūrānī was convinced that Ibn
ʿArabī’s thought did not contradict the rational sciences. Indeed, while al-Kūrānī’s main
concern was theology, his theological arguments are heavely influenced by the ideas of
Ibn ʿArabī, showing the latter to be the central reference-point for al-Kūrānī’s theological
discussions. Al-Kūrānī uses his textual background to clarify, explain, and interpret the
theories of Ibn ʿArabī and present them in a systematic fashion, supporting his theories
with numerous Quranic verses and ḥadīths as a way of creating harmony between the
445
rational sciences and transmitted knowledge. Chapter Four, through this investigation,
provides clear evidence of the depth and influence of theological-philosophical
discussions emerging from the 17th-century Ḥijāz.
Chapter Five discussed al-Kūrānī’s role in ḥadīth studies and challenged previous
scholarship that suggests that the 17th-century Ḥijāz represented a flourishing of this
science. In spite of my doubts about the claim by some scholars that a renewal of ḥadīth
studies took place there and then, and specifically about the role ascribed to al-Kūrānī in
such a claim, I do suggest that al-Kūrānī’s interest in some aspects of ḥadīth studies,
namely the isnād, made valuable contributions that extended beyond the science of
ḥadīth to be a useful tool for the study of post-classical Islamic philosophy. His later
interest in connecting ḥadīth and Sufism, both in the isnād and the silsilah, motivated him
to record the isnāds of almost all the works he studied and prompted other scholars to
do the same thing. The result was a reviving of an isnād literature with a unique feature
- providing the isnād of most of the rational sciences – that allows the tracing of scholars
and texts across different centuries and between different regions. Additionally, Chapter
Five argued that al-Kūrānī’s interest in ḥadīth, fiqh, and Arabic grammar seems to have
been largely instrumental, motivated by the need to buttress his theological-Sufi
arguments and to prove that they were in accord with the sharīʿah. In other words, al-
Kūrānī’s interests here did not spring from a genuine desire to make original
contributions to these fields.
This dissertation has argued that the nature and scope of the intellectual activities
that took place in the Ḥijāz, and more specifically the texts that were studied and taught
there, allows us to claim that the Ḥijāz played a prominent role in the evaluation of post-
classical Islamic thought. The findings and conclusions of this research also show that
446
most of the scholars who taught and the topics that were studied there remain largely
unexamined by the day’s scholars. It is likely that the narratives of decline and ignorance
in the existing scholarly literature have played a role in the dearth of studies on what
was in fact such a rich time and place. The fact that most of the texts authored by scholars
mentioned in this work are still in manuscript form is another challenge faced by those
exploring intellectual life in this region.
My arguments for the flourishing of intellectual life in the 17th century Ḥijāz reveal
that Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, North Africa, and other parts of the Muslim
world were actively engaged in intellectual discussions, which means more scholars,
texts, and debates will need to be integrated into the general narrative of Islamic thought
if we wish to develop a more accurate picture of Islamic intellectual history during the
post-classical period. This dissertation has contributed to these efforts by systematically
treating, for the first time, and in all their depth and breadth, al-Kūrānī’s discussions of
central problems of Islamic philosophy and theology, and placing al-Kūrānī in dialogue
with scholars from around the entire Islamic world. Examining al-Kūrānī’s theories lays
a foundation for future scholars to further re-evaluate Islamic intellectual life in the 17th
century, when the Ḥijāz was especially vibrant.
In the course of undertaking this case study, I came across new information that I did
not predict. Among my unexpected conclusions was a clearer sense of the essential role
that isnād literature can play in constructing scholars’ connections and tracing
philosophical and theological texts across different centuries and geographical regions.
The isnād, which is usually considered the main feature of transmitted knowledge
(manqūlāt), also appears to be a very valuable source for studying the rational sciences
(maʿqūlāt) in post-classical Islamic history. The isnād can help fill in lacunas in Islamic
447
intellectual history, allowing us to map the circulation of scholars, texts, and knowledge
between the 12th-13th centuries and the 17th-18th centuries. Following scholars’ travels
through their isnāds also reveals the names of many previously unknown figures who
studied and taught these rational texts.
This dissertation has also argued for including new sources for studying Islamic
intellectual life in the post-classical period. Sufi texts, mainly those of the Ibn ʿArabī
tradition, should be understood as a valuable source of philosophical discussions. The
Ibn ʿArabī tradition, steered largely by al-Qūnawī’s rationalist inclination, became
increasingly philosophical and discussed almost all philosophical and theological
matters. Ibn ʿArabī’s thought became the main basis of al-Kūrānī’s works, as
demonstrated in Chapter Four. This dissertation has also shown that a consideration of
ḥadīth, fiqh, and Arabic grammar texts, alongside Sufi texts, can contribute to the
investigation of post-classical Islamic intellectual activities. Some of these texts contain
obviously theological discussions, as we have seen in the Arabic grammar section, while
others help us to understand the broader intellectual environment and scholarly
relations in a given time and place.
Another important finding is that the Ḥijāz was one of the most active centers of Ibn
ʿArabī studies in the 17th century, to such an extent that one could argue convincingly
for the existence of what I term “The Ibn ʿArabī School in the Ḥijāz.” Al-Kūrānī’s thought
was unique, in terms of its integration of theological ideas with Sufi thought, and he
without a doubt belongs to the intellectual trend of the Ibn ʿArabī tradition. But his
intellectual preparation in Kurdistan did not actually include any of Ibn ʿArabī’s texts or
any works of his disciplines, meaning that his Akbarian efforts emerged from his time in
Medina. His works from that period show that he mastered not only Ibn ʿArabī’s works
448
but almost all the main commentaries including those of al-Qūnawī, al-Qāshānī, al-
Qayṣarī, and al-Shaʿrānī. In fact, this dissertation has shown that Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas
became the main source of al-Kūrānī’s ʿaqlī writings and formed the basis of his
intellectual reasoning. How exactly did Ibn ʿArabī’s works and thought reach the 17th
century Ḥijāz and to what extent was Ibn ʿArabī’s influence widespread there? I have
alluded to some of the major links in the chain during the course of the dissertation, but
giving a full answer to these questions requires further study.
Ultimately, my dissertation has attempted to shift the dominant perspective of the
history of the Ḥijāz during the 17th century, correcting the tendency of both Western and
Muslim scholarship to ignore this region and this historical period. These prejudices
about the post-classical period are not based on accurate information or on any detailed
examination of intellectual life. Rather, the description of this period as a time of decline
has been due to the negative assumptions mentioned in the introduction of this work.
More studies are required, and hopefully, this research has offered convincing evidence
that this period contained interesting original philosophical contributions that would
warrant such study.

449
Appendix A: al-Kūrānī’s Teachers
1. Mullā Muḥammad Sharīf al-Ṣiddīqī, (d. 18 Ṣafar 1078/9 August 1667).
2. ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abū Bakr b. Hidāyat Allāh al-Ḥusaynī al-Kūrānī (d. 1050/1640).
3. Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Qushāshī (12 Rabīʿ I, 991-19 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1071/5 April 1583-15 August
1661).
4. ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Muṭayr al-Ḥakamī.
5. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Fāsī (d. 1096/1685).
6. Aḥmad b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-ʿAjamī al-Shāfiʿī al-Azharī (1014-1086/1606-
1675).
7. Abū al-ʿAbbās b. Nāṣir.
8. Al-Bābilī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qāhirī al-Azharī al-Shāfiʿī (d.
1079/1668).
9. Al-Baʿlī, ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Ḥanbalī (18 Rabīʿ II 1005/9 December 1596 -17 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
1071/13 August 1661).
10. Al-Daybaʿ, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Shaybānī al-Shāfiʿī
al-Ashʿarī al-Zabīdī (d. 1076/1665).
11. Al-Fāsī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿAlī (2 Ramaḍān 1007 - 8 Ramaḍān 1091/29 March 1599 - 2
October 1680).
12. Al-Ghazzī, Najm al-Dīn Muḥammad (977-1061/1570-1651).
13. Isḥāq b. Muḥammad b. Jamʿān al-Zabīdī (d. 1076/1665).
14. Al-Lāhūrī, ʿAbd Allāh b. Mullā Saʿd Allāh (d. 3 Ṣafar 1083/31 May 1672).
15. Al-Maghribī, ʿIsā al-Shādhilī (d. Rajab 1080/December 1669).
16. Al-Mazzāḥī, Sulṭān b. Aḥmad, Abū al-ʿAzāʾim al-Qāhirī (d. 17 Jumādā II 1075/January
1665).
450
17. Mubārakah al-Ṭabariyyah.
18. Muḥammad b. Mḥammad al-Dimashqī.
19. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Murābiṭ al-Dalāʾī.
20. Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Mirghanī al-Sūsī.
21. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Sawdah al-Fāsī.
22. Nūr al-Dīn b. Muṭayr.
23. Quraysh bint ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ṭabariyyah (d. 1107/1696).
24. Al-Rūdānī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-Fāsī al-Makkī (1037-1094).
25. Al-Ṣaffūrī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muṣṭafā al-Dimashqī (d. Ramaḍān 1082/January 1672).
26. Zayn al-Sharaf al-Ṭabariyyah.
Appendix B: al-Kūrānī’s Students
His Prominent Students:
1. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Singkīlī (d. 1104/1693).
2. ʿAbd al-Ghanī b. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Khānī al-Ḥalabī al-Ḥanafī (d. 1095/1684).
3. ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim al-Baṣrī al-Makkī, Abū Sālim (d. 4 Rajab, 1134/20 April 1722).
4. Abū al-Mawāhib al-Baʿlī, Muḥammad al-Ḥanbalī (d. 28 Shawwāl 1126/6 November
1714).
5. Abū Ṭāhir, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Samīʿ b. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1081-4 Ramaḍān
1145/1671-18 February 1733).
6. Al-ʿAyyāshī, Abū Sālim, ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-ʿAyyāshī al-Maghribī
(d. 1090/1679).
451
7. Al-Barzanjī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Rasūl al-Barzanjī al-Ḥusaynī al-Mūsawī,
(d. 1103/1691).
8. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Muḥammmad Ḥasan al-Ṣūfī, (d. 1113/1702).
9. Ilyās b. Ibrāhīm b. Khiḍr b. Dāwūd al-Kūrdī al-Kūrānī (1138/1726).
10. Al-Nakhlī, Aḥmad, (1044-1130/1635-1718).
11. Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Qalʿī al-Ḥanafī al-Makkī (d.
1149/1737).
12. Muḥammad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Qāḍī-Jān al-Dihlawī. Born circa
1020/1612.
13. Muṣṭafā b. Fatḥ Allāh al-Ḥamawī al-Ḥanafī al-Makkī (d. 1123/1711).
14. Yūsuf al-Tāj b. ʿAfīf al-Dīn b. Abī al-Khayr al-Jāwī al-Maqassarī al-Khalwatī (d.
1110/1699).
Other Students:
15. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī (d. 1096/1685).
16. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Maynbārī.
17. ʿAbd Allāh b. Munlā Saʿd Allāh al-Lāhūrī, Jārullāh (d. 1083/1672).
18. ʿAbd Allāh Al-Tajmūʿatī al-Sijlimāsī (d. 1118/1706).
19. ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿAbd al-Hādī al-ʿUmarī al-Shāfiʿī al-Dimashqī.
20. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Baʿlī al-Ḥanbalī read with al-Kūrānī parts of Ṣaḥīḥayn and some
dhikrs.
21. ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿUmar al-Taghlibī al-Dimashqī, Abū al-Tuqā (d. 1135/1723).
22. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū al-Mawāhīb b. Muḥammad Abī al-Suʿūd al-Kazarūnī al-Madanī
(1044-1114/1634-1703 in Medina and buried in the cemetery of al-Baqīʿ).
23. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan al-Kūrānī,

452
24. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad al-Dhahabī.
25. ʿAbd al-Shakūr al-Bānitnī.
26. Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. al-ʿArabī, known as Ibn al-Ḥājj al-Fāsī (d. 1109/1697).
27. Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-Dirʿī (d. Rabīʿ II, 1128/March 1716).
28. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī (d. Shaʿbān
1134/1722).
29. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Dallāʾī, known as al-
Murābiṭ (d. 1089/1678).
30. Abū al-Ḥasan Nūr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Tatawī al-Madanī (d.
1139/1727).
31. Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Budayrī al-Ḥusaynī al-Dumyāṭī
al-Shāfiʿī, (known as Ibn al-Mayyit and al-Burhān al-Shāmī), (d. 1140/1728).
32. Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Darʿī, (known as al-Sibāʿī), (d.
1155/1742).
33. Abū Marwān al-Sijlimāsī.
34. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Gharbī al-Ribāṭī.
35. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-Ḥakamī.
36. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Dumyāṭī al-
Shāfiʿī, known as al-Bannā (d. 1116/1704).
37. Aḥmad b. Saʿīd al-Majlīdī (1094/1682).
38. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad (known al-Ṣaghīr) b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qādir
al-Fāsī (d. 1134/1722).
39. Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-Darʿī al-Tamagarūtī (d. 18 Rabīʿ II,
1129/1 April 1717).

453
40. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlwān al-Shāfiʿī, known as al-Sharābātī (d. 1136/1723-4).
41. Aḥmad b. Saʿīd al-Makīldī.
42. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥasanī.
43. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Daybaʿ al-Shaybānī al-Shāfiʿī (d.
1072/1661-2).
44. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-ʿUqaybī al-Anṣārī al-Taʿzī al-Shāfiʿī (born around 1030/1621).
45. Al-Dakdakjī, al-Shams Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Dimashqī (d. 1131/1719).
46. Al-Hashtūkī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Dāwūd al-Jazūlī al-Tamlī (d.
1127/1715).
47. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Dirʿī (1155/1742).
48. Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad Kamāl al-Dīn known as Ibn Ḥamzah al-Ḥusaynī al-Ḥanafī al-
Dimashqī (d. 1120/1708).
49. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Fāsī (d. 1110/1698-9).
50. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Fāsī (d. 1134/1722).
51. Muḥammad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Mizjājī.
52. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Maktabī al-Dimashqī al-Shāfiʿī (d. 12 jumadā II, 1096/16 May
1685).
53. Muḥammad al-Khalīfatī (d. 1130/1718).
54. Muḥammad b. ʿIsā Al-Kinānī al-Khalwatī (d. 1153/1740).
55. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Jāwī al-Bantanī.
56. Muḥammad b. Abd al-Hādī al-Sindī, Abū al-Ḥasan, (d. 1138 or 1139/ 1726-7).
57. Mūsā b. Ibrāḥīm al-Baṣrī al-Madanī.
58. Al-Sayyid ʿAlī b. Sulaymān b. Aḥmad al-Ḥusaynī al-Mūsawī.
59. Walī al-Dīn Muṣṭafā Jārullāh al-Rūmī (1151/1738).

454
Appendix C: al-Kūrānī’s Works
The title The date of composition Notes

1. Inbāh al-anbāh ʿalā iʿrāb lā ilāh illā 1061 and 1071. He wrote eight
Allāh chapters in
1061, and
completed the
work in 1071.
2. Jawāb suʾālāt ʿan qawl “taqabbal Shaʿbān 1063.
Allāh” wa-l-muṣāfaḥah baʿd al-
ṣalāwāt; OR Rafʿ al-rayb wa-l-iltibās
ʿan dalīl al-duʿāʾ wa-l-muṣāfaḥah baʿd
al-ṣalah li-l-nās.
3. Ijāzat al-Kūrānī li-ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd 20 Shawwāl 1063.
al-Qawī al-Zabīdī
4. Taḥqīq al-tawfīq bayn kalāmay ahl al- 11 Shawwāl 1066.
kalām wa-ahl al-ṭarīq. OR Tuḥfat al-
tawfīq bayn kalāmay ahl al-kalām wa-
ahl al-ṭarīq
5. Qaṣd al-sabīl ilā tawḥīd al-Ḥaqq al- Monday, 14 Dhū al-
Wakīl Qaʿdah 1066.
6. Al-jawāb al-mashkūr ʿan al-suʾāl al- Friday, at the end of Ṣafar
manẓūr 1067.
7. Ishrāq al-shams bi-taʿrīb al-kalimāt al- Thursday, 25 Dhū al-
khams Ḥijjah 1068.
8. Mukhtaṣar Qaṣd al-sabīl; OR al-Sharḥ 13 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1069
al-ṣaghīr
9. Al-Jawābāt al-gharrāwiyyah li-l- Tuesday, 25 Ṣafar 1070.
masāʾil al-Jāwiyyah al-juhriyyah
10. ʿUjālat dhawī al-intibāh taḥqīq iʿrāb lā Sunday, 29 Rabīʿ I 1070.
ilāh illā Allāh
11. Al-ʿUjālah fī-mā kataba Muḥammad b. 24 Shawwāl 1070.
Muḥammad al-Qalʿī suʾālah
12. Al-Qawl al-mubīn fī taḥrīr masʾalat al- 8 Dhū al-Qaʿdah 1070.
takwīn
455
13. Al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqāʾid ahl al- 15 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1070. Edited again
athar on 6 Dhū al-
Ḥijjah 1071.
14. Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām bi-taḥqīq masʾalat al- 14 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1070. Tuesday, 4 Dhū
kalām al-Ḥijjah 1071.
15. Itḥāf al-dhakī bi-sharḥ al-Tuḥfah al- Before 19 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
mursalah ilā al-Nabī; OR ilā rūḥ al- 1071.
Nabī
16. Al-Mutimmah li-l-masʾalah al- Before 19 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
muhimmah 1071.
17. Dhayl al-mutimmah; OR Itmām al- Before 19 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
niʿmah bi-ikmāl al-muhimmah 1071.
18. Takmilat al-qawl al-jalī fī taḥqīq qawl Before 19 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī 1071.
19. Risālah ilā al-ʿAyyāshī 1072-73.
20. Al-Ilmāʿ al-muḥīṭ bi-taḥqīq al-kasb al- Rajab, 1073.
wasaṭ bayn ṭarafay al-ifrāṭ wa-l-tafrīṭ
21. Al-Isfār ʿan aṣl istikhārat aʿmāl al-layl Tuesday, 15 Ramaḍān
wa-l-nahār 1073.
22. Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt fī sharḥ Sunday, 12 Shawwāl,
ḥadīth inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-niyyāt 1073.
23. Risālat suʾālāt waradat min maḥrūsat Ṣafar 1974.
Zabīd min al-Yaman min al-shaykh
Isḥāq al-Dawālī
24. Al-Lumʿah al-saniyyah fī taḥqīq ilqāʾ Thursday, 7 Muḥarram Edited again
al-umniyyah 1074. on Thursday,
14 Muḥarram
1075.
25. Maslak al-iʿtidāl ilā fahm āyat khalq al- Thursday, at the end of Dated in
aʿmāl Shaʿbān 1075. another copy
Thusday, 10
Dhū al-Qaʿdah
1075.
26. Al-Maslak al-qarīb fī ajwibat al-Khaṭīb Sunday, 9 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
1076.
456
27. Risālat Ibṭāl mā ẓahara min al- Wednesday, 4 Rabīʿ I

maqālah al-fāḍiḥah fī-mā yataʿallaq 1078.
bi-l-kaʿbah al-muʿaẓẓamah
28. Nashr al-zahr bi-l-jahr bi-l-dhikr Monday, 22 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
1078.
29. Fayḍ al-Wāhib al-ʿAlī fī jawāb suʾāl Abī End of Dhū al-Ḥijjah
al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī 1078.
30. Mirqāt al-ṣuʿūd ilā ṣiḥḥat al-qawl bi- 1078.
waḥdat al-wujūd
31. Nibrās al-īnās bi-ajwibat ahl Fās. 27 Muḥarram 1079.
32. Īqāẓ al-qawābil li-l-taqarrub bi-l- 18 Rajab 1079.
nawāfil.
33. Itḥāf al-munīb al-awwāh bi-faḍl al- Saturday, 24 Dhū al- Edited again
jahr bi-dhikr Allāh Ḥijjah 1079. on 17 Dhū al-
Qaʿdah 1080,
and again in
Dhū al-Qaʿdah
1083.
34. Al-Tawjīh al-mukhtār fī nafy al-qalb Friday, 7 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
ʿan ḥadīth ikhtiṣām al-jannah wa-l- 1081.
nār.
35. Ikhbār al-aḥbār bi-ajwibat sūʾālāt Ahl Friday, 5 Muḥarram 1082.
Āṭār. OR Jawāb suʾāl warada min baʿḍ
fuḍalāʾ al-Maghrib. Or Risālah fī jawāz
ruʾyat Allāh taʿālā fī al-dunyā wa-l-
ākhirah
36. Al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī awwal ṣādir Friday 23 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
min al-wājib bi-l-ikhtiyār; OR al- 1082
Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat al-ṣādir
al-awwal wa-iḥdāth al-ʿālam bi-l-
ikhtiyār.
37. Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣiḥāḥ; OR Monday, 8 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
al-Arbaʿūn ḥadīthan al-ʿawālī; OR 1083.
Lawāmiʿ al-laʾālī fī al-arbaʿīn al-ʿawālī.
38. Al-Kashf al-muntaẓar li-mā yarāh al- 1083.
muḥtaḍar
457
39. Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-Nabī al- 1083.

mukhtār; Or Itḥāf rafīʿ al-himmah bi-
waṣl aḥādīth shafīʿ al-ummah.
40. Niẓām al-zabarjad fī al-arbaʿīn al- Sunday, 17 Muḥarram
musalsalah bi-Aḥmad 1085.
41. Jalāʾ al-fuhūm fī taḥqīq al-thubūt wa- Tuesday, 28 Rabīʿ I 1085.
rūʾyat al-maʿdūm
42. Maslak al-sadād ilā masʾalat khalq afʿāl Tuesday, 23 Jumādā II
al-ʿibād 1085.
43. Jalāʾ al-naẓar fī baqāʾ al-tanzīh maʿ al- Tuesday, 11 Ṣafar 1086.
tajallī fī al-ṣuwar
44. Ḥusn al-awbah fī ḥukm ḍarb al- 14 Rabīʿ I 1086.
nawbah
45. Ijāzat-nāmah, OR al-Kūrānī’s ijāzah to 5 Shawwāl 1086.
Wajīh al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Malik b. Shams al-
Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-
Sijlimāsī
46. Al-maslak al-jalī fī ḥukm shaṭḥ al-walī 1086.
47. Itḥāf al-khalaf bi-taḥqīq madhhab al- Monday, 11 Muḥarram
salaf 1088.
48. Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād li-sulūk Friday, 13 Jumādā II,
maslak al-sadād. 1088.
49. Jalāʾ al-naẓār bi-taḥrīr al-jabr fī al- Friday, 20 Jumādā II 1088.
ikhtiyār
50. Risālah fī bayān al-muqaddimāt al- 20 Jumādā II 1088.
arbaʿah li-l-tawḍīḥ
51. Maṭlaʿ al-jūd bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh fī 22 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1088.
waḥdat al-wujūd
52. Ibdāʾ al-niʿmah bi-taḥqīq sabq al- Tuesday, 23 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
raḥmah 1088.
53. Al-Qawl bi-īmān Firʿawn 1088.
54. Kashf al-mastūr fī jawāb suʾāl ʿAbd al- Thursday, 30 Muḥarram
Shakūr 1089.
55. Al-Iʿlān bi-dafʿ al-tanāquḍ fī ṣūrat al- Thursday, 30 Muḥarram
aʿyān fī jawāb sūʾāl ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 1089.
458
56. Al-Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī ilā al-Durr Sunday, Dhū al-Ḥijjah

al-multaqaṭ li-l-Ṣāghānī 1089.
57. Mashraʿ al-wurūd ilā Maṭlaʿ al-jūd Sunday, 14 Muḥarram,
1090
58. Kashf al-labs ʿan al-masāʾil al-khams 9 Dhū al-Ḥijjah, 1090
59. Maslak al-taʿrīf bi-taḥqīq al-taklīf ʿalā Sunday, 24 Muḥarram
mashrab ahl al-kashf wa-l-shuhūd al- 1091.
qāʾilīn bi-tawḥīd al-wujūd
60. Al-Maslak al-anwar ilā maʿrifat al- Monday, 8 Rabīʿ I 1091.
barzakh al-akbar.
61. Madd al-fayʾ fī taqrīr “laysa ka- 13 Rabīʿ I, 1092.
mithlihi shayʾ;” OR Risālah fī qawlihi
taʿālā “laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ
62. Isʿāf al-ḥanīf li-sulūk maslak al-taʿrīf Monday, 2 Rabīʿ II 1092.
63. Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl ʿalā tanzīh al-ṣūfiyyah Saturday, 8 Muḥarram
ʿan iʿtiqād al-tajsīm wa-l-ʿayniyyah 1093.
wa-l-ittiḥād wa-l-ḥulūl.
64. Al-Ilmām bi-taḥrīr qawlay Saʿdī wa-l- Thusday, 15 Dhū al-
ʿIṣām Ḥijjah 1093.
65. Al-Maslak al-qawīm fī muṭābaqat Wednesday, 11 Ṣafar
taʿalluq al-qudrah bi-l-ḥādith li- 1094.
taʿalluq al-ʿilm al-qadīm
66. Shawāriq al-anwār li-sulūk al-Maslak Thursday, 5 Rabīʿ I 1094.
al-mukhtār
67. Al-Tawaṣṣul ilā anna ʿilm Allāh bi-l- Tuesday, 26 Jumādā II
ashyāʾ azalan ʿalā al-tafṣīl 1094.
68. Al-Taḥrīr al-ḥāwī li-jawāb īrād Ibn Friday, 7 Dhū al-Ḥijjah
Ḥajar ʿalā al-Bayḍāwī 1094.
69. Al-Amam li-īqāẓ al-himam Monday, 8 Dhū al-Qaʿdah
1095.
70. Izālat al-ishkāl bi-l-jawāb al-wāḍiḥ ʿan Monday, 25 Rajab 1097.
al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar.
71. Al-Taḥrīrāt al-bāhirah li-mabāḥith al-
Durrah al-fākhirah
72. Majlā al-maʿānī ʿalā ʿaqīdat al-Dawānī
459
73. Ḥāshiyah ʿalā mabḥath al-ʿilm min

Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah li-l-
Dawānī; OR Risālah fī al-baḥth ʿan al-
ʿilm
74. Sharḥ al-ʿaqīdah allatī allafahā
mawlānā al-ʿallāmah al-Mutawakkil
ʿalā Allāh Ismāʿīl [b. al-Manṣūr bi-
Allāh] al-Qāsim riḍwān Allāh ʿalayhim.
75. Al-Nibrās li-kashf al-iltibās al-wāqiʿ fī
al-Asās li-ʿaqāʾid ṭāʾifah sammū
anfusahum bi-l-akyās.
76. Al-Iʿlām bi-mā fī qawlihī taʿāla “ʿalā
alladhīn yūṭīqūnahu” min al-aḥkām
77. Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī’s ijāzah to al-
Dakdakjī
78. Nawāl al-ṭawl fī taḥqīq al-ījād bi-l-qawl
79. Al-Tashīl, Sharḥ al-ʿAwāmil al-
Jurjāniyyah.
80. Takmīl al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah. Or
al-Fawāḍil al-burhāniyyah fī takmīl al-
ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah
81. Ijābat al-sāʾil ʿammā istashkala min al-
masāʾil
82. Itḥāf al-nabīh bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh
Works by al-Kūrānī that I was not able to examine
83. Ḍiyāʾ al-miṣbāḥ fī sharḥ Bahjat al-
arwāḥ
84. Al-Jawāb al-ʿatīd li-masʾalat awwal
wājib wa-masʾalat al-taqlīd
85. Al-Jawāb al-kāfī ʿan iḥāṭat al-ʿilm al-
makhlūq bi-l-ghayr al-mutanāhī
86. Sharḥ al-Andalusiyyah
87. Taysīr al-ḥaqq al-mubdī li-naqḍ baʿḍ
kalimāt al-Sirhindī
88. Takmīl al-taʿrīf li-kitāb fī al-taṣrīf
460
89. Al-Jawāb ʿan al-suʾāl al-awwal min al-

asʾilah al-makkiyyah
90. Izālat al-ishkāl
91. Ghāyat al-marām fī masʾalat Ibn al-
Humām
92. Fayḍ al-Wāhib li-afḍal al-makāsib
93. Dhayl al-maqālah al-wāḍiḥah fī nadb
al-ḥirṣ ʿalā al-muṣāfaḥah
94. Ḍawʾ al-aʿyān fī ajwibat al-shaykh ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān
95. Al-Kanz al-muʾtaman fī jawāb suʾālāt
ahl al-Yaman
96. Bulghat al-masīr ilā tawḥīd al-ʿAlī al-
Kabīr
97. Iẓhār al-qadr li-ahl badr
98. Jalāʾ al-aḥdāq bi-taḥrīr al-iṭlāq
99. Iqtifāʾ al-āthār [bi-tawḥīd al-afʿāl maʿ
al-kasb bi-l-ikhtiyār]
100. Al-Ihtimām bi-ḥukm idrāk al-masbūq
al-rukūʿ lam yara al-Imām
101. Maslak al-irshād ilā al-aḥādīth al-
wāridah fī al-jihād
Works attributed to al-Kūrānī, although I doubt the validity of the attribution
102. Sharḥ Nukhbat al-fikar, or Ḥāshiyah
ʿalā Nukhbat al-fikar.
103. Shumūs al-fikr al-munqidhah ʿan

ẓulumāt al-jabr wa-l-qadar
461
Bibliography
1. ʿAbbūd (al-), Ṣāliḥ. ʿAqīdat al-shaykh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-salafiyyah wa-
atharuhā fī al-ʿālam al-Islāmī. KSA, Medina, al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-
Munawwarah, PhD dissertation, 1408/1987-8.
2. Abī Shanab, Muḥammad. Etudes sur les personnages dans l’Idjaza du cheikh Abde-El
Quadir El Fassy. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1907.
3. Abrahamov, Binyamin. “A Re-examination of al-Ashʿarī’s theory of ‘kasb’ according
to ‘Kitāb al-Lumaʿ’.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1 (1989), pp. 221-210.
4. Abrahamov, Binyamin. “The creation and duration of Paradise and Hell in Islamic
Theology.” Der Islam, 79 (2002): pp. 87–102.
5. Acar, Rahim. “Reconsidering Avicenna’s position on God’s knowledge of
particulars.” In Interpreting Avicenna: Science and Philosophy in Medieval Islam:
Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Avicenna Study Group. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
6. Açıl, Berat. Osmanlı kitap kültürü: Cârullah Efendi Kütüphanesi ve derkenar notları.
Ankara: Ilem kitapliği: Nobel, 2015.
7. Adamson, Peter. “On knowledge of particulars.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society 105.3 (2005), pp. 273–294.
8. Ifrānī (al-), Muḥammad b. al-Ḥājj b. Muḥammad. Ṣafwat man intashar min akhbār
ṣulaḥāʾ al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, ed. ʿAbd al-Majīd Khayālī. Morocco, al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ:
Markaz al-Turāth al-Thaqāfī al-Maghribī, 2004.
9. Ahmed, Shahab. Before Orthodoxy: The Satanic Verses in Early Islam. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2017.
10. Ahmed, Shahab. “Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic verses.” Studia Islamica 87 (1998),
pp. 67-124.
11. Ahmed, Shahab. “Satanic Verses.” In Encyclopaedia of the Quran, ed. J. D. McAuliffe.
Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2001–2006.
12. ʿAjlūnī (al-), Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad. Ḥulyat ahl al-faḍl wa-l-kamāl bi-ittiṣāl al-asānīd bi-
kummal al-rijāl, ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Ḥusayn. Jordan, ʿAmmān: Dār al-Fatḥ li-l-
Dirāsāt wa-l-Nashr, 2009.
13. Akkach, Samer. Intimate Invocations: Al-Ghazzī’s Biography of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī
(1641-1731). Leiden: Brill, 2012.
462
14. Aladdin, Bakri. ʿAbdalgani an-Nâbulusî: Oeuvre, vie et doctrine. PhD dissertation,
Université de Paris, 1985.
15. Aladdin, Bakri. “Oneness of Being (waḥdat al-wujūd) the term and the doctrine,”
Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 51 (2012), pp. 3-26.
16. Aladdin, Bakri. “The mystery of destiny, sir al-qadar in Ibn ʿArabi and al-Qunawi.”
17. Allard, Michel. Le problème des attributs divins dans la doctrine d’al-Ašʻarī et de ses
premiers grands disciples. Beirut: Impr. Catholique, 1965.
18. Ālūsī (al-), Maḥmūd ibn ʿAbd Allāh. Rūḥ al-maʿānī fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm wa-l-sabʿ al-
mathānī. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Munīriyyah, 1970.
19. Āmidī (al-), Sayf al-Dīn. Abkār al-afkār fī uṣūl al-dīn, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad al-Mahdī.
Cairo: Dār al-Kutub wa-l-Wathāʾiq al-Qawmiyyah, 2004.
20. Āmidī (al-), Sayf al-Dīn. Ghāyat al-marām fī ʿilm al-kalām, ed. Ḥasan Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-
Laṭīf. Cairo: al-Majlis al-Aʿlā li-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah, 1971.
21. Amr (al-), Saleh Muhammad. The Ḥijāz under Ottoman Rule 1869-1914: Ottoman Vali, the
Sharif of Mecca, and the Growth of British Influence. England, University of Leeds, PhD
dissertation, 1974.
22. Āmulī, Ḥasan Zādah. “Nafs al-amr.” Majallat Turāthunā, Iran, Qum, Second year, No.1
(Muḥarram 1407), pp. 62-96.
23. Anonymous. Tarājim aʿyān al-Madīnah al-munawwarah fī al-qarn 12 al-Hijrī, ed.
Muḥammad Tūnjī. Beirut: Dār wa-Maktabat al-Hilāl, 2008.
24. Anṣārī (al-), ʿAbdl-Raḥmān. Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn wa-l-aṣḥāb fī maʿrifat mā li-l-madaniyyin
min al-ansāb, ed. Muḥammad al-ʿArūsī al-Maṭawī. Tunisia: al-Maktabah al-ʿAtīqah,
1970.
25. Anṣārī (al-), Zakarīyā. Al-Ḥudūd al-anīqah wa-l-taʿrīfāt al-daqīqah, ed. Māzīn al-
Mubārak. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr al-Muʿāṣir, 1991.
26. Ashʿarī (al-), Abū al-Ḥasan. Al-Ibānah ʿan uṣūl al-diyānah, ed. Bashīr Muḥammad ʿYūn.
Damascus: Dār al-Bayān, 3ed, 1990.
27. ʿĀṣimī (al-) al-Makkī, ʿAbd al-Malik. Ṣimṭ al-nujūm al-ʿawālī fī anbāʾ al-awāʾil wa-l-tawālī,
ed. ʿĀdil ʿAbd al-Mawjūd and ʿAlī Muʿawwaḍ. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1998.
463
28. ʿAsqalānī (al-), Ibn Ḥajar. Al-Majmaʿ al-mūʾasis li-l-muʿjam al-mufahris: Mashyakhat Ibn
Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773-852), ed. Yusūf ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Marʿashī. Beirut: Dār al-
Maʿrifah, 1992.
29. ʿAsqalānī (al-), Ibn Ḥajar. Selections from the Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, tr. Abd
al-Hakim Murad. UK: Muslim Academic Trust, 2000.
30. Astarābādhī, Muḥammad Amīn ibn Muḥammad Sharīf. Al-Fawāʾid al-madaniyyah, ed.
ʿAlī ibn ʿAlī ʿĀmilī. Iran, Qum: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 2003.
31. ʿAydarūs (al-), ʿAbd al-Qādir. Al-Nūr al-sāfir ʿan akhbār al-qarn al-ʿāshir, eds. Aḥmad
Ḥālū, Maḥmūd al-Arnāʾūṭ, and Akram al-Būshī. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 2001.
32. ʿAyyāshī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad. Al-Riḥlah al-ʿayyāshiyyah 1661-1663, ed. Saʿīd
al-Fāḍilī and Sulaymān al-Qurashī. UAE: Abū Dhabī, Dār al-Suwaydī li-l-Nashr wa-l-
Tawzīʿ, 2006.
33. ʿAyyāshī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad. Iqtifāʾ al-athar baʿda dhahāb ahl al-athar:
Fahras Abī Sālim al-ʿAyyāshī (11th/17thCentury), ed. Nufaysah al-Dhahabī. Morocco, al-
Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: Maṭbaʿat al-Najāḥ al-Jadīdah, 1996.
34. ʿAyyāshī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad. Itḥāf al-akhillāʾ bi-ījāzāt al-mashāyikh al-ajillāʾ,
ed. Muḥammad al-Zāhī. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1999.
35. ʿAyyāshī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Madīnah bayn al-māḍī wa-l-ḥāḍir. KSA, Medina: al-Maktabah
al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1972.
36. Aziz, Muhammad Ali. Religion and Mysticism in Early Islam: Theology and Sufism in Yemen:
The Legacy of Aḥmad Ibn ʿAlwān. London: I. B Tauris, 2011.
37. Azra, Ayzumardi. The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia: Networks of Malay-
Indonesian and Middle Eastern ꜤUlamāʾ in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
Australia: Asian Studies Association of Australia in association with Allen & Unwin,
2004.
38. Badr, ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ. Al-Tārīkh al-shāmil li-l-Madīnah al-munawwārah. KSA: Medina, 1993.
39. Badrshīnī, Aḥmad Hāshim Aḥmad. Awqāf al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn fī al-ʿaṣr al-Mamlūkī
(648-923/1250-1517). KSA, Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Kulliyyat al-Sharīʿah wa-l-
Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyah, PhD dissertation, 2001.
40. Baghdādī (al-), ʿAbd al-Qāhir. Al-Farq bayn al-firaq, ed. M. Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd.
Beirut: al-Maktabah al-ʿAṣriyyah, 1995.
464
41. Baghdādī (al-), Ismāʿīl Bāshā. Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, asmāʾ al-muʾallifīn wa-āthār al-
muṣannifīn. Istanbul: Wakālat al-Maʿārīf al-Jalīlah, 1951.
42. Bāqī (al-), al-Ḥanbalī, ʿAbd. Al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqāʾid ahl al-athar, ed. ʿIṣām Rawwās
Qalʿajī. Damascus: Dār al-Maʾmūn li-l-Turāth, 1987.
43. Baʿlī (al-) al-Ḥanbalī, Abū al-Mawāhib Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Mashyakhat Abī al-
Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī (1044-1126), ed. Muḥammad Muṭīʿ al-Ḥafiẓ. Syria: Dār al-Fikr, 1990.
44. Bāqillānī (al-), Muḥammad b. al-Ṭayyib. Al-Tamhīd fī al-radd ʿalā al-mulḥidah wa-l-
rāfiḍah wa-l-khawārij wa-l-muʿtazilah, ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad al-Khuḍarī and
Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Hādī Abū Rīdah. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī, 1947.
45. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Al-Nawāfiḍ li-l-rawāfiḍ (Mukhtaṣar al-Nawāqiḍ ʿalā
al-rawāfiḍ by Mīrzā Makhdūm). KSA, Medina; al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah in Medina,
Kulliyyat al-ʿAqīdah, PhD dissertation, 1412/1991-2.
46. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Al-Qawl al-mukhtār fī ḥadīth: “taḥājjat al-jannah wa-
l-nār,” ed. al-ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz al-Firyāṭī, published with other works as a collection
entitled Liqāʾ al-ʿashr al-awākhir bi-l-masjid al-ḥarām. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-
Islāmiyyah, 2003.
47. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Al-Ṣāfī ʿan al-kadar fī-mā jāʾa ʿan sayyid al-bashar fī
al-qaḍāʾ wa-l-qadar. KSA, Medina; al-Jāmiʿa al-Islāmiyyah in Medina, Kulliyyat al-
ʿAqīdah, Master’s thesis, 1415/1994.
48. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Al-Sanā wa-l-sunūt fī-mā yataʿallaq bi-l-qunūt.
Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2004.
49. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Najāt al-hulk fī fahm maʿnā “mālik al-mūlk,” ed. al-
ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz al-Firyāṭī. Beirut, Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 2005.
50. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Sadād al-dayn wa-sidād al-dīn fī ithbāt al-najāt wa-l-
darajāt li-l-wālidayn, ed. Al-Sayyid ʿAbbās Aḥmad Ṣaqr al-Ḥusaynī and Ḥusayn
Muḥammad ʿAlī Shukrī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2006.
51. Baṣrī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim. Al-Imdā fī maʿrifat ʿulū al-isnād, ed. al-ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz al-
Faryāṭī. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Tawḥīd li-l-Nashr, 2006.
52. Bayḍāwī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar. Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-taʾwīl al-musammā Tafsīr
al-Bayḍāwī, ed. Muḥammad Ṣubḥī Ḥallāq and Muḥammad al-Aṭrash. Beirut: Dār al-
Rashīd/Dār al-Īmān, 2000.
465
53. Bayḍāwī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar. Ṭawāliʿ al-anwār min Maṭāliʿ al-anẓār, along with
Maḥmūd Iṣfahānī’s Commentary, Maṭāliʿ al-Anẓār, Sharh Ṭawāliʿ al-anwār, trans. Edwin
Elliott Calverley and James W. Pollock. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
54. Bayhaqī (al-), Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn. Kitāb al-asmāʾ wa-l-ṣifāt. Cairo: al-Maktabah al-
Azhariyyah li-l-Turāth, n.d.
55. Bayyāḍī (al-), Kamāl al-Dīn. Ishārāt al-marām min ʿibārāt al-Imām. Pakistan, Karachi:
Zam Zam Publisher, 2004.
56. Bayyūmī, Muḥammad ʿAlī Fahīm. Mukhaṣṣaṣāt al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn fī Miṣr ibbān
al-ʿaṣr al-ʿUthmānī bayn 923-1220/1517-1805. Cairo: Azhar University, Master’s thesis,
1999.
57. Blecher, Joel. “Ḥadīth commentary in the presence of students, patrons, and rivals:
Ibn Ḥajar and Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī in Mamluk Cairo.” Oriens 41 (2013), 261–287.
58. Blecher, Joel. Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary across a Millennium. California:
University of California Press, 2018.
59. Blecher, Joel. “Usefulness without toil: Al-Suyūṭī and the art of concise ḥadīth
commentary.” In Al-Suyūṭī, a Polymath of the Mamlūk Period Proceedings of the themed
day of the First Conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice,
June 23, 2014), ed. Antonella Ghersetti. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016.
60. Brenner, Louis. “Muslim thought in Eighteenth-Century Africa: the case of shaykh
ʿUthmān b. Fūdī.” In Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, eds. Nehemia
Levtzion and John O. Voll, 39-58. Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press, 1987.
61. Brockelmann, C. Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, 5 vols (Volumes I-II: Weimar 1898
and Berlin 1902 [first edition], Leiden 1943 and 1949 [second edition]; Supplementary
Volumes I-III: Leiden 1937, 1938 and 1942), II, p. 505 and S. II, p. 520.
62. Budayrī (al-), Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad. Bulghat al-murād fī al-taḥdhīr
min al-iftitān bi-l-amwāl wa-l-awlād. Egypt, Ṭanṭā: Dār al-Ṣaḥābah, 1992.
63. Bukhārī (al-), Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ed. Muṣṭafā al-Bughā. Beirut:
Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1976.
64. Burhānpūrī, Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh and Anthony H. Johns. The Gift Addressed to the
Spirit of the Prophet. Canberra: Australian National University, 1965.
65. Chaudhuri, K. N. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the
Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
466
66. Chittick, William. “A history of the term Waḥdat al-Wujūd.” In Search of the Lost Heart,
Explorations in Islamic Thought. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2012,
pp. 71-88.
67. Chittick, William. “Commentary on a hadith by Sadr al-Din Qunawi.” Alserat 4/1,
(1980), pp. 23-30.
68. Chittick, William. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Metaphasic of Imagination: The Sufi Path of Knowledge.
State University of New York Press, 1989.
69. Chittick, William. Ibn Arabi, Heir to the Prophets. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2005.
70. Chittick, William. “Mysticism versus philosophy in earlier Islamic history: al-Ṭūsī,
al-Qūnawī correspondence.” Religious Studies 17, (1981), pp. 87-104.
71. Chittick, William. “Rūmī and Waḥdat al-Wujūd,” in Poetry and Mysticism in Islam, the
Heritage of Rūmī, ed. Amin Banani, Richard Hovannisian, and George Sabagh. UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 70-111.
72. Chittick, William. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī on the Oneness of Being.” International
Philosophical Quarterly, XXI:1, (1981), pp. 171-184.
73. Chittick, William. “The five divine presences: from al-Qunawi to al-Qaysari.” Muslim
World 72 (1982), pp. 107-128.
74. Chittich, William. “The last will and testament of Ibn ʿArabi’s foremost disciple, Ṣadr
al-Dīn Qūnawī.” Sophia Perennis, vol. IV:1, (1978), pp. 43‐58.
75. Chittick, William. The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Cosmology.
Albany: State University of New York Press,1998.
76. Chittick, William. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-ʿArabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination.
Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,1989.
77. Chittick, William. “Waḥdat al-wujūd in Islamic thought.” Bulletin of the Henry Martyn
Institute of Islamic Studies, 10 (1991), pp.7-27.
78. Chodkiewicz, Michel. Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn
‘Arabi, trans. Liadain Sherrard. Cambridge, 1993.
79. Chodkiewics, Michel. “The paradox of the kaʿba.” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi
Society, vol. 57 (2015), pp. 67-83.
80. Commins, David. “Traditional anti-Wahhabi Ḥanbalism in nineteenth century
Arabia.” In Ottoman Reform and Muslim Regeneration: Studies in Honour of Butrus Abu
Manneh, ed. Itzchak Weismann and Fruma Zachs. London & NY: I.B. Tauris, 2005.
81. Copty, Atallah S. “The Naqshbandiyya and its offshoot, the Naqshbandiyya-
Mujaddidiyya in the Ḥaramayn in the 11th/17th Century.” Die Welt des Islams, New
Series, Vol. 43, Issue 3, Transformations of the Naqshbandiyya, 17th-20th Century
(2003), pp. 321-348.
467
82. Coulson, Noel J. A History of Islamic Law. NY: Routledge, 2017. [Originally published in
1964 by Edinburgh University Press.]
83. Dabir (al-), Haji. A History of Gujarat [Ẓafr al-wālih bi-Muẓaffar wa-ālih]. Ed. E. Denison
Ross. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal,1909.
84. Dagli, Caner K. Ibn al-ʿArabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture: From Mysticism to Philosophy.
New York: Routledge, 2016.
85. Dallal, Aḥmad. “The origin and objectives of Islamic revivalist thought, 1750-1850.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society. 113: 3 (1993), pp. 341-359.
86. Dashtakī, Ghiyāth al-Dīn. Muṣannafāt Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr Husienī Dashtakī Shirāzī, ed.
Abdollah Nourānī. Tehran: Tehran University: 2007.
87. Dawānī (al-), Jalāl al-Dīn and ʿAlī b. Sulṭān al-Qārī. Īmān Firʿān li-l-Imām Jalāl al-Dīn al-
Dawānī wa-l-radd ʿalayhi li-l-ʿallāmah ʿAlī b. Sulṭān Muḥammad al-Qārī, ed. Ibn al-Khaṭīb.
Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Miṣriyyah wa-Maktabatuhā, 1964.
88. Dawānī (al-), Jalāl al-Dīn. Risālat khalq al-aʿmāl, in al-Rasāʾil al-mukhtārah, ed. Sayyid
Aḥmad Tuwaysirkānī. Iṣfahān: Imam Ali Public Library, 1400/[1979].
89. Dawānī (al-), Jalāl al-Dīn. Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍūdiyyah, in al-Taʿlīqāt ʿalā Sharḥ al-
ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah, al-aʿmāl al-kāmilah li-l-Sayyid Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, ed. Sayyid
Hādī Khusrū-shāhī. Cairo: Maktabat al-Shurūq al-Dawliyyah, 2002.
90. De Gaury, Gerald. Ḥukkām Makkah, tr. Muḥammad Shihāb. Cairo: Maktabat Madbūlī,
2000.
91. De Gaury, Gerald. Rulers of Mecca. London: George G. Harrap & CO. LTD,1954.
92. Desai, Z. A. “India and the Near East during 13 th-15th centuries.” In A Quest for Truth:
A Collection of Research Articles of Dr. Z. A. Desai. Ahmadabad: Hazrat Pir Mohammed
Shah Dargah Sharif Trust, 2004.
93. Desai, Z. A. “Relations of India with Middle-Eastern countries during the 16th-17th
centuries.” In A Quest for Truth: A Collection of Research Articles of Dr. Z. A. Desai.
Ahmadabad: Hazrat Pir Mohammed Shah Dargah Sharif Trust, 2004.
94. Dihlawī (al-), ʿAbd al-Sattār b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. Al-Azhār al-ṭayyibāt al-nashr fī dhikr al-
aʿyān min kull ʿaṣr, ed. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn b. Khalīl b. Ibrāhīm al-Ṣawwāf. KSA, Mecca, Jāmiʿat
Umm al-Qurā, Kulliyyat al-Sharīʿah wa-l-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyah, PhD dissertation
1429/[2008].
95. Dihlawī (al-), Shāh Walī Allāh Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. Al-Irshād ilā muhimmāt al-
isnād, ed. Badr b. ʿAlī b. Ṭāmī al-ʿUtaybī. KSA: Dār al-Āfāq, 2009.
96. Dirāyatī, Muṣṭafā, and Mujtabā Dirāyatī. Fihristgān: nuskhahʹhā-yi khaṭṭī-i Īrān (Fankhā)
= Union catalogue of Iran manuscripts = Fihris al-muwaḥḥad li-l-makhṭūṭāt al-
468
Īrānīyah. Tihrān: Sāzmān-i Asnād va Kitābkhānah-i Millī-i Jumhūrī-i Islāmī-i Īrān,

2011.
97. Dubé, Jonathan Samuel. Pure Generosity, Divine Providence, and the Perfection of the Soul
in the Philosophy of Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna). Montreal: McGill University, Institute of Islamic
Studies, Master’s thesis, 2014.
98. Elias, Jamal Javed. Ṣūfī Thought and Practice in the Teachings of ʿAlāʾ ad-Dawla as-Simnānī.
Yale University, PhD dissertation, 1991.
99. El-Rouayheb, Khaled. Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century: Scholarly
Currents in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2015.
100. El-Rouayheb, Khaled. “Opening the gate of verification: The forgotten Arab-
Islamic florescence of the 17th century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies,
vol. 38: 2 (May., 2006), pp. 263-281.
101. Ende, Werner. “The Nakhāwila, a Shiite community in Medina past and
present.” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 37, Issue 3, Shiites and Sufis in Saudi
Arabia (Nov., 1997), pp. 263-348.
102. Endress, Gerhard. “Reading Avicenna in the madrasa.” In Arabic Theology Arabic
Philosophy from the Many to the One, Essays in Celebrations of Richard M. Frank, ed. James
E. Montgomery. Leuven: Peeters, 2006, pp. 371-422.
103. Ernst, Carl W. “Controversies over Ibn ʿArabī’s Fuṣūṣ: The faith of Pharaoh.”
Islamic Culture CIX: 3 (1985), 259–66.
104. Fahd al-Makkī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Najm b. Al-Durr al-kamīn bi-dhayl al-
ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-amīn, ed. ʿAbd al-Malik b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Duhaysh.
Beirut: Dar Khiḍr, 2000.
105. Fahd, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Najm ʿUmar b. Bulūgh al-qirā fī dhayl Itḥāf Umm al-Qurā,
ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū al-Khuyūr. KSA, Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Master’s
Thesis, 2001.
106. Fahd, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Najm ʿUmar b. Nayl al-munā bi-dhayl bulūgh al-qirā, ed.
Muḥammad al-Ḥabīb al-Haylah. UK: London: al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation,
2000.
107. Fahd, al-Najm ʿUmar b. Itḥāf al-warā bi-akhbār umm al-qurā, ed. Fahīm
Muḥammad Shaltūt and others. KSA: Maṭābiʿ Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā: 1408/1988.
108. Fahras makhṭūṭāt Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā. Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, al-Maktabah
al-Markaziyyah, Qism al-Makhṭūṭāt, 1983.
469
109. Farooqi, Naimur Rahman. Mughal-Ottoman Relations: A Study of Political and

Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, 1556-1748. Madison:
University of Wisconsin-Madson, PhD dissertation, 1987.
110. Faroqhi, Suraiya. Pilgrims & sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans. London: I. B.
Tauris, 2014.
111. Faryāṭī (al-), al-ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz. Al-Imām ʿAbd Allāh b. Sālim al-Baṣrī al-Makkī, Imām
ahl al-ḥadīth bi-l-masjid al-ḥarām. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 1426/2005.
112. Fāsī (al-), ʿAbd al-Qādir. Fahrasat ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī wa-tusammā bi-l-ijāzah al-
kubrā wa-maʿahā ijāzat ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī li-Abī Sālim al-ʿAyyāshī wa-tusammā bi-l-
ijāzah al-ṣughrā, ed. Muḥammad bin ʿAzūz. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2003.
113. Fāsī (al-), ʿAlī b. Maymūn. Bayān ghurbat al-Islām, ed. Ḥakīmah Shāmī. Beirut: Dār
al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2007.
114. Fāsī (al-), Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-
amīn, ed. Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Farī. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2ed, 1986.
115. Fāsī (al-), Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Shifāʾ al-gharām bi-akhbār al-balad al-
ḥarām, ed. ʿAlī ʿUmar. Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, 2007.
116. Fathurahman, Oman and Abdurrauf Singkel. Tanbih al-Masyi: menyoal wahdatul
wujud: kasus Abdurrauf Singkel di Aceh abad. Bandung: Ecole française d'Extrême-
Orient,1999.
117. Fathurahman, Oman. “Further research on Itḥāf al-dhakī manuscripts by Ibrāhīm
al-Kūrānī.” In From Codicology to Technology: Islamic Manuscripts and their Place in
Scholarship, ed. Stefanie Brinkmann and Beate Wiesmüller, 47-58. Berlin: Frank &
Timme, 2009, pp. 47-58.
118. Fathurahman, Oman. “Ithaf al-dhaki Ibrahim al-Kurani: a commentary of wahdat
al-wujud for Jawi audiences.” Archipel: Études Interdisciplinaires Sur Le Monde
Insulindien, 81, (2011), 177-198.
119. Fathurahman, Oman. Ithāf al-dhaki: tafsir wahdatul wujud bagi Muslim Nusantara.
Sheffield, Eng: Society of Glass Technology, 2012.
120. Fathurahman, Oman. “New textual evidence for intellectual and religious
connections between the Ottomans and Aceh.” In From Anatolia to Aceh: Ottomans,
Turks, and Southeast Asia, eds. A. C. S. Peacock and Annabel Teh Gallop. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2015, pp. 293-310.
121. Fathurahman, Omen. Shaṭṭariyah Silsilah in Aceh, Java, and the Lanao area of
Mindanao. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2016.
470
122. Faṭṭānī (al-), Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Zayn b. Muṣṭafā. Tashīl nayl al-amānī fī sharḥ
ʿAwāmil al-Jurjānī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah bi-Miṣr,
1301/[1883-4].
123. Fazlıoğlu, İhsan, “Between reality and mentality: Fifteenth century
mathematics and natural philosophy reconsidered.” Nazariyat: Journal for the History
of Islamic Philosophy and Sciences, 1:1 (Nov. 2014), pp. 1-39.
124. Fihrī (al-), Aḥmad b. Yūsuf. Barnāmaj Abī Jaʿfar al-Lublī al-Andalusī, ed. Muḥammad
Būzayyān BinʿAlī. Morocco, Ṭanjah: Maṭbaʿat Isbārṭīl, 2011.
125. Fihrī (al-), Aḥmad b. Yūsuf. Fihrast al-Lublī, ed. Yāsīn Yūsuf ʿAyyāsh and ʿAwwād
ʿAbd Rabbuh Abū Zaynah. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1988.
126. Frank, Richard M. “The non-existent and the possible in classical Ashʿarite
teaching.” MIDEO 24, Louvain, 2000, pp. 1-37. Republished in: Texts and Studies on the
Development and History of Kalām. USA & UK: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008, vol.
III.
127. Frank, Richard M. “The structure of created causality according to al-Ašʿarî: An
analysis of the ‘Kitâb al-Lumaʿ’ §§ 82-164.” Studia Islamica, No. 25 (1966), pp. 13-75.
128. Friedmann, Yohanan. Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī: An Outline of his Thought and a Study
of his Image in the Eyes of Posterity. Montreal: McGill University, Institute of Islamic
Studies PhD dissertation, 1966.
129. Gardet, Louis and Georges C. Anawati. Introduction à la théologie musulmane; essai
de théologie comparée. Paris: J. Vrin, 1970.
130. Geoffroy, Eric. “Al-Suyūṭī as a Sufi.” In Al-Suyūṭī, a Polymath of the Mamlūk Period
Proceedings of the themed day of the First Conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies (Ca’
Foscari University, Venice, June 23, 2014), ed. Antonella Ghersetti. Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2016.
131. Geoffroy, Eric. “Spiritual realization (al-tahqiq) through daily awakening.”
132. Ghāwajī, Wahbī Sulaymān. Naẓrah ʿilmiyyah fī nisbat kitāb al-Ibānah jamiʿahu ilā al-
imām al-jalīl nāṣir al-sunnah Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1989.
133. Ghāzī (al-) al-Makkī, ʿAbd Allāh. Ifādat al-anām bi-dhikr akhbār balad Allāh al-
ḥarām, ed. ʿAbd al-Malik b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Duhaysh. KSA, Mecca: Maktabat al-Asadī li-
l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2009.
134. Ghazzī (al-), Najm al-Dīn Muḥammad. Al-Kawākib al-sāʾirah bi-aʿyān al-māʾah al-
ʿāshirah. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1997.
471
135. Ghazzī (al-), Najm al-Dīn Muḥammad. Luṭf al-samar wa-qaṭf al-thamar min tarājim
aʿyān al-ṭabaqah al-ūlā min al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, ed. Maḥmūd al-Shaykh. Damascus:
Ministry of Culture, n.d.
136. Gimaret, Daniel. “Bibliographie d’Ashʿari.” Journal Asiatique, 273 (1985), pp. 223-
292.
137. Goldthwaite, Richard A. The Economy of Renaissance. Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2009.
138. Goldziher, Ignac. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1981.
139. Griffel, Frank. “Al-Ghazālī’s (d. 1111) Incoherence of the Philosophers.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy, ed. Khaled El-Rouayheb and Sabine Schmidtke.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 190-210.
140. Griffel, Frank. Al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology. UK: Oxford University Press,
2009.
141. Gril, Denis. “Hadith in the works of Ibn ʿArabī: The uninterrupted chain of
prophecy.” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 50, (2011), 45-76.
142. Gril, Denis. “Love letters to the Kaʿba: A presentation of Ibn ʿArabi’s Tāj al-
Rasāʾil.” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 17 (1995), pp. 40-54.
143. Gril, Denis. “The Quranic figure of Pharaoh according to the interpretation of
Ibn ʿArabī.” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, volume vol. 60 (2016), pp. 29-
52.
144. Gutas, Dimitri. “The study of Arabic philosophy in the twentieth century: An
essay on the historiography of Arabic philosophy.” British Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies 29 (l), (2002), 5-25.
145. Ḥabashī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad. Jāmiʿ al-shurūḥ wa-l-ḥawāshī: muʿjam shāmil
li-asmāʾ al-kutub al-mashrūḥah fī al-turāth al-Islāmī wa-bayān shurūḥihā. UAE, Abū
Dhabī: al-Majmaʿ al-Thaqāfī, 2004.
146. Ḥaḍramī (al-), Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥmmad b. Ibrāhīm and Muḥmmad Shāyib
Sharīf. Al-Farāʾid al-marwiyyāt fī fawāʾid al-thulāthiiyyāt: Sharḥ Thulāthiyyāt al-Imām al-
Bukhārī. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2014.
147. Ḥāfiẓ, ʿAlī. Fuṣūl min tārīkh Makkah. KSA, Jiddah: Sharikat al-Madīnah al-
Munawwarah li-l-Ṭibāʿah, 1985.
148. Haj Yousef, Mohamed. Ibn ʿArabī -Time and Cosmology. NY: Routledge, 2008.
149. Hakim, Souad. “Unity of being in Ibn ʿArabī - A humanist perspective.” Journal of
the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 36, (2004), 15- 37.
472
150. Hallaq, Wael B. “Ibn Taymiyya on the existence of God.” Acta Orientalia, Lugduni
Batavorum: E.J. Brill, 52 (1991), 49-69
151. Ḥamawī (al-), Muṣṭafā. Fawāʾid al-irṭiḥāl wa-natāʾij al-safar fī akhbār al-qarn al-ḥādī
ʿashar, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad al-Kandarī. Beirut: Dār al-Nawādir, 2011.
152. Ḥamawī (al-), Yāqūt. Muʿjam al-buldān. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1977.
153. Ḥasan (al-) b. Aḥmad b. Mattawayh. Al-Tadhkira fī aḥkām al-jawāhir wa-l-aʿrāḍ, ed.
Daniel Gimaret. Cairo: Institut Franҫais D’Archéologie Orientale, 2009.
154. Hasan, S. A. “Münejjim Bas̱hī: Turkish Historian of the Saljūqids of Īrān.” Islamic
Studies, 2:4 (1963), 457-466.
155. Hatice Arslan-Sözüdoğru, and Aḥmad ibn Luṭf Allāh Munajjim Bāshī.
Müneccimbașı als Historiker: arabische Historiographie bei einem osmanischen
Universalgelehrten des 17. Jahrhunderts: Ğāmiʻ ad-duwal (Teiledition 982/1574-1082/1672).
Berlin: K. Schwarz, 2009.
156. Haykel, Bernard. Revival and Reform in Islam: The Legacy of Muḥammad al-Shawkānī.
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
157. Haylah (al-), Muḥammad al-Ḥabīb. Al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn bi-Makkah min al-
qarn al-thālith al-hijrī ilā al-qarn al-thālith ʿashar. UK: London: al-Furqan Islamic
Heritage Foundation, 1994.
158. Haytamī (al-), Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad Ibn Ḥajar. Al-Minaḥ al-makkiyyah fī sharḥ al-
Hamziyyah al-musammā Afḍal al-qirā li-qurrāʾ Umm al-Qurā, ed. Aḥmad Jāsim al-
Muḥammad and Bū-Jumʿah Makrī. Beirut: Dār al-Minhāj, 2005.
159. Haytamī (al-), Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad Ibn Ḥajar. Fatḥ al-Bārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī,
ed. ʿAbd al-Qādir Shaybah al-Ḥamad. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: 2001.
160. Haytamī (al-), Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad Ibn Ḥajar. Thabat al-Imām Shaykh al-Islām Ibn
Ḥajar al-Haytamī al-Makkī al-Shāfiʿī (909-974) min taṣnīfihi, ed. Amjad Rashīd. Jordan: Dār
al-Fatḥ, 2014.
161. Hirtenstein, Stephen. “The mystic’s kaʿba: The cubic wisdom of the heart
according to Ibn ʿArabī.” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society, vol. 48
(2010), pp. 19-43.
162. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World
Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
163. Hoexter, Miriam. Endowments, Rulers, and Community: Waqf al-Ḥaramayn in
Ottoman Algiers. Leiden: Brill. 1998.
164. Hoover, Jon. “Against Islamic universalism: ʿAlī al-Harbī’s 1990 attempt to prove
that Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya affirm the eternity of Hell-Fire.” In
473
Islamic Theology, Philosophy and Law: Debating Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya,
ed. Krawietz, B. and Tamer, G. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, pp. 377-399.
165. Hoover, Jon. “Islamic universalism: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s Salafī deliberations
on the duration of Hell-Fire.” The Muslim World, 99:1 (2009), 181-201.
166. Hourani, George Fadlo, and John Carswell. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in
Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
167. Ḥuḍaykī (al-), Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥuḍaykī, ed. Aḥmad Būmizkū.
Morocco, al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: Maṭbaʿat al-Najāḥ al-Jadīd, 2006.
168. Huraydī, M. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf. Shuʾūn al-ḥaramayn fī al-ʿahd al-ʿUthmānī fī ḍawʾ al-
wathāʾiq al-Turkiyyah al-ʿUthmāniyyah. Cairo: Dār al-Zahrāʾ, 1989.
169. Ḥusaynī (al-), ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. Fakhr al-Dīn. Al-Iʿlām bi-man fī tārīkh al-Hind min
Aʿlām al-musammā bi-Nuzhat al-khawāṭir wa-bahjat al-masāmiʿ wa-l-nawāẓir. Beirut: Dār
Ibn Ḥazm, 1999.
170. Ḥusaynī (al-), Abū Bakr b. Hidāyat Allāh. Ṭabaqāt al-shafiʿiyyah, ed. ʿĀdil
Nuwayhiḍ. Beirut: Dār al-Āfāq al-Jadīdah, 3ed, 1983.
171. Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Muḥammad and Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān. Sharḥ al-Qawāʿid al-arbaʿ.
Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2003.
172. Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Muḥammad. Al-Rasāʾil al-shakhṣiyyah, ed. Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān
and Muḥammad al-ʿUlayqī. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Jāmiʿat al-Imām Muḥammad b. Saʿūd al-
Islāmiyyah, 1976.
173. Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Muḥammad. Kashf al-shubuhāt, ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĀyiḍ al-
Qaḥṭānī. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Ṣumayʿī, 1998.
174. Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Abū al-Ḥusayn Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad. Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah,
ed. Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Faqī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Sunnah al-Mḥammadiyyah, 1952.
175. Ibn al-Ḥanbalī, Raḍī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm. Durr al-ḥabab fī tārīkh aʿyān
Ḥalab, ed. Maḥmūd Ḥamad al-Fākhūrī and Yaḥyā Zakarīyā ʿAbbārah. Damascus:
Wazarat al-Thaqāfah, 1972.
176. Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shihāb al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥayy. Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār
man dhahab, ed. Maḥmūd al-Arnāʾūṭ. Damascus: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1993.
177. Ibn al-Najjār, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Futūhī al-Ḥanbalī. Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-
munīr al-musammā bi-Mukhtaṣar al-Taḥrīr aw al-Mukhtabar al-mubtakar Sharḥ al-
Mukhtaṣar fī ūṣūl al-fiqh, ed. Muḥammad al-Zuḥaylī and Nazīh Ḥammād. KSA: Wazārat
al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah wa-l-Awqāf wa-l-Daʿwah wa-l-Irshād, 1993.
178. Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥyī al-Dīn and Maḥmūd Ghurāb. Sharḥ Risālat Rūḥ al-quds fī
muḥāsabat al-nafs. N.P, 2ed, 1994.
474
179. Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥyī al-Dīn and R. W. J. Austin. The Bezels of Wisdom. New York:
Paulist Press, 1980.
180. Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥyī al-Dīn. Al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyyah. Cairo: Būlāq edition, 1911.
181. Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥyī al-Dīn. Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Abū al-ʿIlā ʿAfīfī. Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-
Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah, 1946.
182. Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥyī al-Dīn. Kitāb inshāʾ al-dawāʾir in Kleinere Schriften des Ibn Al-
ʿArabī, ed. H S Nyberg. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1919.
183. Ibn ʿAsākir, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan. Tabyyin kadhib al-muftarī fī-mā nusiba ilā Abū al-Ḥasan
al-Ashʿarī, ed. Muḥammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī. Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Azhariyyah li-l-
Turāth, 2010.
184. Ibn Bishr, ʿUthmān b. ʿAbd Allāh. ʿUnwān al-majd fī tārīkh Najd, ed. ʿAbd al-
Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Āl al-Shaykh. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Maṭbūʿāt Dārat al-Malik ʿAbd al-
ʿAzīz, 4th ed., 1982.
185. Ibn Fūrak, Mujarrad maqālāt al-Shaykh Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī: min imlāʾ al-Shaykh
al-Imām Abī Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Fūrak (t. 406/1015), ed. Daniel Gimaret.
Beirut: Dār el-Mashriq, 1987.
186. Ibn Ghannām, Ḥusayn b. Abī Bakr. Tārīkh Ibn Ghannām al-musammā Rawḍat al-
afkār wa-l-afhām li-murtādd ḥāl al-Imām wa-tiʿdādd ghazawāt dhawī al-Islām, ed.
Sulaymān b. Ṣāliḥ al-Kharāshī. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Thulūthiyyah li-l-Nashr wa-l-
Tawzīʿ, 2010.
187. Ibn Ḥanbal, Aḥmad. Al-Radd ʿalā al-jahmiyyah wa-l-zanadiqah, ed. Ṣabrī b. Salāmah
Shāhīn. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Thabāt, 2003.
188. Ibn Hishām, ʿAbd al-Malik, Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq, and Alfred Guillaume. The Life
of Muhammad: A Translation [from Ibn Hishām’s Adaptation] of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh.
Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1967.
189. Ibn Maʿṣūm al-Madanī, ʿAlī Ṣadr al-Dīn. Riḥlat Ibn Maʿṣūm al-Madanī, or Salawat
al-gharīb wa-uswat al-arīb, ed. Shākir Hādī Shākir. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub/Maktabat
al-Nahḍah al-ʿArabiyyah, 1988.
190. Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), and Michael E. Marmura. The Metaphysics of the Healing: A
Parallel English-Arabic Text = al-Ilahīyāt min al-Shifāʾ. Provo, UT: Brigham Young
191. Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), and Shams Constantine Inati. Ibn Sina’s Remarks and
Admonitions: Physics and Metaphysics: An Analysis and Annotated Translation. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2014.
475
192. Ibn Sīnā, Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn. Al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbihāt, maʿ Sharḥ Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī,
ed. Sulaymān Dunyā. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Nuʿmān li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa-l-Nashr, 2ed,
1993.
193. Ibn Sīnā, Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn. Al-Taʿlīqāt, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī. Beirut: al-
Dār al-Islāmiyyah, n.d.
194. Ibn Taymiyyah, Aḥmad. Al-Radd ʿalā man qāla bi-fanāʾ al-jannah wa-l-nār, ed.
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Simharī. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār Balansiyyah, 1415/1995.
195. Ibn Taymiyyah, Aḥmad. Al-Risālah al-Ḥamawiyyah al-kubrā in Majmūʿ fatāwā
Shaykh al-Islām, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. Qāsim and Muḥammad b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. Qāsim. KSA, Medina: Mujammaʿ al-Malik Fahd, 2004.
196. Ibn Taymiyyah, Aḥmad. Ḥaqīqat madhab al-ittiḥādiyyah, in Majmūʿ Fatāwā Shaykh
al-Islām Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. Qāsim and
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Qāsim. KSA, Medina: Mujammaʿ al-Malik Fahd,
2004.
197. Ibn al-ʿUjaymī, Muḥammad Ḥasan. Zawāyā al-taṣawwuf wa-l-ṣufiyyah al-musammā
Khabāyā al-zawāyā, ed. Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Sāyḥ and Tawfīq ʿAlī Wahbah. Cairo:
Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Diniyyah, 2009.
198. Ījī (al-), ʿAḍūd al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Al-Mawāqif fī ʿilm al-kalām. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-
Kutub, n.d.
199. Ingalls, Matthew B. “Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī and the study of Muslim commentaries
from the later Islamic middle period.” Religion Compass. 10:5 (2016), 118-130.
200. Irwin, Robert. “Journey to Mecca: A history (Part 2).” In Hajj Journey to the Heart
of Islam. Ed. Venetia Porter. UK: The British Museum Press, 2012.
201. ʿĪsawī, Aḥmad Muḥammad and others. Fahras al-makhṭūṭāt al-Yamaniyyah li-Dār
al-Makhṭūṭāt wa-l-Maktabah al-Gharbiyyah bi-l-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr-Ṣanʿāʾ. Irān, Qum:
Maktabat Samāḥat Āyat Allāh al-ʿUẓmā al-Marʿashī al-Najafī al-Kubrā, 2005.
202. Iyās (Ibn.), Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Badāʾiʿ al-zuḥūr fī waqāʾiʿ al-duhūr. Cairo: Dār
Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Ḥalabī, 1986.
203. Jabartī (al-), ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan. ʿAjāʾib al-āthār fī al-tarājim wa-l-akhbār, ed.
ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub al-
Miṣriyyah bi-l-Qāhirah, 1997.
204. Jalabī, Awliyā. Al-Riḥlah al-ḥijāziyyah, translated from Turkish to Arabic by al-
Ṣafṣāfī Aḥmad al-Mursī. Cairo: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyyah, 1999.
205. [Jalabī], Evliya Çelebi, Nurettin Gemici, and Robert Dankoff. Evliya Çelebi in
Medina: The Relevant Sections of the Seyahatname. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
476
206. Jāmī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Al-Durrah al-fākhirah, ed. Aḥmad al-Sāyḥ and Aḥmad
ʿAwaḍ. Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Diniyyah, 2002.
207. Jawziyyah (al-), Ibn al-Qayyim Muḥammad. Ḥādī al-arwāḥ ilā bilād al-afrāḥ, ed.
ʿAbd al-Laṭīf āl Muḥammad al-Fāʿūr. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1987.
208. Jawziyyah (al-), Ibn al-Qayyim Muḥammad. Kitāb al-rūḥ, ed. Muḥammad Ajmal
Ayyūb al-Aṣlāḥī. KSA, Mecca: Dār ʿĀlam al-Fawāʾid, 1432/2011.
209. Johns, Anthony H. “Al-Kurani.” In The Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden: Brill, 2nd ed.,
1986, vol. V. pp. 432-3.
210. Johns, Anthony H. “Friends in grace: Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī and ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-
Singkeli.” In Spectrum, Essays presented to Sutan Takdir Alisjah-bana, ed. S. Udin. Jakarta:
Dian Rakyat, (1978), 469-485.
211. Johns, Anthony H. “Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and new directions.”
Indonesia, No. 19 (Apr., 1975), 33-55.
212. Jurjānī (al-), ʿAbd al-Qāhir and Khālid al-Azharī. Al-ʿAwāmil al-māʾah al-
naḥawiyyah fī uṣūl al-ʿarabiyyah Sharḥ al-Shaykh Khālid al-Azharī al-Jarjāwī (d.
905/[1499]), ed. Al-Badrāwī Zahrān. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 2ed, 1988.
213. Jurjānī (al-), ʿAbd al-Qāhir. Al-Jumal, ed. ʿAlī Ḥaydar. Damascus: Dār al-Ḥikmah,
1972.
214. Jurjānī (al-), al-Sayyid al-Sharīf ʿAlī b. Muḥammad. Sharḥ al-Mawāqif wa-maʿahu
ḥāshiyatā al-Siyalkūtī wa-l-Jalabī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1998.
215. Juwaynī (al-), Imām al-Ḥaramayin ʿAbd al-Mālik. Al-ʿAqīdah al-niẓāmiyyah, ed.
Muḥammad Zāhid Kawtharī. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyyah li-l-Turāth, 1992.
216. Juwaynī (al-), Imām al-Ḥaramayin ʿAbd al-Mālik. Al-Irshād ilā qawaṭiʿ al-adillah fī
uṣūl al-iʿtiqād, ed. M. Yūsuf Mūsā and A. A. ʿAbd al-Hamīd. Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī,
1950.
217. Juwaynī (al-), Imām al-Ḥaramayin ʿAbd al-Mālik. Al-Shāmil fī uṣūl al-dīn, ed. A.S.
al-Nashshār. Cairo: 1969.
218. Kaffawī, Ayyūb ibn Mūsā. Al-Kulliyyāt, ed. ʿAdnān Darwīsh and Muḥammad al-
Miṣrī. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2ed, 1998.
219. Kaḥḥālah, ʿUmar Riḍā. Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn: Tarājim muṣannifī al-kutub al-
ʿarabiyyah. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1993.
220. Kawash, Sabri. Ibn Ḥajar al-Asqalānī: A study of the Background, Education, and Carrer
of a ʿĀlim in Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University, PhD dissertation, 1968.
221. Keraan, Mustapha and Muhammed Haron. “Selected Sufi texts of Shaykh Yusuf:
Translations and commentaries.” Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 45:1 (2008), pp. 101-122.
477
222. Khalil, Muhammad Hassan. Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of
Others. University of Michigan, PhD dissertation, 2007.
223. Kittānī (al-), ʿAbd al-Ḥayy. Fahras al-fahāris wa-l-athbāt wa-muʿjam al-maʿājim wa-
l-mashyakhyāt wa-l-musalsalāt, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2ed,
1982.
224. Knysh, Alexander. Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition. Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1999.
225. Knysh, Alexander. “Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (d. 1101/1690), an apologist for ‘waḥdat al-
wujūd’.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Third Series, vol. 5: 1 (Apr, 1995), pp. 39-47.
226. Kooria, Mahmood. “‘Killed the pilgrims and persecuted them’: Portuguese
estado da India’s encounters with the hajj in the Sixteenth century.” In The Hajj and
Europe in the Age of Empire, ed. Umar Ryad. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2017, pp. 14-46.
227. Kramers, J.H. “Müned̲jd̲̲ jim
̲ Bas̲h̲ī.” In The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition,
Volume VII: Mif–Naz. Leiden and New York: Brill, (1993), pp. 572–573.
228. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm and Alfred Guillaume. “Al-Lumʿat al-sanīya fī taḥqīq al-ilqāʾ
fi-l-umnīya.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London,
Vol. 20, No. 1/3, Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph Turner, Director of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, 1937-57, (1957), pp. 291-303.
229. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Amam li-īqāẓ al-himam. India, Ḥaydarābād al-Dakin:
Maṭbaʿat Majlis Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiyyah, 1328/[1910].
230. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Tawjīh al-mukhtār fī nafy al-qalb ʿan ḥadīth ikhtiṣām al-
jannah wa-l-nār, ed. Al-ʿArabī al-Dāʾiz al-Firyāṭī. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah,
2005.
231. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Iʿmāl al-fikr wa-l-riwāyāt fī sharḥ ḥadīth inna-mā al-aʿmāl bi-l-
niyyāt, ed. Aḥmad Rajab Abū Sālim. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2013.
232. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Inbâhu’l-Enbâh ‘Alâ Taḥḳîḳi I‘Râbi Lâ Ilâhe Illallah, ed. Ahmet
Gemi. Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, Doktora Tezi (PhD dissertation), 2013.
233. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Tanbīh al-ʿuqūl ʿalā tanzīh al-ṣūfiyyah ʿan iʿtiqād al-tajsīm wa-
l-ʿayniyyah wa-l-ittiḥād wa-l-ḥulūl, ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Ḥusayn. Damascus: Dār
al-Bayrūtī, 2009.
234. Landolt, Hermann. “Simnānī on waḥdat al-wujūd.” In Collected Papers on Islamic
Philosophy and Mysticism, ed. Hermann Landolt and M. Mohaghegh. Tehran: McGill
University, Institute of Islamic Studies, Tehran Branch, 1971, pp. 91-112.
235. Lindsay, W. S. History of Merchant Shipping and Ancient Commerce. London: S. Low,
Marston, Low, and Searle, 1874.
478
236. M. Abir. “The ‘Arab rebellion’ of Amir Ghālib of Mecca (1788-1813).” Middle
Eastern Studies, vol. 7: 2 (May, 1971), pp. 185-200.
237. Mach, Rudolf. Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett
Collection, Princeton University Library. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.
238. Madhārī (al-), Ibrāhīm b. Muṣṭafā. Al-Lumʿah fī taḥqīq mabāḥith al-wujūd wa-l-
ḥudūth wa-l-qadar wa-afʿāl al-ʿibād, ed. Muḥamad Zāhid al-Kawtharī. Cairo: Dār al-
Baṣāʾir, 2008.
239. Makhlūf, Mājidah. Awqāf nisāʾ al-salāṭīn al-ʿuthmāniyyin, waqfiyyat zawjat al-Sulṭān
Sulaymān al-Qānūnī ʿalā al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn. Beirut: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyyah,
2006.
240. Marmura, Michael E. “Some aspects of Avicenna’s theory of God’s knowledge of
particulars.” Journal of the Americal Oriental Society 82 (1962), pp. 299–312.
241. Martin, Richard C., Mark R. Woodward, and Dwi S. Atmaja. Defenders of Reason in
Islam: Muʿtazilism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol. Oxford, England: Oneworld
Publications, 1997.
242. Massignon, Louis. “Tasawwuf.” In Encyclopedia of Islam, 1ed, 1913-1936.
243. McCarthy, Richard. The Theology of al-Ashʿarī: The Arabic Texts of al-Ashʿarī’s Kitāb
al-Lumaʿ and Risālat Istiḥsān al-khawḍ fī ʿilm al-kalām. Beirut: Impr. Catholique,1953.
244. McPherson, Kenneth. The Indian Ocean: A History of People and the Sea. Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
245. Metcalf, Barbara D. “A historical overview of Islam in South Asia.” In Islam in
South Asia in Practice. Ed. Barbara D. Metcalf. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2009.
246. Minorsky, V. “The Guran.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 11
(1943), 75-103.
247. Mirdād, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī al-Khayr. Al-Mukhtaṣar min nashr al-nawar wa-l-zahar fī
tarājim afāḍil Makkah min al-qarn al-ʿāshir ilā al-qarn al-rābiʿ ʿashar, ed. Muḥammad Saʿīd
al-ʿĀmūdī and Aḥmad ʿAlī. KSA, Jeddah: ʿĀlam al-Maʿrifah, 1986.
248. Mizjājī (al-), ʿAbd al-Khāliq b. ʿAlī b. al-Zayn. Nuzhat riyāḍ al-ijāzah al-mustaṭābah
bi-dhikr manāqib al-mashāyikh ahl al-riwāyah wa-l-iṣābah, ed. Muṣṭafā ʿAbd Allāh al-
Khaṭīb and ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad al-Ḥabashī al-Yamanī. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1997.
249. Moris, Megawati. “Islamization of the Malay worldview: Sufi metaphysical
writings.” World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization, 1:2 (2011), pp. 108-116.
250. Morris, James. “Ibn ʿArabī and his interpreters.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society, CVI/3 (1986), pp. 539-64; CVI/4 (1986), pp. 733-56; CVII/i (1987), pp. 101-120.
479
251. Mortel, Richard T. “Madrasas in Mecca during the medieval period: A

descriptive study based on literary sources.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, vol. 60:2 (1997), pp. 236-252.
252. Mortel, Richard T. “Prices in Mecca during the Mamluk period.” Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 32: 3 (Oct, 1989), pp. 279-334, 281.
253. Mortel, Richard T. “Ribāṭs in Mecca during the medieval period: A descriptive
study based on literary sources.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, vol. 61:1 (1998), 29-50.
254. Mortel, Richard T. “The Ḥusaynid Amirate of Madīna during the Mamlūk
period.” Studia Islamica, 80 (1994), pp. 97-123.
255. Mortel, Richard T. “Zaydī Shiʿism and the Ḥasanid Sharīfs of Mecca.”
International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19: 4 (1987), pp. 455-472.
256. Muʿallimī (al-), ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Aʿlām al-makkiyyin min al-qarn al-
tāsiʿ ilā al-qarn al-rābiʿ ʿashar al-hijrī. UK: London: al-Furqan Islamic Heritage
Foundation, 2000.
257. Muḥammad Ẓāhir, ʿAbd al-Ṣamad Muḥammad Jān. “Al-Makhṭūṭāt al-
mansūkhah fī al-Madīnah al-munawwarah al-maḥfūẓah fī maktabat ʿĀrif Ḥikmat,
part I.” Majallat al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 19, (1427/2006), pp. 65-90.
258. Muhanna, Elias. “Why was the fourteenth century a century of Arabic
encyclopaedism?” In Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. Jason König
and Greg Woolf. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 343-356.
259. Muḥibbī (al-), Muḥammad Amīn. Khulāṣat al-athar fī aʿyān al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar.
Egypt: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Wahbīyah, 1868.
260. Munajjid (al-), Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn. “Ijāzāt al-samāʿ fī al-makhṭūṭāt al-qadīmah.”
Majallat Maʿhad al-Makhṭūṭāt, vol. 2:1 (1955), p. 233.
261. Murādī (al-), Muḥammad Khalīl b. ʿAlī. Silk al-durar fī aʿyān al-qarn al-thānī ʿashar.
Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, n. d.
262. Mūsā, ʿAlī b. “Waṣf al-Madīnah al-munawwarah fī sanat 1303/1885.” In Rasāʾil fī tārīkh
al-Madīnah, ed. Ḥamad al-Jāsir. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Manshūrāt Dār al-Yamāmah,
1392/1972.
263. Muʿtazilī (al-), al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad. Kitāb al-Asās li-ʿaqāʾid al-akyās, ed. Alber
Nadir. Beirut: Dār al-Ṭalīʿah, 1980.
264. Naʿʿāl (al-) al-Baghdādī, Ṣāʾin al-Dīn. Mashyakhat al-Naʿʿāl al-Baghdādī (d.
659/1261), ed. Nājī Maʿrūf and Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf. Baghdad: al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī
al-ʿIrāqī, 1975.
480
265. Nabhānī (al-), Yūsuf b. Ismāʿīl. Jāmiʿ karāmat al-awliyāʾ, ed. Ibrāhīm ʿAṭwah ʿAwaḍ.
India, Gujarat: Markaz-e ahl-e Sunnat Barakat-e Reza, n.d.
266. Nābulusī (al-), ʿAbd al-Ghanī. Al-Wujūd al-Ḥaqq, ed. Bakri Aladdin. Damascus:
IFPO L’institut Français D’études Arabes De Damas, 19995.
267. Nadawī (al-), Muḥammad Akram. Nafaḥāt al-Hind wa-l-Yaman bi-asānīd al-shaykh
Abī al-Ḥasan. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Maktabat al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 1998.
268. Nafi, Basheer. “A teacher of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: Muḥammad Ḥayāt al-Sindī and
the revival of aṣhāb al-ḥadīth’s methodology.” Islamic Law and Society, 13:2 (2006),
208-241.
269. Nafi, Basheer. “Taṣawwuf and reform in pre-modern Islamic culture: In search
of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī.” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 42, Issue 3, Arabic
Literature and Islamic Scholarship in the 17/18 Century: Topics and Biographies
(2002), pp. 307-355, 330.
270. Nahrawālī (al-) al-Makkī, Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥammad. Al-Barq al-yamānī fī al-fatḥ al-
ʿUthmānī, ed. Ḥamad al-Jāsir. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Yamāmah, 1967.
271. Nahrawālī (al-), Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Al-Iʿlām bi-aʿlām bayt Allāh al-ḥarām, ed.
Hishām ʿAṭā. KSA, Mecca: al-Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah, 1996.
272. Najdī (al-) al-Makkī, Muḥammed b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥamīd. Al-Suḥub al-wābilah ʿalā
ḍarāʾiḥ al-Ḥanābilah, ed. Bakr Abū Zayd and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿUthaymīn. Beirut:
Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1996.
273. Naqshbandī, Khālid. Al-ʿIqd al-jawharī fī al-farq bayn qudrat al-ʿabd wa-kasbihi ʿind
al-Māturidī wa-l-Ashʿarī, ed. Saʿīd Fūdah. Jordan: Manshūrāt al-Aṣlayn, 2016.
274. Nīsābūrī (al-), Abū Rashīd. Al-Masāʾil fī al-khilāf bayna al-Baṣriyyīn wa-l-
Baghdādiyyīn, ed. Maʿn Ziyādah and Riḍwān al-Sayyid. Beirut: Maʿhad al-Inmāʾ al-
ʿArabī, 1979.
275. Nisābūrī (al-), Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-
Bāqī. Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, 1991.
276. Nuʿaymī (al-) al-Dimashqī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad. Al-Dāris fī tārīkh al-
madāris. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1990.
277. Nūristānī (al-) al-Baṣrī, Muḥammad Muḥammadī. Khatm Sunan al-Imām Abī
Dāwūd. KSA, al-Riyāḍ: Dār Aḍwāʾ al-Salaf, 2004.
278. Nusseibeh, S. “Avicenna: Providence and God's knowledge of particulars.” In
Avicenna and his Legacy: A Golden Age of Science and Philosophy, ed. Langermann, Y. Tzvi.
Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009.
279. O’Fahey, R. S., and Bernd Radtke. “Neo-Sufism reconsidered.” Der Islam. 70:1,
(1993), 52-87.
481
280. O’Fahey, R. S. Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad Ibn Idris and Idrisi Tradition. Illinois:
Northwestern University Press, 1990.
281. Ochsenwald, Willaim. “Ottoman Arabia and the Holy Hijaz, 1516-1918.” Journal
of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective, vol. 10: 1 (2015), pp. 23-34.
282. Ormsby, Eric. “The faith of Pharaoh: a disputed question in Islamic Theology.”
Studia Islamica, No. 98/99 (2004), pp. 5-28.
283. Özbaran, Salih. The Ottoman Response to European Expansion: Studies on Ottoman-
Portuguese Relations in the Indian Ocean and Ottoman Administration in the Arab Lands
during the Sixteenth Century. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1994.
284. Paul, Jürgen. Doctrine and Organization: The Khwājagān/Naqshbandīya in the First
Generation after Bahāʾuddin. Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 1998.
285. Peacock, A. C. S., and Annabel Teh Gallop. “Introduction, Islam, trade and
politics across the Indian Ocean: Imagination and reality.” In From Anatolia to Aceh:
Ottomans, Turks, and Southeast Asia. Eds. A. C. S. Peacock, and Annabel Teh Gallop. UK:
Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 1-25.
286. Pearson, Michael N. Pilgrimage to Mecca: The Indian Experience, 1500-1800.
Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996.
287. Pearson, Michael N. Pious Passengers, the Hajj in Early Times. New Delhi: Sterling
Publishers, 1994.
288. Pearson, Michael N. “The Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.” In The History of Islam
in Africa. Ed. Nehemia Levtzion and Randall L. Pouwels. Ohio: Ohio University Press,
2000.
289. Pellat, Charles. “L’astrolabe sphérique d’al-Rūdānī.” Bulletin d'études orientales, T.
26 (1973), pp. 7-10, 12-80, 82.
290. Pellat, Charles. “L’astrolabe sphérique d’al-Rūdānī.” Bulletin d'études orientales, T.
28 (1975), pp. 83-165.
291. Peters, F.E. Mecca: A Literary History of the Muslim Holy Land. Princeton: Princeton
292. Pfeiffer, Judith. “Teaching the learned: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s ijāza to
Muʾayyadzāda ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi and the circulation of knowledge between
Fārs and the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the Sixteenth Century.” In The Heritage
of Arabo-Islamic Learning: Studies Presented to Wadad Kadi. Ed. Wadād Qāḍī, Maurice A.
Pomerantz, and Aram A. Shahin. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016.
293. Pourjavady, Reza and Asad Q. Ahmad. “Theology in the Indian Subcontinent.” In
The Oxford handbook of Islamic Theology. Ed. Sabine Schmidtke. UK, Oxford: Oxford
482
294. Pourjavady, Reza. “Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī and his samples of the sciences.”
Oriens. 42: 3-4 (2014), pp. 292-322.
295. Pourjavady, Reza. Philosophy in early Safavid Iran: Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī
and his Writings. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
296. Qādirī (al-), Muḥammad b. al-Tayyib. Nashr al-mathānī li-ahl al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar
wa-l-thānī, ed. Muḥammad Ḥajjī and Aḥmad Tawfīq. In Mawsūʿat aʿlām al-Maghrib, vol.
3. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1996.
297. Qannūjī (al-), Ṣīddīq b. Ḥasan. Abjad al-ʿulūm, al-Washī al-marqūm fī bayān aḥwāl
al-ʿulūm, ed. ʿAbd al-Jabbār Zakkār and others. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah,
1978.
298. Qrūd, Amaḥamad. “Al-Dawr al-thaqāfī li-l-shaykh Abū Zakarīyāʾ Yaḥyā al-Shāwī
fī al-Jazāʾir wa-l-Mashriq al-ʿArabī.” In Mujallat Ansanah li-l-Buḥūth wa-l-Dirāsāt,
Algeria, 15:2, (Dec., 2016), 87-118.
299. Qūnawī (al-), Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad. Al-Nuṣūṣ fī taḥqīq al-ṭawur al-makhṣūṣ, ed.
Ibrāhīm Ibrāhīm Muḥammad Yasīn. Cairo: Munshaʾat al-MaꜤārif, 2003. An English
translated by Chittick can be found in An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia, ed. Seyyed
Hossein Nasr and Mehdi Amin Razavi. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2008, vol. 4.
300. Qūnawī (al-), Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad. Iʿjāz al-bayān fī tafsīr Umm al-Qūrʾān, ed.
Jalāl al-Dīn Ashtiyānī. Iran, Qumm: Bustan-e Ketab Press, 1423/2002.
301. Qūnawī (al-), Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad. Miftāḥ al-ghayb li-Abī al-Maʿālī Ṣadr al-Dīn
Muḥammad b. Isḥāq al-Qūnawī wa-sharḥuhu Miṣbāḥ al-uns li-Muḥammad b. Ḥamzah al-
Fanārī, ed. Muḥammad Khvājavī. Tehran: Intishārāt Mawlā, 1416/1995.
302. Qushāshī (al-), Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. Al-Durrah al-thamīnah fī-mā li-zāʾir al-Nabī
ilā al-Madīnah al-munawwarah, ed. Muḥammad Zaynahum Muḥammad ʿAzab. Cairo:
Maktabat Madbūlī, 2000.
303. Qushāshī (al-), Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. Al-Samṭ al-majīd fī shaʾn al-bayʿah wa-l-dhikr
wa-talqīnihi wa-salāsil ahl al-tawḥīd. India, Ḥaydarābād al-Dakan: Maṭbaʿat Majlis
Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmīyah, 1910.
304. Rāfiʿī (al-) al-Qazwīnī, ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Muḥammad. Al-ʿAzīz sharḥ al-Wajīz, ed.
ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ and ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1997.
305. Rahman, Fazlur. Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
306. Rahman, Fazlur. “Revival and reform in Islam.” In The Cambridge History of Islam,
ed. Holt, P. M., Ann K. S. Lambton and Bernard Lewis. UK: University Press, 1970.
307. Ralli, Augustus. Christians at Mecca. London: W. Heinemann, 1909.
483
308. Rāzī (al-), Fakhr al-Dīn. Nihāyat al-ʿuqūl fī dirāyat al-uṣūl, ed. Saʿīd Fūdah. Beirut:
Dār al-Dhakhāʿʾir, 2015.
309. Reid, Anthony. “Rum and Jawa: The vicissitudes of documenting a long-distance
relationship.” In From Anatolia to Aceh: Ottomans, Turks, and Southeast Asia. UK, Oxford:
Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 25-25.
310. Rentz, George, and William Facey. The Birth of the Islamic Reform Movement in Saudi
Arabia: Muhammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1703/4-1792) and the Beginnings of Unitarian
Empire in Arabia. London: Arabian Pub, 2004.
311. Rescher, Nicholas. Studies in Arabic Philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1966.
312. Richards, J.F. “The formulation of imperial authority under Akbar and Jahangir.”
In The Mughal State 1526-1750, eds. Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam. India:
Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 126-167.
313. Riḍā, ʿAlī and Aḥmad al-Bizrah. Al-Thulāthiyyāt: thulāthiyyāt al-aʾimmah: al-
Bukhārī, al-Tirmidhī, al-Dārimī, Ibn Mājah, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd al-Kishī, al-Ṭabarānī. Damascus:
Dār al-Māʾmūn, 1986.
314. Riḍā, Muḥammad Rashīd (ed.). Majmuʿat al-Rasāʾil wa-l-masāʾil al-Najdiyyah. Cairo:
Dār al-Manār, 1345/1927.
315. Riddell, Peter G. Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission and Responses.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2001.
316. Rizvi, Sayyid Athar Abbas. A History of Sufism in India. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1978.
317. Rizvi, Sayyid Athar Abbas. A Socio-Intellectual History of the Isnā ʿAsharī Shīʿīs in
India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1986.
318. Robinson, Francis. “Ottomans-Safavids-Mughals: Shared knowledge and
connective systems.” Journal of Islamic Studies 8: 2 (1997), pp. 151-184.
319. Rosenthal, Franz. “Ibn Arabi between ‘Mysticism’ and ‘Philosophy’.” Oriens 31
(1988), pp. 1-35.
320. Ross, W. D. Aristotle. London: Routledge, 1995.
321. Rūdānī (al-), Muḥammad b. Sulaymān. Ṣilat al-khalaf bi-mawṣūl al-salaf, ed.
Muḥammad Ḥajjī. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1988.
322. Rustom, Mohammed. “The cosmology of the Muhammadan Reality.” Ishraq,
Islamic Philosophy Yearbook, Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura, Issue 4 (2013), pp. 540-
545.
323. Ṣafadī (al-), Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn. Al-Wāfī bi-l-wafāyāt, ed. Aḥmad al-Arnaʾūṭ and Turkī
Muṣṭafā. Beirut: Dar al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 2000.
484
324. Ṣāghānī (al-), al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad. Al-Durr al-multaqaṭ fī tabyyin al-ghalaṭ, ed.
Abū al-Fidāʾ ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1985.
325. Sakhāwī (al-), Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. Al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ.
Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1992.
326. Sakhāwī (al-), Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. Al-Jawāhir wa-l-durar fī tarjamat Shayk
al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar, ed. Ibrāhīm Bājis ʿAbd al-Majīd. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1999.
327. Sakhāwī (al-), Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. Al-Tuḥfah al-laṭīfah fī tārīkh al-Madīnah
al-sharīfah, ed. Asʿad Ṭarabzūnī al-Ḥusaynī. N. P: 1979.
328. Samhūdī (al-), Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī. Wafāʾ al-wafā fī akhbār dār al-Muṣṭafā, e.
Muḥammad Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.
329. Ṣanʿānī (al-), Muḥammad b. Ismāʿil. Al-Anfās al-raḥmāniyyah al-Yamāniyyah fī
abḥāth al-ifāḍah al-Madaniyya, ed. ʿAlī b. ʿAbduh al-Almaʿī. KSA: al-Riyāḍ: Maktabat al-
Rushd, 2007.
330. Ṣanʿānī (al-), Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā. Mulḥaq al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-
maḥāsin man baʿd al-qarn al-sābiʿ. Cairo: Dār al-Saʿādah, 1348/1929-30.
331. Sanūsī (al-) al-Idrīsī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī. Al-Manhal al-rawī al-rāʾiq fī asānīd al-ʿulūm
wa-uṣūl al-ṭarāʾiq. Algeria: Dār al-Tawfiqīyyah, 2011.
332. Sanūsī (al-), Muḥammad b. Yūsuf. ʿUmdat ahl al-tawfīq wa-l-tasdīd fī sharḥ ʿAqīdat
ahl al-tawḥīd al-kubrā. Egypt: Jarīdat al-Islām bi-Miṣr, 1316/1898.
333. Sapan, Suheyl. “Mukhaṣṣaṣāt al-qabāʾil al-ʿArabiyyah min wāqiʿ al-ṣurrah al-
ʿUthmāniyyah li-ʿām 1192/1778.” Majallat Kulliyat al-Ādāb, Jamiʿat al-Malik ʿAbd al-
ʿAzīz, n. 20, (1428-1429/2007-2008).
334. Sarrāj (al-), Saʿīd. Maslak al-sadād li-l-Kūrānī wa-rudūd ʿulamāʾ al-maghrib ʿalayhi:
Dirāsa wa-taḥqīq. Morocco, Taṭwān: The University of ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Saʿdī, Kulliyyat
al-Ādāb wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah, PhD dissertation, 2010-2011.
335. Sartain, E. M. Jalāl al-dīn al-Suyūṭī: Biography and Background. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 23, 1975.
336. Seavoy, Ronald E. Origin and Growth of the Global Economy from the Fifteenth Century
Onward. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.
337. Shāfiʿī, Ḥusayn A. Al-Arbiṭah bi-Makkah al-mukarramah fī al-ʿahd al-ʿUthmānī:
Dirāsah tārikhiyyah ḥaḍāriyyah 923-1334H/1517-1915. UK: London: al-Furqan Islamic
338. Shāfiʿī, Ḥusayn A. Al-Arbiṭah fī Makkah al-mukarramah mundhu al-bidāyāt ḥattā
nihāyat al-ʿaṣr al-Mamlūkī: Dirāsah tārīkhiyyah ḥaḍāriyyah. UK: al-Furqan Islamic
485
339. Shahrastānī (al-), Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm. Struggling with the Philosopher:
A Refutation of Avicenna's Metaphysics: A new Arabic Edition and English Translation of
Muhammad b. Abd al-Karīm b. Ahmad al-Shahrastānī's Kitāb al-Muṣāraʿa, edited and
translate by Wilferd Madelung. London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Institute
of Ismaili Studies, 2001.
340. Shaʿrānī (al-), ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. Al-Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir fī bayān ʿaqāʾid al-akābir.
Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, n.d.
341. Shaw, Stanford J. The Financial Administrative Organization and Development of
Ottoman Egypt 1517-1798. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962.
342. Shaw, Stanford J. The Budget of Ottoman Egypt 1005-1006/1596-1597.
Columbia University: The Hague, Mouton,1968.
343. Shawkānī (al-), Muḥammad b. ʿAlī. Al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-maḥāsin man baʿd al-qarn al-
sābiʿ. Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, n. d.
344. Shawkānī (al-), Muḥammad b. ʿAlī. Itḥāf al-akābir bi-isnād al-dafātir, ed. Khalīl b.
ʿUthmān al-Subayʿī. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1999.
345. Shullī (al-) Bā-ʿalawī, Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Aḥmad. ʿAqd al-jawāhir wa-l-durar
fī akhbār al-qarn al-ḥādī ʿashar, ed. Ibrāhīm Aḥmad al-Maqḥafī. Yamen, Ṣanʿāʾ:
Maktabat al-Irshād, 2003.
346. Sinjārī (al-), ʿAlī b. Tāj al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb. Manāʾiḥ al-karam fī akhbār Makkah wa-l-
bayit wa-wilāyat al-ḥaram, ed. Jamīl ʿAbd Allāh al-Miṣrī. KSA, Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-
Qurā, 1998.
347. Sirhindī (al-), Aḥmad. Risālat al-mabdaʾ wa-l-maʿād. In Kitāb al-raḥmah al-hābiṭah fī
aḥwāl al-Imām al-rabbānī qaddas Allāh sirrah. Turkey, Istanbul: Waqf al-Ikhlāṣ, 2002.
348. Smith, G. R. “The Ayyūbids and Rasūlids, the transfer of power in 7 th/13th
Century Yemen.” Islamic Culture, vol. XLIII: 3 (July 1969), pp. 175-188.
349. Snouck, Hurgronje. Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
350. Snouck, Hurgronje. Ṣafaḥāt min tārīkh Makkah al-mukarramah, tr. Muḥammad
Maḥmūd Suryānī and Miʿrāj Nawwāb Mīrzā. [KSA: al-Riyāḍ]: Dārat al-Malik ʿAbd al-
ʿAzīz, 1999.
351. Spevack, Aaron. “Al-Suyūṭī, the intolerant ecumenist: law and theology in Taʾyīd
al-ḥaqīqa al-ʿaliyya wa-tashyīd al-ṭarīqa al-Shādhiliyya.” In Al-Suyūṭī, a Polymath of the
Mamlūk Period Proceedings of the themed day of the First Conference of the School of Mamlūk
Studies (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, June 23, 2014), ed. Antonella Ghersetti. Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 2016.
352. Stanfield Johnson, Rosemary. “Sunni survival in Safavid Iran; anti-Sunni
activities during the reign of Tahmasp I.” Iranian Studies, 27: 1–4 (1994), pp. 123–133.
486
353. Stanfield, Rosemary. Mirza Makhdum Sharifi: A 16th Century Sunni Sadr at the Safavid
Court. New York: New York University, Department of Near Eastern Language and
Literature, PhD dissertation, 1993.
354. Stripling, Frederick and George William. The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, 1511-
1574. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1942.
355. Subkī (al-), Taqī al-Dīn. Al-Sayf al-ṣaqīl fī al-radd ʿalā Ibn Zafīl, ed. Muḥammad
Zāhid al-Kawtharī. Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Azhariyyah li-l-Turāth, n. d.
356. Suyūṭī (al-), Jalāl al-Dīn. Naẓm al-ʿiqyān fī aʿyān al-aʿyān. ed. Philip Hittī. Beirut: al-
Maktabah al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1927.
357. Taftāzānī (al-), Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd b. ʿUmar. Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
ʿUmayrah. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1989.
358. Tagliacozzo, Eric. The Longest Journey: Southeast Asians and the Pilgrimage to Mecca.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
359. Ṭālawī (al-) al-Dimashqī, Darwīsh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Sāniḥāt dumā al-qaṣr fī
muṭāraḥāt banī al-ʿaṣr, ed. Muḥammad Mursī al-Khūlī. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1983.
360. Tāzī (al-), ʿAbd al-Hādī. Riḥlat al-riḥalāt: Makkah fī māʾat riḥlah maghribiyyah wa-
riḥlah. UK: London: al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2005.
361. Teitelbaum, Joshua. The Rise and Fall of the Hashimite Kingdom of Arabia. New York:
New York University Press, 2001.
362. Thaʿālibī (al-), ʿIsā b. Muḥammad al-Maghribī al-Makkī. Thabat Shams al-Dīn al-Bābilī
al-musammā: Muntakhab al-asānīd fī waṣl al-muṣannafāt wa-l-ajzāʾ wa-l-masānīd, and
Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, al-Murabbā al-Kābulī fī-man rawā ʿan al-Shams al-Bābilī,
ed. Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-ʿAjamī. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir, 2004.
363. Tilmisānī (al-), ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Mijjāwī. Tuḥfat al-akhyār fī-mā yataʿallaq bi-l-kasb
wa-l-ikhtiyār. Al-Jazāʾir: Maṭbaʿat Biyyr Fulṭānah al-Sharqiyyah, 1905.
364. Tirmidhī (al-), Muḥammad b. ʿIsā. Al-Jāmiʿ al-kabīr, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf.
Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2ed, 1998.
365. Todd, Elizabeth Anne. Sullam al-Mustafidīn. Australia, Canberra: The Australian
National University, Master’s thesis, 1975.
366. Ṭūsī, Jurjānī, Dawānī, Kalanbawī. Thalāth Rasāʾil fī nafs al-amr, ed. Saʿīd Fūdah.
Jordan: Dār al-Aṣlayn, 2017.
367. ʿUthaymīn (al-), ʿAbd Allāh. “Najd mundhu al-qarn al-ʿāshir al-hijrī ḥattā ẓuhūr
al-shaykh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.” Al-Dārah, (Sept. 1978), pp. 32-46.
368. Ūzbakī (al-), Muḥammad Bēg. ʿAṭiyyat al-wahhāb al-fāṣilah bayna al-khaṭaʾ wa-l-
ṣawāb, in al-Sirhindī’s Maktubāt. Istanbul: Waqf al-Ikhlāṣ, 2002, vol. 3.
487
369. Van Bruinessen, Martin. Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures
of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books, 1992.
370. Van Bruinessen, Martin. “Kurdish ʿulama and their Indonesian disciples.” In De
Turcicis aliisque rebus commentarii Henry Hofman dedicati [= Utrecht Turcological Series,
vol. 3]. Utrecht: Instituut voor Oosterse Talen en Culturen, 1992.
371. Van Bruinessen, Martin. “Studies of Sufism and the Sufi orders in Indonesia.”
Die Welt des Islams, New Series, vol. 38:2 (Jul., 1998), pp. 192-219.
372. Van Bruinessen, Martin. “The impact of Kurdish ʿUlama on Indonesian Islam.”
Les annales de l'autre islam 5 (1998), pp. 83-106.
373. Voll, John and Levtzion, eds. Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam.
Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1987.
374. Voll, John. “ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Sālim al-Baṣrī and 18th Century Ḥadīth scholarship.”
Die Welt des Islam 42:3 (2002), pp. 356-372.
375. Voll, John. “Ḥadith scholars and tariqah: an ʿulamā group in the 18 th Century
Ḥaramayn and their impact in the Islamic World.” Journal of Asian and African Studies,
XV, 3-4 (Jul 1,1980), pp. 264-273.
376. Voll, John. “Linking groups in the networks of Eighteenth-Century revivalist
scholars: The Mizjājī family in Yemen.” In Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in
Islam, eds. Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll, 39-58. Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse
377. Voll, John. “Muḥammad Ḥayāt al-Sindī and Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: An
analysis of an intellectual group in Eighteenth-Century Madīna.” Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 38:1 (1975), pp. 32-39.
378. Voll, John. “Neo-Sufism: Reconsidered again.” Canadian Journal of African Studies
/ Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines, vol. 42: 2/3, Engaging with a Legacy: Nehemia
Levtzion (1935-2003) (2008), pp. 314-330.
379. Voll, John. “Scholarly Interrelations between South Asia and the Middle East in
the 18th Century.” In The Countries of South Asia: Boundaries, Extensions and Interrelations,
ed. Peter Gaeffke and David A. Utz, USA: University of Pennsylvania, Department of
South Asia Regional Studies, 1988, pp. 49-59.
380. Voll, John. “ʿUthmān B. Muḥammad Fūdī’s sanad to al-Bukhārī as presented in
Tazyīn al-waraqāt.” Sudanic Africa, Vo. 13, (2002), pp. 111-115.
381. Wasti, Syed Tanvir. “The Ottoman ceremony of the royal purse.” Middle Eastern
Studies, vol. 41: 2 (Mar, 2005), pp. 193-200.
382. Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh: 1981.
488
383. Weismann, Itzchak. The Naqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Sufi
Tradition. NY: Routledge, 2007.
384. Welsford, Thomas. “The re-opening of Iran to Central Asian pilgrimage traffic,
1600-1650.” In Central Asian Pilgrims: Hajj Routes and Pious Visits between Central Asia and
the Hijaz. Ed. Alexandre Papas, Thomas Welsford, and Thierry Zarcone. Berlin: Klaus
Schwarz Verlag, 2012, pp. 149-167.
385. Winter, Michael. “A polemical treatise by ʿAbd al-Ġanī al-Nābulusī against a
Turkish scholar on the religious status of the ḏimmīs,” Brill, Arabica, T. 35, Fasc. 1
(Mar., 1988), pp. 92-103.
386. Wisnovsky, Robert. “Avicenna’s Islamic reception.” In Interpreting Avicenna (190-
213), ed. Peter Adamson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
387. Wisnovsky, Robert. Avicenna’s Metaphysics in Context. NY: Cornel University
Press, 2003.
388. Wisnovsky, Robert. “Avicennism and exegetical practice in the early
commentaries on the Ishārāt.” Oriens 41 (2013), pp. 349-378.
389. Wisnovsky, Robert. “Notes on Avicenna’s concept of thingness (shayʾiyya).”
Arabic Science and Philosophy, vol. 10 (2000), pp. 181-221.
390. Wisnovsky, Robert. “The nature and scope of Arabic philosophical commentary
in post-classical (CA. 1100-1900 AD) Islamic intellectual history: Some preliminary
observations.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement, no. 83, vol. 2
(2004), pp. 149-191.
391. Wisnovsky, Robert. “Towards a genealogy of Avicennism.” Oriens 42 (2014), pp.
323-363.
392. Witkam, Jan Just. “The Islamic pilgrimage in the manuscript literatures of
Southeast Asia.” In The Hajj: Collected Essays. Ed. Venetia Porter and Lians Saif.
London: The British Museum, 2013, pp. 214-223.
393. Wolfe, Michael. One Thousand Roads to Mecca: Ten Centuries of Travelers Writing
about the Muslim Pilgrimage. New York: Grove Press, 1997.
394. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. The Philosophy of the Kalam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
395. Yahya, Osman. Histoire et classification de l'œuvre d'Ibn ʻArabī; étude critique. Damas:
Institut franc̜ais de Damas, 1964.
396. Yūsī (al-), al-Ḥasan. Rasāʾil Abī ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. Masʿūd al-Yūsī, ed. Faṭimah Khalīl al-
Qiblī. Casablanca: Dār al-Thaqāfah, 1981.
397. Zabīdī (al-), Muḥammad Murtaḍā. Alfiyyat al-sanad, ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAzūz.
Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2006.
489
398. Zabīdī (al-), Muḥammad Murtaḍā. Al-Muʿjam al-mukhtaṣṣ, ed. Niẓām Muḥammad
Ṣāliḥ Yaʿqūbī and Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-ʿAjamī. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-
Islāmiyyah, 2006.
399. Zahrānī (al-), ʿAlī b. Bakhīt. Al-Inḥirāfāt al-ʿaqadiyyah wa-l-ʿilmiyyah fī al-qarnayn
al-thālith ʿashar wa-l-rābiʿ ʿashar al-hijriyyan wa-āthāruhā fī ḥayāt al-ummah. KSA,
Mecca: Dār al-Risālah li-l-Ṭabʿ wa-l-Tawzīʿ, n.d.
400. Zamakhsharī (al-), Abū al-Qāsim Jārullāh Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar. “Masʾalah fī kalimat
al-shahādah.” Majallat al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-ʿIrāqī, ed. Bahījah al-Ḥasanī. Iraq, Baghdad:
al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-ʿIrāqī, 1387/1967, pp. 37-42.
401. Zamakhsharī (al-), Abū al-Qāsim Jārullāh Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar. Tafsīr al-Kashshāf ʿan
ḥaqāʾiq al-tanzīl wa-ʿuyūn al-aqāwīl fī wujūh al-taʾwīl. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, 2009.
402. Ziriklī, Khayr al-Dīn, al-Aʿlām: qāmūs tarājim li-ashhar al-rijāl wa-al-nisāʾ min al-
ʿArab wa-al-mustaʿribīn wa-al-mustashriqīn. Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-malayyin, ed.15,
2012.
490
Manuscripts
1. ʿAbd al-Qādir, Muḥammad b. Taʿqīb ʿalā al-Lumʿah al-nūrāniyyah. MS. Cairo: Maʿhad
al-Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿArabiyyah, majāmīʿ 11, fols. 16-22.
2. Abī Bakr, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. A list of al-Kūrānī’s works. MS. KSA: Riyāḍ University, 3881.
3. Anonymous. A list of al-Kūrānī’s works. MS. Berlin Spre. 299. Aloys Sprenger, A
catalogue of the Bibliotheca Orientalis Sprengeriana. Berlin: Giessen: W. Keller, 1857., p. 21, n.
299.
4. Baʿlī (al-) al-Ḥanbalī, ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Ijāzah to al-Kūrānī. Ms. Jāmiʿat al-Malik Suʿūd
4849.
5. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Al-Jādhib al-ghaybī ilā al-Jānib al-gharbī fī ḥall
mushkilāt Ibn ʿArabī. Ms. Istanbul: Manisa 45HK6230.
6. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Al-ʿUqāb al-hāwī ʿalā al-thaʿlab al-ghāwī wa-l-
nashshāb al-kāwī li-l-aʿshā al-ghāwī wa-l-shahāb al-shāwī li-l-aḥwal al-Shāwī. MS. Istanbul:
Laleli 3744.
7. Barzanjī (al-), Muḥammad b. Rasūl. Qadḥ al-zand fī rad jahālāt ahl Sirhind. MS.
Istanbul: Laleli 3744.
8. Bayyūmī, ʿAlī. Thulāthiyyāt al-Būkhārī. Ms. Azhariyya 322992.
9. Dawānī (al-), Jalāl al-Dīn. Risālah fī iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh. MS. Istanbul: Atif Efendi
2441, fols. 142a-145a.
10. Khātūnābādī, Muḥammad Ismāʿīl. Commentary on al-Kūrānī’s gloss on al-Dawānī’s
Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah. MS. Iran: Daneshgah-2386 M.
11. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-ʿAyn wa-l-athar fī ʿaqāʾid ahl al-athar. MS. Pakistan: Thanāʾ
Allāh Zāhidī’s library, no number, 55 folios.
12. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Iʿlām bi-mā fī qawlihī taʿāla “ʿalā alladhīn yūṭīqūnahu” min al-
aḥkām. MS. Istanbul: Halet Efendi 787, fols. 1b-2b.
13. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Iʿlān bi-dafʿ al-tanāquḍ fī ṣūrat al-aʿyān fī jawāb suʾāl ʿAbd al-
Raḥmān. MS. Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 31b-33b.
14. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Ilmāʿ al-muḥīṭ bi-taḥqīq al-kasb al-wasaṭ bayn ṭarafay al-ifrāṭ
wa-l-tafrīṭ. MS. Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 151a-161b.
15. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Ilmām bi-taḥrīr qawlay Saʿdī wa-l-ʿIṣām. MS. Cairo: Dār al-
Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, Taymūriyyah, 1/10, majāmīʿ 92, 5 folios.
491
16. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Isfār ʿan aṣl istikhārat aʿmāl al-layl wa-l-nahār. MS. Istanbul:
Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 1b-24a.
17. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-jawāb al-mashkūr ʿan al-sūʾāl al-manẓūr. MS. Pakistan: Thanāʾ
Allāh Zāhidī’s library, no number, 5 folios.
18. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Jawābāt al-gharrāwiyyah li-l-masāʾil al-Jāwiyyah al-juhriyyah.
MS. KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5345, fols. 20-
71.
19. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Kashf al-muntaẓar li-mā yarāh al-muḥtaḍar. MS. KSA, Medina:
al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 38a-41b.
20. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Maslak al-anwar ilā maʿrifat al-barzakh al-akbar. MS. USA:
Princeton University Library, Yahuda 3869Y, fols. 76a-79a.
21. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-maslak al-jalī fī ḥukm shaṭḥ al-walī. MS. UK: British Library,
India Office, n. 2164; MS. Istanbul: veliyuddin 1815, fols. 137a-146b.
22. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Maslak al-mukhtār fī maʿrifat awwal ṣādir min al-Wājib bi-l-
ikhtiyār. MS. Istanbul, Veliyuddin Ef 1815, fol. 7a-32a.
23. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Maslak al-qarīb fī ajwibat al-Khaṭīb. MS. Istanbul: Sehid Ali
Pasa 2722, fols. 48a-62a.
24. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Maslak al-qawīm fī muṭābaqat al-qudrah bi-l-ḥādith li-taʿalluq
al-ʿilm al-qadīm. MS. Cairo: Azhariyyah, 3988, jūharī 41976, 6 folios.
25. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Maslak al-qawīm fī muṭābaqat taʿalluq al-qudrah bi-l-ḥādith li-
taʿalluq al-ʿilm al-qadīm. MS. Cairo: Azhariyyah, 41976, 8 folios.
26. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Maslak al-wasaṭ al-dānī ilā al-Durr al-multaqaṭ li-l-Ṣāghānī. MS.
Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 255a- 291a.
27. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Mutimmah li-l-masʾalah al-muhimmah. MS. Istanbul: Sehid
Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 129a-145b.
28. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Qawl al-mubīn fī taḥrīr masʾalat al-takwīn. MS. Istanbul: Sehid
Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 178b-185a.
29. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Qawl bi-īmān Firʿawn. MS. KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-
Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 96a-97a. And in MS. KSA, Medina:
al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5345, fols. 73-74.
30. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Taḥrīr al-ḥāwī li-jawāb īrād Ibn Ḥajar ʿalā al-Bayḍāwī. MS.
Cairo: Azhariyyah 10046, 2 folios.
492
31. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Taḥrīrāt al-bāhirah li-mabāḥith al-Durrah al-fākhirah. MS.
USA: Princeton University Library, Garrett, 4049Y, 20 folios.
32. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Tashīl, Sharḥ al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah. MS. UAE, Dubai: Juma
al-Majed Center for Culture and Heritage, no. 232146, 52 folios. On the first folio is written
that the origin of this MS is Majmaʿ al-Lughah al-ʿArabiyyah, without specifying which one.
33. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-Tawaṣṣul ilā anna ʿilm Allāh bi-l-ashyāʾ azalan ʿalā al-tafṣīl. MS.
Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 34b-35b.
34. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Al-ʿUjālah fī-mā kataba Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Qalʿī suʾālah.
MS. Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, ms. al-Tawḥīd: al-milal wa-l-niḥal, 3000/1,
fols. 295-304.
35. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Bayān al-qawl bi-īmān Farʿawn. Ms. KSA, al-Madīnah al-
Munawwarah: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fol. 96a.
36. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Dhayl al-Mutimmah, known as Itmām al-niʿmah bi-itmām al-
muhimmah. MS. Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 146a-150b.
37. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Fayḍ al-Wāhib al-ʿAlī fī jawāb suʾāl Abī al-Mawāhib al-Ḥanbalī. MS.
Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, majāmīʿ 16/2, fols. 258-267.
38. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ḥāshiyah ʿalā mabḥath al-ʿilm min Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah
li-l-Dawānī. Or, Risālah fī al-baḥth ʿan al-ʿilm. MS. Istanbul: Laleli 722, fols. 71a-107a.
39. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ḥashiyat al-Kūrānī ʿalā Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah. MS.
Istanbul: Nur Uosmaniye 2126.
40. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ḥusn al-awba fī ḥukm ḍarb al-nawba. MS. KSA, Medina: al-
Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, no. 5345, fols. 16-17.
41. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ibdāʾ al-niʿmah bi-taḥqīq sabq al-raḥmah. MS. Istanbul:
Hamidiye 1440, fols. 23a-28a.
42. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ifāḍat al-ʿAllām bi-taḥqīq masʾalat al-kalām. MS. Istanbul: Sehid
Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 185b-249a.
43. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ijābat al-sāʾil ʿammā istashkalahu min al-masāʾil. MS. UK: British
Library, India Office, Delhi-Arabic 710j, fols. 86-108.
44. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ijāzat-nāmah, or al-Kūrānī’s ijāzah to Wajīh al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Malik
b. Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Sijlimāsī. MS. Istanbul: Esad Efendi 3626, fols.
1a-22b.
493
45. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ikhbār al-aḥbār bi-ajwibat sūʾālāt ahl Āṭār. MS. KSA, Medina: al-
Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 162-165b.
46. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Imdād dhawī al-istiʿdād li-sulūk maslak al-sadād. MS. USA,
Princeton University Library, Garret Y3867, fols. 31a-87b.
47. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Īqāẓ al-qawābil li-l-taqarrub bi-l-nawāfil. MS. Germany, Leipzig:
or. 383–02, 5 folios.
48. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Isʿāf al-ḥanīf li-sulūk Maslak al-taʿrīf. MS. USA: Princeton
University Library, Yahuda 3869, fols. 73a-75b.
49. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Ishrāq al-shams bi-taʿrīb al-kalimāt al-khams. MS. Cairo: Maʿhad
al-Makhṭūṭāt al-ʿArabiyyah, majmūʿ 16, treatise 3, fols. 267-275. The numeration is for
each page not for folios.
50. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Itḥāf al-khalaf bi-taḥqīq madhhab al-salaf. MS. Istanbul: Halet
Efendi 787, fols. 34b-35b.
51. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Itḥāf al-munīb al-awwāh bi-faḍl al-jahr bi-dhikr Allāh. MS.
Istanbul: Resid Efendi 996, fols. 129b-200a.
52. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Itḥāf al-nabīh bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh. MS. Cairo: Maʿhad Makhṭūṭāt
al-ʿĀlam al-ʿArabī, majāmīʿ 11/2, fols. 351-362.
53. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Izālat al-ishkāl bi-l-jawāb al-wāḍiḥ ʿan al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar. MS.
Istanbul: Nafiz Pasa 508, 47 folios.
54. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Jalāʾ al-fuhūm fī taḥqīq al-thubūt wa-ruʾyat al-maʿdūm. MS.
Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 52a-83a.
55. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Jalāʾ al-naẓar bi-taḥrīr al-jabr fī al-ikhtiyār. MS. Istanbul:
Hamidiye 1440, fols. 36a-47a.
56. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Jalāʾ al-naẓar fī baqāʾ al-tanzīh maʿ al-tajallī fī al-ṣuwar. MS.
Istanbul: Halet Efendi 787, fols. 32a-33a.
57. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Janāḥ al-najāḥ bi-l-ʿawālī al-ṣiḥāḥ. MS. Istanbul: Koprulu 279,
fols. 1a-33b.
58. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Jawāb Suʾālāt ʿan qawl “taqabbal Allāh” wa-l-muṣāfaḥah baʿd al-
ṣalāwāt. MS. KSA, Medina: al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, raqam
musalsal 28, 7 folios. In the ms. card, it is mentioned that the source of this copy is
Maktabat Nadwat al-ʿUlamāʾ, Lakhnaw, India, no. 120.
494
59. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Kashf al-labs ʿan al-masāʾil al-khams. MS. KSA, Medina: al-
Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, 5293, fols. 42a-45a.
60. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Kashf al-mastūr fī jawāb suʾāl ʿAbd al-Shakūr. MS. Istanbul:
Hamidiye 1440, fols. 30b- 31.
61. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Madd al-fayʾ fī taqrīr “laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ.” MS. Istanbul:
Nuruosmaniye 2126, fols. 67b-68b.
62. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Majlā al-maʿānī ʿalā ʿAqīdat al-Dawānī. MS. Istanbul:
Nuruosmaniye 2126, fols. 1b-50b.
63. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Masālik al-abrār ilā aḥādīth al-nabī al-mukhtār. MS. Istanbul:
Koprulu 279, fols. 34a-125a.
64. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Mashraʿ al-wurūd ilā Maṭlaʿ al-jūd. MS. Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440,
fols. 15b-22b.
65. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Maslak al-iʿtidāl ilā fahm āyāt khalq al-aʿmāl. MS. Istanbul: Sehid
Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 162a-174a.
66. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Maslak al-sadād ilā masʾalat khalq afʿāl al-ʿibād. MS. Istanbul:
Veliyuddin 1815, fols. 32b-64a.
67. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Maslak al-taʿrīf bi-taḥqīq al-taklīf ʿalā mashrab ahl al-kashf wa-l-
shuhūd al-qāʾilīn bi-tawḥīd al-wujūd. MS. USA: Princeton University Library, Yahuda 3869,
fols. 59a-72a.
68. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Maṭlaʿ al-jūd bi-taḥqīq al-tanzīh fī waḥdat al-wujūd. MS. Istanbul:
Hamidiye 1440, fols. 123b-153b.
69. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Mirqāt al-ṣuʿūd ilā ṣiḥḥat al-qawl bi-waḥdat al-wujūd. MS. UK,
British Library: India Office, Delhi-Arabic 710c, fols. 20a-21b.
70. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Mukhtaṣar Qaṣd al-sabīl. AKA al-Sharḥ al-ṣaghīr. MS. Istanbul:
Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 62b-124b.
71. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Nashr al-zahr bi-l-jahr bi-l-dhikr. MS. Istanbul: Resid Efend I996,
fols. 104a-128b.
72. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Nawāl al-ṭawl fī taḥqīq al-ījād bi-l-qawl. MS. Ireland, Dublen:
Chester Beatty, no. 4443/9, fols. 112-116.
73. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Nibrās al-īnās bi-ajwibat ahl Fās. MS. Istanbul: Laleli 3744, fols.
7a-25b.
495
74. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Niẓām al-zabarjad fī al-arbaʿīn al-musalsalah bi-Aḥmad. MS. KSA,
Medina: Maktabat ʿĀrif Ḥikmat, no. 313/80 ḥadīth, majmūʿ, 13 folios. The treatise is the
first work in this majmūʿ.
75. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Qaṣd al-sabīl ilā tawḥīd al-Ḥaqq al-Wakīl. MS. KSA: Maktabat al-
Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, ʿĀrif Ḥikmat Collection, ʿaqāʾid/231, 126 folios.
76. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Rafʿ al-Ishtibāh ʿan qawāʿid iʿrāb lā ilāh illā Allāh. MS. Cairo:
Azhariyyah 41950, fol. 1-187.
77. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Risālah fī bayān al-muqaddimāt al-arbaʿah li-l-tawḍīḥ. MS.
Istanbul: Hamidiye 1440, fols. 177a-188a.
78. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Risālat ibṭāl mā ẓahara min al-maqālah al-fāḍiḥah fī-mā yataʿallaq
bi-l-kaʿbah al-muʿaẓẓamah. MS. Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 347a-356a.
79. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Risālat sūʾālāt waradat min maḥrūsat Zabīd min al-Yaman min al-
shaykh Isḥāq b. Jamʿān al-Dawālī. MS. KSA, Medina: Al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah bi-l-Madīnah
al-Munawwarah, no. 5345, majmūʿ, fols. 1b-6a.
80. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Sharḥ al-ʿaqīdah allatī allafahā mawlānā al-ʿallāmah al-
Mutawakkil ʿalā Allāh Ismāʿīl [b. al-Manṣūr bi-Allāh] al-Qāsim riḍwān Allāh ʿalayhim. MS. USA:
Princeton University Library, Garrett 224Y, fols. 147a-174b.
81. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Shawāriq al-anwār li-sulūk al-Maslak al-mukhtār. MS. Istanbul:
Laleli 722, fols. 108a-147b.
82. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Taḥqīq al-tawfīq bayn kalāmaī ahl al-kalām wa-ahl al-ṭarīq. MS.
Pakistan: Thanāʾ Allāh Zāhidī’s library, no number, 6 folios.
83. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Takmīl al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyya. MS. Istanbul: Atif Efendi 2441,
fol. 238a-249b.
84. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Takmīl al-ʿAwāmil al-Jurjāniyyah. MS. Istanbul: Atif Efendi 2441,
fol. 238a-249b.
85. Kūrānī (al-), Ibrāhīm. Takmilat al-qawul al-jalī fī taḥqīq qawl al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī. MS.
Istanbul: Sehid Ali Pasa 2722, fols. 296a-346b.
86. Qushāshī (al-), Ṣafī al-Dīn. Al-Ifādah bi-mā bayn al-ikhtiyār al-ilāhī wa-l-irādah. MS.
Istanbul, Resid Efendi 428, 35a-44a.
87. Qushāshī (al-), Ṣafī al-Dīn. Al-Intiṣār li-Imām al-Ḥaramay fī-mā shannaʿ ʿalayhi baʿḍ al-
nuẓẓār. MS. Istanbul, Resid Efendi 428.
496
88. Qushāshī (al-), Ṣafī al-Dīn. Kalimat al-jūd bi-l-bayyinah wa-l-shuhūd ʿalā al-qawl bi-
waḥdat al-wujūd. MS. Istanbul: Reside Efendi 428.
89. Qushāshī (al-), Ṣafī al-Dīn. Nafḥat al-yaqīn wa-zulfat al-tamkīn li-l-mūqinīn. MS.
Princeton: NS 1114.
90. Qushjī (al-), ʿAlī. Al-Sharḥ al-jadīd. MS. Tehran: Tehran 1884.
91. Shāwī (al-), Yaḥyā, al-Nubl al-raqīq fī ḥulqūm al-sābb al-zindīq. MS. Istanbul: Laleli
3744.

Intellectual Life in The Ijāz in The 17 Century: The Works and Thought of Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī (1025-1101/1616-1690)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intellectual Life in The Ijāz in The 17 Century: The Works and Thought of Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī (1025-1101/1616-1690)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intellectual Life in The Ijāz in The 17 Century: The Works and Thought of Ibrāhīm Al-Kūrānī (1025-1101/1616-1690)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the thesis about?

What is the thesis about?

What time period and region does chapter one discuss?

What time period and region does chapter one discuss?

Intellectual Life in the Ḥijāz in the 17 th Century

The Works and Thought of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī (1025-1101/1616-1690)

Institute of Islamic Studies

McGill University, Montreal

A Thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the

© Naser Dumairieh, October 2018.

Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī

[1.1] Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 34

[1.1.1] The Ḥijāz in Western Literature .......................................................................... 34

[1.2] The 17th Century Ḥijāz in its Local Context .................................................................... 42

[1.3] The 17th Century Ḥijāz in its Global Context .................................................................. 53

[1.3.1] European Navies in the Indian Ocean ................................................................ 54

[1.3.2] Iran’s Conversion to Shiʿism ................................................................................ 60

[1.3.3] Mughal Empire....................................................................................................... 65

[1.3.4] Ottomans and the Ḥijāz ........................................................................................ 75

Chapter Two: Intellectual Life in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century............................................. 85

[2.1.1] Southeast Asian Studies........................................................................................ 87

[2.1.2] Reform Movements of the 18th Century ............................................................. 89

[2.2] Educational Institutions in the Ḥijāz in the 17th Century ............................................ 95

[2.2.1] Madrasas, Ribāṭs, and Zāwiyās .............................................................................. 95

[2.2.2] Libraries, Book-Binders, and Book Scribes in Medina ..................................... 99

[2.2.3] Some Theoretical and Practical Sciences in the Ḥijāz ...................................101

Agriculture (ʿIlm al-filāḥah) .................................................................................... 103

Astronomy ............................................................................................................... 103

Chemistry (ṣanʿat al-kīmyāʾ) ................................................................................... 104

Music theory and practice .................................................................................... 104

[2.3] Scholars in the Ḥijāz ........................................................................................................ 105

[2.4.1] The Isnād of Intellectual Texts ...........................................................................123

[2.5] How the Rational Sciences Reached the Ḥijāz............................................................. 126

[2.5.1] Al-Taftāzānī’s (d. 793/1390) Works ...................................................................126

[2.5.2] Al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) Works .......................................................128

[2.5.3] Al-Ījī’s (d. 756/1355) Works ................................................................................133

[2.5.4] Al-Dawānī’s (d. 908/1502) Works ......................................................................134

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 138

[3.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Life................................................................................................................. 146

[3.1.1] Al-Kūrānī’s Early Life and Studies in his Homeland.......................................148

[3.1.2] Al-Kūrānī in Baghdad ..........................................................................................149

[3.1.3] Al-Kūrānī in Damascus .......................................................................................151

[3.1.4] Through Cairo to the Ḥijāz.................................................................................152

[3.2] Al-Kūrānī’s Education ..................................................................................................... 153

[3.3] Al-Kūrānī’s Teachers ....................................................................................................... 162

[3.4] al-Kūrānī’s Students ........................................................................................................ 178

[3.5] Al-Kūrānī’s Works ............................................................................................................ 194

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 233

Chapter Four: Al-Kūrānī’s Theological and Sufi Thought .................................................... 238

[4.1.1] God is Absolute Existence (al-wujūd al-muṭlaq or al-wujūd al-maḥḍ) .............242

[4.1.2] God’s Attributes and Allegorical Interpretation (taʾwīl) ................................250

[4.1.3] God’s Manifestations in Sensible and Conceivable Forms ............................258

[4.1.4] Nafs al-amr in al-Kūrānī’s Thought ....................................................................270

[4.1.5] Ashʿarites and Mental Existence .......................................................................275

[4.1.6] Realities: Uncreated Nonexistent Quiddities ..................................................281

[4.1.6.1] Classifications of Nonexistents .............................................................. 287

[4.1.6.2] The Description of Nonexistent and the Concept of “Thing” (shayʾ)

[4.1.7] God’s Knowledge of Particulars .........................................................................293

[4.1.9] Unity and Multiplicity ........................................................................................304